E-Cig Ban, Why Can't MCFC stand up and be counted

As I expected, mainly short and sharp reposts 'it's only 2 hours', well if you were starving hungry and got told you had to wait a further two hours before eating, it wouldn't kill you, but would, without any good reason whatsoever, it would reduce the pleasure and feeling of satisfaction you got during 'your' match day experience.
'what about when you fly?', again, another laughable misconception, planes and flying were actually healthier and safer when smoking was allowed, the cabin air was constantly being refreshed and replaced, unlike now, when the airlines don't ever replenish the air, and any airborne bacteria, virus etc, can merrily work its way through the whole plane, sharing whatever any passenger may have with everyone else present in the cabin.
Maybe if someone came up with a very cheap alternative to alcohol, that didn't cause the liver and brain damage associated with alcoholism, which maybe made people feel just as euphoric when consumed as alcohol does, and without the effect of turning decent people into animals with Criminal intent, people might embrace it? Well this is a very similar analogy to that of e-cigs and smoking, and I don't really see why so many people seem so adamant about treating those who make the switch, run exactly the same gauntlet as those who haven't and probably never will with such similar discrimination, make the switch themselves.
Everyone must understand what cravings are, we've all felt the pangs of hunger, been desperate for a cuppa or drink, I can't even begin to imagine how Fergie would have got through 90 minutes if someone had banned chewing gum, two hours without something you don't crave isn't a problem, but addicts of any substance feel agitated and uncomfortable when wanting their fix, and it detracts from 'their', not 'your' pleasure, so if you are fortunate enough not to have any issues regarding a habit or addiction, think yourself lucky and butt out of the debate.
 
Lordeffingham said:
As I expected, mainly short and sharp reposts 'it's only 2 hours', well if you were starving hungry and got told you had to wait a further two hours before eating, it wouldn't kill you, but would, without any good reason whatsoever, it would reduce the pleasure and feeling of satisfaction you got during 'your' match day experience.
'what about when you fly?', again, another laughable misconception, planes and flying were actually healthier and safer when smoking was allowed, the cabin air was constantly being refreshed and replaced, unlike now, when the airlines don't ever replenish the air, and any airborne bacteria, virus etc, can merrily work its way through the whole plane, sharing whatever any passenger may have with everyone else present in the cabin.
Maybe if someone came up with a very cheap alternative to alcohol, that didn't cause the liver and brain damage associated with alcoholism, which maybe made people feel just as euphoric when consumed as alcohol does, and without the effect of turning decent people into animals with Criminal intent, people might embrace it? Well this is a very similar analogy to that of e-cigs and smoking, and I don't really see why so many people seem so adamant about treating those who make the switch, run exactly the same gauntlet as those who haven't and probably never will with such similar discrimination, make the switch themselves.
Everyone must understand what cravings are, we've all felt the pangs of hunger, been desperate for a cuppa or drink, I can't even begin to imagine how Fergie would have got through 90 minutes if someone had banned chewing gum, two hours without something you don't crave isn't a problem, but addicts of any substance feel agitated and uncomfortable when wanting their fix, and it detracts from 'their', not 'your' pleasure, so if you are fortunate enough not to have any issues regarding a habit or addiction, think yourself lucky and butt out of the debate.
Click to expand...

So you're saying you should give addicts what they crave whenever they want it? Great plan!

No matter what arguments you put forward, the situation will not change. Smoking is a horrendous habit. Since the ban on smoking in public areas was brought in, things are much better BUT do you know non-smokers can still smell you AFTER you have been for a fag. Ever wondered why people move away from you on trams and buses? Ever wondered why when you are stood in a smoker's huddle outside a building, those who walk past are holding their noses or secretly holding their breath to avoid litres of smoke fumes entering their lungs? I can smell a smoker on the street before I see the cigarette.

Now, to enforce the law, stewards have to eject people from smoking-free locations, but it is nigh on impossible to identify the difference between these new devices and real cigarettes from a distance. Hence the reason you are after.
 
Just out of curiosity OP..how long have you been vaping for?

I was heavily addicted to cigs but that has waned over the year I've been on e juice alone

I vape 24mg..so find I can go longer without using it

If you're vaping any lower than that you might want to up the nicotine

You might find you can get through the match a lot easier
 
IanBishopsHaircut said:
Just out of curiosity OP..how long have you been vaping for?

I was heavily addicted to cigs but that has waned over the year I've been on e juice alone

I vape 24mg..so find I can go longer without using it

If you're vaping any lower than that you might want to up the nicotine

You might find you can get through the match a lot easier
Click to expand...

I smoked 40 a day for 30 years, have been vaping for nearly six months and use 16 - 18 mg, and to be fair, haven't touched a cig or even wanted one throughout that time, but it isn't about whether or not I can go for 90 minutes without vaping, it's about why I should have to when it doesn't in any way (other than by it's misinterpreted association to smoking) impact on anybody else, this banning culture is just getting worse by the day and unlike years ago ones liberties could not be taken away without serious evidence, nowadays it's just done and accepted, seemingly without those effected being able to raise any issue or challenge it?
 
