Editorial: Smells like e-cig spirit

E-cigs: the healthier alternative we love to hate.

With waves of anti-electronic-cigarette sentiment wafting through the state like a giant layer of cherry-cordial-flavored vapor, San Francisco’s state Senator Mark Leno introduced legislation this week to scale back the use of e-cigs in public places.

Because these days when it comes to vaping, it ain’t just the e-cigs that are causing a stink.

Leno’s bill, SB140, would essentially classify the hookah-looking liquid-nicotine devices on par with tobacco products (as the County of Sonoma did last year), thus prohibiting their use in restaurants, hospitals and all the other places that currently ban smoking.

Why such a fuss over e-cigarettes? When electronic cigarettes first hit the atmosphere a little over two years ago, the hope was they’d be the answer nicotine addicts were looking for to rid their lungs of daily doses of death-by-tobacco. And, to some extent, that has come true for e-smokers – the transition from tobacco products to vaping has been smooth for a lot of people who crave the nicotine fix and the oral stimulation from smoking, but don’t necessarily need black lung fully appreciate the experience.

But then health watchdogs started looking a bit closer at e-cigs and asking: If that pungent gas now emanating from people’s faces isn’t tobacco smoke, then what is it? Simple answer: it’s an aerosol cocktail of glycerin, propylene glycol, nicotine and artificial flavorings.

Now, that sounds pretty awful. But, so far, there’s not enough research to know the long-term effects of turning oneself into a human canister of spray-on deodorant. Still, the unfortunately named “e-liquid” would have to be a pretty darn powerful carcinogenic – experts say it is one, though they never say how dangerous– to not be an upgrade from smothering one’s lungs in tobacco.

But just when a preferred alternative to tobacco seemed to be getting good press, the tobacco companies jumped onto the e-cig bandwagon and did what they always do – they became the trench-coated loner in the alley whispering, “Psst... kid...” At least that’s the impression a lot of folks got when the vapor brands started gassing the market with such e-liquid flavors as rootbeer, popcorn, chocolate fudge brownie, cotton candy, French toast, marshmallow, waffle, peanut butter, turtle pie and something called “Dragonberry.” Their attempts to usher in a new generation of nicotine addicts is about as transparent as if Willy Wonka started hiding his “golden tickets” in cartons of Marlboro Light.

But what’s really spurring the statewide move toward banning e-cigs in certain public places – read: restaurants - is almost certainly their, er, eyebrow-raising aromas.

Because, as is the case with most artificially flavored ingestibles, e-cig vapor may capture the essence of, say, French toast – but eating fried egg-soaked bread is one thing; people fumigating it around town is another. Besides, most e-cig flavors are little more than a hint of their intended delicacy; think of it as discounted butcher’s meat – smells vaguely like sirloin, but just a little bit off.

This is why Sonomans should keep an eye on SB140 as it weaves through the state legislature. Because dining at any number of Sonoma restaurants – Café La Haye, girl & the fig, EDK, Olive and Vine, you name it – should be a delightful time.

Think of that the next time you’re at, say, the Red Grape enjoying a Mediterranean-white out in the patio, and someone walks by puffing a cloud of pizzeria-flavored vapor your way (I kid you not: www.ecblendflavors.com). It’ll add a whole new “topping” to your dining experience.