Should Lakewood Ban E-Cigarette Use in “No Smoking” Zones and Limit Their Sale?

Lakewood’s proposed e-cigarette ordinance stokes the fires of a debate that’s raged across the country since the first rumblings of e-cigarette use in America in 2008. The question of how to regulate e-cigarettes is a hot topic, and it ultimately comes down to whether or not there is any risk associated with the vapor. Sadly, this is the area most frequently buried under mountains of misinformation – whether through claims there is no evidence of the constituents of vapor or over-exaggerating the risk of trace constituents to promote a distrust of something with the potential to save millions of lives across the world. The ordinance suggests lumping e-cigarettes in with tobacco products for regulatory purposes, but is this justified?

The CDC notes that there are over 7,000 chemicals in cigarette smoke, including 70 carcinogens. The basic ingredients of e-cigarettes are nicotine, propylene glycol, vegetable glycerin and approved food flavorings. However, there is potential for reactions to occur upon heating and lead to harmful components being formed, so scientists set about investigating. A recent systematic review of the available evidence on this topic (covering over 9,000 measurements) compared levels of toxicants found in e-cigarettes to the accepted safe exposure limits of those chemicals. The vast majority of them were only found in concentrations of less than one percent of the accepted safe maximums. This means that even for first-hand users there is no evidence of risk.

Lakewood’s proposal to ban their use in existing smoke-free areas now falls into focus. With no evidence of risk to the users themselves, how is it possible to seriously propose any risk to bystanders? Even using “worst case” assumptions about toxicants from e-cigarette vapor, the review above found “no apparent concern” for bystanders. Other research has echoed this conclusion, pointing out that e-cigarettes only create vapor when activated by the user, so there is no cigarette-like “side stream” from the tip. In other words, the volume of emissions is lower for e-cigarettes, and the concentrations of any harmful components are infinitesimally tiny.

Bans on smoking in public places are designed to protect the public, but in this case there is nothing to protect the public from. Cigarette-smoke can cause harm second-hand; e-cigarettes are unlikely to cause harm even first-hand. The only remaining argument is that using e-cigarettes would “re-normalize” smoking, but this would only be true if people were unable to distinguish between somebody smoking a cigarette and someone using (“vaping”) an e-cigarette.

Many (if not most) electronic cigarette users don’t even use a device which resembles a cigarette. They’re rarely white, and the popular “tank” systems are prominent and unambiguous. Likewise, the smell of a tobacco cigarette is pungent and anyone producing it would be immediately identified unless everybody else in the room happened to have anosmia. Because e-cigarettes are easily distinguishable from cigarettes, they could only serve to further cement the normality of attempting to quit smoking.

The other element of the legislation – preventing e-cigarette retailers within a specified distance of schools – is understandable, but still represents an unnecessary limitation on burgeoning local businesses and a lack of confidence in existing rules preventing their sale to minors. The law is in place, and frankly, nobody (on either side of the debate) is against banning e-cigarette sales to minors; all that is necessary is to enforce it. Any “safe” distance between schools and e-cigarette vendors is arbitrary – if the store is ten feet further away from a school than the imaginary boundary, will the teen decide not to take those additional steps if he or she really wants an e-cigarette?

In addition, children and teenagers live all over Lakewood. If distance really was an issue, surely school isn’t the only place we should be concerned with? It’s clear that if these restrictions were necessary they would have to be applied to absurd levels which would crush any Lakewood-based e-cigarette vendors.

The bottom line is that smoking kills people and e-cigarettes help people quit. In one study, 55 percent of smokers with no interest in quitting had reduced their consumption by 50 percent or abstained from smoking entirely six months after being given an e-cigarette. On the whole, the group consumed 88 percent fewer cigarettes per day. The potential to help people is astounding, and that is precisely why any limitations should only be applied based on sound evidence.

For the Lakewood proposal, there is no such sound evidence; only unjustified fear. The proposed ordinance is counter-productive, and California citizens and council members should fight to oppose it. The City Council will be meeting on Tuesday, November 12th at 7:30 pm (Council Chambers – 5000 Clark Avenue), and anybody interested in discussing the legislation should attend. 

For more information about the Lakewood City Council meeting on November 12, 2013, read this announcement from CASAA.

Photo credit: r0ss/Flickr