Reason’s Jacob Sullum discovers another example of nannies amok:
Yesterday the Boston Public Health Commission voted to ban the use of electronic cigarettes in workplaces, including outdoor areas such as restaurant patios. It says it is simply “clos[ing] a loophole” by “treat[ing] e-cigarettes like tobacco products.” But since e-cigarettes do not contain any tobacco and do not generate smoke (merely a propylene glycol vapor containing nicotine), that is a puzzling way to characterize the decision. The official justification for banning smoking in workplaces is protecting employees and other bystanders from the toxins and carcinogens generated when tobacco is burned. Let’s leave aside the questions of how dangerous secondhand smoke really is and whether the government has any business regulating it on private property. In the absence of evidence that e-cigarettes are a hazard to other people, what possible justification is there for treating them the same as conventional cigarettes? I mean, they look like cigarettes, but surely that superficial resemblance is not enough for a scientifically grounded agency like the Boston Public Health Commission.
Pretty much, as it turns out.
But read the whole thing and judge for yourself. So far as I can see the whole story is yet another reminder that the anti-tobacco jihad of the last couple of decades has been as much (or more) about control as about health.
when will they ban the nicotine gum which has kept my husband off cigarettes for 15 years? stupid.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHmmm. Would these be okay? External Link
What if someone made a fake cigarette out of paper-mache and walked around with it?
Maybe they could color the end of a piece of chalk brown?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhile you're being facetious, I think, my guess is: yes those would be banned. Because the liberal nannies would deem them likely to lead to the real thing. Or to cause someone emotional distress. Or something.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCandy cigarettes are already banned a lot of places (schools, etc.) - for exactly the reason you state. Of course, *I'm* content to eat peppermint sticks the same way I ate candy cigarettes, but it's not for everyone.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOf course it is superficial. That is what liberalism is all about, appearance. Substance does nto matter. Logic does not matter, thinking does not matter. As long as it looks rights, it feels right, that is all that matters.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSmoking bans have never been about health. That's simply slapped on to avoid facing up to the truth. It is about puritanical liberalism. The cult decides it is uncool to smoke. They begin campaigning against it, eventually forcing people to quit. Now that there is another way to enjoy nicotine, the zealots go after it.
I know several people who have used these electronic cigarettes to get off the coffin nails. They have seen their health improve and slowly cut down their dependence on nicotine. They have had the support of their doctors. These things are a miracle as far as the smoker is concerned. They don't stink like cigarettes and they don't have all the chemicals that make the real thing lethal.
Yet, the fanatics ban them.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThey'd better ban nicotine gum too, b/c nicotine is the addictive element in cigarettes,and cigarettes cause cancer...
Steyn is right. As a society, America is becoming far to stoopid to survive.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLittleOldMe:
I think the authorities would want the tip to be orange so they could tell it wasn't a real, threatening cigarette.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHa, if the tip were orange, the authorities would swoop in because it would look like it was lit!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd should we not consider the health benefits of smoking?
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere's no evidence that these e-cigs are harmless, as the article admits in a roundabout way. Until such a study is concluded (and they are underway) it doesn't seem so bad to keep these unknown chemicals out of my face where I have to work.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBut wait! It will get better: Next November Mass. will likely get to vote on allowing medical pot. No to cigs, yes to pot! Wanna bet?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhere I work you're not allowed to be seen with anything resembling a cigarette, either inside the building or within 50 feet of it (gee, concrete, glass and steel are THAT flammable?). I was told that even a wooden dowel painted white would be a no-no. (I had considered an empty corncob pipe so I could be an irritant.) The 50-foot limit is anywhere near the building. Not just the doors.
But (in a nod to the nastiness one inhales from second-hand smokelessness?) snuff and chewing tobacco is also banned.
it's fully OK, however, mixed-air HVAC system to suck in exhaust from idling trucks.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse---
We knew all along it wasn't about the smoke. It was never about the smoke. Never.
BillReilly says: "Smoking bans have never been about health."
And speed limits have never been about people who drive too fast, 'no dumping' signs are not about stopping people from putting their trash where it doesn't belong, and the Ten Commandments were God's version of the nanny state. Riiiight.
Smoking bans are to stop selfish people from fouling the air the rest of us breathe. 'Electric' cigarettes are fine with me.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnybody remember the assault weapons ban?
Those of us who know and enjoy weapons immediately referred to it as the "scary looking weapons" ban. Since most of the calibers and semi-automatic actions were available in the less scary looking configurations that were essentially the same weapon.
Same logic. If it looks like it, it must be the same.
And someone remind me why it keeps being stated that liberals are so much smarter than the rest of us?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSmokers are the only readily identifiable "minority" group which it is legal to discriminate against, and which we are even officially encouraged to discriminate against.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse