Regarding their proposed ban, which I just found out about and will be voted on later today :-@
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed ban on "vaping" (the electronic equivalent of smoking) e-cigarettes in public places. The reasons for the proposed ban, as stated in the Seattle P.I., cannot be justified from a public health standpoint and constitute a blatant overreach of power in a supposedly free society.
According to the P.I., "... public health officials say (e-cigarettes are) so similar to the real thing that they make tobacco enforcement difficult and often prompt smokers to think it's OK to light up in public. And that leads to second-hand smoke, health officials reason." It is difficult to imagine that anyone could mistake an e-cigarette, with its typically blue or green LED, for a real cigarette. Furthermore, as more people become aware of e-cigarettes, the chance of their being occasionally mistaken for cigarettes will lessen considerably. By banning e-cigarettes, you are impeding this familiarity, which you then use to justify your ban. You're basically saying that e-cigarettes should be banned because they're new and unfamiliar, while doing everything you can to ensure that they remain that way.
The P.I. quotes Bud Nicola, a King County Board of Health member, as saying that vaping in public "makes it very difficult for inspectors," for the reasons outlined above. This is typical of the arrogance of government these days. Laws should NOT be passed for the convenience of government employees. Most people don't have the luxury of refusing additional responsibilities at work. If these "inspectors" object to greater responsibilities at work, they are free to seek employment elsewhere.
It is telling that you have not attributed any public health dangers to e-cigarettes themselves. As public health officials, that should be your sole concern. Banning a product that is not inherently harmful simply because it's new and MIGHT be mistaken for something else is absurd, shortsighted, dictatorial, and counterproductive. If you are truly concerned about public health, you should welcome not ban a product that is a far safer alternative to one of the biggest public health dangers of our time.
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed ban on "vaping" (the electronic equivalent of smoking) e-cigarettes in public places. The reasons for the proposed ban, as stated in the Seattle P.I., cannot be justified from a public health standpoint and constitute a blatant overreach of power in a supposedly free society.
According to the P.I., "... public health officials say (e-cigarettes are) so similar to the real thing that they make tobacco enforcement difficult and often prompt smokers to think it's OK to light up in public. And that leads to second-hand smoke, health officials reason." It is difficult to imagine that anyone could mistake an e-cigarette, with its typically blue or green LED, for a real cigarette. Furthermore, as more people become aware of e-cigarettes, the chance of their being occasionally mistaken for cigarettes will lessen considerably. By banning e-cigarettes, you are impeding this familiarity, which you then use to justify your ban. You're basically saying that e-cigarettes should be banned because they're new and unfamiliar, while doing everything you can to ensure that they remain that way.
The P.I. quotes Bud Nicola, a King County Board of Health member, as saying that vaping in public "makes it very difficult for inspectors," for the reasons outlined above. This is typical of the arrogance of government these days. Laws should NOT be passed for the convenience of government employees. Most people don't have the luxury of refusing additional responsibilities at work. If these "inspectors" object to greater responsibilities at work, they are free to seek employment elsewhere.
It is telling that you have not attributed any public health dangers to e-cigarettes themselves. As public health officials, that should be your sole concern. Banning a product that is not inherently harmful simply because it's new and MIGHT be mistaken for something else is absurd, shortsighted, dictatorial, and counterproductive. If you are truly concerned about public health, you should welcome not ban a product that is a far safer alternative to one of the biggest public health dangers of our time.
