The New York City Council imposed restrictions on the use of electronic cigarettes, a practice sometimes referred to as “vaping,” that mirror those imposed on cigarettes. E-cigarettes are an increasingly popular alternative to regular cigarettes, because they not only deliver nicotine to satisfy a smoker’s addiction, but also mimic the cigarette “rituals” of holding a cigarette and inhaling and exhaling a smoke analogue. Some even have glowing tips to make them look more like actual cigarettes. Because of the ritualistic elements of their use, many consider them a better alternative to nicotine patches as a means to slowly quitting the smoking habit. Other benefits include avoiding exposure to the toxins in tobacco, not having cigarette breath, not blowing smoke around non-smokers, reduced cost and, from what I understand, reduced cost.
Naturally, anything that might work to the benefit of smokers has the nannies and puritans up in arms, so, naturally, government busybodies have jumped at the opportunity to show their responsiveness and responsibility by regulating e-cigarettes and vaping, quickly and aggressively. But, apart from the visual aspects, what connection is there between smoking and vaping as far as third parties are concerned?
The original and eternal justification for the progressively stricter ban on smoking in public places (and even many private ones now) is the health risk associated with exposure to second-hand smoke. This health risk has been stated and warned about in terms so extreme as to be ridiculous at times, with some declaring that secondhand exposure is worse than actually smoking. Any knowledge of basic toxicology tells us how farcical that statement is, and the danger of second-hand smoke itself is, if one looks past the hysteria and political correctness, grossly overstated. Nevertheless, even if second hand smoke does pose a risk so significant as to warrant banning as it has been banned, how does that apply to vaping? The exhalant has very little in it apart from water vapor, and there is no real science that shows any harm from second-hand exposure. The nanny response to this lack of hard evidence is inevitably “we don’t know so we want to ban it anyway.”
An honest nanny would tell us the real reason for seeking a vaping ban. It looks too much like smoking, and merely being at risk for witnessing that act is both a justification and a call for action. “I don’t want to see you doing that, so I’m going to ban it.” The same attitude lies behind the bans on saggy jeans in towns in Louisiana, Tennessee and New Jersey, among others. Appearance is the prime criterion in various assault weapons bans – the guns look scary, so they must be Bad.
Imagine if the anti-vapers were honest, and simply said they’re banning vaping because of how it looks? Imagine the precedent. A whole world of laws could hit the books. There could be a law banning anyone with a Body Mass Index over a certain maximum from wearing spandex in public. Bad facial hair could be banned, as could unnatural hair colors. Facial tattoos and piercings could become no-nos. Obnoxious tourist T-shirts could be eliminated from Times Square and Bourbon Street. Heck, we could roll things back to Archie Bunker days and ban breastfeeding in public. Once the “right” not to have one’s eyes fall upon something one considers distasteful gets established, legislators will be able to save us all from any sort of offense. How grand a world that would be!
I was startled the first time I witnessed someone vaping. I’ve always disliked smoking – not just the smoke itself, but the entire act triggers a reflex in me. Nevertheless, I don’t and haven’t sought to deny others the freedom to smoke. My distaste for it in no way empowers or authorizes me to demand others alter their behavior to accommodate me. Yet that is exactly what’s behind the nanny reaction to vaping. It’s the entitlement mind-set of statists, who have grown so accustomed to legislating behavior that they see no boundaries and no issues in banning behaviors that they find distasteful. How did things get to this state? Unfortunately, most of us have been complicit on at least some occasions. We see something that falls outside our comfort zone, and our guts tell us that it shouldn’t be permitted. Oftentimes, our rational minds overrule our guts, but not always. To reconcile that dissonance, the rational mind develops justifications, and we are hearing those crop up regarding vaping. Talk of “gateway” behavior, of children being enticed into thinking smoking is cool, of the great unknowns regarding the health risks of the inhalants – all rationalizations to justify the unpleasant truth: “it’s eye pollution, and it must be banned.” Beware ceding the nannies that power, they’ll eventually get around to you.
Loading ...
Active Comment Threads
Most Commented Posts
Universal Background Checks – A Back Door to Universal Registration
COVID Mask Follies
When Everything Is Illegal…
An Anti-Vax Inflection Point?
“Not In My Name”
The Great Social Media Crackup
War Comes Through The Overton Window
The First Rule of Italian Driving
Most Active Commenters