The New York City Council is
considering a ban on the use of electronic cigarettes in bars,
restaurant, and other “public places”—not because there is any
evidence that the devices pose a hazard but because they look
too much like regular cigarettes. Councilman James
Gennaro, a sponsor of the proposed ban, tells The New York
Times, “We see these cigarettes are really starting to
proliferate, and it’s unacceptable.” Why is it unacceptable?
According to the Times, “Mr. Gennaro said children who
could not differentiate between regular and electronic smoking were
getting the message that smoking is socially acceptable.”
So it is not the product that bothers Gennaro as much as the
message it supposedly sends. Presumably he would have the same
complaint if people started wearing T-shirts proclaiming that
“Smoking Is Cool,” although banning those might be constitutionally
problematic. Might there be a way to address Gennaro’s concern
about the impact that the sight of vaping has on impressionable
young minds without resorting to the use of force? I’m just
spitballing here, but maybe parents could explain to their children
the difference between e-cigarettes, which deliver nicotine in a
propylene glycol vapor, and conventional cigarettes, which deliver
nicotine in a cloud of toxins and carcinogens generated by burning
tobacco. Even if Gennaro does not trust parents to educate their
offspring about such matters, surely a measure short of a total ban
could accomplish the goal he has in mind. How about taking a page
from the city’s regulations regarding
toy guns by restricting e-cigarettes to bright
fluorescent colors, so they can be readily distinguished from the
real thing?
Some might question Gennaro’s premise that children should never
see adults doing something (or seeming to do something) that
children are not supposed to do. If kids must be shielded from the
sight of vaping because it looks like smoking, perhaps they also
should be shielded from the sight of drinking—not just of alcoholic
beverages but of any drink that resembles an alcoholic beverage.
After all, how does an innocent child know the difference between
O’Doul’s and Budweiser, or between a Coke that contains Jack
Daniels and one that does not?
Gennaro’s rationale for banning vaping in bars and restaurants
actually is similar to the motivation for banning smoking in bars
and restaurants. The official rationale for such laws is protecting
employees, and their popularity can be explained by the simple fact
that most people find tobacco smoke distasteful, whether or not
they actually worry about the long-term health consequences of
sitting in a smoky bar for 30 years. But from a “public health”
perspective, the real payoff, in terms of reducing morbidity and
mortality, is deterring smoking by making is less convenient and
less socially acceptable. Gennaro worries that e-cigarettes will
undermine that goal.
That seems rather implausible, since the main selling point of
e-cigarettes is that they eliminate tobacco, its combustion
products, and the health hazards associated with them. Although the
Times says vaping in public remains legal thanks to
“a loophole” in New York’s smoking ban, the truth is that vaping
remains legal precisely because vaping is not
smoking. By seeking to equate the two, control freaks like
Gennaro may achieve the opposite of their avowed aim, increasing
rather than reducing smoking-related illness. As Craig Weiss,
president of the e-cigarette company NJoy, tells the
Times, “If you make it just as inconvenient to use an
electronic cigarette as a tobacco cigarette, people are just
going to keep smoking their Marlboros.”
Yesterday Zenon Evans
noted that Chicago also is considering a ban on vaping.
from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/28/new-york-city-may-ban-vaping-because-it
via IFTTT
“opinion” that “economic growth,
[OK, granted, you could be reading this on
Given that, I’m genuinely