Boston Bans E-Cigarettes in Workplaces, Just Because

Yesterday the Boston Public Health Commission voted to ban the use of electronic cigarettes in workplaces, including outdoor areas such as restaurant patios. It says it is simply "clos[ing] a loophole" by "treat[ing] e-cigarettes like tobacco products." But since e-cigarettes do not contain any tobacco and do not generate smoke (merely a propylene glycol vapor containing nicotine), that is a puzzling way to characterize the decision. The official justification for banning smoking in workplaces is protecting employees and other bystanders from the toxins and carcinogens generated when tobacco is burned. Let's leave aside the questions of how dangerous secondhand smoke really is and whether the government has any business regulating it on private property. In the absence of evidence that e-cigarettes are a hazard to other people, what possible justification is there for treating them the same as conventional cigarettes? I mean, they look like cigarettes, but surely that superficial resemblance is not enough for a scientifically grounded agency like the Boston Public Health Commission.

Or maybe it is. Here is the best the commission can do by way of justification: "The FDA found through laboratory testing that e-cigarettes contain toxic chemicals and carcinogens." What "toxic chemicals"? The only one the commission mentions is nicotine, which is not toxic at the levels ingested by e-cigarette users, let alone the infinitesimal levels in the air surrounding them. The FDA also found "dectectable levels" of diethylene glycol in one out of 18 e-cigarette cartridges it tested, probably due to a manufacturing defect that does not appear to be common. Condemning all e-cigarettes based on that one finding is like condemning all fruits and vegetables because they sometimes harbor pathogens. As for "carcinogens," the commission is referring to trace amounts of tobacco-specific nitrosamines, which are also found in nicotine replacement products that the FDA has approved as safe and effective. So much for the bystander protection rationale.

Even if we assume that the commission's real aim is to protect smokers from their own unhealthy choices by encouraging them to quit, its decision is perverse, since e-cigarettes can help them do that. Switching to e-cigarettes virtually eliminates the hazards posed by smoking. By making e-cigarettes less convenient to use, the commission makes them less appealing as an alternative to conventional cigarettes, thereby making it more likely that people will continue to smoke. Even by the collectivist, paternalistic standards of "public health" as it is currently understood, the e-cigarette ban is utterly irrational, driven by aesthetic and/or moralistic impulses that have nothing to do with science or with health.

Addendum: Bill Godshall of Smokefree Pennsylvania notes that Alameda, California, and Boise, Idaho, recently rejected proposals to cover e-cigarettes under municipal smoking bans.

[Thanks to Michael Graham for the tip.]

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    It's *only* because they look like cigarettes. The health angle is bullshit.

    Fuckin' liberals. How do they work?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    And before any Tonys or "we"s or mustards jump on that reality... how many social-conservative anti-smokers do YOU run into?

    I've met exactly one. Unpleasant fucker even if he hadn't been anti-smoking obsessed.

    Every other anti-smoker I've met, was solid Team Blue. Can't be a coincidence.

  • All paternalistic-collectivist||

    anti-gambolers I know are unpleasant Fibertarians.

    Officer, am I free to gambol about plain and forest?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Knock yerself out, prick. Gambol all the fuck you want. After all, every living room is yours to shit in.

  • Jordan||

    I do know the only people who bitch about smokers are ex-smokers

    No, you don't know that because it's horseshit.

  • sarcasmic||

    I'm an ex-smoker and I don't bitch about smokers.

  • sarcasmic||

    I kinda like the smell of wafting tobacco smoke now that I'm not inhaling it all the time. No anxiety and no temptation. None. All I have to do is take a deep breath, not hear any hissing, gurgling and popping like my lungs did when I smoked, and any urge to light up goes up like a puff of smoke.

  • ||

    Same here. Fresh smoke, no prob. And I smoked heavily for 20 years. But stale smoke, I'm not so crazy about.

    But anecdotally, I think I'm in the minority of ex-smokers on that.

