CTA: Thank you, Haven, Signatures

[knome]

I think the Haven campaign which has been going on for a week, the CTA just added to it, shows that when we act together we can effect change.
Changing a sign might not be a huge concession, but it is a step in the right direction. I am wondering if we can take it further. Personally I don't have an issue with them having bars that are vape free, they have the right to decide that, but I have heard suggestions that the accommodation is vape free, can anyone confirm that?

Unless we've forced a change of heart they regard vaping as smoking so it's not allowed in the accommodation. I'm waiting for them to amend this policy...

What is the smoking policy on the Parks and in the Holiday Homes?

I suspect they have a problem with people ignoring the smoking ban in accommodation so they just apply a blanket ban.

 

[Diche]

Reply to my thank you letter

Dear Ms **********,

Thank you for your correspondence of 22 June about electronic cigarettes. I have been asked to reply.

Electronic cigarettes emit vapour, not smoke, therefore they are not covered by the smokefree laws. However, employers or operators of indoor spaces, including pubs, would be within their rights to ask that they not be used if they so wished.


In addition, whilst electronic cigarettes may represent a reduced harm option to smokers, they do not to non-smokers and children. This is why the Government introduced a minimum age of sale of 18, and a prohibition on buying electronic cigarettes for, or on behalf of, anyone under the age of 18.

Yours sincerely,

*************
Ministerial Correspondence and Public Enquiries
Department of Health

 

[Mr Numpty]

Looks like there have been quite a few replies, it might be a fairly minor point of principle, but it is the way things like this are being used to gradually build a picture in people's heads equating vaping with the dangers of smoking that will eventually pave the way for a ban.

I fully agree with you but, frustratingly, I think the vaping community itself is contributing to the general public's equating of vaping with the dangers of smoking through its use (acceptance?) of the term "e-cigarette" and by vaping hardware manufacturers and vendors utilising smoking-related terminology in naming their products and companies. Ecigitty, SMOK etc serve, I feel, to perpetuate a link between smoking and vaping in people's minds and I believe we'd be better served by consciously distancing ourselves from smoking-related vocabulary.

I appreciate that this stems from the origins of vaping, where devices outwardly resembled cigarettes (and that such devices still exist) but I think we need to promote vaping as an activity entirely unrelated to smoking, albeit one that smokers may find more enjoyable and less harmful than smoking.

Perhaps this forum, for example, would benefit its cause by at least giving some consideration to changing "Ecig discussion" to "Vaping discussion."

Or perhaps I'm talking nonsense.

 

[Diche]

There is a fantastic discussion on that subject in an article I've read, I will try to dig it out for you. It basically talks about the need to attract more smokers to vaping, vs the public perception. It also talks about a tipping point after which the balance changes in terms of what might be best.

 

[Diche]

I can't find it on my phone, but I will try and look on my laptop later, I think I have it bookmarked.

 

[Diche]

Why It's Called An 'E-Cigarette' And 'E-Smoking'

 

[Mr Numpty]

Why It's Called An 'E-Cigarette' And 'E-Smoking'

Thanks for that. An interesting article with some good points, I'm not sure s/he doesn't convey a slightly defeatist attitude towards the possibility of making vaping sound attractive to smokers unless couched in smoking language, though.

It's hard to argue with statements like Try asking smokers who you know to be completely unaware of vaping in any way this question: "Would you like to quit smoking and change to a nebuliser?" You can guarantee a 90% reply of "No thanks". However, quite obviously, a better worded question might have greater success in piquing a smoker's interest in vaping.

Still, food for thought and I would certainly welcome reaching some kind of critical mass of vapers that allows us to break away from smoking terminology.

Thanks again.

 

[Diche]

Thanks for that. An interesting article with some good points, I'm not sure s/he doesn't convey a slightly defeatist attitude towards the possibility of making vaping sound attractive to smokers unless couched in smoking language, though.

It's hard to argue with statements like Try asking smokers who you know to be completely unaware of vaping in any way this question: "Would you like to quit smoking and change to a nebuliser?" You can guarantee a 90% reply of "No thanks". However, quite obviously, a better worded question might have greater success in piquing a smoker's interest in vaping.

Still, food for thought and I would certainly welcome reaching some kind of critical mass of vapers that allows us to break away from smoking terminology.

Thanks again.

My take on it, is that it starts with the terms you use in everyday life. It might be easier to tell people it is an ecig, but the more frequently they hear it called a vape or a vapouriser, the more familiar they become with the term. I try quite hard to use the word ecig/ecigarette as infrequently as possible. Oh and of course you never, ever 'smoke' it, I think we are all pretty much agreed on that one lol.