E-cigs - I'm no expert but ...
Thursday, February 27, 2014 at 13:12 I was on LBC last night talking about the EU's Tobacco Products Directive.
We discussed the ban on menthol cigarettes and ten packs and how this was an attack on consumer choice.
I pointed out that these products were being outlawed yet there had never been a debate in the UK parliament.
I also queried the need for plain packaging since the health warnings must in future cover 65 per cent of the front and back of the pack leaving little room for branding.
Then the issue of e-cigarettes came up.
"I'm not an expert," I said, "but ..."
And I burbled on about that for half a minute.
As it happens, I had just read Chris Snowdon's post about Martin McKee's sudden interest in e-cigarettes.
According to Chris, McKee showed little or no interest in e-cigs until last year. Now he's portrayed as an 'expert' (who wants to regulate them into oblivion, apparently).
Now I happily admit I'm no expert but in the wake of Chris's post I did a quick search of this blog to see when I first mentioned e-cigs.
The answer was January 20, 2010 when I wrote a post entitled 'Wanted: Comments on e-cigarettes'.
Apart my obvious ignorance, the most interesting thing about that post was the response - 111 comments.
Since then I have written (and been interviewed) about e-cigarettes on numerous occasions. For example:
A touch of the vapers (September 7, 2010)
Their own worst enemy (November 7, 2010)
The arguments against e-cigarettes (December 8, 2011)
Why I hate (some) e-cigarette retailers (March 7, 2012)
E-cigs and a crafty fag – join the conversation (November 5, 2012)
Will e-cigarettes take centre stage in 2013? (January 1, 2013)
More on e-cigarettes (January 8, 2013)
Wanted: a consumer champion for e-cigarettes who is not anti-smoking (February 17, 2013)
I won't invest in smoker phobic rants, I'm out (September 2, 2013)
Forest, e-cigarettes and the BMA's "self-serving politically correct agenda" (October 21, 2013)
And of course I've written several more posts about e-cigs in the past few months.
The problem is, while I say all the 'right' things about consumer choice and do my best to support e-cigarettes, I find it hard to empathise with vapers in the way I empathise with smokers.
The reason is simple. I hate the quasi religious zeal of some vapers and the refusal/reluctance of many to support smokers in their struggle against oppressive regulations that will affect vapers just as much as smokers.
I understand why vaping organisations and spokesmen have stood apart from smokers. Culturally and politically, however, we are in the same boat. If the vaping community didn't understand that before, yesterday's vote by MEPs may have brought some of them to their senses.
Like it not not, smokers and vapers are cut from the same cloth. The common bond is nicotine. The only difference is the delivery system.
I recommend therefore that you read this article, Time for vapers and smokers to unite, published on Monday by Forest's Free Society website.
Via Twitter we encouraged vapers – and smokers – to retweet the link. Hardly anyone did.
That said it all, really.
Simon Clark
The Advertising Standards Authority has reacted quickly to complaints about an "overly sexual" e-cigarette ad:
"I want you to get it out. I want to see it. Feel it. Hold it. Put it in my mouth. I want to see how great it tastes."
Full story: 'Overly sexual’ VIP e-cigarette ads attract 1,156 complaints (Marketing Week)
Meanwhile it's almost 14 months since Forest complained about a government ad that was equally explicit (15 cigarettes can cause a mutation that leads to cancerous tumours) and we are still waiting for the ASA to publish its final adjudication.
Reader Comments (17)
To be honest, Simon, I really question if the common bond is nicotine. I think it's the culture of (dare I say) smoking that binds us all.
Some smokers smoke for the smoke. I think some vapers vape for the flavours they can choose. I don't think we all smoke or vape for the nicotine though.
I will smoke an occasional ecig, like I'll smoke an occasional cigar, like I'll smoke an occasional manufactured cigarette, but I love the art of rolling my own, the soft feel of a real tobacco cig in my hand, the taste of tobacco and the smoke. I could never smoke menthol cigs. I tried a puff once and found it foul although I know many love them. I'd quit if only menthol were available but they contain nicotine too so why is that?
I tried a pipe once but could no more smoke that regularly than I could vape an ecig regularly or smoke a cigar regularly - all contain nicotine and if it's just about the nicotine then why don't all forms of smoking/vaping suit all needs and tastes?
In truth, whatever reasons people smoke or vape whatever product or method of consumption, the push to paint us "pathetic addicts" because of nicotine means that the real reasons, psychologically, habitually, or physically, why we smoke and enjoy tobacco or vape and enjoy ecigs is lost in the myth of it being all about the nicotine "addiction."
As for the tumbleweed that rolled across the social networking landscape in a plea for both sets of consumers to join forces, I think that's because smokers don't trust vapers and vapers fear aligning themselves with smokers.
How do we get around that?
The link you asked to be re-tweeted did contain an error that most vapers will have noticed :
"vapers think they won’t be targeted next"
NEXT ?
