My gut answer is that tobacco makes me ill as soon as someone smokes, and I have absolutely no allergic reaction to vapes. So I don't see any problem. But it's not scientific enough to be an answer.

I've voted to close this question as too opinion-based. There is no consensus in the scientific community or among most governments about the dangers, if any, of second-hand smoke from e-cigarettes so I don't expect anything here but very divisive personal opinions disguised as answers. The question "What should my company's policy be?" is also too specific and situational. Hypothetical questions are also not encouraged here. It sounds like your question is actually "How do I make the case for banning vaping in the office?", that is probably on-topic here.

@Lilienthal I sincerely didn't want it to be opinion based. I wanted for some people to perhaps explain what their company has done. I just want scientific evidence. If there is proof it is harmless, than I wouldn't mind it too much. But if there are side effects, like me getting addicted to the odor, then I am against it. You are right though, as of right now, it probably should be closed.

@RonnieW. I understand that. I'm just pointing out that with the way your question is currently written, it's not a good fit for the site. I'd suggest retitling it and editing it to be closer to the question I suggested in my comment. I think that would be on-topic here and can have useful answers. An edit will also make it a candidate for reopen votes now that it's been closed.

I would find one of those "WE GET IT, YOU VAPE" signs/stickers and put it where everyone can see it. Not for a solution, just for the fun of it

I completely disagree with @Lilienthal who states there is no consensus like it is a fact. There is consensus and most governments have regulations already in place. If there is no consensus then that is an answer. Health in the workplace is clearly on topic. It is not only cancer, allergic but also a fire hazard.

Since you already have 4 answers that would likely be invalidated by an edit to make this on-topic, an alternative would be to let this remain closed or delete it and recreate the question. Consider joining chat or creating a meta topic, as I'm not sure what the best approach would be here.

@Lilienthal, yes the answers will be opinion based; but, i still think more value can be obtained from this question than the alternative: "What should company policy be on issues of behaviour which may or may not have effects on health?" Even this (arguably poor) wording will not be completely opinion free and is in my opionion way too abstract. The orignal will still give some insight into what Ronnie and maybe other users want to know. Sometimes it's OK to let people discuss ethical conundrums. (voting to stay open)(how??)

@Underdetermined Granted, but would you expect any answers that don't boil down to "err on the side of not killing your employees"?

@blankip Discussions on the safety of e-cigarettes is completely outside the scope of this site. I understand that you feel strongly on the topic but take it to chat if you want to debate it. A cursory online search will show you that there is in fact no true consensus one way or the other. The only thing that can truly be agreed on is that it is likely significantly less harmful than cigarette smoke. There is indeed legislation being suggested/passed based on the idea that it's "dangerous until proven safe", but I wouldn't call that consensus.

@Lilienthal - No they are on topic. Nothing I need to chat about.

What country are we talking about anyway? Many localities in the United States have already banned "vaping" in the workplace.

@ErnestFriedman-Hill but they shouldn't have

@Lilienthal surely you must agree letting people vape is not even remotely close to killing employees. We let people drive to work despite the risks involved. I have heard people claim coffee is a carcenogen and that is widely accepted by employers. If I was a manager where this vaping problem picked up I'd simply try to get consensus on how to deal with the issue by talking to all parties, and go from there...

@Underdetermined It's a matter of opting in, as was mentioned by someone else on the question responding to the "drive to work" issue.

People can choose to drink coffee or to drive to work.

They can't choose not to breathe when there are people vaping in the office.

If I was managing this I'd issue a blanket ban on vaping as being too similar to cigarettes, an optional habit, potentially unsafe and likely to cause friction.

By and large companies aren't democracies, there's zero point in opening this up to discussion, you'll only get more bitter resentment between vapers and non-vapers.

@Lilienthal that is a good point "opt-in". I'd refrain from doing the blanket ban only if no other option has been found. Similarity to cigarettes is not good enough to claim a serious health hazard. As I said i'd try to get consesus from the affected parties, including those who vape. Even cigarettes have smoking areas and what not. Despite not being a democracy you can still do some polling and discussing to implement rules smoothly. Ideally you should minimize the amount of rules in place.

In the absence of ironclad scientific proof that e-cig vapours are safe, one should err on the side of caution and consider them harmful, which is what most governments are doing.

I don't believe I said it was a "serious" health hazard, I'm merely pointing out that the potential health hazard is just one of the problems with allowing vaping indoors.

Minimizing the amount of rules is simple: anything that produces smoke containing pollutants that could affect others should not be allowed indoors.

In most places vapers have to use the same smoking areas as cigarette smokers.

The stereotypical vaper is also incredibly self-righteous about the whole thing but as far as I'm concerned it's a habit that should not be inflicted on others so I'm all for penning them off in a closed exhibit.