This is the same tired (should I say “hysterical”?) argument that smokers puffed out when opposing restrictions on indoor smoking.
It is false to assume that concerns about indoor air pollution from smoking or “vaping” cannot be accompanied by concerns about automotive and factory pollution. People commonly work towards appropriate regulatory action on all sources of preventable air pollution.
If bodily odor and perfume are ever linked to emphysema, lung cancer and heart disease, I’ll be happy to consider restrictions on them too.
The problem here in Canada is that you can buy cigarettes without a problem (assuming you are an adult) but you cannot buy an e-cigarette legally no matter what. That is because traditional tobacco products are specifically exempt from the regulatory category of “medicinal drugs”, while e-cigarettes are not.
This means that a company selling cigarettes does not require a medicinal drug licence to sell them, while a company selling e-cigarettes does; and it is Health Canada policy not to grant such licences.
The effect, in Canada, is that cigarette addicts do not have the choice of using e-cigarettes. While the scientific evidence of the harms inflicted by e-cigarettes is not settled, one thing is very clear: they are considerably less harmful to the user than cigarettes.
I do not understand why this regulatory outcome is “good”. Admittedly, all smokers would be better off if they quit altogether. However, it makes more sense, if they will not quit, to allow them the choice of a product that, while not harmless, inflicts considerably less harm than traditional cigarettes. It seems awfuly counter-intuitive to in effect force addicts to use the most harmful possible form of the drug, in the name of public heath.
There’s just no pleasing some people. And for those people, there’s no such thing as ‘baby steps’. Well, at least, not when their own personal preference is concerned. (so, yeah - they still need a car, so they’ll accept ‘diminished emissions’, but they are not going to stop driving! and they still want their house to be warm in the winter, so they’ll accept the byproduct emissions of that and of course they still want electricity, so they can be a little more tolerant of power plants - but they don’t smoke, so they don’t see why they should accept ‘diminished emissions’ in that area - 'cuz that’s not about them!) There’s no halfway for them - there is no negotiation. You either do it their way or you’re wrong. So, they are not going to be satisfied that e-cig vapor (not smoke!) is far less harmful than cigarette smoke. And they are going to resist it because…well, because it doesn’t fit with what they’ve decided is the ‘right’ thing to do.
It all comes down to selfishness. On both parts. The former smokers, who still want to smoke but they are trying to be conciliatory, say ‘hey - it’s an ecig! it’s far less harmful than smoking! I’m trying here!’ And the totally radical non-smokers say ‘hey, I can see it, I can even smell it a little bit! So it’s totally unacceptable to me!’ And the ecig vaper responds with, ‘well I can see your car exhaust and smell your perfume and that’s equally unacceptable to me!’ So…each of them sees the other as being an asshole.
Give it a break, people. Be glad that steps are being taken to reduce air pollution, be glad that a less harmful (if not totally harmless!) alternative has been found for smoking. Be glad that the weak addicted people who used to blow smoke in your face at least now have the option of blowing something far less offensive at you! Baby steps! Take your wins where you can get them! Quit being such whiners! It’s a win, win! Really - it’s a win for smokers and non-smokers!
It’s like the selfishness of pro-abortion rights activists when faced with “compromises” from the anti-abortion camp.
Why not accept mandatory intrusive physical exams, imposed “counseling”, loss of clinics due to unrealistic and unnecessary “safety” improvements and other restrictions imposed by anti-abortion legislators? Abortions will still be available. It’s a compromise, darn it! They’re trying to meet you halfway. Why not be reasonable? Baby steps! Take your wins where you can get them!
The “it’s not as bad as cigarettes, just shut up and inhale our secondhand emissions” argument reminds me of the whining and wheedling from smokers when the first restrictions on indoor secondhand smoke were being proposed. “Gee, it’s just a little dose of toxins. Why are you inconveniencing us? Can’t you just accept a small increased risk of cancer, lung and heart disease for our sake? It’s so unfair.” :dubious:
So…I’m going to ignore the whole abortion debate thing, because I don’t see any relevance, but are you saying that you’re okay with the small (?) increased risk of cancer, lung and heart disease as long its in aid of maintaining your otherwise comfortable lifestyle (vehicle emissions, power plants, factory farming etc.)? So taking in a few lungfuls of smoke (yes, actual smoke!) and emissions when you’re sitting in a car behind a semi in a traffic jam is an acceptable risk, but a tiny whiff of ecig vapor is life threatening? Or is it just that you think that’s as big as you can be reasonably expected to control your environment? You’re too small to take on your culture as a whole, so you’ll rage against your neighbor?