Lets just remember that the EU TPD process actually leapfrogged vapers to the front of the queue to be targeted First, not 'next'.
The TPD, without the grass roots opposition from vapers, would have completely wiped out and banned e-cigs from the entire EU.
The e-cig ban was a very real threat (and still is) - Smokers have been harassed but their habit was never under a threat of a total ban.
I don't agree that vapers show "refusal/reluctance of many to support smokers in their struggle" - yes, true of some, perhaps, but the same could be said for 'some' smokers the other way round (a minority in both camps).
I have seen more vapers criticise the 10 pack ban, plain packs and especially the menthol ban, than any other single group of people - for example.
There is a slight difference between vapers and smokers - we are fighting slightly different battles, but there is also much common ground.
As a former smoker that now vapes real tobacco pods and e-juice, I fail to see how we are fighting a different battle.
Apologies if that line offended you - I'm no ecig expert either. We clearly need to educate each other as to the language used that offends because vapers use offensive language against smokers and smoking too (although I'm sure in most cases, like mine, no offence is intended if, as you say, sometimes it is.)
I meant that we've had 40 years of attacks and there is so much more that will be done to you yet. I don't think they've pushed you to the front of the queue. After all, they've just started on you but obviously keen to ensure that vaping doesn't become any more popular so in that sense I guess they see an urgency about trying to control you before you get out of hand.
Smokers are a breath away from criminalisation. Vapers are not. They are seeing an unregulated product being brought under regulation for the first time. It's only just started so by "next" I really meant there is a lot more they can and will do to you. The medicalisation of ecigs should concern both groups because the path is clear. Medicalise - then quit, take the medicine, or be prosecuted.
We need to fight each other's ground whatever the slight differences. If both groups stood as one to fight ALL regulations and denormalisation, junk science, and propaganda on consumers who vape or smoke, and take on board both sets of issues, amend our language accordingly, then as one group we would be less easy to push around.
The sad truth is tobacco control see vapers as smokers who are trying to get around the restrictions - like indoor bans - that smokers are subject to and in too many cases now so are vapers for no other reason than Smokerphobia and control.
I hope that makes it clear. If not, why not write a response. I can only speak as a smoker. Let's hear the vapers' point of view. To work together we must understand each other better and become experts in both cultures
"fighting *slightly* different battles, but there is also much common ground."
is not the same as
"fighting a different battle"
Simon is right. Many vapers refer to cigarettes as "stinkies" and generally disparage cigarettes. However, as Matt says, a large proportion, many of whom still enjoy cigarettes, don't. If someone offers me a cig, I smoke it; and I smoke on holiday and I make countless comments on passive smoking articles in the press. I fully recognise we are fighting the same war, which is clearly now a war on recreational nicotine - part of wider war on anything which makes life a little easier and more enjoyable and doesn't involve some degree of discomfort and self -denial.
Simon, don't feel you have to empathise with vapers. You are a smokers' organisation.
Had to laugh, I mentioned 'Blue tips' on that first post you wrote way back in...2010! Things have come a long way since then with 2nd and 3rd gen e-cigs.
The one thing that doesn't seen to have moved quite so much is the smoker/vaper divide. Some have tried to bridge that gap in the past. They recognised the threats to individual liberty that all this represents, yet they failed to make much of an impression on either side.
I thought Pat Nurse's piece was good and shows how progress can be made. Perhaps Pat could contact VTTV and discuss it 'on air'?
I sort of gave up trying. I didn't even comment for quite a while as it all seemed pointless. Maybe some one will find a way forward, though with the involvement of people from the anti-smoking movement acting as spokepersons for e-cigs, this could be even more difficult.
I still have hope (ever the optimist) the hypocrisy of Tobacco Control can be exposed through their attacks on e-cigs and that people will see it for what it is and things will not be as drastic as Pat writes, but my optimism is is waning.
It always was a battle between recreational/medical nicotine and who controls what, rather than health.
"...with the involvement of people from the anti-smoking movement acting as spokepersons for e-cigs, this could be even more difficult."
This is what both concerns and offends smokers. We feel vapers are being used in a divide and conquer way but that some vapers see it as having right on their side.
I know that I'm often negative on this subject but I've grown up alongside the war on smoking these last 40 years and felt it against consumers these last 20 years. Things I said back in the 80s that would happen, like bans, being fined for dropping cig ends, to name just two, have become true even though at the time I was laughed at because it seemed unthinkable. People said it would never happen. Pubs are private property they said. Govt can't and won't tell people what legal activity they can allow or not. Cig ends are biodegradable, they said. It's silly to think they'd fine you for dropping the equivalent of a twig. They won't force us to quit, they need the tax, they said.
The truth is, unless we all wake up to the worst case scenario, experience and history over the last 4 decades show that the worst could indeed happen and will.
Tobacco controllers and the anti-smoker industry can't wait to become criminal enforcers. They inspired smokerphobia. They will never stop. There is no end to their demands nor their spiteful propaganda.
