Even though UCLA’s tobacco-free policy prohibits electronic cigarettes, fourth-year history student Jeremy Reynolds continues to use them on campus. Reynolds, a former tobacco smoker, said they help him curb his addiction to regular tobacco cigarettes.
“I smoke them to quit what really was a much worse habit,” Reynolds said.
Electronic cigarettes, or e-cigarettes, have doubled in popularity in recent years. But their uncertain health consequences have caused administrators to ban them at UCLA, said Linda Sarna, a professor at the UCLA School of Nursingand chair of the Tobacco-Free Steering Committee.
E-cigarettes, unlike tobacco cigarettes, use a battery to ignite a nicotine fluid. The user inhales the resulting “smoke” – which is simply water vapor – though there is much debate on what exactly is contained in the water vapor, said Sarna.The devices are also sometimes used to smoke THC, a component of marijuana, or flavored water vapor without nicotine.
Some health experts, however, have said they found carcinogens in the vapor from e-cigarettes, Sarna said.
Since e-cigarettes are classified as a nicotine delivery device – like nicotine gum or patches – and not as a tobacco product, they escape many of the Food and Drug Administration rules that would apply to regular cigarettes, Sarna said.
“The issue is that there is practically no regulation currently governing e-cigarettes,” Sarna added.
A frequent smoker for seven years, Reynolds said he began using e-cigarettes about 11 months ago to help him quit.
Reynolds said he doesn’t use other nicotine products such as gum because they typically have more nicotine and don’t help with the desire to smoke something.
E-cigarettes help because his mind came to associate his nicotine addiction with always having a cigarette in his hand or mouth, Reynolds added.
While Reynolds said he continues to use e-cigarettes on campus, many of his friends – who are also using them in an attempt to quit – go off campus to use them because they are banned at UCLA.
Watch: Voices behind ‘vapes’ at UCLA
The ban was instituted to educate students about the harmful effects of tobacco use by prohibiting items such as pipes, water-based pipes, cigars and cigarettes, while allowing certain items, like nicotine patches and gum, that intended to help nicotine addicts quit, Sarna said.
The most pervasive issue with crafting regulations for e-cigarettes is the lack of thorough evidence on their effects, said Michael Ong, assistant professor of medicine in residence at the David Geffen School of Medicine.
Many issues, Sarna said, come from the fact that e-cigarettes are still so new.
One key question about the product is whether or not there is a health benefit to using it, said Ong.
Should e-cigarettes turn out to be more harmful than currently thought to be, Reynolds said he would reconsider their use.
But ultimately he said he does not think e-cigarettes should be included under UCLA’s ban. Reynolds added that one can get fluid that contains no nicotine whatsoever, only water and a flavored sweetener.
“With so much variety, how can you put such a blanket ban on them?” he said.
There are also practical issues with e-cigarettes, Ong said, such as whether or not e-cigarettes should be taxed like tobacco products or taxed separately.
“These are issues that are currently being sorted out,” he said.
While there has been little national regulation of e-cigarettes, some individual agencies, communities and states have taken their stand on how they should be treated, Ong said.
In California, minors are banned from buying e-cigarettes and “vaping” (smoking e-cigarettes) on planes is federally prohibited.
“The status of e-cigarettes is still very much in the air,” Ong added.
Sarna said that she was open to change UCLA’s tobacco-free policy to permit e-cigarette use on campus should studies reflect health effects of e-cigarettes.
“If evidence can clearly show that these (e-cigarettes) are safe, then we can and should change their status under our tobacco-free policy,” Sarna said.
Silly people think they can ban e-cig use. It’s an entirely new, unique and dynamic method for smokers to quit using tobacco products. Nothing is ignited in an e-cig. There’s not ANY combustion going on. No flames, no related smoke, nothing. I don’t understand why people don’t get that part. The liquid has the ability to vaporize quickly using low power heat, about 4 watts or less. There is not ANY tobacco in e-cigs either, just like there’s not any tobacco in nicotine gum or patches. Nicotine gum and patches are NOT safe products either, they are merely lower risk products, just like e-cigs are. From dangerous to safest anyone with common sense and a little research could make a list of the comparable products and make a decision. From most dangerous to most safe…
1. Cigarettes and cigars
2. Oral tobacco
3. Alternative oral tobacco tablets
4. Prescription medicine, ie… Chantix, Nicotrol, gums and patches.
5. E-cig with nicotine
6. E-cig without nicotine
7. Cold Turkey
Another product you can compare with e-cigs is the popular small party fog machine and nobody says anything bad about them being used at college parties and campus theatres. It’s the SAME thing, except e-cigs are much smaller and less powerful. If you’re going to ban e-cigs, then you might as well ban fog machines, propylene glycol and vegetable glycerin too. It’s silly, very silly, so silly it’s beyond absurdity now. People just don’t realize that e-cigs were specifically designed to use all Generally Recognized As Safe products which have already been passed by the FDA in other consumer products. Just because it looks like you’re smoking, it blows the minds of simple sheep. The FDA knows e-cigs are GRAS consumer products, but because e-cigs have successfully infiltrated smoking bans and do not generate extra excise taxes, they have become an enemy to the government and placed under scrutiny for regulation. It’s not about safety anymore, it’s about MONEY! And when money is involved, then all the liars come out of the briar patch to snag their piece of the pie. If they can’t have their way, then they spread misinformation. The result is things like the UCLA making bans, or entire cities making bans. The idea is to attempt crippling of the product temporarily until a new scenario is created for profit purposes. That’s exactly what has begun to happen and now cigarette companies are getting into the e-cig business. They know it’s the future of “smoking” and they’ll do anything to monopolize this new product of genius technology. In some ways it’s good, in other ways it’s bad. The “good” is the cigarette companies can coerce the FDA and fund research in order to increase secure manufacturing. They will also help build the guidelines for healthy laboratories with their funding (just being nice when I say “funding”, I’ll never trust a cigarette company). The “bad” is they’ll cause needless restrictions for adult usage, more taxes, misinformed public perception, the closing of small independent businesses, and inferior product designs. One thing is for sure about the future of e-cigs… all the small e-cig companies will need to join forces and build a larger corporation in order to compete with the cigarette companies. The tobacco farmer will be happy though, because we still need the nicotine sources to extract and synthesize a refined clean product in the inspected laboratories.
@Roth I don’t think that Ecigs will be ban to use because it’s a better approach from the Traditional Cigarettes. So, using this also helps people to quit smoking.