Seriously, if you’re that worried about dying (and bad news - that’s going to happen no matter how much you try to legislate it away), then you need to concentrate your efforts on real threats. And I’m going to go out on a limb here and say, I don’t ecig emissions constitute a realistic threat to your well being. I could be wrong, so you could always go with that argument. But I’m pretty sure I’m right about the vehicle/power plant/factory farms emissions part. So why fixate on such a freakin’ small risk? Pretty much everything that provides you with the lifestyle that you want is far more threatening in the long run…
The point is not that they are less harmful - as I said, test them, regulate them to keep them out of kids’ hands.
If they work as a smoking cessation product (as they should), add them to the list of smoking cessation products and distribute them as such.
But restrict their use to smoking cessation - don’t let them be marketed so as to generate another generation of nicotine addicts.
How I quit: Wear 21 mg trans-dermal patch for 2 weeks. Chain smoke. Nicotine OD will cure you real quick (if it doesn’t kill you). Took me 2 cigs. Threw the rest of that pack in the trash. Now cannot stand the smell.
I’m much happier being over-sensitive to tobacco smoke than I was about being addicted to it.
YMMV
Humor me a second- SUPPOSE that it’s proven there’s no harm from inhaling second hand “smoke” from e-cigarettes. Would people STILL find them equally objectionable?
I’m almost certain that many people WOULD be just as outraged. And that’s interesting in itself. It suggests that smoking is a moral issue for many people, noit just a health issue.
I agree with you completely. I think the argument would then be against ecigs as a “gateway,” leading kids to tobacco cigarettes (Chicago’s mayor is already using this argument.) This despite the fact that the gateway theory had been pretty thoroughly debunked. I don’t know about you, but I’ve never heard a single smoker who started smoking because they enjoyed candy cigarettes, or because they liked the taste of menthol, or any of the other silly, “won’t someone think of the children” targets. I don’t see why ecigs would be any different. Might kids use them because they freak or the mayor and other adults and cause arguments in the media? Heh. Yeah, I think that’s a lot more likely!
yeah, you’re right - it has become a ‘moral’ issue. It’s not about whether the minute amount of vapor from an ecig - or even a bunch of ecigs! - can ‘potentially’ be harmful to your personal well being. Its about controlling other people’s morals. Its about you thinking that you should be the one to decide what’s right and what’s not. You gather all the stats about the harms of smoking and carry that over to ecigs (because…well, it looks like smoking!) and decide - it’s still just wrong and immoral! Its wrong and immoral because you don’t do it yourself and you don’t approve of it! It’s wrong and immoral because it still shows a moral lapse, an addiction! Bottom line, it doesn’t matter how much it affects you - such moral laxity affects society as a whole, and you need to be a soldier fighting against this moral outrage!
These are the same people who seem to think that its morally wrong to be grateful for what they get, because they think its less than what they deserve. But, serioulsy, is it ever wrong to be grateful? If you despise and/or are sickened by cigarette smoke, is it wrong to be grateful that the formerly inconsiderate asshole that used to blow smoke in your face, is now blowing ecig vapor? Is it wrong to be grateful for small concessions like that? Apparently for people who are taking a moral stance, it is wrong! I admit it - I don’t get that!
And as I mentioned before…these same people who are disgusted and outraged about people ‘polluting their space’ with a bit of ecig vapor - are totally all right with vehicle emissions, power plant emissions, factory farm emissions etc. Well, at least they are all right enough not to feel they have to do or say anything about it. These are the same people who will stand in a parking lot next to an idling car, chatting with their buddies and think nothing of it, but if someone were to light a cigarette in the general area would recoil with horror! The same people who happily flip burgers on their outdoor grill, sucking in that wonderful smoky aroma of burning meat - well, that’s okay, 'cuz that’s what they like! but god forbid, someone should light a cigarette or start puffing on an ecig on the same deck!
I’m beginning to think that we are all idiots. I used to think some of us were above that, but…no. We’re all idiots.
So let’s grab our torches and pitchforks and hunt those bastards down like the low life vaporizing scumbags they are. Death is the only option here. If mankind is going to live in peace and harmony then some must pave the road to righteousness with there with their own weak sinful flesh.