In another Issue Memorandum, the Legislative Research Council shows us how South Dakota compares to other states in regulating electronic cigarettes:
The American Non-Smokers’ Rights Foundation updates the above map with an October 2018 report indicating twelve states include electronic cigarettes in their restrictions on indoor smoking.
Inhaling combustible material seems like a generally unhealthy mode of recreation. The concentrations of air nicotine, particulate matter (think, breathable sandpaper), and volatile organic compounds at a “vaping” convention is similar to what one would breathe in a smoky bar or nightclub. Just like regular cigarettes, the e-versions put nonsmokers at risk:
Third, passive exposure to e-cigarette vapour might lead to adverse health effects according to a systematic review of 16 studies.7 A 2016 report from the World Health Organization (WHO)8also concluded that second-hand aerosols from e-cigarettes are a new air contamination source for hazardous particulate matter (PM). The levels of some metals, such as nickel and chromium, in second-hand aerosols are not only higher than background air, but also higher than second-hand smoke. Furthermore, compared to background air levels, PM1.0 and PM2.5 in second-hand aerosols are 14–40 times and 6–86 times higher, respectively. In addition, nicotine in second-hand aerosols has been found to be between 10–115 times higher than in background air levels, acetaldehyde between two and eight times higher, and formaldehyde about 20% higher.8 The report suggested that the increased concentration of toxicants from second-hand aerosols over background levels poses an increased risk for the health of all bystanders, especially those with pre-existing respiratory conditions8 [Nick Wilson, Janet Hoek, George Thomson, and Richard Edwards, “Should E-Cigarette Use Be Included in Indoor Smoking Bans?” Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 2017.07.01].
LRC says “Long term study is needed for conclusive information on the health effects of these products,” but recommends that we “continue education and awareness to combat the challenge of keeping these products out of the hands of youth.” (Wait: are we combatting the challenge or combatting youth vaping? Edit, LRC!)
Studies are already out in regards to how bad vaping is. We need to ban it all together. At some point humanity needs to recognize that “smoking” or inhaling this stuff into our lungs is immensely detrimental. They especially target youth. It is a growing problem.
As much as private rights are important it is clear that these companies whether tobacco or vaping do any and all they can to market to people in an unethical way.
Shut it down.
Smoking is also a terrific Radon delivery system. Radon and its progeny can attach to smoke particles and dust, and said progeny can also stick to the tobacco leaves to begin with.
A study in 2015 entitled “On the interaction between radon progeny and particles generated by electronic and traditional cigarettes” in the journal Atmospheric Environment (Volume 106, April 2015, pages 442-450) concludes that aerosols generated by e-cigarettes also attract Radon progeny…meaning they can carry Radon progeny with them.
It’s disappointing to me that vaping is not a product that will help people quit smoking. As a former heavy smoker I remember how very difficult quitting was. I guess folks who are trying to quit should stick with nicorette products. The gum worked for me.
I support treating vaping like smoking tobacco.
Shoot I came on here to disagree with stevie but accidentally have to agree with debbo to do it. Banning things is lame and is usually government overreach. Regulation should be the presumed response to most public issues rather than ineffectual prohibitions. But I know how bad some of you people love to tell others what to do!
It is not lame to ban commercial exploitation of the poor, the young, and the weak. It is a pretty central function of government to protect us all from exploitation and things that can kill us.
Radon! Yikes!
I’m not a smoker but I still disagree. Vapor is not smoke. Vapor has more in common with a cloud of steam. The liquid is vaporized at just about 250 degrees just like water. As such, and much like water, the vapor isn’t lighter than air like smoke so it drops much quicker reducing the effects of any secondary exposure. And since it vaporizes instead of combusting it doesn’t contain even a 1,000th of the harmful chemicals a cigarette releases. The ingredients of the vapor is Propylene glycol (a common food additive), vegetable glycerin (used in fudge), water, flavoring and a touch of nicotine. Seems to me the ingredients are a lot less harmful than cigarette smoke and is clearly a lot safer. I would think, if someone were to smoke, they would be much better off using a vaporizer.
You are thinking about Rodan, that giant Pteranodon from the Godzilla movies…
Two suppositions on my part:
(1.) It is probably more important to mitigate your home for Radon if you are a smoker (1 + 1 = 3).
(2.) Radon mitigation is not as common when household incomes are lower.
Regulation, not prohibition!
Cory, some people like doing things that kill themselves. I don’t want to pay legislators to count my calories for me, either.
OS, I’ve cited scientific studies finding comparable amount of pollution in e-cig vapor and secondhand cigarette smoke. Your 1/1000th claim is baseless hyperbole. No one cares about what you want to believe for screaming’s sake; we just want facts.
People can eat pretty much what they want (except for endangered species, narcotics, babies…). They can boink pretty much whomever they want (except for endangered species, other animals, babies…). But I don’t want them boinking, smoking or vaping in public places where other people and I have are subjected to the residue of their recreational pursuits.
E-Cig emissions and second-hand smoke create a health hazard whether in a public or private space. Both should be defined as a private nuisance in state statute, like Utah, another rural, western Republican state. Otherwise chain-smoking neighbors and tenants muck up your lungs when you breathe the air in your own dwelling. Remarkably, SD statute does not permit individual counties or cities to legislate anything having to do with cigarettes.