E-cigarette usage in Corporate Policy

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.