People Were Vaping Indoors at New York City's Hearing on Whether to Ban Vaping Indoors

For a city with so many vices, New York is no friend to the repudiated cigarette. Smoking is prohibited in parks, public squares, beaches, and any indoor public space, not to mention a pack costs about a hundred dollars. A proposal was even floated to forbid smoking on stoops and fire escapes, which I can only assume would be followed by a ban on taking a drag with your head sticking out your apartment window.

Now that electronic cigarettes are the new hot thing—it's a $3.7 billion industry and Manhattan's first boutique vape bar just opened in trendy SoHo—the city's debating whether to extend its smoking ban to the cigarettes of the future.

The New York City Council held a hearing yesterday to debate restricting the use of e-cigs indoors or in public places. Mayor Michael Bloomberg's administration of course supports extending the smoking ban it established, and Health Commissioner Thomas Farley too fell in line.

Farley argued e-cigarettes would be a headache for bar or restaurant owners who have to adhere to no-smoking rules and can't tell the difference between the analog and digital varieties—a rather flimsy argument considering vaporizers often look nothing at all like cigarettes and are notably lacking A, any smoke, and B, the discernible smell of burning tobacco.

In a somewhat ill-concieved strategy, e-cig supporters at the hearing offered firsthand proof of the devices' different look and smell by vaping before the council.

“I thought it was outrageous and very disrespectful,” Councilman James Gennaro, lead sponsor of the bill to ban e-cigs, told a CBS reporter after the hearing. “If they think by coming and blowing smoke in the council’s face that it’s going to be sympathetic to their position, they guessed wrong.”

Of course, it’s not actually smoke, which is the whole point.

"Anyone who used the word 'smoke' or 'smoking' to refer to electronic cigarettes, which typically contain nicotine, was instantly corrected by audience members hissing 'Vapor!' and 'Vaping!'" the New York Times reported.

There's also some concern that the onset of vapers could bother the other patrons in New York's restaurants, shops, museums or whatnot. But surely that's not reason enough to make it illegal in a free country. Bringing a crying baby into a restaurant is quite bothersome. Should we ban those too?

Then again, the central concern about e-smoking is public health. That's where the debate gets really sticky, because no one’s sure of the health implications of the new technology. The pro-vaping camp argues that smoke-free cigs are healthy because they help addicts quit smoking and are less toxic than tobacco. The anti-vaping camp argues electronic cigs are a health risk because they still contain some chemicals, and make it easier to ingest nicotine, especially for kids, which could wind up getting nonsmokers hooked.

On the public health front, there's even less conclusive medical research on the effects of secondhand vapor—but there's a public perception factor to consider. If suddenly loads of people are hanging around puffing on digital cigarettes, does that make smoking seem cool again, negating years of effort to shake that image? Officials would rather be safe than sorry. And I have to admit there are some places that would seem pretty inappropriate to see people vaping, yet it's totally legal. Do we want people vaping at the opera?

This general point was made by Councilman Gennaro, who mentioned that New York's decision to ban regular smoking in public was just as much about cigarette shaming as it was about the health risks of secondhand smoke. Less exposure to act made it seem less acceptable, Gennaro said. "Those second set of measures were more about sociology and denormalizing than they were hard medical science."

And so the council will vote on whether to restrict e-cigs in all the areas where traditional smoking is restricted, to apply, likely before the year's out.