In some parts of the US, it would be fair to say that
public health concerns have taken second fiddle to
fears that certain liberties are under threat.
Compulsory mask-wearing and the denial of the
right to earn a wage doesn’t sit well with many in a
country that identifies so strongly with the concept
of ‘freedom’.
But what about rights and freedoms within your
own home, such as the right to consume a legal
vape product? A new study suggests that this may
also be under threat.
The UCLA Center for Health and Policy Research
conducted a study of 4,800 tenants and 176
landlords in multi-unit apartment buildings in Los
Angeles. They aimed to find out to what extent
they were exposed to second-hand tobacco,
cannabis smoke and e-cigarette vapour and what
regulations they supported.
The researchers found that 49 percent of tenants
reported exposure to what they broadly termed
‘SHS’ (second-hand smoke): 39 percent were
exposed to tobacco, 36 percent to cannabis smoke
and nine percent to e-cigarette vapour.
There was a lot of support for bans on vaping in
these private spaces. 62 percent of landlords
enforced e-cigarette restrictions and 86 percent
of tenants who vaped supported such restrictions.
The question is, why?
The risk of being harmed by second-hand tobacco
smoke is a very real one. Along with short-term
effects like coughing and eye irritation, long-term
effects include an increased risk of heart disease,
lung cancer and stroke, according to NHS Inform.
But what of e-cigarette vapour? The researchers
seem to think it’s harmful, saying: “The less
perceptible e-cigarette vapour is actually an
aerosol that contains ultrafine particles, which are
easily inhaled.
“The particles can worsen respiratory ailments,
such as asthma, and they can also cause arteries
to constrict, potentially triggering a heart attack.”
In a recent blog titled ‘8 things to know about
e-cigarettes’ Public Health England’s John Britton
addressed the issue of so-called ‘passive vaping’.
He wrote: “Unlike cigarettes, there is no sidestream
vapour emitted by an e-cigarette into the
atmosphere, just the exhaled aerosol.
“Our 2018 report found there have been no
identified health risks of passive vaping to
bystanders and our 2022 report will review the
evidence again.”
Britton did note that people with certain respiratory
issues could be sensitive to certain ‘environmental
irritants.’ However, the blog was written with
the workplace in mind, not private apartments
separated by walls.
Interestingly, just nine percent of respondents
whose family member had a chronic condition
reported exposure to e-cigarette vapour in the
UCLA study, well below the 46 percent tobacco
figure.
While the difference in smoking and vaping
prevalence would likely have contributed to this, it
could also be related to how vape clouds dissipate
and permeate surfaces less easily. Also, not all
vapers blow ‘fat clouds’. It’s much harder to control
tobacco smoke.
The authors do differentiate between types of
‘smoke’ in some parts of the study, but not when
it comes to controlling harmful particles, stating:
“Second-hand smoke cannot be controlled in
buildings, because the toxic fumes and particulates
it contains drift throughout a property.”
Grouping tobacco and marijuana smoke with
e-cigarette vapour in this way is unhelpful because
they behave differently and are not equally harmful.
Landlords do have a difficult balance to maintain.
After all, does my right to vape in my own home
trump your right to be free of the ‘nuisance’ that is
e-cigarette vapour?
Even if it doesn’t, the real challenge is enforcement
and this bears out in the research. Many owners
just didn’t want the responsibility of enforcing anti
‘smoking’ policies, some fearing that they may be
fined if they failed to do so.
A guarantee of support from city government
did not assuage all concerns, either. Some were
sceptical that the city could devote the resources
to enforce such policies effectively.
Yet it is surprising that a population hell-bent on
personal liberty would be so open to restrictions
that may not stand up to the science.
VM29 107