Policy suggestions:
1. Don't ban it: I detest vaping and the scum who get rich off addiction and lung disease. But vaping
should not be banned outright. The regulatory debate is mired in red-herrings. It tends to cluster
around an absolutist and frankly-irrelevant "ban it / don't ban it" dialectic. It's obviously illogical to
call for an outright ban on vaping while not banning cigarettes. Both or neither are the only logical
positions.
2. Prescription only: Vaping justifies itself as a healthy cessation device. Fine. Call their bluff. Make
vaping prescription only. Similar to patches, methadone etc., require that only medical doctors and
pharmacists may prescribe it as part of a monitored cessation programme.
3. Outdoors use only: As with traditional cigarettes, take it outside. Not in the workplaces; not in colleges;
not in sports stadia; not in airports; not in taxis; not in cars with children; not in the home. See the passive
and third-hand smoking tabs in this blog. See also:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/health-50377256
Comment:
The problem with an indoors ban is that it's un-enforceable, due to the different usage patterns of a
typical cigarette smoker as compared to a vaper. A smoker who lights a cig creates a helluva smell and
tends to want to smoke all or most of the cig in one go. So it's very difficult to do it indoors. Smoking
culture then evolved to the practice of the cigarette break. Which works well for everybody. By
contrast, since a vape can be stealth-vaped by a variety of means; and since a vape device is "always on
; the combination of these two factors means that vapers have no incentive to take their pollutants
outdoors for a vape break. These practical usability factors means that the classic usage trajectory spiral
s rapidly downwards - typically, an occasional or merely regular smoker very quickly will morph into a chain vaper who needs a hit every 90 seconds, all day. See:
https://www.menshealth.com/health/a23937726/vaping-vs-smoking
These addicts are out of control, and the idea that they naturally will vape outdoors is an idea that only has feasibility in the minds of well-meaning but out-of-touch people who know little about vaping. You can't regulate that which you don't understand.
Nonetheless, an indoors ban would be far better than sitting on our hands for the next however many years, until the ugly toxic facts about secondary and third-hand vaping struggle out from under the fog of skilfully-relentless big vaping propaganda. No matter how much it may be "stealth-flouted" by the vaping-crazies, an indoors ban will always strongly shape culture and make it easier for employees to confront colleagues and bosses who are making their lives a misery by their non-stop office vaping.
1. Don't ban it: I detest vaping and the scum who get rich off addiction and lung disease. But vaping
should not be banned outright. The regulatory debate is mired in red-herrings. It tends to cluster
around an absolutist and frankly-irrelevant "ban it / don't ban it" dialectic. It's obviously illogical to
call for an outright ban on vaping while not banning cigarettes. Both or neither are the only logical
positions.
2. Prescription only: Vaping justifies itself as a healthy cessation device. Fine. Call their bluff. Make
vaping prescription only. Similar to patches, methadone etc., require that only medical doctors and
pharmacists may prescribe it as part of a monitored cessation programme.
3. Outdoors use only: As with traditional cigarettes, take it outside. Not in the workplaces; not in colleges;
not in sports stadia; not in airports; not in taxis; not in cars with children; not in the home. See the passive
and third-hand smoking tabs in this blog. See also:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/health-50377256
Comment:
The problem with an indoors ban is that it's un-enforceable, due to the different usage patterns of a
typical cigarette smoker as compared to a vaper. A smoker who lights a cig creates a helluva smell and
tends to want to smoke all or most of the cig in one go. So it's very difficult to do it indoors. Smoking
culture then evolved to the practice of the cigarette break. Which works well for everybody. By
contrast, since a vape can be stealth-vaped by a variety of means; and since a vape device is "always on
; the combination of these two factors means that vapers have no incentive to take their pollutants
outdoors for a vape break. These practical usability factors means that the classic usage trajectory spiral
s rapidly downwards - typically, an occasional or merely regular smoker very quickly will morph into a chain vaper who needs a hit every 90 seconds, all day. See:
https://www.menshealth.com/health/a23937726/vaping-vs-smoking
These addicts are out of control, and the idea that they naturally will vape outdoors is an idea that only has feasibility in the minds of well-meaning but out-of-touch people who know little about vaping. You can't regulate that which you don't understand.
Nonetheless, an indoors ban would be far better than sitting on our hands for the next however many years, until the ugly toxic facts about secondary and third-hand vaping struggle out from under the fog of skilfully-relentless big vaping propaganda. No matter how much it may be "stealth-flouted" by the vaping-crazies, an indoors ban will always strongly shape culture and make it easier for employees to confront colleagues and bosses who are making their lives a misery by their non-stop office vaping.
