Left this comment:
The purported purpose of smoking bans is to protect the non-smokers from being exposed to second-hand smoke. Can the policy makers explain why they want to send non-smokers who use a smoke-free nicotine product into a cloud of smoke? Are those particular non-smokers somehow invulnerable to the health hazards of smoke?
Before anyone pipes up with "the science is hazy on whether or not SHS is as dangerous as they claim," let me say this. I know. I even agree. However, that's the excuse the policy makers use. They can't have it both ways. Either the stuff is hazardous for everyone, or it is non-hazardous for everyone. If they truly believe it is hazardous, then they have no business sending non-smokers in.
Next argument: Well those non-smokers have a choice. They can choose to not use smoke-free nicotine/
tobacco products. OK, well what if the policy-makers arbitrarily decide to send people into the smoking zone if they want to drink coffee? They can choose to not drink coffee, right?
Coffee drinkers are just as hazardous to innocent bystanders as chewers, snusers, and vapers.
