vapestuff.JPG

John Hartigan, right, proprietor of Vapeology LA, sits behind an array of electronic cigarettes at his store in Los Angeles last year. On Tuesday, the Forest Grove City Council will consider an ordinance that would prohibit "vaping" in outdoor public parks.

(AP Photo/Reed Saxon)

Electronic cigarettes have created a square peg/round hole problem for local governments determined to prohibit tobacco use in as many public spaces as possible – including those in the open air. The most sensible and fair-minded way to resolve this conflict is to lay the square peg aside until more is known about the effects of "vaping" on those in close proximity to the, er, "vaper." If such effects are minuscule or nonexistent, which they're almost certain to be in open-air spaces, officials should leave well enough alone.

Instead, a growing number of cities are choosing to ignore the obvious differences between e-cigarettes and conventional cigarettes. City councilors in Los Angeles decided to ban "vaping" even in public parks back in March. Those in Forest Grove have been asked to reach for a similarly oversized regulatory hammer.

The usual – and best - argument for banning cigarettes and the like rests on the danger of second-hand smoke, which is vanishingly small on, say, an outdoor trail. This argument doesn't apply well to electronic cigarettes, which deliver nicotine without creating smoke. Nonetheless, acting with the encouragement of Washington County health officials, two advisory bodies in Forest grove have signed off on an overly broad e-cigarette ban, which councilors will consider Tuesday.

http://media.oregonlive.com/opinion_impact/photo/agenda-2013jpg-da8a3522a991b9c6.jpg

Editorial Agenda 2014



More jobs for Oregon

Position the Port for the future

Make Portland a city that works

Keep people moving

Build a culture of student success

Move forward on tax reform

Protect and expand personal freedom

_______________________________

The proposal would prohibit smoking "and use of tobacco-related products" in all public parks and at city-sponsored events. As defined by the proposal, "liquid, vapor, electronic smoking devices and smokeless tobacco" are tobacco-related products. Both the city's Public Safety Advisory Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission have OK'd the policy, placing the burden of doing the right thing on the shoulders of councilors.

Doing the right thing would begin with the reasonable request that ban proponents demonstrate the problem they're trying to solve. If "vaping," especially in the open air, endangers others, where's the proof? The presence in "vaping" aerosols of some particulate matter, traces of carcinogenic compounds and, naturally, nicotine is not, in itself, proof of harm to bystanders. Anyone so inclined could probably find traces of something undesirable in plenty of products that find their way into parks or even in the air that drifts in from elsewhere. As with secondhand tobacco smoke, dosage and duration matter.

Because the case that "vaping" in the open air harms bystanders is so weak, ban proponents fall back on another argument for tobacco free policies, which is, county tobacco prevention coordinator Carla Bennett explained to The Oregonian editorial board in April, that they "establish a social norm for a tobacco free and healthy lifestyle." In other words, kids who see people "vaping" might want to do it themselves.

Kids may, indeed, spot someone using an electronic cigarette and conclude that it looks like fun. But preventing kids from witnessing potentially unhealthy behavior does not, by itself, justify policies that prevent others from engaging in legal activity that harms no one else. This is true of smoking in most parks in open air public spaces, and it's especially true of "vaping."

Forest Grove's councilors will probably experience intense pressure from public health officials and anti-tobacco activists to ignore common sense and adopt regulations that treat that "vaping" and smoking as if they were the same.

Councilors should do what kids are supposed to when peer pressure pushes them in inappropriate direction: Just say "no."