Responses

PDF
Should e-cigarette use be permitted in smoke-free public places? No
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
  • Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
  • By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    This is a perspective through a warped lens.
    • Tom PT Pruen, Chief Scientific Officer ECITA, the Electronic Cigarette Indutry Trade Association

    NOT PEER REVIEWED
    This is not a particularly well constructed argument. In particular, the paragraph that states:
    "If ENDS emissions were really benign, indoor vaping advocates should take courage and call for it to be allowed in classrooms, crèches, hospitals and neonatal wards. That they do not rather suggests that they know well that such a position would be irresponsible."
    is possibly the worst excuse for a genuine point of debate it has ever been my misfortune to encounter. it is not even a particularly well constructed straw man.

    Many things are considered normal and appropriate for the general population that would not be considered appropriate for a crèche, classroom or neonatal ward.

    To use merely the first two examples that sprang to mind (and the list is almost endless):
    Incense sticks are widely used, and despite the clear emission of smoke, they are are not banned, or the subject of proposed bans, in most jurisdictions. Many people use them, but I doubt that any would do so in a crèche or neonatal ward. Yet, if we follow the same logic proposed here, this means that they are dangerous, and should be banned almost universally.
    Similarly, fog machines are widely used in stage shows, nightclubs and even teenage discos. Despite the extremely strong similarity with vaping, both in chemical composition and particle size, there are not widespread calls for fog machines to be banned (I'm certainly not aware of...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    I work for a trade association, ECITA, which represents a number of companies that produce electronic cigarettes and other vaping products. I do not work, and have never worked, for the tobacco industry. Perhaps more important than my financial conflict is my ideological one, since I am an ex-smoker who successfully switched to a safer form of nicotine delivery in the form of electronic cigarettes. This has made me extremely passionate about harm reduction, especially as it applies to smoking. However I am also passionate about the scientific method and, so far as it is possible, try to maintain an evidence based position.