Like a bad penny, it seems the smoking debate has come back to haunt us, but this time in a new disguise. Recent bylaws in Warman and Martensville banning e-cigarettes anywhere regular smoking isn't allowed has reinvigorated fresh arguments for both sides of issue. Should people be allowed to smoke e-cigarettes in areas where regular smoking isn't allowed?
First off, for anyone unaware, e-cigarettes are battery-powered devices that heat a liquid that may or may not contain nicotine until it turns into vapors, which are then inhaled. The device is small and can resemble a pen or a marker at first glance, until you see someone start sucking on it like an inhaler.
Now, let's get started:
In the left corner, proponents claim that there is little harm and instead "e-cigs" can act as harm-reduction strategies because they mimic smoking, but have significantly less harmful effects. The argument is that even if the liquid did contain nicotine (you can purchase flavoured liquids that are nicotine-free), the chemical content is so low in the vapors that it's much less harmful than cigarettes and produces very minimal harmful secondhand smoke.
In the right corner, opponents are saying that the appearance is very similar to that of an actual cigarette and so children would confuse the two. Therefore, it's just as bad an influence as a regular cigarette. Moreover, nicotine on its own may not be a carcinogen, but it is a poison. If nicotine liquid gets onto the skin of a child, the result can be fatal.
So let's boil it down.
Anyone who wants to use the argument that e-cigarettes should be banned just like smoking from regular areas because it's a bad influence on kids is being ridiculous. I'm not saying they're wrong, just that it's ludicrous to try and infringe on someone else's right to indulge a habit just because you don't like it. If a person wants to smoke an e-cig outside and you don't like it even though secondhand health impacts are practically nonexistent, MOVE SOMEWHERE ELSE. Nobody is forcing you to stand right next to that person. That's like trying to ban a woman from wearing a v-neck in public because you feel its negatively influencing your impressionable 13-year-old daughter. Tough luck; that's where individual rights come into play. Learn to parent better because kids are going to see a lot of things in the world that aren't right.
The argument here isn't whether or not e-cigarettes are dangerous. There is too little evidence and too little known about the long-term health effects of these vapors to say how dangerous they may or may not be, but that is a choice left up to the individual. The issue here is whether or not the government should be allowed to regulate WHERE they use it when it's not impacting on anyone else's health. Therefore, with what we do know about these devices so far, it's reasonable to expect that e-cigarette users should face less stringent regulations than what actual smokers do with regards to designated smoking areas.
But that's where the line is drawn. Parents do have a right to be concerned about the consequences of wholesale support for a substance and device that is still largely an unknown in the medical community. Since there aren't enough studies or medical knowledge available yet to educate the public about safe usage, there lies the possibility that people will try and make a quick buck by marketing it as safe to impressionable children and vulnerable adults.
As it stands, shops selling these liquids can buy it from anywhere or even make their own. Anything could be going into them and you can't always trust labeling for unregulated substances like this one. The only safe way to know what's going into these liquids is to buy from shops that make theirs in-house.
Rather than mandating where it can be used, regulations surrounding the production and marketing of the liquids that go into the devices should be implemented instead.
It's a sad truth: people can be ignorant. Sometimes the government should step in to protect them from themselves. We just have to find a balance between individual rights and public protection.
MJ