  • John Tagliaferro||

    For some reason Hitler is not as well known as an ex-smoker as he should be. Maybe the vegetarianism and mustard gas exposure pushed him over the edge.

  • Gerholdt||

  • ||

    I have never smoked and I complain about smokers. I could also give you at least 30 people off the top of my head who never smoked and complain about smokers.

    So, no, it is not true that "the only people who bitch about smokers are ex-smokers."

  • John Tagliaferro||

    My most recent smoking Nazi encounter was in the outdoor smoking area of a Starbucks, just after setting the Starbucks owned ashtray on my table at least one table away from said Nazi. I informed the asshole that the non-smoking area was inside.

    In the bigger picture of mixing and matching things to promote their authoritarian agenda, Leftists do this crap all the time. Here is a classic from Andrew Stuttaford of National Review: My correspondent also noted how the NYPD’s mounted police seemed “to arouse more ire than the foot units actually wearing riot gear. Many protesters called the police a bunch of fascists, and one called the mounted officers Nazis. When I asked how it was that they were Nazis, he replied that they were dressed like Nazis. I asked how they were dressed like Nazis, and he said they were wearing helmets and uniforms.”

  • ||

    You know who else called mounted officers Nazis....

  • Peter A||

    At least in my Blue state the difference is that affluent Republicans will simply condemn you behind your back as a boor and a loser if you smoke. Republicans would rather that the lower classes simply hang themselves on their own ignorance of social niceties, liberals think that legislating behavior will somehow make everyone upper middle class by osmosis.

  • Rich||

    Maybe someone should make an e-cig that looks like an "assault rifle" and *really* piss 'em off.

  • ||

    We all need to start drinking water in martini glasses while driving. After all, it LOOKS like I have a martini. Maybe they'll arrest me for "looking like I'm drinking and driving."

  • ||

    Try it. Ten bucks says they will, most places. Mind you, they'll try to make SOMETHING stick, justbecausenyou failed he attitude test. May get expensive.

  • ||

    Try it. Ten bucks says they will, most places. Mind you, they'll try to make SOMETHING stick, justbecausenyou failed he attitude test. May get expensive.

  • ||

    Try it. Ten bucks says they will, most places. Mind you, they'll try to make SOMETHING stick, justbecausenyou failed he attitude test. May get expensive.

  • ||

    Try it. Ten bucks says they will, most places. Mind you, they'll try to make SOMETHING stick, justbecausenyou failed he attitude test. May get expensive.

  • ||

    Oh, fffuck. Sorry.

  • Marx-Mises Gambol Lockdown||

    Nicotine Lockdown.

    Gambol Lockdown.

    Fuckin' City-Statists, how do they work?

    Mr. FIFY, are you still stupid enough to think governments are instituted to protect your rights?

    How's that working out for you?

  • WTF||

    Gambol
    Balm Go
    Lamb Go
    Lag Mob
    Gal Mob
    Mag Lob
    Lam Bog
    Lam Gob
    Am Glob
    Ma Glob

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Did White Idiot say stupid shit again?

  • ||

    This can't be right. Liberals believe you should have control over your body, right?

  • ||

    Liberals only believe that you should control your body with regards to behaviors of which they approve.

    They approve of abortion. They approve of unprotected anal sex with strangers. They approve of eating absurdly unhealthy diets that are linked to Health Food and Organic Living.

    They don't approve of much that the average joe sixpack does, like smoke or eat fast food, because they have a desperate need to feel superior to him. And very slight grounds.

  • WTF||

    Here is the best the commission can do by way of justification:

    Fuck you, that's why.

  • Tom Menino||

    I couldn't hab said it betta mysewf.

  • sarcasmic||

    Tank woo.

  • Sweet Jesus||

    The city-Statist commissar's justification for Nicotine Lockdown is quite similar to the justification for Gambol Lockdown used by city-Statist Fibertarians.

    And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how canst thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

    ~The Jefferson Bible, chapter 3, verses 38-40

  • WTF||

    Fucking hell, it's in its manic phase again.

