A statement regarding the recent policy change on
e-cigarettes:
I wish to proclaim a grievance with the policy, but not to
totally dismiss its reasoning or importance.
In order to properly display the significance of the grievance, it is
necessary to clarify my personal position (and perhaps the position of every
e-cigarette user). The choice to move to
an e-cigarette was a willful, conscious and researched option stemming from my
known addiction to nicotine and my fervent wish to continue to avoid the use of
combustible nicotine products (regular cigarettes). Furthermore, I have researched the field of
medical knowledge on the topic and have purposefully chosen my suppliers to
minimize the dangerous effects of ingesting harmful chemical solutions.
First, the pros regarding the policy: Most e-cigarette juice (e-juice) is primarily
made up of only four or five ingredients, distilled water, propylene glycol
(PG), vegetable glycerin (VG), purified or synthetic nicotine, and flavorings. In multiple studies on the individual
ingredients including air quality testing, only two of these ingredients has
shown to be any more harmful than the normal air we breathe. The two that are of the highest concern are
PG and nicotine. PG has been shown to be
an occasional irritant in a small number of the population, and nicotine is a
vasoconstrictor. From this explanation,
I fully support the policy of removing e-cigarettes from the workplace environment
and delegating them to restricted, designated areas on the basis that that
small number of the population may be impacted by the PG directly, and the
nicotine addiction qualities generally.
Now the con: My
concern is the choice of lumping the vaping crowd in with the designated
combustible tobacco areas. Use of the
e-cigarette is termed “vaping” not “smoking” for a reason. People who have completely stopped all use of
combustible tobacco products are, in fact, non-smokers and physiologically have
the same reaction when exposed to smoke from those products. Since my choice has been a conscious one, and
I wish to avoid the dangers of smoking, I must protest being forced to share
the same designated space as the smoking community. Therefore, I should be afforded the same
rights as every other non-smoker in the workplace who wish to be removed from
the harmful effects of combustible tobacco smoke.
Possible solutions:
Since it is clear that vaping should rightfully be removed from the
general work area, but should not share space with designated smoking areas,
either a vaping area should be formally designated, or clear limits set on open
area (inside or outside) use of e-cigarettes.
