At first glance, the Rogers Public Library’s ban on electronic cigarettes has the appearance of the nanny state run amok. After all, these are not tobacco products. They are, rather, a response to the move to ban smoking in public places. The battery-powered devices deliver their nicotine without smoke, but through inhalation of water vapor. Second-hand smoke, of course, was the primary side-effect of real cigarettes by which health advocates achieved a ban on smoking in public buildings.
Thank goodness they did, as it’s undeniable that smoking is harmful, to the smoker and to those nearby. But so-called e-cigarettes? Where’s the harm to other people that served as the foundation of banson smoking tobacco? Is the library’s ban solely based on the image of smoking, not any real health effects for people nearby? Are we really going to start banning activities simply because they look bad?
Leave it to librarians to broaden our minds a bit.
It turns out nobody really knows about the health effects of e-cigarettes, adverse or otherwise. The industry, of course, suggests the devices are a safe way to quit smoking for all involved. But questions linger.
The fact of the matter is health oft cials’ response to e-cigarettes is lagging behind their growing popularity. There are suspicions that anything delivering the highly addictive nicotine cannot be called “safe,” to the user or to those nearby. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration needs to step up and determine how to wrestle with this new wrinkle in the broad category of nicotine-based products.
Among the biggest concerns today?
E-cigarettes are, from a federal perspective, entirely legal for children to purchase and use.
The FDA does not regulate the sale, distribution or marketing of e-cigarettes, although there are growing concerns about the appeal to young people by making the devices with candy and fruit fl avors.
“These products risk addicting children to nicotine, which could be a pathway to cigarettes and other tobacco products,” stated a recent letter by fi ve U.S. senators to the FDA.
Likewise, health advocates worry e-cigarette manufacturers are benefiting by marketing the devices as effective mechanisms to stop smoking, when they may actually be the addiction industry’s move to regain market share with devices that might be harmful in their own right.
Does that justify the Rogers Public Library’s ban? Perhaps not, but it didn’t have to. The library has policies designed to ensure all patrons can use the library comfortably. The board didn’t have to conclude whether the effects of secondhand vapor were harmful, according to Judy Casey, library director. The board, rather, focused on avoiding any disruption to patrons using the library. The same Patron Code of Conduct disallows food in public areas of the library.
Like Casey, however, we find the rise of the e-cigarette a complicated issue that more public places will have to address in the future. To do that, they will need solid information about the effects of so-called “vaping” on users and non-users nearby. With that in mind, we call on the federal government to research these new devices and, in the meantime, make sure their smokeless nature doesn’t permit the nation’s children to become the target of new addictionoriented marketing.
Opinion, Pages 5 on 04/19/2013