  • BakedPenguin||

    +1 WTF

  • For The Children™||

    Any questions?

  • Thulium||

    What are we protecting The Children™ from? Truthful information about alternatives to cigarette smoking that could allow people to enjoy tobacco/recreational nicotine products without lighting it on FIRE and exposing themselves and bystanders to the SMOKE? The horror. How can we give the naughty 'chilluns' a proper beating if instead of smelling like an ashtray, they maybe have a slight aroma of mint or cookie on their (propylene glycol and glycerine sanitized) breath?

  • ||

    For Boston, shamrock shakes and Oxycontin.
    For Boston, you can find it at the corner of the Commons right by Downtown Crossing.
    These girls at BU they all do it too.
    They lie down on Lansdowne, they lose their left shoes.
    These girls at BU they all do it too.
    She stumbled down Lansdowne, she lost her left shoe,
    and she lost all her friends, and she's crying and she needs a ride home.
    You just want it to end
    She lost her new phone,
    she despises her friends,
    and when you get her back to housing,
    she asks if you want to come in and get pinned.
  • Auric Demonocles||

    I live with my sister, who is getting a Master's of Social Work at BU. It's awesome.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Well, we can cross Boston off of the list of places to go. That they look like real cigarettes is part of the reason they work for me. 3/4 of my addiction was the addiction to SMOKING, not necessarily the nicotine. It's something I hold in my hand and puff on and blow out fucking "smoke" (vapor)

    I switched to e-cigs because I had a heart attack at age 33. If they aren't going to let me use a product that I'm using specifically for my health, any money they might have received from me in the form of tourist dollars will go elsewhere where I can.

    I mean seriously, I used these fuckers IN THE DELIVERY ROOM while my wife was popping out our youngest, and the doctors/nurses thought it was fucking great.

  • ||

    Don't you understand?

    Some innocent little child could see somebody smoking an e-cig and be scarred for life. We cannot as a civilized society accept that risk.

  • For The Children™||

    You're right. Why didn't I think of that?

  • ||

    I love it when people say, "we must do it for the children," which I personally think is a crock. Most people don't know this stupid concept actually comes to us directly from Adolph Hitler by way of his book "Mein Kampf". In it he said that people would be willing to give up almost any of their rights it were for the benefit or sake of their children.

  • Art||

    Ahahahahahahhahhh

  • ||

    Some enterprising entrepreneur should devise an e-cig which looks like a harmonica.

    Or a ham sammich.

  • Sparky||

    No ham sammiches allowed fatty.

  • ||

    Or a sheep penis. The members of the Boston Public Health Commission like those.

  • ||

    To the nanny staters, anything you enjoy that they don't is a loophole waiting to be closed.

  • ||

    ""“A whole generation is not going to start using tobacco and nicotine products. Cheap cigars aren’t going to be cheap anymore, and unregulated nicotine products won’t be sold to kids,” Margaret Reid, who oversees the commission’s tobacco control program, said in an interview after the vote.""

    The first sentence says it all. It's not about health, it's about behavior control.

  • ¢||

    It's *only* because they look like cigarettes.

    Not only. First, most of them look like pothead gadgets, not cigarettes.

    But mostly— Remember when toy guns were banned from "schoolyards?" Because they looked like guns? And now a kid who shakes a Twizzler and goes "PEW!" gets sent to special ed for life.

    So what's actually forbidden? What's really banned when Happy Meals are banned? Or Four Loko? "GM foods?" "Food colorings associated with hyperactivity?"

    Who wants those things? Who deserves to get slapped around for such egregious displays of antisocial desire?

    Slapped around by whom?

    There's a pretty fucking obvious Unified Theory at work here.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Remember when toy guns were banned from "schoolyards?" Because they looked like guns? And now a kid who shakes a Twizzler and goes "PEW!" gets sent to special ed for life.

    A good friend of mine has a wife who is a teacher (she's also from Canada). She once said that if she had any of her elementary school students say that they had been out shooting with his/her dad, she would immediately report them to BOTH the school counselor so that the child can get proper counseling as to why it's so bad, AND the police.

