3 ms·

Vehicle exhaust is regulated only because it has been proven to be harmful. Why should something be regulated otherwise?

• grzm 10y ago
  We also regulate things that are only nuisances. Elsewhere in this thread are examples of where perfume and barbecue smoke are regulated. We have noise ordinances, too.
  • nske 10y ago
    Noise ordinances to the measure that the noise becomes really disruptive, as in, people can't sleep or function because of it. That is reasonable and regulating is happening only to the extent necessary to prevent this. If it was handled the way Vaping is handled in Australia, there would be blanket ban on music at public places, for example. Vaping is primarily a nuisance to those that (correctly) learned to consider smoke (but also, unfortunately, whatever looks like smoke) as something negative, due to decades of anti-smoking campaigns. It looks like smoke so it's bound to be bad. Anti-smoking campaigns and legislation exist not because smoking is a nuisance, but because it causes real health issues. Perfume is not really regulated by legislation in public spaces (unless there is some edge-case that I'm missing), obviously it can be regulated internally, as part of a private work policy for example -the same way that dressing code does. Totally different matter. Barbeque smoke, like any smoke, is harmful, so I don't think we should compare it either. If vaping becomes a disturbance to the extent that it needs to be regulated, any regulating should be done completely independently of any superficial similarities to smoking, based solely on facts relevant to the actual disturbance. The fact that most arguments I see are based on the possibility of unknown health effects -even though there is no evidence for such- and not on the fact that it is otherwise disturbing, to me indicates that it's no more disturbing than dozens of other things that are allowed in public places but nobody dares propose that they should be banned by law.