"So you're saying you should give addicts what they crave whenever they want it? Great plan!

No matter what arguments you put forward, the situation will not change. Smoking is a horrendous habit. Since the ban on smoking in public areas was brought in, things are much better BUT do you know non-smokers can still smell you AFTER you have been for a fag. Ever wondered why people move away from you on trams and buses? Ever wondered why when you are stood in a smoker's huddle outside a building, those who walk past are holding their noses or secretly holding their breath to avoid litres of smoke fumes entering their lungs? I can smell a smoker on the street before I see the cigarette.

Now, to enforce the law, stewards have to eject people from smoking-free locations, but it is nigh on impossible to identify the difference between these new devices and real cigarettes from a distance. Hence the reason you are after"

Oh aren't you such a well informed so and so, sanctimonious as well, the odour from e-cig liquid, not smell, and there is a huge difference, is not generally offensive eg Vanilla Custard, Raspberry, strawberry etc, however if you want to stretch the point I sometimes find the smell of someone eating an MCFC hotdog next to me not to my taste and just a tiny bit offensive, however I wouldn't be so lame as to suggest they take it somewhere else.
Individuals taste in perfume or aftershave varies and might not be to my taste, but I wouldn't tell the person so, or ask they refrain from using it in my vicinity, it isn't the done thing, but the smell of burning tobacco along with it's poisonous chemicals is generally offensive and accepted as such I think by all, so you are simply stating the obvious with that one.
With regard to identification of someone smoking or vaping and the difference, it's actually extremely simple to differentiate, and after all, communication is a great thing, and possibly why God gave us this amazing gift, talking to someone and asking some simple questions will often clear up any ambiguity, it isn't rocket science.
Lets just get down to what your problem is, I used to be a smoker, you don't like smokers, and you don't really want me to escape being fair game for you to fire volleys of insults at, so lets condemn this safe and clever invention and not let those 'dirty smokers' off the hook!
 
Should you be allowed to vape anywhere then? Hospitals, Super markets, restaurants, at your deak etc.

I vape in the boozer but wouldnt do it anywhere else in full view of people.
 
Lordeffingham said:
Oh aren't you such a well informed so and so, sanctimonious as well, the odour from e-cig liquid, not smell, and there is a huge difference, is not generally offensive eg Vanilla Custard, Raspberry, strawberry etc, however if you want to stretch the point I sometimes find the smell of someone eating an MCFC hotdog next to me not to my taste and just a tiny bit offensive, however I wouldn't be so lame as to suggest they take it somewhere else.
Individuals taste in perfume or aftershave varies and might not be to my taste, but I wouldn't tell the person so, or ask they refrain from using it in my vicinity, it isn't the done thing, but the smell of burning tobacco along with it's poisonous chemicals is generally offensive and accepted as such I think by all, so you are simply stating the obvious with that one.
With regard to identification of someone smoking or vaping and the difference, it's actually extremely simple to differentiate, and after all, communication is a great thing, and possibly why God gave us this amazing gift, talking to someone and asking some simple questions will often clear up any ambiguity, it isn't rocket science.
Lets just get down to what your problem is, I used to be a smoker, you don't like smokers, and you don't really want me to escape being fair game for you to fire volleys of insults at, so lets condemn this safe and clever invention and not let those 'dirty smokers' off the hook!
Click to expand...

Actually agree with you on the hot dog. Once had a Balti pie because I had missed lunch and was embarrassed at the smell it created which is why I now consider my fellow supporters and eat any pungent food (which I rarely buy at the ground) before I go in. See how considerate I am, there.

Now, my point was to re-inforce WHY non-smokers never want a return to allowing secret smokers back in, which COULD, no, WOULD happen more easily should eCigs be permitted. As you say, ideally we should be able to tell the cigarette smoker to just stop, but I've tried that before and received a volley of abuse and threats (not at the ground but at other non-smoking venues), so just walk away or hold my breath now. It's a bit difficult to avoid them when you've paid for a seat.

I'm happy you've stopped smoking cigarettes, by the way.
 
I used to smoke and gave up. I cant understand why you keep going on about it. Simple just give up. It is called will power and understanding that it will be one of the best life changes you ever make.

So for god sake stop moaning about e-cigs if you want to give up then give up and don't be mistaken that these things will make it easier. There is no easy solution it is called will power.
 
denislawsbackheel said:
Yet More pro ecig propaganda.

They are full of noxious chemicals.
Don't believe the shit the manufacturers are telling you.
Click to expand...
If you don't know what you are talking about, best keeping your misguided opinions to yourself!!! E-cigs are NOT full of chemicals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.