  • Gojira||

    ^^ THIS IS WHAT CANADIANS ACTUALLY BELIEVE

  • mad libertarian guy||

    I have since vowed to talk about my affinity for guns and my desire to bring my sons out to shoot from a VERY YOUNG age every time I'm with her.

  • ||

    Yay! Good for you! Annoy the fuck out of the rotten cunt.

  • John Tagliaferro||

    Impossible. Michael Moore could not have lied to us about that.

  • ||

    That's incredible! I, too, have a good friend from [insert perceived liberal country here] who has a [insert relative here] who is a teacher. She once told me that her school has mind-reading devices, and if a kid even THINKS about shooting a gun or doing anything remotely conservative, she is required by law to report the incident directly to the evil liberal government, who then comes and takes the child away to a top secret evil liberal government facility for "reprogramming". True story. (about as true as yours, anyway)

  • ||

    Boston's really shitty. I can hate on New York all week, but it's interesting and I'd go there again and again, whereas I don't remember seeing anything in Boston, ever, that would make me want to go back.

    Shit like this isn't much of a surprise in the Authoritarian Commonwealth's big city, but it's one of the little nails in the coffin for me anyway.

    Denny Crane, you were a fucking idiot for choosing Boston.

  • KDN||

    I'm from and live in NY metro and I'm completely the opposite. Though I'm also part of the 5% of people that prefers Philly to NY; I guess commuting to and working in the gilded toilet of Manhattan for years has just soured me on the whole place.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Why would anyone ever choose to go to New York?

  • Juice||

    I just got back from Boston (first time) and thought it was a pretty nice place. Not only could you eat and drink on the subway (unlike in DC) you could buy food in the subway stations, which were shockingly clean. If food were allowed (not to mention sold) in the metro stations, people would have to wade through mounds of garbage every day. DC people are pigs, plain and simple. The whole damned town of Boston was very clean and the people were quite friendly (by northeast standards). Overall, I liked the place (the weather was unseasonably warm). Yeah, NYC, now that's a shithole.

  • ||

    I like it here, but this type of stuff is completely unsurprising. I betting Mumbles just wanted to beat Nurse Bloomberg to the punch on this one for progressive bragging rights.

    To protest, I'm going to start handing out cigarettes on Halloween

  • ||

    I own an e-cigarette store. I save lives every day. I sleep very well at night. In three years, zero teenagers have come into my store.

  • Ryan C||

    We sell e-cigarettes where I work, and I haven't had any teens asking for them, either. The barely-old-enough-to-buy-tobacco crowd usually goes for Marlboro, Camel, or occasionally Newport. Most e-cigarette customers have been adults over 30 who like the experience of smoking but dislike the health effects, smell on their clothes, or both. Without e-cigs most would buy the regular ones. When our orders come in late and we're out of e-cigarettes, that's usually what they do.

  • anon||

    There's a simple solution to this really:

    "Fuck you, not abiding that law assholes."

    If the employer doesn't give a shit, then does it really matter what Boston thinks?

  • Da State||

    It says it is simply "clos[ing] a loophole" by "treat[ing] e-cigarettes like tobacco products." But since e-cigarettes do not contain any tobacco and do not generate smoke (merely a propylene glycol vapor containing nicotine), that is a puzzling way to characterize the decision.


    Contradictions, schmontraditions!

    Don't talk to me abour contradictions - what part of "We Own Your Ass" don't you understand?

  • ||

    So they won't mind then if we step outside for 15 minutes and take our time away from productivity to use our e-cig...just like the 'smokers'?
    Because that sure won't stop a person. Are they going to strip search employees too, to make sure they don't have one on them? Because a bathroom break will be a convenient time to "vape"....and-oh hang on I have to use the bathroom. You're going to have a mighty unproductive group--because I'd be in the bathroom every hour, whether I had to "go" or not. Good job Einsteins!

