E-cigs shouldn’t be banned in public
Medical experts say that E-cigs shouldn’t be banned in public
Not long ago, the British Medical Association held its annual meeting in Belfast. During the meeting, a medic called for E-cigs to be restricted in public places – but representatives of PHE (Public Health England) actually spoke openly to the contrary.
Rosanna O’Connor, who is the director of drugs, alcohol, and tobacco at PHE, was even quoted saying the following…
“Vaping is not the same as smoking, second-hand smoke is harmful to health but there is no evidence that e-cigarette vapour carries the same harms… In fact a ban on using e-cigarettes in public places could be damaging, as it may put off smokers from using e-cigarettes to help them quit.”
You can find this quote, along with a few others, in this article, which was published on Independent.co.uk.
Of course, those in favor of alleged bans in public places cited concerns about second-hand vapour. They maintained that this is still cutting-edge research, and that no long terms studies have yet been published. There are, of course, also fears that e-cigs are not completely safe. No one seems to be denying that they’re safer than cigarettes – but are they 100% safe?
Or, perhaps more importantly, are they safe enough that there’s really no measurable amount of risk involved for those exposed to second-hand vapour?
Some doctors are saying that we should restrict the use of E-cigs in public until more long-term studies have proven that they’re not posing a danger to the public.
But PHE, on the other hand, seems to be on the opposite side of this conversation.
In fact, they go as far as to say that it could be ‘damaging’ to ban e-cigs in public places, because this could cause some to choose not to take up using them over their analog counterparts.
Yes, E-cigs are safer than cigarettes – but if you can’t use them anywhere, what’s the point in even having them? For a lot of people, being able to use them out and about is a big advantage. It’s also a selling point that makes them a lot more appealing than cigarettes.
Information! But if E-cigs are banned in public places, they will simply lose a significant advantage that they have over cigarettes. Such a ban may even cause some not to bother with switching over.
What do we think of this story?
There are a few parts to this story that really stick out to us. First of all, once again, people are concerned about E-cigs because they haven’t been the subject of any long term studies. This is understandable to a point – but banning them in public is a pretty big step when you don’t have any real evidence of danger to back it up.
In a way, that almost sounds like E-cigs are being viewed as ‘guilty until proven innocent’.
But there’s also another side to this conversation that seems to resonate more with the crowd who favors E-cigs. Some medical experts are saying that we need to embrace E-cigs, because at the end of the day, they do provide us with a less harmful alternative to traditional tobacco cigarettes.
They might not be a magic bullet, and they might not be a cure-all – but nobody can deny that E-cigs seem to be getting more attention than any other tobacco-product alternative to-date. The gum and the patches can deliver nicotine, but none of these can also emulate the smoking habit – and E-cigs manage to do this in a way that’s new, fresh, and unique.
Vaping is really a thing of its own – and despite the fact that they haven’t been around for a long time, E-cigs are only so difficult to understand. They’re actually pretty simple. E-liquids don’t even contain that many different ingredients.
But people are still a bit nervous – so hopefully, in the future, more studies will help to dispel some of the fears surrounding E-cigs, and allow people to see them for what everything points toward them being – a safer, better alternative to tobacco products that should be embraced, not shunned and banned.