Do e-cigarettes need regulating?

I think they do need regulating. Just when cigarette smoking has become less visible for children to copy, these things come along. Should n't be allowed in public places.

I appreciate what you say, jingl but then would we say that eating donuts, drinking sugary drinks or eating burgers in public places shouldn't be allowed either? You could apply the influence/copying behaviour copying theory to so many things.

If e-cigarettes help people to stop smoking, I think it would be silly to ban them in public places. The grounds for doing that with ordinary cigarettes was because of the secondary smoking risk - can't cite that in the case of e-cigs.

As you say, phoenix, perhaps the eating of unhealthy food anywhere other than in specially licensed premises should be banned as well!

Wonder if we will have to stop drinking alcohol too next!

No one seems to know whether they are harmless to health or not.

Sugary foods are nowhere near as dangerous as tobacco.

Might not be a bad idea to cut down Agus. Depending on how much you drink of course.

They can't be as harmful to health as ordinary cigarettes. No tar going into the lungs, for a start.

They could encourage children to copy and then move onto the real thing.

My post was in response to the example of what children copy.

Personally, I do not need advice regarding my alcohol intake. Especially from someone who who has no idea what that may be!

Jingl, any form of smoking could encourage children to copy, and unless they ban cigarettes completely, everywhere (which isn't going to happen) it's just perverse to try and ban a safer alternative.

They could encourage young people to take up smoking. The tide has turned against smokers. That is a good thing. These things are going to be unhelpful. Let people puff on them at home all they think they need to. Do not do it in front of children and young people.

It's selfish. ("Poor little weak-willed me. I need help and sod anyone else")

My Kindle battery has gone flat.

So I will do some ironing instead.

And then -

Is that what regulations would be about then? I was thinking that a case might be made for regulation because nicotine is an addictive drug, or because there are other possibly addictive or harmful chemicals in e-cigs. But I've always understood, rightly or wrongly, that it's the 'tar' in cigarettes that causes the real problems, rather than the nicotine. Is nicotine another drug like marijuana that, some argue, is not really a big deal so why all the fuss?

Bags
It is the tar not the nicotine that's the problem. But tobacco itself is carcinogenic. Mouth Ca from chewing it. I don't think nicotine per SE is harmful apart from being highly addictive and the easiest source is tobacco.
It is of coarse a fatal poison in enough quantity and can be absorbed through the skin.
Seem to remember a detective fiction story where the victim was poisoned by nicotine,

Nicotine patches are considered to be a medicine. Therefore they are licenced and regulated as medicines. This ensures that they are reasonably safe, not contaminated by any other substances and that the dosage is standardised. E-cigs are not considered to be medicines and are not regulated at all. They contain a variety of chemicals and nobody knows how harmful they are to the users, or to passive smokers. Remember you are allowed to use these indoors. They are not subject to any rules, regulations or laws. Anyone can import a batch. set up a shop in the high street and start to trade.
They could actually start addiction in young people as they may be easier to start on than the more pungent real cigarettes.
They are also not liable to any tax other than VAT.

Course not coarse

Bags there are a number of possibilities
1. regulate as a medicine to ensure that they do not contain harmful chemicals.
2.You could make them only available from doctors or pharmacists like patches
3. regulate as a cigarette so that they cannot be used in enclosed spaces - i don't want to go to pub, or take kids to a cafe and have the air full of their cocktail of chemicals - do you?
4. regulate as a cigarette to prevent their sale to children
5. tax as a cigarette to discourage children from buying them
6. do research to find out whether they really do help people give up - or whether they are in fact recruiting new smokers faster than they are helping others give up. This may vary according to how and where they are sold.
None of these is "banning"

I'm fine with all that, jess. Clarification is what I was after. Thank you.

Taxing as cigs could even pay for the research. Never seems to work like that though, does it?

My answer is yes some regulation is needed. There are still chemicals in these things esp now that various 'flavours' are being introduced and we don't know how those are made and what with. I appreciate it may help some to come off cigarettes but the effect of sucking something continually may have adverse effects on the mucosa e.g. mouth cancer so we need research on that. Children will take this up if there is no regulation and it creates a 'habit' of its own. I don't really want to breathe in anything someone else breathes out in a public space- we didn't know about passive smoking for years what about passive nicotine and 'flavour' chemical inhalation?