No Not Smoking Allowed

Several years ago, I read an article that said some people are genetically pre-programmed to smoke cigarettes.  I don’t remember where I saw it, and I also don’t remember who wrote it, but in spite of my lack of citations, I’m gonna go out on a limb and say that I fully believe that it’s true. 

The first time I ever put a lit cigarette in my mouth, though, it wasn’t to smoke it.  I was about 8 or 9, I think, and one of my friends had stolen a cigarette from his mother at my behest.  I remember I came running across our front lawn, and like an idiot, held the cigarette up to show my sister, never thinking that my mother might see what I was doing through the window (which she did).  Mom was pretty angry and we had to wait until my dad got home to see what sort of demise he had planned for us.  To show us the evils of smoking, he made us light it and then swallow, not inhale the smoke.  She puked after the first puff, which left me to finish it.  I swallowed every puff of smoke and didn’t get sick, and didn’t touch another cigarette for another 4 or 5 years. 

When I finally did make a conscious decision to smoke, it was the easiest thing in the world.  It was the early ‘70’s, and at that time, it seemed everybody smoked.  You could smoke on planes and in hospitals; I could smell smoke on my pediatrician’s breath.  It never occurred to me that smoking was bad because almost every adult I knew smoked, and those that didn’t seemed utterly unconcerned about it, except of course, my parents.  In short, it was normal and acceptable behavior.  My parents didn’t smoke, but my grandmother did, and when she visited, the ashtrays came out and for the length of the visit, she smoked in the house.  It was from her that I pilfered my second cigarette.

I knew exactly how to smoke.  I had been watching it my entire life.  I’d watch them puff, then inhale, and then watch the smoke pour from their mouths and noses.  If the light was just right, like when sunlight is streaming through a window, the smoke would waft from them like a dragon, curling and swirling in the light, as milk does when it first billows up from a cup of black coffee.  It was fascinating and I wanted to do that.  So when I took my first puff of my second stolen cigarette, I did not cough or gag.  It was as though I was a “natural” smoker; like I was born to smoke.  That was 36 years ago.

Regular readers of this blog know I have to tell one story in order to tell another (usually whiny) one, and this entry is no different.

In spite of my nostalgia about smoking, we all know that it’s bad for you.  Not every smoker dies from a smoking related malady, but since the chances of ill health skyrocket when you smoke, it’s a safe bet that it’s a habit best left undone.  Personal experience has shown me that quitting can be a nightmarish undertaking.  I’ve done it a few times, but have never lasted more than four months.  Quitting cold turkey is maddening, nicotine gum tastes like spearmint paint thinner, and the only way a patch would work would be for me to paste it over my mouth. 

Fortunately, modern technology has come to my rescue in the form of the electronic cigarette, hereafter referred to as an “e-cig”.  They’re not actually new, but they’re new to me, and as far as I’m concerned, offer the best alternative to smoking I’ve ever heard of.  You can look up the specifics here, but in a nutshell, they are small battery operated devices (about the same size and shape of a real cigarette) that, when puffed on, deliver a small dose of nicotine by way of vaporized propylene glycol, much like a humidifier.  To quote the cited article, propylene glycol has been “utilized in asthma inhalers and nebulizers since the 1950s, and because of its water-retaining properties, is the compound of choice for delivering atomized medication. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) includes propylene glycol on its list of substances Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS), and it meets the requirements of acceptable compounds within Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations”.  Add a dash of nicotine, and you have an e-cig.

The American Association of Public Health Physicians state that smokers can reduce their chances of smoking related illness by up to 99.9% by using an e-cig.  They do not have any of the over 4000 known carcinogens found in regular cigarettes.  They do not ignite and are never on fire.  I just can’t stress this enough:  Using an e-cig is not smoking.  It appears that a person using an e-cig is smoking, because they do exhale water vapor (which looks like smoke), but it is NOT smoke, and produces no odor.  In fact, if you didn’t actually SEE a person using one, even a person sitting right next to you, you would never know they are using it. 

So, what we have with e-cigs is a nicotine delivery system with no odor, no carcinogens and no ashtrays.  “But wait!” you say.  “Nicotine IS a carcinogen!”  Well, no it’s not.  In fact, nicotine by itself, according to the International Agency for Research on Cancer “has not been assigned to an official carcinogen group.”  (See toxicology in the cited article.)  To be fair, nicotine is addictive, but traditional cigarette smokers are ignorantly enslaved by all the other crap found naturally in tobacco, as well as other horrible stuff intentionally added by tobacco manufacturers to ensure a constant supply of addicts, er, customers, and more importantly, money.

Let’s recap:  Cigarettes are bad.  E-cigs offer all of the benefits (as smokers see them; they’re also cheaper than traditional cigarettes) with none of the health risks, smell, or mess.  Even (relatively) new social stigmas concerning smokers should be alleviated.  Because they’re not cigarettes, e-cigs have no second hand smoke, so no one can blather on about disingenuous “facts” concerning second hand smoke.  E-cig users can get their nicotine fix at their desk or in a crowd without the slightest inconvenience to others in the vicinity.  Problem solved for everyone!  Right? 

