(Newswire.net — December 6, 2016) — For many years now there has been a huge amount of attention being given to the dangers of secondhand smoke and so, in an effort to protect nonsmokers from those dangers, HUD has ruled that smoking will no longer be allowed in any of the buildings subsidized by them. However, it is unclear as to exactly what this means for those who use electronic cigarettes or vaping devices because the wording is, at best, unclear, and at worst, contradictory.
Latest Ruling from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
On Wednesday, November 30, 2016, HUD Secretary Julian Castro made public a statement that within the next year-and-a-half all 3,100 of the local PHAs (Public Housing Agencies) will be required to put into effect smoke free policies which will, in effect, ban smoking indoors in any of the public housing units which total just about 940,000. While this is in an effort to protect those who don’t smoke from secondhand smoke, the ruling also admitted that there is still not enough research to conclude that e-cigs are dangerous. In other words, there is no evidence that e-cigs are harmful while there is conclusive evidence that smoking tobacco products is harmful to the smoker and those subjected to secondhand smoke.
Citing Research, HUD Admittedly Rules Out e-Cigs as Dangerous
Here is where the contradictions arise. In stating that there is no clear-cut evidence that electronic cigarettes or vaping devices that utilize vaporized e-juice is hazardous, they are not ruling out banning them in the future and have, in fact, left decisions in the hands of local authorities. They state that all the evidence, to date, indicates that they are 95 percent safer than cigarettes but will not rule out banning them in the future. Many critics of the agency find this contradiction to be unacceptable because, in the words of some, they can’t have their cake and eat it too. You either need to accept the fact that research indicates they are infinitely safer or you need to refute it. They have, for all intents and purposes, done both in a single sentence.
HUD Does Make a Clear Distinction
Fortunately, HUD does make a clear distinction between smoking and vaping in that one sentence in which they admitted that research indicates they are safer. Their ruling, in fact, did the e-cig industry a great service in separating tobacco products from electronic cigarettes that do not contain tobacco. In fact, not all of them even contain nicotine which is what makes some of the controversy almost laughable to interested bystanders to the ruling. Their ruling, from a public health perspective, kept them separate which makes more sense than lumping them together when they are clearly separate products with widely divergent benefits and/or dangers.
While HUDs latest ruling isn’t great for smokers, it leaves the door open for vapers and although this may sound like good news, Phillip Morris International (makers of Marlboro) have developed an electronic device that vapes real tobacco which could impact the tobacco-less electronic cigarette industry in a very bad way. At this point in time, there is no evidence either way as this new breed of tobacco product has just been released. All eyes are on how a vaped tobacco product will be received and what risks are involved, which obviously are akin to smoking.