Another e-cig story.
The London Evening Standard yesterday reported that some London restaurateurs want to ban the use of e-cigs on their premises.
Fair enough. It's their property, their business, they can do what they like.
The important point is this: pubs, restaurants, taxis etc should be allowed to decide their own policy on e-cigs, not have it imposed on them by government (ie like the smoking ban).
Responding to the Evening Standard story, Forest campaigns manager Angela Harbutt was featured in this LBC report: London restaurants ban ecigs.
Her comments were so reasonable that even the reporter was surprised. But that's Forest - we represent very reasonable people.
Meanwhile some e-cig campaigners are celebrating after Wolverhampton Wanderers became the latest football club to team up with an e-cigarette company.
As I explained on Monday, Forest opposes any attempt to ban the use of e-cigs in public places; we also oppose excessive restrictions on their promotion.
If you're a smoker as well as a vaper, however, consider carefully which brand to use. In particular I'd temper support for the more aggressively anti-smoking e-cig companies.
Skycig's latest publicity stunt is the Stoptober Amnesty Roadshow. It worked like this:
In support of Stoptober 2013 the Skycig team travelled up the country from London to Glasgow ... encouraging the smokers of the UK to make the switch to Skycig e-cigarettes.
Smokers were invited to throw their cigarettes into a Skycig bin. In return they were given an e-cigarette.
Now, no-one was under any compulsion to switch and if Skycig wish to market their product like that it's up to them.
But did they really have to encourage smokers to chuck their cigarettes in to a bin?
Clearly they don't view e-cigs as a duel use product. It's one or the other. Make your choice.
Meanwhile a prominent e-cig campaigner has tweeted about the "pro-smoking" lobby as if we're the opposition.
'Pro-smoking' is a pejorative phrase adopted by the tobacco control industry to belittle groups like Forest because it implies that we promote smoking.
In reality, of course, we do nothing of the sort, unless you believe that defending the interests of adults who consume a legal product is tantamount to encouraging people to smoke.
We support people's freedom to buy and consume a wide range of cigarettes, cigars, roll your own and smokeless tobacco products without excessive regulation or constant vilification.
We also support people's right to use other nicotine delivery systems such as e-cigarettes - again, without being subjected to hyper regulation or ridicule.
I appreciate there is a public health issue involved but what bugs me is that while Forest is happy to support an adult's right to make an informed decision about smoking and vaping, some e-cig campaigners are interested only in denigrating smokers, tobacco products and the "pro-smokers" who defend them.
To those people I would simply ask: 'Where were you when the media came calling to ask about e-cig tie-ins with football clubs and vaping in restaurants?'.
As ever it fell to Forest to promote freedom of choice and defend your interests. Unfortunately it appears to be a one-way street.
If Forest can defend the right to vape, surely the most prominent e-cig campaigners can defend an adult's right to smoke tobacco, including the right to smoke in some enclosed public places where the habit doesn't 'harm' or bother other people.
Instead, all I hear is silence or pointed and ill-founded digs about "pro-smoking" and "astro turf" groups (meaning Forest).
Well, we're out here fighting in what I consider to be the most difficult arena of all - the mainstream media.
It would be nice to have the support of all e-cig campaigners, not just a token few.
You can register your support for Forest here or follow us on Twitter.