Unfortunately, no, the problem is not solved, which brings me to the root of this rant.  Most major airlines and a host of businesses have already, or are in the process of banning e-cigs from use.  Why?  Because people who don’t use them don’t want you to use them either.  I swear I can’t make this up. 

Let’s look at the reasons for banning e-cigs on airplanes.  As mentioned earlier in this post, smoking used to be allowed on airplanes, and so you know I’m not a smoking Nazi, I would tend to agree that smoking in a tube full of people could be bothersome to those who don’t smoke.  Now, everyone has rights, and one group’s shouldn’t trump the other’s, but smoking in a crowded place is just inconsiderate on the part of the smoker.  E-cigs completely eliminate any physical discomfort other non-smoking passengers might have to endure.  The smoker gets his/her nicotine fix, and the non-smoker is utterly undisturbed, right?  Well, no, they’re not.  It seems the argument being trotted out in support of the ban is that non-smokers and people who don’t understand how e-cigs operate are frightened and traumatized by witnessing a person using one.  Jason Healy, president of Blu e-cigs (my favorite), says "It's not the actual product, it's the disruption and explaining to everyone else that it's not smoke."  (Citation)  In effect then, those complaining about e-cigs can’t smell it, but they can see it, and they don’t like it, and, by God, they’re not going to sit on a plane and watch someone else not smoking.  Ridiculous, no?  It gets better.

Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), author of the original 1987 ban on airline smoking thinks that his ban should be extended to cover e-cigs as well.  Now, I’m not a senator, so I’m much more prone to critical thinking, and I’m having a hard time understanding how a bill that bans smoking should also apply to not smoking.  Lautenberg says, “We still don't know the health effects of e-cigarettes, and we don't want to turn airline passengers into laboratory mice.”  (Citation)  Huh?  The only by-product of e-cigs is water vapor.  WATER VAPOR.  Should we also ban asthma inhalers?  As mentioned above, e-cigs operate on exactly the same principle.  Senator Lautenberg isn’t blind, so I can only assume he is ignoring the fact that e-cigs DO NOT LIGHT, and a person using one is NOT SMOKING.  So it seems that the only legitimate reason for the ban is that it bothers a small group of ignoramuses who apparently have nothing better to do than to whine about something they know nothing about, but they don’t like it, so it must be bad, and since they don’t like it, then no one else should be allowed to do it either.

In all honesty, I really don’t believe it’s the whining of dummies that is causing the ban on e-cigs.  Like anything and everything else in our world, there is one, and only one culprit:  Greed.  For every political decision made, one has to wonder what the motivation is, and who stands to profit.  Societal benefits are a by-product of legislation.  My guess is that people like Lautenberg are probably in bed with the pharmaceutical companies, who stand to lose a good deal of money if and when the sleeping public finally awakens to discover that e-cigs cost a good deal less than ridiculously overpriced nicotine patches.  It also wouldn’t surprise me in the least to know that tobacco companies are just as ardent in their zeal to see e-cigs restricted as much as possible.  And as long as I’m speculating, I would have no trouble believing that the pharmaceutical companies and the tobacco companies are in bed with each other, in spite of their apparent conflict.  (I know that sounds a bit “black helipcotery”)  They’re both making obscene amounts of money and e-cigs pose a potential threat to those profits, and besides, people like them, and how can we have things people like if somebody isn’t profiting grossly?  The love of money is indeed the root of all evil.

I would also suggest (but could never empirically prove) that there exists in our world people who just can’t stand to see others engage in harmless behaviors they don’t approve of.  Like one child withholding a toy from another who obviously wants it, for the sole reason of watching them want it and not be able to have it, these people derive some sort of satisfaction from imposing their will upon others.  Much like nicotine, this sort of disregard for others provides them with the dopamine that normal people get from a smile or a kind word.  In our politically correct world, they seem to be oblivious to the fact that in their zeal to keep their own feelings from ever being bruised, they inherently must bruise the feelings of others. 

A ban on e-cigs is patently ridiculous, isn’t it?  I’m just so sorry to have to say that all my ranting isn’t going to change anything.  It will become the norm, and life will carry on as usual, and I truly feel sorry for the people who can’t see a problem with it.  And you can bet that if there’s any money at all to be made from an e-cig ban, the politicians will be on board as well under the guise of the public good.  I’m sure there are many militant non-smokers who fully support the ban on e-cigs, and will go to sleep snug and smug in the knowledge that no one is going to offend them in any way, especially not by enjoying something they don’t approve of.  It’s bad enough that there are those who would tell us what to eat or wear or do or say, and we behave as if that’s normal and acceptable.  Keep this in mind, though:  If they can ban an activity that hurts no one while having the populace agree, they can do anything, and that, my friends, is not freedom.  We would do well to heed the words of Bertrand Russell, who said “There is no nonsense so arrant that it cannot be made the creed of the vast majority by adequate governmental action.”

If you agree with what I’ve written, how about dropping Frank Lautenberg a line and telling him (and by extension, all of your lawmakers) what you think of his logic?  Here’s how to contact him:  http://www.lautenberg.senate.gov/contact/routing.cfm.