A Weeks Worth of Anti-Vaping Ordinances

This week is seeing a flurry of anti electronic cigarette action, it’s Thursday and already we've seen seven different city councils move to restrict the use of electronic cigarettes.

• June 16th Pittsburg, CA City Council introduces ordinance to include electronic cigarettes to its ban on public smoking
• June 17th El Paso Texas passes a citywide ban on smoking e-cigarettes in public spaces where smoking was already banned.
• June 17th Languna Niguel, CA introduced an ordinance amending the city’s no smoking ordinance to include prohibition on use of E-cigarettes.
• June 17th Dublin, CA City council introduces an Ordinance Amending certain sections of the Dublin Municipal Code to clarify that electronic smoking devices, which are commonly referred to as e-cigarettes, and their vaporous byproducts are prohibited, controlled, and /or regulated in the same manner as tobacco products and smoking pollution.
• June 17th Temple City ,Ca First reading and introduction of ordinance no. 14-994. The proposed Ordinance would place the same regulations on e-cigarettes and other electronic smoking devices that are already in effect for other tobacco and marijuana products.
• June 18th San Diego, CA the San Diego City Council's Public Safety and Livable Neighborhoods Committee will hold a critical public hearing on a proposed ordinance that would ban the use of smoke-free e-cigarettes everywhere that smoking is banned.
•  June 19th Seaside, CA adoption of an ‘urgency iterim ordinance’ establishing a moratorium prohibiting the issuance of permits, entitlements, license, or any other approvals on the establishment and operation of any new smoke shop or electronic cigarette retailer. 

The question is, what’s behind the cancerous spread of anti-vaping ordinances?

Most smoking bans have been enacted under the guise of protecting non smokers from exposure to second hand smoke, which is reasonable. Similarly, In the absence of regulations limiting what substances can and cannot be in e-liquid, it makes perfect sense to protect the public from second hand vapor exposure. The problem is that most of these ordinances are not intended to be temporary. In its simplest form, e-liquid is consists of propylene glycol, vegetable glycerin, or some combination of the two. The second hand exposure risks of these substances is not statistically significant. But what about the nicotine? Many, if not most, vapers, use e-liquid that contains nicotine. But is second hand exposure to the nicotine from e-cigs really a risk? So far, every study on the topic seems to say no. As far as drugs go, nicotine is right up there with caffeine, in fact the amount of nicotine that might get into your body from second hand vapor is on par with the amount of caffeine you might get from exposure to coffee steam. So if we assume an e-liquid containing nothing other than propylene glycol, vegetable glycerin, and possibly nicotine there would be little reason for concern.

The problem is, adults like flavors. In fact, we need them. All those flavors are a critical component of overcoming cigarette addiction, but we don’t always know what’s in the flavors being used in e-liquid. Diacetyl anyone? Which is why the industry needs to take steps to ensure that e-liquids are safe. It may be too late, but the best bet for electronic cigarettes is for the industry to band together and define standards for e-liquid ingredients/additives as well as standards for labeling that lists those ingredients. An industry that self regulates to produce products that have no demonstrable risk is less likely to be crushed by government restrictions.