On Wednesday, September 28, over 100 individuals occupied a public forum that was held at Louisville Metro Department of Public Health and Wellness. The motion revolved around a proposed ban to add e-cigarettes and hookah into the 2008 Louisville ordinance which enacted smoke-free areas in indoor public areas as well as the workplace. It may be interesting to note that there are in existence 13 other communities within Kentucky that have this proposed ordinance already enacted.
The attendees of the public forum comprised of avid vaping enthusiasts, health officials as well as scientists and researchers who have been conducting researches based on the effects of vaping when compared to traditional tobacco cigarette smoking.
According to Aruni Bathangar, one professor of medicine from the University of Louisville, there is a solid amount of research which shows that people who are exposed to second-hand e-cigarette vapor inhale same levels of nicotine and other pre-existing chemicals as the e-cigarette user themselves. He further stated that it is indeed challenging to put into force any rules that relate to e-cigarette usage due to the lack of solid jurisdictional boundaries. Unfortunately, no particular evidence research was referenced in order to crosscheck the accuracy of Mr Barthangar’s statements.
He further added that “Most places don’t have explicit legislation, so if you want to go to some people and say ‘you can’t use e-cigarettes indoors,’ we don’t have a law for that… Some people have argued that there’s no law to stop us.”
Those who opposed the proposed ban mostly comprised of vape shop owners and e-cigarette manufacturers. Their position often revolved around the essential role e-cigarettes play in the life of an individual who is weaning off traditional tobacco smoking. Some opposition members argued that traditional tobacco cigarette smokers make use of e-cigarettes as a way of reducing their nicotine intake with the end goal of having zero nicotine inhalation. Of course, these are all blank statements which are extremely difficult to prove. With references made to many studies which state that e-cigarettes do assist a smoker to quit smoking for good, it is almost impossible to know for sure whether e-cigarettes are as effective as pro-vaping enthusiasts hope it to be.’
Other supporters of vaping state that the ban is rather unnecessary and its implementation could lead to a spiral of more and more regulations and restrictions in the near future. Several vape shop owners stated that most vapers were already of the understanding that where an area is labelled to be smoke-free, vaping isn’t allowed as well. This position was expressed by both Christopher Kellums, a worker at a vape shop in Louisville, and Billy Bryant, the owner of Weird Vapes (an e-liquid manufacturer).
“Why can’t we let a business decide if we want to subject my employees or patrons to this… Give them the information, make them aware of the studies. If a business wants to allow it, why can’t they allow it for a healthier alternative?” said Bryant.
This comes as a contradiction to the recent study establishing how most vapers think that it’s okay to vape in smoke-free areas.