Boston Public Health Officials Ban e-Cigarettes in Workplaces

I came across an article about electronic cigarettes being banned from workplaces in the city of Boston. The city has continued to work ahead of the curve where smoking bans are concerned, but the most recent addition to the ban could undermine the ultimate goals of Public Health. In the article released, blame is placed on the manufacturers of electronic cigarettes for not marketing their electronic cigarettes as therapeutic devices intended to assist smokers in quitting. They feel that because electronic cigarettes are marketed for smokers as an alternative to cigarettes is reason enough to include them in the ban.

The following is from the article published in the Boston Globe.

The research on the health effects of e-cigarettes is not exhaustive. The city’s Public Health Commission wisely required retailers to apply for permits to sell e-cigarettes. The commission also asked retailers to keep the product behind sales counters, and allow purchases only to people age 18 and above. But banning the use of e-cigarettes in the workplace could keep smokers ducking outside for their hourly fix instead of opting for a safer product.

The electronic cigarette industry has been under fire in the past and the FDA stepped in and tried to close down companies across the United States due to their determination that electronic cigarettes were drug delivery devices. After a long two-year battle in court, it was ruled,

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in Sottera, Inc. v. Food & Drug Administration, 627 F.3d 891 (D.C. Cir. 2010), recently issued a decision with regard to e-cigarettes and other products “made or derived from tobacco” and the jurisdictional line that should be drawn between “tobacco products” and “drugs,” “devices,” and combination products,  as those terms are defined in the FD&C Act.  The court held that e-cigarettes and other products made or derived from tobacco can be regulated as  “tobacco products” under the Act and are not drugs/devices unless they are marketed for therapeutic purposes.

Thousands of electronic-cigarette users have come forward and discussed how the e-cig has replaced tobacco cigarettes along with the dangerous combustion byproducts. The article in the Boston Globe notes that, too.

Still, one member of the health commission, Harold Cox, thinks the workplace ban was too hasty. He pointed to public testimony from smokers who said that e-cigarettes helped them to quit. And he cites health advocates who find a dearth of evidence linking e-cigarettes to cancer or any other health risks normally associated with smoking.

What are your thoughts? Do electronic cigarettes deserve placement in the smoking bans? Should they have their own classification in Boston?