Vaping in public places throughout NSW is now subject to the same restrictions as smoking. This is solid, common sense health policy that will be very welcomed by the 85% of adults who don’t smoke.
Over the 30 years between the time we banned smoking in cinemas, buses and trains and when it was finally banned in all public indoor spaces, we saw many to justify its continuation in offices, then in restaurants and finally in the last holdouts: pubs and bars.
Tobacco industry-sponsored “courtesy” campaigns told us that smokers would be considerate and not smoke near others—surprise, it didn't work. Then it was proposed that the laws of physics did not apply to smoke: it would simply not cross a magic line two metres from the bar where it could harm bar staff.
Breathing it 2.01 metres away for the rest of us was OK, apparently. Secondhand smoke from very wealthy gamblers in high roller rooms where smoking is sometimes still allowed (as when the opens) is not harmful to others. It’s only harmful when it comes from ordinary mortals’ cigarettes, apparently.
Make no mistake, vaping is toxic
Today we are seeing the same sort of nonsense being rehearsed to twist the arms of state governments to allow vaping in spaces where smoking is banned. Vaping advocates first tried to argue that vape was as benign as exposure to steam in your shower, a sauna or from a kettle. Yes, it's largely water vapour, but it also contains particles and nanoparticles of partially vapourised flavouring chemicals, propylene glycol (PG), nicotine and traces of metals shed from the battery-activated metal heating coil that vapourises this brew.
Despite their small mass, such particles may have a significant toxicological impact because of their increased propensity for deep penetration into the pulmonary and cardiovascular systems.
Vaping has only been widespread in some nations for 6-8 years. It takes 30-40 years for the first clinical signs of disease to show.
Vaping has only been widespread in some nations for 6-8 years. Chronic respiratory and cardiovascular diseases typically have latency periods of 30 or 40 years between the beginning of exposure to noxious agents and the first clinical signs of disease.
So it is far too soon for anyone to be making calls that any apparent absence of health impacts from active or passive vaping means they are either benign or dangerous.
The recent 680 page door-stopper report on e-cigarettes from the repeatedly describes the extent and quality of the evidence about vaping as scant, immature and often of poor quality.
However, it noted that “there is conclusive evidence that e-cigarette use increases airborne concentrations of particulate matter and nicotine in indoor environments compared with background levels.”
We need a policy for real-world situations
E-cigarette advocates like to paint folksy scenes of one or two “considerate” vapers having a quiet and discreet vape in the corner of a pub. But occupational health and clean air regulations are not drafted to accommodate a little bit of asbestos or an occasional excess of carbon monoxide.
Public policy needs to deal with the diverse densities of patrons who might vape indoors. If vaping were allowed indoors, would any restrictions apply? Would bar staff be required to limit the number of people vaping, or request or order them to be discreet or “considerate” with their exhalations as with the ineffective approaches that were once made to smokers? Will arguments occur about whether a plume is excessive? How might “clouding” be forbidden? Will airlines allow a maximum of five passengers to vape but not 50? Good luck with all of that.
If vaping is safe, why not light up in a kindergarten?
If e-cigarette emissions really are harmless, indoor vaping advocates should call for vaping to be allowed in classrooms, kindergartens, operating theatres and neonatal wards. If they know it’s harmless after just a few years of accumulated often poor evidence, why hold back redressing these heinous attacks on freedoms?
With delightful irony, the 2016 Global Forum on Nicotine held in Warsaw banned ENDS use by delegates in the conference rooms. The that delegates in public areas “please be discreet and considerate. Use low powered devices as it helps to keep the amount of vapour created to a minimum” could not have been more revealing.
Simon Chapman AO PhD FASSA Hon FFPH (UK), is Emeritus Professor in the School Public Health at the University of Sydney. This article first appeared at Croakey.org. It has been republished here with permission.
