Vapers now finding it even more difficult in New York

Try as we might, we are still finding it hard to work out what is going on at the New York Post. The newspaper has recently developed an editorial line on electronic cigarettes that is erratic to say the least.

New york

Basically, we don’t know what they are trying to achieve. One day they are blasting electronic cigarettes as evil devices, the next they are criticising the mayor’s policy on electronic cigarettes, particularly the smoke free act idea.

Michael R Bloomberg

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg (Flickr/Rubenstein)

The city has a smoke free act, and it has met with plenty of controversy so far. Mayor Bloomberg is leaving very shortly. The council of the city is currently trying to get a law through that would classify electronic cigarette vapour in the same way as tobacco smoke.

This classification would mean that it would be illegal to use electronic cigarettes indoors and also at any outdoor locations where smoking is currently banned in New York city.

 

 

A confusing editorial on e-cigs

This editorial from the New York post is confusing. The paper has carried quite negative pieces on electronic cigarettes in recent weeks, so it is surprising to see that it is running this piece.

The piece covers the idea of the smoke-free air act, and how it is meant to reduce exposure to second-hand smoke. Second hand smoke is now a big killer in cities around the world. It has been reduced massively by legislation that bans smoking in public places.

However, it is still a factor in public health. The legislation enacted by many cities around the world protects citizens from second hand smoke.

Cigarette smoke contains thousands of toxins and also carcinogens that can cause long-term damage to health, as well as life threatening diseases. Second hand smoke can pass this danger on to people who don’t smoke.

Bloomberg and his council passed a smoke free act to protect citizens. But it is no secret that Mayor Michael Bloomberg hates electronic cigarettes with as much passion as he hates tobacco cigarettes.

He has committed to classifying electronic cigarettes in the same way as tobacco cigarettes are. The out-going mayor is currently on a tour of the city, but the council are apparently trying to rush through amendments to the smoke free act, which will include this new classification

The best line in the whole article is the one where the writer states that banning e-cigs will not stop exposure to second-hand smoke, because there is no second hand smoke.

This is the kind of thinking that needs to be more prevalent in authorities. The writer is quite correct. There is no second hand smoke.

The writer also says there is no first hand smoke, as in the electronic cigarette does not create smoke that goes into the lungs of the electronic cigarette user.

The writer here is trying to point out the nonsensical aspect of the legislation. If this legislation goes through with this amendment, people will not be able to use electronic cigarettes in public places, including, bizarrely, parks and other outdoor recreation spaces.

Will e-cigs eventually normalise smoking?

The main reason why New York City apparently wants to ban electronic cigarettes is that they will normalise smoking. This idea, quite bizarre when you think about it, is summed up by one figure in the article, Robin Vitale of the American heart association.

But these ideas are quashed by the next person to speak in the article who talks about how electronic cigarettes do not cause concern amongst his patrons.

We have said this for a long time. People are not overly concerned by electronic cigarettes, and while this does not mean they are wanted in any restaurants, it does mean that we’re not too worried about them being out in the open.

This kind of thinking will only cause fuss and resentment amongst electronic cigarette users. And for a change it is nice to see the New York Post actually covering this aspect of the whole situation.

No one likes confrontation, but you can’t keep millions of electronic cigarette users down. Give it two more years and there will be at least twice as many electronic cigarette users in New York City.

As the New York Post is predicting here, this will cause problems because people will still want to vape even know there is legislation telling them not to.

Vapers may well not agree to this kind of action

There should be more editorial work like this. This is a fine and balanced piece of writing. We don’t expect to have pro electronic cigarette pieces spewing out of major newspapers like this, we’re happy to see what is in front of us now, which is basically a balanced and rational look at the issue.

Back to Bloomberg. He is obviously trying to rush this through to show that he can be effective as a Mayor. He has recently been on talkshows talking about how all of his political measures have resulted in pretty much higher quality outcomes.

We suspect that pushing this particular measure through will do nothing but alienate New York City citizens from it’s elected authorities.

The people of New York City are hard-working people in the main, who enjoy themselves to the full when they get an opportunity. It is a lively and quite young city.

Having restrictions placed upon it does not do any good for anybody. Back in the days of zero tolerance for crime, the people accepted authority. They will not, we suspect, except this particular measure of authority.

It would be nice to think that this smoke-free air act is adapted again once the FDA puts it’s own regulations in place. Everyone is waiting for the FDA to act, because action from them would mean that the issues are being addressed on a national level.

It should have some impact upon cities and states. Hopefully, this will mean that the people of New York City will be able to go to the park and use an electronic cigarette. If it doesn’t, this is pure madness.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>