If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
I firmly believe it is up to the tenant to prove it is not harmful rather than the landlord to prove it is.
Just a quick edit.
There is something out there which is very dangerous, has no age limit on purchasers, can kill if misused, can be stored in almost any container which it does not fall out of, is relatively cheap, is largely unregulated on its use by anyone and can be found, usually, within 5km of where you live.
I firmly believe it is up to the tenant to prove it is not harmful rather than the landlord to prove it is.
Won't you need to prove some damage has happened in order to make a claim against a tenant?
If a tenant signs your no vaping clause, and then vapes in the property, how will you present it at the TT?
Won't you need to prove some damage has happened in order to make a claim against a tenant?
If a tenant signs your no vaping clause, and then vapes in the property, how will you present it at the TT?
It still gives off a sticky residue the same as from smoke machines they use at discos as its the same substance Polyethylene Glycol or anti-freeze.
NASEM (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine) report found here states that the jury is out on safety or otherwise. Why would you risk something which is optional?
NASEM (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine) report found here states that the jury is out on safety or otherwise. Why would you risk something which is optional?
I'm only interested in the damage, or otherwise, to my property not the person - that's their lookout (I'm not their mother).
At 590 pages the report is a little long for me to read - did it say that it would damage property? Make the ceilings yellow - that sort of thing?
The jury is out on safety or otherwise. That was a note put on a website which refereed to the report. I too, am not interested in reading lots of pages to view.
If vaping was so safe then why are travel companies sending out the following warning advisory?:
Please note, vaporisers, e-cigarettes and e-baraku are banned in Thailand, these items are likely to be confiscated and you could be fined or sent to prison for up to 10 years if convicted. Nations of Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Singapore and Vietnam have imposed almost all-encompassing bans on e-smoking. We recommend you adhere to any restrictions imposed by customs and local law.
The main reason for most of these countries putting restrictions in place is a 2014 report by the World Health Organisation (WHO), which highlighted their concerns about e-cigarette use.
VAPING continues to divide opinions with many claiming it is safe while others stating it should be banned due to the danger it poses. Before you head on your next holiday, you should check if you …
If vaping was so safe then why are travel companies sending out the following warning advisory?:
Please note, vaporisers, e-cigarettes and e-baraku are banned in Thailand, these items are likely to be confiscated and you could be fined or sent to prison for up to 10 years if convicted. Nations of Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Singapore and Vietnam have imposed almost all-encompassing bans on e-smoking. We recommend you adhere to any restrictions imposed by customs and local law.
You see a travel advisory and turn it into a safety advisory.
Did those countries ban it because it wasn't safe or do they have other reasons.
Could be due to antisocial behaviour - some vapers seem to think they can blow their 'smoke' wherever and on whomever they wish.
I don't like cigarettes or vaping - I'd totally ban both.
Comment