  • ||

    So they won't mind then if we step outside for 15 minutes and take our time away from productivity to use our e-cig...just like the 'smokers'?
    Because that sure won't stop a person. Are they going to strip search employees too, to make sure they don't have one on them? Because a bathroom break will be a convenient time to "vape"....and-oh hang on I have to use the bathroom. You're going to have a mighty unproductive group--because I'd be in the bathroom every hour, whether I had to "go" or not. Good job Einsteins!

  • ||

    To the nanny staters, anything you enjoy that they don't is a loophole waiting to be closed.

  • Coeus||

    So true. Those cunts can suck the juiciest part of my taint.

  • Mike Morgan||

    I see two issues here. First, the ban for minors is pretty meaningless since most e-cig brands aren't marketing to them anyway. Second, banning in workplace is wrong since most people don't mind e-cigs since they have no odor. See www.ecigwerks.blogspot.com for more.

  • Dan||

    I wonder how much Phillip Morris paid for this one...

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Phillip Morris needn't contribute a dime. There are enough nanny state anti-smokers out there to get the job done.

    And even if there weren't, local governments can ALWAYS justify bans like this (behind closed doors of course) due to them not getting the tax proceeds from e cigs.

  • Coeus||

    Uggh. Gotta refresh more often.

  • Coeus||

    They don't even have to any more. They just harnessed the "true believers" who bulshitted all the second-hand smoke data. They're using the mob assembled against them for their own ends. The framework was built for them. This isn't like the menthol exemption, this time they just let the idiots do what they do (and maybe sponser an add or study here or there).

  • ||

    There is absolutely no evidence that Philip Morris or any other tobacco company has come after e-cigarettes. On the other hand, there is copious amounts of evidence that e-cigarettes' strongest opponents have massive conflicts of interest due to being former or even current recipients of research money from groups funded by Pfizer, GSK, RWJF, etc.

    Aside from the whole making cigarettes thing, Big Tobacco U.S.A ain't all that evil anymore.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    E-cigs are not cigarettes, and the ONLY reason they are banned in some jurisdictions, is because they *look* like real cigarettes.

    Period.

  • ||

    I mix my e-juice with ZERO nicotine. This is very much like chewing bubble gum for the flavor and activity. Would I still get arrested?

  • ||

    Why is anybody surprised? The anti-smoking Crusade has been more-or-less fact free for a couple of decades now.

    See y'all in the smokeasies.

  • trizzlor||

    In the absence of evidence that e-cigarettes are a hazard to other people, what possible justification is there for treating them the same as conventional cigarettes?

    Um, that's not quite how it works Jacob. If you're going to be blowing out chemicals where I work then you better show me that they're not a hazard - absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence and so forth. What's that? Those studies are currently in progress? And we don't yet know the toxic effect of e-cigs? Well, it doesn't really seem like such a bad thing that the government prevents you from exhaling that unknown shit into my face until we figure it out, does it?

    Should've known not to trust a "scientific" reporter who thinks a 20-30% increase in heart-disease risk is no big deal.

  • ||

    What is so 'unknown' about what's in an ecig? Propylene glycol is generally the most abundant--either that or vegetable glycerin. VG and PG have been deemed safe for decades. The other ingredients would be flavoring and nicotine. The amount of nicotine in the actual vapor is so minute that it simply can't pose any danger to anyone. As for the flavorings--if you cook or have smelled cooked food, you have inhaled flavorings.
    So what "dangerous chemicals" are you actually being exposed to? About .001 PPM nicotine that wouldn't reach you if you were standing right next to me.

    It's laughable that folks can't use Google and a bit of common sense.

  • trizzlor||

    Nicole,

    I agree that there are many chemical compounds one can just look at and analytically determine are safe in any form, but nicotine and "flavorings" are not so simple. With nicotine, while I'd love to take your word for it, it's not clear how minute the content can be and how much of it remains in the exhaled vapor (especially if smokers mix the liquid themselves). Moreover, with flavorings, your statement that "if you cook or have smelled cooked food, you have inhaled flavorings" is grossly unfair. We know of plenty seemingly benign food flavorings that later turned out to be toxic: butter substitute and liquid smoke, to name some recent examples. In fact, some of the specific flavorings in e-cigs have already shown adverse effects in lab animals; motivating additional study. This just doesn't seem like a situation where we thoroughly understand the compounds involved.

