73
11 votes
Jul 17, 2015

E-cigarettes should not be banned!

Electronic cigarettes are a popular way to get around just about any tobacco smoking ban. They offer none of the deadly poisons associated with conventional cigarettes. There are no second-hand smoke risks associated with electronic cigarettes. E-Cig smokers aren’t tossing flaming cigarette butts out the windows of their cars, littering, and setting forest fires. So, what are so many state and local politicians working so hard to ban the use of electronic cigarettes in public places? Why are so many businesses treating electronic cigarette vapers with the same oppressive hand as tobacco smokers?

Despite the fact that so many businesses and other public venues have permitted patrons to smoke only electronic cigarettes within their locations, cities, towns, neighborhoods are moving to ban them. They are moving to ban them despite the reality that eCigs don’t burn tobacco and produce no second-hand smoke. Further, they’ve helped countless people quit the dangerous and disgusting habit of smoking tobacco cigarettes.

Some legislators justify their actions by saying things like, “Electronic cigarettes are often mistaken for the regular cigarettes. Tobacco cigarette smokers might assume incorrectly that they can smoke, too, and fire up their conventional cigarettes in the face of current bans.”

They don’t pose a health risk to the general public. Shunning those who have found a credible alternative to regular cigarettes not only poses a health risk by potentially driving them back to tobacco smokes is undeniably stupid. It’s tantamount to banning nicotine gum or nicotine patches in terms of “protecting” the general public. Doing so because some person might “mistakenly” believe that it is a real cigarette is inexcusable.

The problem that we’re all facing here are local, state, and federal tax revenue that is going to be lost by the falling market share that Big Tobacco will suffer as a result of the proliferation of e-cigarettes. It seems that many legislators are bending over backwards to preserve the cash-cow that is peddling the poison that are regular tobacco cigarettes for as long as they possibly can. And it’s unconscionable that they would work so hard to protect something that harms and kills so many of their constituents.

And please, stop using children as a shield to justify such bans. Much like the virtually endless list of products that are not for sale to minors, electronic cigarettes need not be available for sale to children.

Shame on those who are fighting so hard to ban electronic cigarettes. You’re doing a serious disservice to those who are trying to get off of regular cigarettes. After all, I’m sure our crafty legislators will find something else to tax in order to shake-down U.S. Citizens to protect their wasteful spending and bloated budgets.

Reply to this opinion
subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
50
main reply
2 votes,
Jul 17, 2015

First, they haven't been effectively studied by peer-reviewed science enough yet to prove your claims. And some of the initial studies are showing that they do actually have the same harmful byproducts as cigarettes, and nicotine is not something I want to inhale because someone else chooses to vape next to me. You want to do it? Go do it in your house or your car, with the windows rolled up, NOT in public.

And your whole argument about the ignorant "think of the children" folks (that I also despise) is predicated that they are banned from children obtaining them, except that there are no laws in several states keeping them out of the hands of children and the E-cigarettes and their marketing are currently being targeted towards children. Because a lifelong habit is usually cemented in the teen years. It's called dependency and targeted marketing is very specific in their goals.

Ever heard of Joe Camel?

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
14
main reply
7 votes,
Jul 17, 2015

I disagree with what you say. The thing with e-cigarettes is that the actual cartridges that contain this "e-juice" are not regulated by the FDA. This particularly means that the distributors or even the user can add another chemical or drug or whatever that IS actually harmful.

And those legislators have a valid point - e-cigs often look exactly like the real ones. Here are some examples: vapeatron.com/attachments/216d1233699048-203d123369303...717333096486.jpg They confuse people. So this argument is not that pointless as you've said. They should definitely be banned in public places.

And e-cigs are just as addictive as the regular cigs (nicotine is addictive). In my opinion if there is somebody who can't give up smoking... Well, it's not my business but I don't want to be involved. Just stay away from me with cigs and e-cigs.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
3 votes,
Jul 17, 2015

You're points seem valid separately but your conclusion barely follows Aiden. I agree that more regulation is needed, however you've failed to connect that specific danger to the smoker with the danger to the public at large. Beyond that, the topic in question is the delivery method, not your opinion on someone else's vice. If you oppose nicotine use in general, state that and open yourself up to the pro/cons of that whole argument. Vaporizing a glycerol based liquid is not the same as combusting plant matter. One could suspend any toxic chemical you please in my ecig and the resulting second hand vapor is still apples and oranges to what would happen if I did the same to a standard cigarette.

And finally your statement "They confuse people. So this argument is not that pointless as you've said. They should definitely be banned in public places." was poorly worded at best. Something that is "marginally less relevant" does not then result in something that should "definitely be banned." Your arguments support a safer regulatory framework and perhaps some more defined etiquette surrounding their use. You fell far short of a "definite" anything.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
75
4 votes,
Jul 17, 2015

While there is certainly the possibility of additives in the e-cigs, you wont find any, especially because they are appealing to people who don't want additives, namely those in normal cigarettes. This also means that e-cigs aren't as addictive as normal cigarettes. Normal ones have extra nicotine and extra additives that enhance the effects and absorption of nicotine. The additives in normal cigs are what cause addiction which leads to cancer. Plain tobacco in cigars, pipes, hookahs, and many other forms doesn't cause cancer, addiction or any form of death unlike cigarettes.

And who cares what they look like? If a person can't tell the difference between two objects it doesn't mean you should ban one of them, just keep enforcing the law like normal.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
67
3 votes,
Jul 17, 2015

Well...in some places, real-looking enough gun replicas are banned, for instance. I wouldn't be opposed to banning ecigs that look exactly like real cigarettes, actually - for the same reason chocolate cigarettes have been banned, specifically the risk of imitation by children.

That said, the most common model by far where I live (and I do mean by far - don't think I've seen others more than once or twice) is this one. It does not look like a cigarette. So that argument is kind of moot anyway.

subscribe
Challenge someone to answer this opinion:
Invite an OpiWiki user:
OR
Invite your friend via email:
OR
Share it: