Hacker News Reader

Comment by AlexandrB | Hacker News Reader

> The "backlash" is largely propelled by user's disregard for others around them.

I can say the same thing about those having backyard firepits [1] whose output affects FAR more people than a single (e)cigarette. To my knowledge no one is campaigning against big campfire though.

Edit:

> These users often say "it's only water vapor", which is absurdly false.

Yes, but does second-hand e-cigarette smoke cause significant harm? For example second-hand cigarette smoke increases the chance of lung cancer by 20% when living with a smoker [2]. Contrast that with inhaling a puff of e-cigarette second-hand-smoke in a public place once in a while.

I understand that you may find e-cigarette smoke annoying but that's not a sufficient reason to ban something in a free society.

[1] http://www.ehhi.org/woodsmoke/health_effects.shtml

[2] http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/reports/secondhandsmok...

View on HN

That's an argument to ban backyard campfires - not an argument to allow indoor e-cigarette use.

You don't get the right to harm other people's health (even in a "free society"), even if there are already other unhealthy things present.

Any time we walk outside with a cold, use your car, drive on less than 8 hours of sleep, or choose not to get a flu vaccine we put other people's health at risk. We accept a certain level of risk to function as a society. If the acceptable threshold of risk was less than "possible threat to another person of any magnitude" we would be a very different society. It seems to me that we use a different rule to decide when to ban activities which is "good evidence of substantial amount of harm(drinking and driving, or second hand smoke)". I would argue that in order to ban e-cigarettes we need to wait for evidence that e-cigarettes are likely to cause significant harm to bystanders.

> You don't get the right to harm other people's health, even if there are already other unhealthy things present.

What about the effects of pollution emitted when you drive a car?

This is the same exact argument you made above.

You are making really good arguments for banning/regulating other harmful things - You are not making good arguments for allowing a known harmful thing to continue unregulated.

I think the argument AlexandrB is making is: Compared to pollutants such as campfires and car exhaust, vaping is a rounding error. However much you care about banning vaping, you should care 1,000x more about limiting campfires or diesel engines. Even a tiny change in those would benefit public health vastly more than a vaping ban.

That's a fallacy of relative privation though. "B happens more frequently, is more dangerous, or causes more harm than A. Therefore A can be ignored."

AlexandrB was dismissing one argument because he found a bigger issue.

The difference is that vaping only benefits the vaper, but the harms caused by vaping affect everyone.

In contrast, everyone in society benefits from the mobility and economic activity facilitated by transportation. Even if you never drive a car, take a bus, or even leave your house, you are better off because of cars, busses, trains, and airplanes because of the increased economic growth they facilitate. The benefit and the harm are both fully socialized.

> To my knowledge no one is campaigning against big campfire though.

You must not be from the bay area. Lookup "Spare the Air".

Yep. In most of the cities I've lived in in California, backyard fires have been completely banned, and fireplace fires have been restricted.

> I understand that you may find e-cigarette smoke annoying but that's not a sufficient reason to ban something in a free society.

Of course it is! We ban a lot of things that are annoying. We have noise ordinances and various other public nuisance laws, as do all other free societies.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com