Ecigarette Users Do Not Deserve Harsh Treatment
While most news articles feature stories telling that ecig kit use should not be allowed, welcomed or embraced, there still remains light and hope for the ecigarette users. Fortunately, there are still people with consideration and understanding for others like Herald Scotland columnist Colette Douglas Home.
In her recent article, she wrote about not harshly treating ecigarette users. She told about her experience inside a restaurant where there are also many children eating with their families. She was at the restaurant with her friends, one of whom brought out her electronic cigarette or shisha. Her friend’s shisha contained no nicotine.
She said that she felt proud of her friend who has been a smoker for almost her entire life, but gave up smoking about a few months ago. If not for the shisha, she could have spent half of the lunch outside while smoking cigarettes. Her shisha allowed her to stay throughout the lunch with her friends.
The shisha mimics real smoking, but her nicotine consumption is lowered because she smokes fewer cigarettes. The device produced no smoke, ash or offending smell. Yet, Collete and her friends were surprised when a waiter approached their table and asked her friend to stop using the shisha saying it was a violation of the policy. Collete thought of many things such as which tables are producing the greatest environmental disturbance (theirs or the table where children were loudly screaming); if the company’s policy is bigoted; if her friend was ever harming anyone.
Unjustified Treatment To Ecigarette Users
The columnist stated she supports the smoking stance of Scotland. One year later, all shops will stop displaying their tobacco products. Then stricter policies will be translated to more lives and money saved.
Yet, it seems to her that there is no justification for the ban of ecigarettes that help smokers quite regardless if they have nicotine or not. She questioned how far should others intrude on the right of a person to harm his/her self even if their actions cause no harm to anyone.
If Scotland will follow the footsteps of many cities in the US such as Los Angeles, New York and Chicago, then the country will definitely take too far and beyond what is reasonable. In England, Public health advocates have been debating whether ecigs renormalize public smoking or not.
Cigarettes are banned in public because of possible secondhand risks. These risks are not present in electronic cigarettes so the smoking policies do not apply to them.
In the recent YouGov survey that ASH Scotland commissioned, it was found that more than one half of current smokers have tried using ecigarettes. The number of non-smokers who are vaping is only roughly 1%. There is no evidence that vaping attracts new smokers. Yet, there is clear evidence that vaping has helped many smokers quit their smoking habit.
Rather than ban ecigarette use, individual establishments should even tolerate it.
WHO or World Health Organization, Colette said, has conceded that the devices are safer than real cigarettes. Their toxicity, according to the Journal of Public Health, is comparable to that of NRTs. Obviously, no restaurants have apprehended clients because they use patches or chew gums. Just because vaping simulates smoking, they seemingly think it is only right for them to stop ecigarette users.
According to critics, nicotine that is diluted to about 8% can already kill a person. They are worried that the unregulated products could spread an epidemic in people’s homes. Children would be very attracted to them especially so that they come in attractive packaging and delicious flavorings.
In America, news and media outlets were quick to claim that the number of eliquid poisoning is alarming. Yet, they did not bother informing the readers that there are far many more items in the house that can cause poisoning to children and adults.
ASH Scotland’s Sheila Duffy called for regulations on ecigs especially banning their sales to minors. Yet, she remarked that banning public vaping would need to be supported by scientific evidence.