Electronic cigarettes are not "smoking". There is no fire, there is no ash, there is no smell, there is no smoke. The vapour that is produced is water. It does not have any carcinogenic effacts, nor does it have any secondary smoke issues. It is no different from the vapour that comes out of your mouth when it is cold, or if you were to breathe in and out the steam from your cup of coffee or tea. Electronic cigarettes are one of the aids to help people stop smoking, in the same way that patches, nicotine chewing gum, and nicotine lozenges are. Yet they are banned from use within Elland Road. Why? "From the 2012/13 Season Tickets page: Ground Regulations 21. In line with government legislation Elland Road is a non-smoking stadium. Smoking is strictly forbidden within the concourses and seated areas of the stadium. Electronic cigrettes [sic!] and smoking implements are not permitted within the stadium"
Makes sense to takeaway the excuse that its an electronic one when caught on CCTV. This supports the club it stopping anyone who is caught smoking.
He's saying it stops people who are caught smoking on CCTV using the excuse that it was actaully an electronic cigarette they were smoking.
In a word - yes! but I can see where the club are coming from. If the ruling is "no smoking" then this also prevents the possibility of any accusations that they are in breech of any rules inside the ground. I know an e-*** is totally different but someone standing 30ft away or more will not see much difference. Perhaps the need to make e-***s about 12" long and bright pink so they cannot be mistaken for the real deal
So is the issue that it "looks like" a cigarette? I suppose it's similar to some of our team "looking like" footballers
But the point is it would be far too easy for people to use the excuse that it was an e-cigarette to get away with smoking real ***s.
There's a big difference Simon - those who smoke e-cigs do not have normal ones! And those who do smoke normal cigs wouldn't have an e-cig on them to clim they were using that. Andgiven that the LED on some e-cigs is green, not even red, it doesn't even look like a cig when used
Much harder to see the difference on CCTV though, which is where much of it would be picked up on. It would be far too easy a route out, and while I do see the difficulty, I see the prevention of passive smoking etc. as more of a priority than people's ability to smoke e-cigarettes in the ground.
As in when people are forced to inhale smoke from a cigarette someone else is smoking, exposing them to the health risks involved with something someone else is doing. I get your point that e-cigarettes are a perfectly safe good thing by themselves, it's the opportunity they give people to smoke real ones in the ground and get away with it that's the problem. "we saw you smoking a *** over CCTV", "nah, that's an e-cigarette". Unfortunately if banning e-***s too is what it takes to properly enforce the rule then that's what needs to be done IMO.
That's the answer! Why didn't I see it before? I mean, having a conversation about something, anything, is much more boring than killing it with a "who cares?"
OP raises a fair point, WJ, and a civil liberty fans should be fighting for. If they're not damaging the physical health of people around them by smoking an e-***, there is absolutely no reason for it not to be permitted. If a few naive fools don't realize what they're smoking and try grassing them into the orange-jackets, then bully to them.
"those who do smoke normal cigs wouldn't have an e-cig on them to clim (sic) they were using that." They will now that you've given them the idea