  • Thulium||

    trizzlor, the nicotine content in e-cigarette cartridges averages about the same as the nicotine content of tobacco cigarettes: Around 1.63%

    The difference is that an e-cig is not lit on fire destroying most of the nicotine and losing much to "sidestream smoke" when the user is not directly inhaling it, so although an e-cig cartridge only contains as much nicotine as one cigarette, it produces enough vapor to replace anywhere from 5 to 30 combustible cigarettes.

    You may think the statement "if you cook or have smelled cooked food, you have inhaled flavorings" is unfair, but it remains a TRUE and objective FACT. You are right that some oil-based food flavorings can be hazardous, but that is in much higher quantities than are used in e-cigarettes...and if you have a concern about a particular flavoring, avoid it.

    What serious diseases do you think could possibly be caused by inhaling an average of less than a TEASPOON of flavored germicidal propylene glycol or vegetable glycerine (with an optional small percentage, averaging less than 2%, of 99.9995% pure pharmaceutical grade nicotine) from a battery powered fog machine?

  • ||

    Thank you nicole for employing some logic, i direct you 'trizzlor' to this study: http://www.physorg.com/news/20.....ettes.html by the university of boston

  • trizzlor||

    Alex89, while I appreciate that you took the time to check the scientific literature, the BUSPH study doesn't really pertain to what I'm talking about. First of all, they don't look at second-hand smoke at all. And they explicitly discuss the benefits of e-cigs as a substitute for regular cigarettes, not in general (q.v. "Although the existing research does not warrant a conclusion that electronic cigarettes are safe in absolute terms"). I'm sure they're great for that purpose, and I know plenty of people who swear by them to get off the hard stuff, but there's no indication that they're benign second-hand.

  • Elaine Keller||

    trizzlor: Tobacco cigarettes are set on fire producing "side-stream smoke" the entire time the cigarette remains lit. Side-stream smoke contains many more toxins than exhaled smoke that has been filtered through the smoker's lungs.

    E-cigarettes are not burned. Thus, they do not produce either first-hand or second-hand smoke. An electronic cigarettes is activated by the user inhaling, meaning that the vapor produced by the device goes directly into the user's body. Bystanders are exposed only to the exhaled vapor, which has been filtered through the lungs of the e-cigarette user.

    The BUSPH journal article reported on the results of 16 toxicology studies of liquid and vapor. One of the 16 studies examined vapor for the presence of 50 priority smoke toxicants. None were found.

    If you have ever attended an event where they used an artificial fog machine, you have been exposed to much higher levels of PG than you would ever be exposed to in exhaled e-cigarette vapor. Dr. Murray Laugesen of Health New Zealand reports that much of the PG is absorbed in the lungs of the user.

    Also, whether from smoke or vapor, Dr. Laugesen reports that inhaled nicotine is about 98% absorbed. A puff of smoke contains 100 times the nicotine in a puff of vapor.

    Furthermore, it's the smoke itself, not the nicotine, that is hazardous. The smoking-related cancers, heart attacks, strokes, and lung disease are caused by the elements created by burning the tobacco: tar, poisonous gasses, particulates, and thousands of chemicals of combustion.

    Given what we know from the BUSPH review regarding the extremely small level of risk (if any) to the users, the odds of any danger whatsoever to bystanders would appear to be nonexistent. I can't think of any scientific explanation of a mechanism by which bystanders would be harmed, given the fact that over 90% of the folks who directly inhale the vapor are reporting that their health has improved.

  • trizzlor||

    Elaine, you've largely convinced me that these e-cigs are very unlikely to be harmful second-hand. If the FDA validates these findings and slaps an ingredients label on them so there aren't any mystery flavors floating around (or at least we know the a brand is untested) then I'd be comfortable having these in my workplace.

