There can be no denying that vaping is better for the health than smoking.Our buses all have notices not to smoke or vape, do anyone else's?
Retiring and living frugally in money from downsizing after years of stress
Sign up to Gransnet Daily
Our free daily newsletter full of hot threads, competitions and discounts
Subscribe
There can be no denying that vaping is better for the health than smoking.Our buses all have notices not to smoke or vape, do anyone else's?
been, not mean
Yes, it's possible to give up smoking without nicotine patches or e-cigarettes, etc, but it's hard. Why shouldn't people use an easier method if there is one? So long as their health benefits I don't see a problem.
bb, I have never mean swamped by a vaping cloud so I can't really argue with your claims. Perfume 'vapours' from people who wear stinky things makes me gasp, especially indoors or on public transport, perfumes in soaps, shampoos, deodorants, washing powder, etc. bring my skin out in rashes, so I rather suspect that many perfumes are just as bad for people as vaping clouds.
Which does not excuse vapers from allowing their e-cig vapours to bother other people. Nobody is arguing that it does.
Heard a snippet on the radio, a young couple having a house warming party, noticed ( the next day) that their new wallpaper was coming off the walls.They blamed all the vaping going on at their party! ....either that, or they hadn't made a good job of papering in the first place.
Are there "benefits"? Surely there are fewer risks and dangers than smoking and for some people it helps them to give up. But the addiction to nicotine still continues so does "reduced danger" equate to benefits?
It is possible to give up smoking without patches, nicotine gum, or vaping.
It's not just water thatbags it has chemicals to make all the various flavours and some have nicotine as well ... they can catch fire explode and they make a hell of a cloud they are considered safer in some ways but can be used a lot more because people consider them safe
It's condensing water. Not technically steam because it's not hot enough, but just a harmless watery vapour.
Thus the word "vaping".
I don't know a lot about it either but it makes sense to me that delivering nicotine via warm water is going to be less dangerous that breathing tar into your lungs. It's the tar and other burnt particles from tobacco that cause lung cancer and other health problems, not the nicotine. We just have hangups about addictions even when they are relatively harmless.
Relatively is a significant word in that sentence. Relative dangers are what we are talking about. Compared to actual smoking, vaping is safe, even if there are lesser dangers associated with an addiction to nicotine. Significant words there are "even if".
It's not smoke.
Have you ever stood behind anyone vaping you literally disappear in the huge clouds of smoke and those ugly looking pipes just give up and before anyone says I can't it's hard yes it is but like anything can be done if you want it enough .... no one yet knows the long term health issues of vaping and most people use it as an alternative not a giving up temporary stop gap
cf and anya, 
My opinion thatbags for what it's worth, but suppose it's the novelty value made me smile. Opium dens and hookahs did spring to mind. Acerbic comments liven things up a bit.
I'm sure vaping is much healthier than opium bags - my reference was to everyone gathering together to indulge their habit. The vaping shops seem to be a place to buy and smoke your e-cigs and that strange hubble-bubble noise they make reminds me of a hookah pipe.
I'd have thought it was a good first step to giving up and no danger of secondary smoke. But I admit I know little about it, so better leave it at that.
thatbags 9:52 
I gave up smoking a few years ago with the help of e-cigs. Not the ones that look like a kazoo that IMO draw attention to themselves (the implement, not the user!) but ones that actually look like a cigarette. Some people wear the 'kazoo' as a pendant round their necks, much as the bearded, trendy, pipe-smoking, corduroy-trouser wearers did back in the sixties with their cigarette lighters.
And before anyone takes umbrage, that was just the women!!! 
No offence, cf, and it's not personal, I just feel somebody has to keep up the sharp retorts while the expert is away.
I don't think looking silly is a health hazard.
Plus, plenty of non-smokers and non-vapers look silly too.
So silly is irrelevant.
I was in UK last week and noticed a big increase in vaping . I hope it does help people and there are no long term ill effects. Have to say some people did look silly with their e- cigs.
Except that, so far, I haven't heard that nicotine has the kind of effects that opium had in those dens. Has anyone?
No drug is absolutely safe, but that applies to a gazillion other things in life too. The point is that the risk of damage to health from nicotine alone is VASTLY lower than the risk posed by inhaling tar from smoking burnt tobacco. For that reason alone, it's worth encouraging people addicted to nicotine through their smoking habit to try vaping instead.
Would that vaping had been available to my dad.
Reminiscent of the old opium dens....
We've two Vaping Shops opened within a mile of our house 
Just thought...
Some cynic is bound to come along and accuse me of having shares in tobacco companies or e-cigarettes on the grounds that I wouldn't be supporting this argument otherwise.
I haven't. I support good arguments and good evidence just for the hell of it 
Agreed but you will be aware that tobacco products are taxed already, quite heavily, and it has not stopped people smoking. Vaping actually IS helping people stop. It is being much more effective than any other attempts so far.
Far better to tax them and use that for research.
Leading article in the Times today arguing that, while vaping ('smoking' e-cigarettes) is demonstrably safer at delivering nicotine than smoking burning tobacco and inhaling tar and other carcinogens, academics doing the research into the benefits should not "muddy the research waters" by attending tobacco company "jollies".
To put it another way, the article is arguing against tobacco companies' funding research on this subject.
While I get what they're saying, I'm also left asking: why shouldn't tobacco companies fund this research? Who else is going to fund it? If getting nicotine to people is what, ultimately, the tobacco companies want to do to maintain their income, what is wrong with them funding research into delivering it more safely than at present?
Especially if the academics doing the research publicly declare all their funding sources. Which they have to.
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join the discussion, watch threads and lots more.
Register now »Already registered? Log in with:
Gransnet »Get our top conversations, latest advice, fantastic competitions, and more, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter here.