On 2016 Sep 08, Clive Bates commented:

This paper does not actually address the question posed in the title: Should electronic cigarette use be covered by clean indoor air laws?

The question it does address is more like "how much discomfort do vapers say they experience when the same law is applied to them as to smokers?".

The authors do not show that this is the foundation on which a justification for applying clean indoor air laws to vaping should rest. There is no basis to assume that it is.

Addressing the question set in the title is ultimately a matter of property rights. The appropriate question is: "what is the rationale for the state to intervene using the law to override the preferred vaping policy of the owners or managers of properties?".

The authors cannot simply assume that everyone and at all times shares their preference for 'clean indoor air'. Vapers may prefer a convivial vape and a venue owner may be pleased to offer them a space to do it. Unless this is creating some material hazard to other people, why should the law stop this mutually agreed arrangement? Simply arguing that it doesn't cause that much discomfort among that many vapers isn't a rationale. If the law stops them doing what they would like to do there is a welfare or utility loss to consider.

It is likely that many places will not allow vaping - sometimes for good reasons. But consider the following cases:

1. A bar wants to have a vape night every Thursday

2. A bar wants to dedicate one room where vaping is permitted

3. In a town with three bars, one decides it will cater for vapers, two decide they will not allow vaping

4. A bar manager decides on balance that his vaping customers prefer it and his other clientele are not that bothered – he’d do better allowing it

5. A hotel wants to allow vaping in its rooms and in its bar, but not in its restaurant, spa, and lobby

6. An office workplace decides to allow vaping breaks near the coffee machine to save on wasted smoking break time and encourage smokers to quit by switching

7. A care home wants to allow an indoor vaping area to encourage its smoking elderly residents to switch during the coming winter instead of going out in the cold

8. A vape shop is trying to help people switch from smoking and wants to demo products in the shop…

9. A shelter for homeless people allows it to make its clients welcome

10. A day centre for refugees allows it instead of smoking

These are all reasonable accommodations of vaping for good reasons. But the law is much too crude to manage millions of micro-judgments of this nature. It can only justify overruling them with a blanket prohibition if it is preventing harm to bystanders or workers who are exposed to hazardous agents at a level likely to cause a material risk.

A much better role for the state is to advise owners and managers on how to make these decisions in an informed way. This is what Public Health England has done [1], and that, in my view, is a more enlightened and liberal philosophy. Further, I suspect it is more likely help to convert more smokers to vaping, giving a public health dividend too.

[1] Public Health England, Use of e-cigarettes in public places and workplaces, July 2016.

On 2016 Sep 08, Clive Bates commented:

This paper does not actually address the question posed in the title: Should electronic cigarette use be covered by clean indoor air laws?

The question it does address is more like "how much discomfort do vapers say they experience when the same law is applied to them as to smokers?".

The authors do not show that this is the foundation on which a justification for applying clean indoor air laws to vaping should rest. There is no basis to assume that it is.

Addressing the question set in the title is ultimately a matter of property rights. The appropriate question is: "what is the rationale for the state to intervene using the law to override the preferred vaping policy of the owners or managers of properties?".

The authors cannot simply assume that everyone and at all times shares their preference for 'clean indoor air'. Vapers may prefer a convivial vape and a venue owner may be pleased to offer them a space to do it. Unless this is creating some material hazard to other people, why should the law stop this mutually agreed arrangement? Simply arguing that it doesn't cause that much discomfort among that many vapers isn't a rationale. If the law stops them doing what they would like to do there is a welfare or utility loss to consider.

It is likely that many places will not allow vaping - sometimes for good reasons. But consider the following cases:

1. A bar wants to have a vape night every Thursday

2. A bar wants to dedicate one room where vaping is permitted

3. In a town with three bars, one decides it will cater for vapers, two decide they will not allow vaping

4. A bar manager decides on balance that his vaping customers prefer it and his other clientele are not that bothered – he’d do better allowing it

5. A hotel wants to allow vaping in its rooms and in its bar, but not in its restaurant, spa, and lobby

6. An office workplace decides to allow vaping breaks near the coffee machine to save on wasted smoking break time and encourage smokers to quit by switching

7. A care home wants to allow an indoor vaping area to encourage its smoking elderly residents to switch during the coming winter instead of going out in the cold

8. A vape shop is trying to help people switch from smoking and wants to demo products in the shop…

9. A shelter for homeless people allows it to make its clients welcome

10. A day centre for refugees allows it instead of smoking

These are all reasonable accommodations of vaping for good reasons. But the law is much too crude to manage millions of micro-judgments of this nature. It can only justify overruling them with a blanket prohibition if it is preventing harm to bystanders or workers who are exposed to hazardous agents at a level likely to cause a material risk.

A much better role for the state is to advise owners and managers on how to make these decisions in an informed way. This is what Public Health England has done [1], and that, in my view, is a more enlightened and liberal philosophy. Further, I suspect it is more likely help to convert more smokers to vaping, giving a public health dividend too.

[1] Public Health England, Use of e-cigarettes in public places and workplaces, July 2016.