    A few quibbles with the specific evidence you've presented. Your statement that "I can't think of any scientific explanation of a mechanism by which bystanders would be harmed, given the fact that over 90% of the folks who directly inhale the vapor are reporting that their health has improved." doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I'm sure that smokers who switch to Nicotine pills and patches also report that their health has improved, but that doesn't mean that they are non-toxic in an absolute sense. This is something the BUSPH study emphasizes several times ("Whereas electronic cigarettes cannot be considered safe, as there is no threshold for carcinogenesis, they are undoubtedly safer than tobacco cigarettes.") and that smoking alternatives advocates seem to ignore: if you want to use these in a no-smoking zone then you have to conclusively show that they are of no second-hand harm to non-smokers.

    Now, Dr. Laugesen does seem to support such a conclusion through research that was entirely funded by the Ruyan e-cigarette company. That conflict of interest doesn't immediately disqualify his findings but it does necessitate independent validation as Tobacco has a long history of fraudulent self-funded studies. Moreover, take a look at the methods Laugesen uses to examine the effect on bystanders: "Analysis of published data on nicotine absorption, and informal comments of bystanders, and observation of e-cigarette smoking indoors." That's hardly a thorough analysis, and these bystander findings don't even address tobacco-specific nitrosamines or diethylene glycol at all (DEG being the main concerns for the FDA).

    Overall, I think it's unlikely that the exhaled e-cig vapor contains carcinogens but not impossible. As with any unknown chemical, I'd like to see the FDA validate these studies and hopefully have the regulated cigarettes approved for use in public spaces.

  • Jones||

    I have come to the conclusion that life is short. We are all going to die. There is absolutely no way around it. Therefore, I am eating butter, smoking cigarettes, and riding a motorcycle at high speed.

  • ||

    Here in the Seattle area, at least the thuggerment admits the only reason they banned e-cigs is because you can't tell them from real cigs.

  • Peter A||

    What about candy cigarettes? That powdered sugar coating can waft into the air, and possibly fall into a diabetic's lungs. I hope they will ban those as well.

  • ||

    Wow, I was net-gazing across the pond (i'm British) at how the e-cig debate was going over there. This is the first intellegent, reasoned and fact based peice I have read. Your media outlets are just spewing mad fear mongering

  • Lady Patriot||

    It was 1 year ago when the EPA declared CO2 a toxic substance. So with their logic - what could be the next step?

  • Elaine Keller||

    The obvious answer is that we must all stop exhaling.

  • ||

    We've said for 50 years that Boston is run by brain-dead, know-nothing idiots. Thanks for proving us right once again! This has to have a female behind it. They're the only ones I know who are this un-American.

  • jason@FreshCig||

    What a shame I think its wrong that they've banned it, the whole reason of having them is to help quit smoking. Thanks for sharing this blog.

  • ||

    The banning of e-cigs has nothing to do with health. It is about MONEY.
    If people switch to e-cigs, they will cut down stop smoking the real thing. When that happens,there goes all the extortion money the government rakes in from the smoking public. Altria, R J Reynolds, Winston-Salem, etc. will no longer make the fabulous profits they have come to expect from the smoking bans.

    On a side note to this, it should be noted that with the outrageous taxes now charged for cigarettes, money that used to be available to the consumer for discretionary spending is no longer going into the hands of American businesses. Instead, it is going into the squandering hands of the government. At $70.00 a carton in NYC, a carton a week habit costs nearly $300.00 a month. It wasn't all that many years ago that cigarettes would cost about $5.00 a carton. Today their cost is equivilent to a car payment.

  • Parker Madeira||

    The efforts of regulatory committees and legislators to keep e-cigs out of the hands of the public is an embarrassment. There may be no conclusive evidence that e-cigs are harmless, but it cannot be argued that they are far safer than tobacco. And last time I checked, 2nd hand water vapor never killed anyone...

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement