I'm sorry, but I find the assertion that second hand smoke isn't dangerous is shaky at best. Most research done on the subject that found it to be not harmful was conducted by scientists who have ties to the tobacco industry. An industry, by the way, who would also love to see us e-cig users banished 20 feet away from every entrance to every building along with smokers. I get that scientists are not immune to what the guy holding the purse strings wants, but that goes both ways. Both scientists hired by the EPA and those who are affiliated with Big Tobacco. One of those scientists quoted in that article was in fact cited by the courts as being part of those who worked with Big Tobacco on hiding any findings that second hand smoke was harmful.
That said, while I recognize that there are possible dangers to bystanders in regards to second hand smoke in inclosed spaces, I do not necessarily agree with smoking bans in open areas such as parks and beaches. First, because there is no scientific evidence suggesting that exposure to second hand smoke outdoors is enough to pose a danger and second, because these bans are unenforceable and are therefore a waste in recources that could be better spent elsewhere. Outdoors means that smoke dissapates before anyone can prove anything. Those bans are merely paying lip service to zealots.
One could argue that bans on smoking indoors lead down the slippery sloap to bans on smoking outdoors, and I'd agree. Zealots jumped the gun, and created laws that were clearly not founded in science in that regard and I'll happily fight any bans on outdoor smoking. I won't fight the ones for indoor smoking though. It makes zero sense in my mind why there are those on either side of this battle that can't see that line in the middle. Why it needs to be all or nothing. While a smoker has the right to bodily autonomy and therefore should have the right to smoke, they should not have the right to take the decision of being exposed to something scientifically proven to be a carcinogen from someone else. To allow smokers to smoke indoors in all public venues strips those who do not wish to be exposed of their right not to be. Even the argument that they can choose not to go into such an establishment falls short when we start talking of hospitals, court houses etc, where people often have no choice but to go.
As for vaping, there is no scientific evidence of any harm being done to anyone. Therefore, any laws or regulations created with vaping in mind should not be based on smoking. These are two separate things and one is not the same as the other, I don't care what the cloud looks like. So, I'll vape where I damn well please. That should not and does not mean anything about my stance on second hand smoke. I see no benefit to tying vaping to smoking, and insisting to fight this battle while including smoking bans I think will only solidify the idea that vaping is dangerous in the minds of the uninformed. In my mind, these are two completely separate battles and I think we'd benefit more by encouraging others to separate the two, not meld them together.
)
