Memo to Save E-Cigs: spare us the moral crusade
Thursday, November 27, 2014 at 17:54 The Save E-Cigs campaign has written to the Speaker John Bercow about the proposal to ban the use of e-cigarettes inside the Palace of Westminster.
Clive Bates, former director of ASH and now a leading advocate for e-cigarettes, has described the letter as "outstanding" and "a great template for anyone trying to bring reason to the vaping debate".
It's a good letter when it sticks to the facts, adding references for verification. For example:
We know from the latest statistics produced by the Office for National Statistics that e-cigarettes are used almost exclusively by current and former smokers. We know that e-cigarette used in public does not renormalise smoking [5]. We know that e-cigarettes are not a gateway into smoking [6]. We know that e-cigarette use in public does not lead to children using e-cigarettes [7].
What about this, though:
A major scientific study undertaken by Dr Konstantinos Farsalinos and Professor Riccardo Polosa concluded that the “effects of e-cigarette use on by standers are minimal compared with conventional cigarettes". A review of the available literature conducted last year by researchers at the Drexel University School of Public Health in Philadelphia concluded that “exposures of bystanders pose no apparent concern".
I'm sure the "effects of e-cigarette use on by-standers" are indeed minimal but so are the effects of "conventional cigarettes" in most situations. Given their concerns about the use of junk science to undermine the use of e-cigarettes, it's a bit rich for the e-cig movement to embrace the politics of secondhand smoke to advance their cause.
Equally unimpressive are comments that range from subjective to pure speculation. For example:
There is never a situation where it is better to smoke than to vape.
Never? What about people who enjoy smoking and don't like e-cigarettes? I think they should be the judge of whether it's better to smoke or vape.
Professor John Britton from the Royal College of Physicians has said: “If all the smokers in Britain stopped smoking cigarettes and started using e-cigarettes we would save five million deaths in people who are alive today."
Yeah, that must be true because one of the country's leading tobacco control campaigners says so, and they're always right, aren't they?!
We very much hope that you will continue to support your colleagues who have done the right thing by switching from smoking to vaping.
Done the right thing? This isn't about right and wrong. It's a matter of choice.
I may be reading too much into this but language matters and as soon as you introduce the concept of right and wrong it suggests a moral crusade.
Choosing to smoke is no less virtuous than vaping. The battle that has to be fought is freedom of choice versus excessive regulation, not vaping (good) versus smoking (bad).
Unless of course you want to be allied to the anti-smoking industry. Good luck with that!
This letter from @SaveEcigs is outstanding: a great template for anyone trying to bring reason to the vaping debate > http://t.co/Q44CHJKxtC
— Clive Bates (@Clive_Bates) November 26, 2014This post has been amended.
See Comments for a brief explanation.
Reader Comments (8)
I am a vaper. For forty years I was a smoker. I have friends and relatives who smoke. That is their choice, just as it was once mine. Judging others is a skill I never managed to develop.
My view is and always has been/will be Smoking (choice) versus Vaping (choice).
'It's certainly a good letter when it sticks to the facts, adding references for verification. For example:
A major scientific study undertaken by Dr Konstantinos Farsalinos and Professor Riccardo Polosa concluded that the “effects of e-cigarette use on by standers are minimal compared with conventional cigarettes". A review of the available literature conducted last year by researchers at the Drexel University School of Public Health in Philadelphia concluded that “exposures of bystanders pose no apparent concern".'
What effects and facts? Level of indignation or laundry bill? Or do you accept TC's claim that SHS threatens the health of non-smokers?
What difference does truth make David? We know that this is not about health but a hate campaign being propped up and given validation by vapers which is why smokerphobics like Master Bates supports them.
This is why I can no longer support the vaping issue. Happily for Master Bates, vapers don't like cigalikes because they look like cigs so Clive will get his orgasmic fantasy of seeing we dirty filthy former child smokers, who he couldn't save in the 60s, 70s or 80s, jailed in future as old people for the crime of smoking and failing to die early.
David, you are quite right to question this. Truth is I was trying so hard to find something positive to say about the Save E-Cigs letter I completely missed the small but important dig about the alleged impact of "conventional cigarettes" on by-standers. I have amended the post accordingly.
Thanks too to those who have commented on this post on the Friends of Forest Facebook page. I was beginning to think I was ploughing a lone furrow on this issue so I'm relieved that others share my view.
Meanwhile there are an increasing number of useful idiots who seem happy to remain silent ...
"There is never a situation where it is better to smoke than to vape."
How about sitting outside a cafe in Italy?
Mp's voted not to allow it. But the Palace of Westminster is still I believe exempt from the indoor smoking ban legislation as it is a palace. No one could be fined for smoking there. What difference would a vaping ban make or are they proposing to change to the smokefree laws? It's still one rule for them, isnt it ?
Oooh look vapers. Still think that trying to appease tobacco control with your "ecigs save lives" meme will save you?
http://rt.com/news/209627-cigarettes-electronic-cancer-japan/
Think again. Fight for the right to consume a legit product like tobacco and they won't get time to get to you. Fight only for the right to vape and first us, then you're next.