My feedback for jurisdictions that pass e-cig bans-
As a 62 year old 47 year smoker who unsucessfully tried multiple times to quit with “approved methods”, I have been tobacco free for 2 years now from the first day of using a PV. I will NOT put up with any more “denormalization” (legal bullying and stigmatization) OR with paying money that was intended to make amends for my social burden from using tobacco products. PERIOD. And I will NOT visit or spend my money in any locale that refuses to perform genuine due diligence on current PV research. If you look for yourself you will know that legislation is EXTREMELY premature (and all indications to date are that ongoing research will likely prove PV's to be benign). If you don't want me in your locale then that's fine, but stop killing people by making it more difficult to quit REAL tobacco. 50 years of social stigma and 20% continue to smoke. Face it. http://e-cigarette-research.info/
We didn't tame the “Wild West” by refusing to cross the Mississippi river.
The Salem Witch Trials ended after many decent lives were lost as a result irrational hysteria and hyperbole, when rational people of authority finally acted out of evidence, logic, and common sense.
Even one wrong needs to be corrected.
Any legislation that bans e-cig vapor on the grounds that it has harmful second hand byproducts is NOT based on the totality of research data, is at a minimum VERY premature, and textbook totalitarianism. It is difficult to remove the rhetoric, but the current data shows no reason to suspect bystander harm.
Nicotine, PG, and Glycerin aren't new “drugs” by any means, and there are volumes of research that have been done on them already. What IS new is the manner of delivery, and so far the method is proving safe and effective for tobacco use cessation (see Brad Wager's link, as well as MANY other research papers). Many positive health benefits of nicotine (yes, I said BENEFITS) are being investigated now that there is finally a delivery method that doesn't require inhaling burning plant smoke, or intravenous injection. Not to mention bringing to light the dogma and bigotry around nicotine from it's prior association with tobacco plants.
I agree with others about throwing snus users under the bus for the benefit of vaping. Doing so is as she said hypocritical and I'll even add bigoted. But.. there are 2 points of conflict between snus users and vapers that cannot be overlooked.
First is “tobacco product”. Regardless of who 'deems' nicotine extract to be a 'tobacco product', imo it's delusional to believe that it is true. In any manner of factual logic, it isn't. As we all know nicotine is a component of tobacco plants, it does not define them as such. Nicotine doesn't make a tomato or potato plant a tobacco plant. Period.
Second, snus does not produce second hand air quality issues. Period. I suppose that if snus ever becomes as widely popular as e-cigs, the ANTZ may try to have a go at it on second and third hand issues over exhaled breath, spitting, and bottom of the trash can pollution though.
I also agree with those who say that it is entirely likely that this incorrect “tobacco product” definition will be used simply because of the years of nicotine's association with the tobacco plant. It is also factual that it is the addictive property of nicotine which drew/draws tobacco users to tobacco products, and 99.8% of vapers to vaping. It is likely a waste of effort to argue definitions instead of more pertinent facts with regulators and organizations who have dealt with genuine tobacco products for 50 years.
However it is just as wrong to concede that e-liquid and it's vaporizing devices are truly tobacco products, as it is to lump harmless tobacco products with harmful tobacco products. Period.
As a practical matter to achieve an end goal, allowing someone in power to practice either form of bigotry is an area that should be carefully considered. Remember that the end goal of tobacco denormalization was to eliminate a genuine source of public and personal harm. We all recognize how that turned into simply bullying, unwarranted stigma and hateful thought when it went unchecked.
For vapers, the second and third hand attributes of vaping are becoming more important as states and cities like New York city, New Jersey, and Maryland, et al., whose legislators have given up on the gateway approach and are introducing indoor air quality legislation.
Legislation more-so than regulation is an area where accurate definitions of “smoke” and “tobacco product” is absolutely appropriate and worthy of argument, imo. Regulators can create a regulation that calls blue “cyan”, and can exact procedures, penalties, and fees. But, if legislation defines blue as “blue, not cyan” then the regulation is null and void.