By Jay Galletly
Like it or not, if you use
e-cigarettes or other vaping products , the government at the local and state
level is intent on playing games with you.
This despite the fact that in a recent Reason-Rupe poll, 62% of
Americans stated that the government should allow people to use tobacco-free
e-cigarettes in public, while only 34% thought the government should prohibit
this activity. http://reason.com/blog/2013/12/19/62-percent-think-e-cigarette-use-in-publ
Apparently the City Council
of New York City didn’t look at this poll.
Or, if they did they decided to ignore it, since they and Mayor Michael
Bloomberg are trying to wrap e-cigs into the city’s existing Smoke-Free Air
Act. If the bill passes, vaping would
be treated the same as smoking tobacco products. This means they would be prohibited at public
and private venues, including beaches, parks, restaurants and office
buildings. While the “vote” is
considered a mere formality, Bloomberg’s detractors are lining up to oppose the
measure, citing that he is trying to turn America’s largest city into a virtual
Nanny State.
In a quote from a blog by CBS News, New York City Health Commissioner
Thomas Farley, stated, "While more research is needed on electronic
cigarettes, waiting to act could jeopardize the progress we have made over the
last few years"
Of course, that doesn’t mean that everyone is in
agreement with this statement. In the
same blog, Richard
Carmona, a former U.S. Surgeon General, sent a letter to the council recently
to urge rejection of the bill.
"I'm extremely concerned that a
well-intentioned but scientifically unsupported effort like the current
proposal to include electronic cigarettes in New York's current smoking ban,
could constitute a giant step backward in the effort to defeat tobacco
smoking,"
 |
| Michael Bloomberg was affiliated with Salomon Brothers before launching his own firm Bloomberg News and later becoming mayor. (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
Carmona isn’t alone in his
assertion that far from protecting the public, by adopting a knee jerk attitude
toward vaping, public health may in fact be compromised. Denied any alternative to tobacco cigarettes,
cigars and pipes, this leaves those who still do smoke with little alternative
to tobacco products.
While the federal government
has yet to impose restrictions on vaping, it seems that practically every day
another city or state is clamoring to impose restrictions on where, when and if
e-cigarettes and other vaping devices may be used. On the local level, Chicago and LA are
considering implementing bans such as those being proposed in the Big Apple. Already a number of states, including New Jersey,
North Dakota and Utah already ban e-cigs outright in bars and restaurants. Other states have decided to try and cash in
by imposing heavy taxation on vaping products.
Currently Minnesota is the
only state that imposes a tax on e-cigarettes.
(A 95% tax at that.) Other
states, such as Hawaii, Oklahoma, and Utah have tried to impose taxes on
e-cigs, but have so far failed to pass the necessary legislation. That doesn’t mean that other states aren’t lining
up to try to impose heavy taxes on e-cigs and other vaping products. Many, like South Carolina and Oregon have
already started to look toward the fledgling vaping industry as a potential
source of revenue.
In a blog from Time magazine,
entitled Regulating E-Cigarettes Could have unintended Consequences, “State
and city regulations are likely to see major push-back from the electronic
cigarette industry and e-cigarette smokers, many of whom believe that
electronic cigarettes have helped them quit smoking. “If states get this wrong,
if they [incorrectly] tax electronic cigarettes, you are going to see a lot of
litigation” from e-cigarette companies, says Christian Berkey, CEO and founder
of Johnson Creek in Wisconsin, the largest producer of the liquid used in
electronic cigarettes. Berkey says that electronic cigarettes have not produced
any proven public health costs that justify taxing them the way regular
cigarettes are taxed.”
Electronic Cigarettes: RegulatingCould Have Unintended Consequences | TIME.com http://nation.time.com/2013/12/16/regulating-e-cigarettes-could-have-unintended-consequences/#ixzz2nx3va7Ww
Electronic Cigarettes: RegulatingCould Have Unintended Consequences | TIME.com http://nation.time.com/2013/12/16/regulating-e-cigarettes-could-have-unintended-consequences/#ixzz2nx3va7Ww
While the final
score in the E-Cigarette Game is anything but certain, it is a sure bet that
unless the vaping public gets off the bench and into the game, the powers that
be at the city and state government level are out to do anything but level the
playing field. In the meantime, it’s up
to the vaping public and a handful of grassroots protesters to lobby for the
right to use these products without being endlessly hassled. Otherwise, the only kind of game that
e-cigarette users are likely to see in the not-too-distant future is a never
ending game of political football.
Politicians have to stop making decisions for us citizens. Between the all-seeing eye of the CCTV cameras popping up all over creation and the bureaucracy's intention to create a nanny state where all decisions are preordained, I don't see how they can keep calling this the land of the free.
ReplyDelete