JSYK - The UCI Policy is Good. But do understand that it doesn't mean that e-Cigarettes can be Used Anywhere on Campus.
WHAT ABOUT E-CIGARETTES?
Individual campus units may manage e-cigarette use in their own environments as they deem appropriate up to and including prohibiting their use.
FAQ: UCI Smoke-Free Policy Task Force
and...
"Vasich emphasized that e-cigarettes emit vapors, not smoke. Also, he added, individual areas of the campus, such as an office or classroom, have the authority to ban e-cigarettes."
Irvine only campus in UC system allowing e-cigs amid ban - The Orange County Register
Which is all that I ask for. Let a business owner decide for himself whether or not to regulate the use of e-cigs as he see's fit. Then vapers can decide whether or not to continue to patronize his business.
The BUSINESS OWNER, not some fat politician with his hand buried deep up some lobbyist's backside making Public Health Policy that has nothing to do with the Public's Health.
Everyone here I am sure believes that
vaping is safer than normal cigarette use. Not only first hand (as in our using it) but second hand (as in healthier for our loved ones and surrounding people. If you don't then I guess I question why you are
vaping in the first place....
If is definitely less obnoxious than smoking.
Yet, we see Anti Tobacco money being used to discourage e-cig usage despite it's potential to save lives. BT had to give money to these "alphabet anti tobacco" trusts as punishment and they still control how that money is spent? How does that work. Universities and townships are being told that they are not entitled to this money unless the regulate e-cigs in the same manner as cigarettes.
It is refreshing when a member of the government, or other official can state the obvious and then let the chips fall where they might.
It is much better than the stupidity spouted by the representatives at the NYC council meeting which said of e-cig usage.
"If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and looks like a duck.....It's a duck".
One of the patently looniest things I have heard someone say.
The NYC proceeded with their ban, not based on any evidence that primary or second hand vape was harmful but rather the presence of people
vaping makes enforcement of smoking bans more difficult.
Really? Do the people of New York have the inability to smell?
The underlying purpose of this thread was to show, using logic and mathematics, that second hand vape should be considered as not having any significant health risks unless studies show otherwise.
I think I have achieved that goal.