I don't understand all those bans on e-cigarettes that pop up. They're essentially harmless, as opposed to "analog ones". I get that some people don't like to see any kind of smoke in general, but actual smoking is a public health problem, and IMO society should be supportive of e-cigarettes as a quite decent solution to this problem.
Irrespective of the health effect and fire hazard, I think it is reasonable to not allow passengers to use a device that generate a strong smell in a confined space where fellow passengers do not have the choice to move away (and I would assume common decency wouldn't require a law).
The devices look to my eye to be suspiciously close to a dispersal device for chemical or biological weapons just as they are. With a fully charged battery, some modifications, and some TATP in place of the propylene glycol, they would also make a decent fuselage-breaching bomb. I could see how they might be considered a security risk. I have heard about vape-battery explosions, just as I have heard about cell phone and laptop battery explosions.
I think they could easily be checked in baggage with the same precautions as a firearm. Battery out, fluid reservoir empty, and in a flight-approved, locked container.
That said, I was on a cave tour once and some jackass was vaping inside the cave. The guide reminded him "no smoking" and he kept on puffing, explaining, "I'm not smoking. It's a vape." It was already too late to remove him from the tour.
People didn't ban cigarette smoking specifically because of the cigarettes. It was because it was the most common means for people to blithely pollute the local air. Vape fluid might be less overtly toxic and more pleasant-smelling than cigarette smoke, but that doesn't mean I want your candy-flavored solvent precipitating out of the air onto my clothes. When you're in an enclosed space without openable ventilation windows, like a cave or airliner cabin or elevator, don't smoke, don't intentionally fart, don't take your shoes off to air out your stinky socks, and don't vape.
Part of it is the perpetual wishful thinking of nicotine addicts who think that since it is technically not smoking so they can do it anywhere. I recall radio ads billing this "benefit" even and speaking of the satisfaction of a "quitting smoking" device.
That was kind of a selling point, and what I'm essentially suggesting is it should be the case to some extent, out of concern for public health benefits. You shouldn't be able to vape everywhere, but e-cigs shouldn't also be more banned than regular cigs.
(No conflict of interest here; I'm not, and never was a smoker.)
"Analog cigarettes" - I will be adding that to my lexicon.
For instance, 'just think, there was a time when you could smoke proper analog cigarettes on Concorde with the flight attendants able to sell you more, by the box of 200, duty free. They even had books of matches spare to help you light them.'
They don't have the same harmful chemicals as "analog" cigarettes, but the combustion by-products are still not something a rational person would want in their lungs.
I wouldn't argue that they're harmless but my understanding is that combustion is not involved, and that is exactly why they are presumed to be _less_ harmful than smoking.
This is correct. The mixture is almost always propylene glycol, vegetable glycerin, nicotine, and flavoring. I don't know of any negative effects of propylene glycol and vegetable glycerin, and as long as you don't use a carcinogenic flavoring (they exist) your biggest problem will likely be nicotine.
I don't think nicotine is good for you, but vaporized nicotine seems much less dangerous than smoking a cigarette.
Even glycol and glycerin vapor are probably not a good idea to inhale. They could hardly be as bad as smoking cigarettes, but so far basically anything you breathe in that isn't air turns out to be a bad idea once we study it thoroughly.
