What matters more: freedom of choice or harm reduction?
Monday, November 24, 2014 at 13:28 I had an interesting meeting last week.
It was with someone who wanted to know more about our new campaign, Action on Consumer Choice.
He was particularly interested in our plans to defend e-cigarettes and vaping.
"But what?" he asked, "is your USP?"
It was a fair question. There are numerous groups and individuals – including tobacco control campaigners – already fighting on behalf of vapers so what makes our initiative different?
The clue is in the name.
"Freedom of choice," I replied.
That, I believe, is the difference between us and everyone else bar a handful of advocates like Dick Puddlecote and Chris Snowdon.
We believe in freedom of choice for all nicotine consumers. Can that be said of the majority of e-cig users? I'm not sure it can.
It certainly can't be said of the tobacco control campaigners who have become outspoken supporters of e-cigarettes.
With few exceptions they are driven by one thing and one thing only – harm reduction.
Nothing wrong with that. Harm reduction is a laudable, even admirable, goal.
But, and here's my point: in a free society freedom of choice is no less important.
You rarely hear that argument from advocates of e-cigarettes. All I hear are the words "harm reduction" repeated ad nauseum as if nothing else matters.
Of course we support harm reduction – it would be insane not to – but we also support an adult's right to make an informed choice to smoke tobacco, which is still a legal product.
After all, if harm reduction was the only goal think what it could mean for other potentially hazardous activities.
Average speed cameras would become the norm; drinkers would be restricted to one pint of beer a day; tackling would be eliminated from every form of rugby, and so on.
Sadly, in their understandable but holier-than-thou enthusiasm for a product that may or may not prolong their lives, a great many vapers have lost sight of the bigger picture.
So the answer to the headline 'What matters more: freedom of choice or harm reduction?' is … 'neither'. They are equally important.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is Forest's USP.
Reader Comments (7)
Well said! Couldn't agree less.
PS: For the sake of those living on another planet or island, what does USP stand for?
Bravo, Simon. Freedom of choice is indeed what it's all about. Equally important is freedom from the hectoring persecution that smokers suffer every way they turn.
The attitude of "We are going to make you do what WE think is good for you, whether you like it or not" is despicable, and reminiscent of the worst type of totalitarian government. It's well past time that the currently prevalent smug sanctimony was excised from 'Public Health'. They need to learn a bit of humility. It's not, and never was within their remit to coerce people to conform to a lifestyle they approve of.
Ha! Perchance to dream! They are addicted to their petty little power trips, and because they are paid out of the public purse they are secure in the knowledge that they can say and do anything their warped ideology dictates without fear of being sanctioned, regardless of how wrong it might be.
Come the revolution, brothers, they will be among the first up against the wall... :)
USP = unique selling point. Sorry, should have made it clear.
Well exactly! Nice post.
Freedom of Choice, and Harm Reduction still skirt around the main injustice to smokers (and probably, soon, vapers,) that all legislation in place, is there by reason of a lie made into a truth in the mind of society, for profit, by a modern, emerging industry called Tobacco Control and its cohorts, that suckles itself on "funding". Orwell could hardly make up a more devious way of earning a living! Or method of persecution.
"We believe in freedom of choice for all nicotine consumers. Can that be said of the majority of e-cig users? I'm not sure it can."
Have you asked? Perhaps you should. You might be surprised.
If it was proven that smoking does harm EVERY single person that smokes, harm reduction maybe important. However, as it stands, I'm all for the freedom of the individual to make informed decisions about what perceived harm they inflict upon themselves.
Neil Robinson, I have. One response was that the vaper couldn't possibly fight for the right to consume tobacco because smoking kills and her conscience wouldn't allow it. How many more?
All I know is that too many vapers think that if they bash tobacco and bang on about how we poor smokers need our pathetic lives saving with the miracle ecig then all will be well. After all, why can't we embrace this miracle product and vape like them?
The fact that vapers insist on defining the distinction between us ie - vaping is not smoking - means they know that to win their argument they must distance themselves from us dirty filthy murdering child abusing stigmatised smokers.
I've said it before and I'll keep on saying it to no avail at all. Fight for the right to smoke as an adult and the right to vape naturally follows. Concentrate on that fight and tobacco control won't even get time to get to vapers. That vapers have made this a separate issue means they intend to win at our expense.
They don't smoke or could live without smoking so what. When push comes to shove they don't really care - except for a few like Liz, DP and perhaps Neil yourself, and some others but generally I find the tolerant vaper is in the minority and they really don't get smokers who don't vape at all.
Anyone who thinks Clive Bates is a friend is no friend to smokers either. He's a smokerphobic thug who would force us to ecigs and I wonder how many vapers in your whole movement would argue with that!
He's using vapers and they don't even see it.