Is it emotional? Is it physical? Or maybe it is financial?
With more and more councils including electronic cigarettes in their smoking bans – both indoors and out, I am struggling to understand why. Which leads me to assume, (I know assumption can be the mother of all mess-ups) that ‘they’ must have a blind spot and can’t see what electronic cigarettes really are.
The emotional blind spot: I use the word emotional, because perhaps when e-cigs first came out, the way they looked – and some still do (like tobacco cigarettes), maybe the very sight of them causes an emotional reaction in the councillors/anti-smoking groups, and they think they are seeing someone smoking instead of vaping. This causes them outrage and anger and they carry these emotions through to the law making, instead of looking at the information that grows daily regarding electronic cigarettes.
The physical blind spot: This is a little similar to the first – electronic cigarettes look like cigarettes, and that is to ‘their’ mind not allowed. Cigarette smoking is banned, so if it looks like a cigarette – then no, you can’t do it. I wonder, had e-cigarettes were they were first invented looked anything other than like a tobacco cigarette – perhaps they would not have been banned.
The financial blind spot: Without a doubt there has to be a blind spot here. We all know that cigarette tax raises a small fortune, but we also hear the other side as to how much smokers cost the economy, but how about the savings of allowing people to vape instead of smoke? How about the harm reduction aspect, the potential lowering of health costs from vapers?
blind spot?
Maybe it is a mixture of all 3, and we should be handing out blind spot mirrors to each and every council to stick on their legislation
Nice to read a well considered line of reasoning. I’m surprised by the general knee jerk response that e-cigs is getting, especially as I’d read that the UK government had recently announced a think tank that had been forward thinking enough to consider e-cigs as a safer alternative to tobacco. Having spent some time looking at the subject, I would say that e-cigs reputation has been damaged by the inconsistent quality and safety of the earlier generation models and their ingredients. It is frustrating that the World Health Organisation has data relating to studies carried out in 2007 and no updated info regarding the matter or general development since then. I personally believe that research data of recent technologies that adds weight to the findings from the New Zealand studies was added to the mix, then the e-cig suppliers and manufacturers could be more vocal in taking a stance to the mentality you have questioned.
Hmm.. I’d go with emotional; you’re “getting away” with something you’re not supposed to. (Leave OFF the fact. you’re an adult capable of your OWN “errors”).
It’s prejudice with a reasonable sounding sugar coating. Unfortunately it works on the exact same underlying principle as, say, in racism. Problem is that while we’ve all been taught that SOME kinds of prejudice are naughty, some people are unfortunately ignorant of the fundamental principle.and consequently have a hard time avoiding prejudice in in other contexts.
Imagine a world where people can come up to you and say “well, since you LOOK like a criminal I’m afraid I have to subject you to all the penalties real criminals suffer, and it’s simply enough that you look the part”.
Put like that most would likely exclaim “inconceivable!” Yet it is EXACTLY what is happening. It’s simple and easy to show. Replace “criminals” with “lazy [racial slur]” in the example above.
It took me a while to actually figure it out in its embarrasing details. It was that African-American security guard at the hotel in LA. As he said “if you don’t mind, I’d rather not you use that device here”. I complied but I definitely didn’t think it was OK, so I set out to figure out exactly why it rubbed me the very wrong way.
I feel the whole thing is just plain wrong. Too bad only race, religion, sexual preferences and political views are protected at the moment. Next step for our civilization: understand the principle behind it and the human foibles feeding it, then realize that ALL PREJUDICE IS WRONG!
Imagine a world again. A world where people had only learned to not be racist against a few, select races. Imagine your revulsion if you were asked the question if it’s still OK to call [race A] dirty, lazy [racial slur]?
And as you do so, as you imagine this … what makes you think you’re not already in that world?
Or imagine something else: imagine that we are better than this!
I have to agree with the above comments.
For a long time as a tobacco smoker I often felt like a second class life form.I even felt some non-smokers in my own social group would view me as they would view a heroin addict. I’m sure some viewed me as a weak willed, unhealthy individual who put avoidable drains on the NHS budget, deserved no respect and no understanding.
The fact e cigs contain nicotine and users generally want to keep using – ss opposed to NRT users who want to totally quit the habit, does little to change attitudes. The fact is that many non-smokers, councils, etc are NOT solely anti-smokING, but are anti-the-smoker himself. This irrational prejudice, as all prejudice, should not be tolerated. But it seems that by bad government, it is rather encouraged.
Interestingly. The same attitude isn’t present in the other big social drug ie , alcohol. You will find many people who take the view that bing drinking and alcoholism is a bad thing – to be frowned upon, not to be tolerated BUT think consuming of alcohol was a perfectly reasonable past time. Which of course – it is! That is the enviable attitude we as e cig users would love to prevail.
Tobacco is BAD – nicotine – in small doses,and ecigs as the chosen form of ingestion – is OK.
The cynical side of me feels government are unlikely to leap to the defence ofor promotion of e cigs as acceptable, because of the significant amount of lost tax revenue if large numbers of tobacco smokers made the change over. If in fact govermentslocal councils were purely concerned about the health of the smoker himself, they would surely be handing out e cigs to analogue smokers for free!
Steve.
Tobacco free non-smoker from the very first e cig.
Right, Now I will inform you straight away that this is quite an emotionally involving topic for me so there may be swearing and the like…
BUT WHY BAN E-CIGS?! I genuinely cannot see any feasible reason to ban them unless there is PROOF they damage your health…
Alcohol damages your health… Yet you can buy that in vast amounts in asda, consume it on your street corner, or even your local pub!
The RIGHT way to do this would be to launch an investigation into the measures taken to ensure these products are safe and fit for purpose.
With technology these days is it REALLY that difficult? Even better… have heavy E-Cig smokers volunteer to have a check up every so often, then you’ll get a real world image of what’s going on.
I’m pretty sure this country was all for “Innocent till proven guilty” Yet a lot of places dont seem to give E-Cigs the chance to prove themselves.
IT MAKES NO SENSE….
Right, Turning my Torpedo to max and off for a heavy vape… IF I’M ALLOWED!
I have had Cancer, Heart Attack, C.o.p.d. Asthma I used to smoke about 40 fags daily. Which as you will know that was not good for me. So I saved up and brought my first e-cig, and when I had finished my last fag in the packet.
By this time my e-cig was fully charged, I started using it and have never looked back, never even had or wanted a puff of the old things this was nearly 2 years ago on the 23 April. I have used my e-cig in my Doctors, in the Hospital ward ( even while having a procedure done in Hospital.) And they were all well pleased with me for giving up the real fags. We should not be outcasts when the government support the use of NRT (Patches,Gum,and Pills) to aid you to come off the fags. e-cigs should be
included in that bracket as they help people to give up the fags, Ok we don’t give up the Nicotine, but I know many people who still buy the Gum every day just to get the nicotine, long after they had finished the course of treatment but they wouldn’t dream off having a fag. Long live the e-cigs and well done the Swiss govt for canceling all Taxation on Electronic Cigarettes ( Mr Cameron take note) If the Govt want happier,healthier people in Britain, less strain on the NHS then all they got to do is wake up the the e-cig, and let change by choice take it’s course.
Ty