A friend told me today that she was offered quit aid from her GP. She politely declined and he wrote on her notes "Refused treatment."
Many of us, Nannying Tyrants included, now recognise that the only way to escape the hate and be left in peace without bullying or harassment, is to leave the country for another more tolerant and less zealous in its attacks on consumers. Some of us, however, are trapped and have nothing else we can do but throw punches to the wind.
"The sad truth is tobacco control see vapers as smokers who are trying to get around the restrictions - like indoor bans - that smokers are subject to and in too many cases now so are vapers for no other reason than Smokerphobia and control."
Ecigs have always been a great way of exposing the lies, deceit and corruption of the anti-smoker industry, big corporations and Governments.
'They' blamed it on the smoke, so some of us chose a different way via ecigs with NO smoke. 'They' now blame the addictive properties of nicotine BUT 'they' encourage us to use 'their' nicotine via NRT.
'They' do not like smokers, however we choose to smoke.
Vapers who use 'their' arguments to justify vaping whilst being derogatory to smoking are no better than 'them'.
We are all tarred with the same brush so we should speak with one, unified voice.
Just to mention that as a Tobacco Retailer, I was the only shop that I know of, last year, that had the 'Hands off our packs' Poster next to the tobacco display. Handed out the postcards, and informed customers that bought a 10 pack, a menthol pack, or bought a 12.5 pouch of baccy - that they would not be able to continue to have this choice if the TPD went through, and that they should get on to their MEP pretty sharpish.
I have been a vaper for two and a half years, but I do like to treat myself to the occasional cigar, so I am not really a non-smoker either.
It's something I call "born again vaper syndrome". For my part, although I now use e-cigarettes exclusively, I still consider myself to be a smoker. It's a mindset thing. There is though, unfortunately, a tendency in vaping circles to be very disparaging of cigarettes and smoking - many vapers will refer to cigarettes as "stinkies", for example.
This isn't something I agree with. Far too many vapers consider themselves to be out of reach of tobacco control, a position that is both ignorant and arrogant in my opinion.
If vapers and smokers collaborated, they could do so much more. Imagine the fear that a smokers & vapers voting coalition could strike into the hearts of MPs and MEPs.That's something worth thinking about.
'throw punches to the wind' - exactly. And those of us who are of an advanced age, as I am, can only pray for a merciful end.
Some years ago, I used to frequent a forum (nothing to do with smoking, it was a P2P forum but which had a general comments section), and when the business of SHS being used to justify bans was current, there were discussions about it on the forum. I thought the whole concept of SHS was bullshit, and said so in no uncertain terms. I was very much in the minority, though, and it was my researches into it at that time that led me to this and the other blogs with which we are all familiar.
During these often heated online debates, I had two regular and articulate allies, and when I was in UK briefly about five years ago, I met up with one of them. He was a lovely chap, smoked roll-ups and was very well informed.
I kind of lost interest in that forum soon after, and would look in maybe a couple of times a year. On one of my visits, this chap I'd met was posting about e-cigs, singing their praises and saying how he hadn't smoked a tobacco cig in a couple of years etc etc. I made a rare post there in response, mildly teasing him (in a very friendly way) about his evangelism for the e-cig movement. To my surprise, he cut me dead, in a quite insulting way, and proceeded to dish the dirt on 'filthy, stinking smokers' (or words to that effect).
That was my first run-in with an e-cig convert, and I've had several since on other forums / comments sections.
They say that ex-smokers are the worst, and it would seem that that adage applies to quite a few (but not by any means all, I hasten to add) vapers. But there are enough vapers with that attitude to really engender a sense of mistrust of the vaping community in many smokers' minds. They display a sense of superiority, they parrot the anti-smoker propaganda, and they denigrate smoking regularly. And in doing so, they further the anti-smoker agenda that is now turning its baleful eye on the vapers themselves.
I don't want to see vaping 'denormalised' in the way that smoking has been. I have an e-cig, and I think it's great, albeit an inferior substitute for the real thing; but I find it hard to throw myself wholeheartedly behind the defense of e-cigs, having been attacked as a 'smoker and an anachronism', by quite a few vapers.
What different battle? This is all the same .
Nothing makes you different from anyone else,you all want the same right to live your life as you please.
What all of this is is a gift to big pharma,to big tobacco to big government.This isn't about you,at least not in the way you think it is.
Your government wants your obedience,your money and to tell you what they think is best for you.
If you happen to disagree they don't care. They pretend they do but they don't.
What is surprising is that this isn't the common ground,this isn't where people are coming together to lobby,to demand their right to be heard to change and shape legislation..
And right now they're just targeting tobacco users and drinkers,but stand back and look at it it's so much more they're going after food now,sugar and salt.
What works for restricting the rights of people who smoke or vape or drink or overweight works against us all.
Why isn't this the point where all of us unite?
I agree with the last post - we SHOULD all unite in the common cause of fairness, a free market, and getting the 'Public Health' monster off our backs. Unfortunately too many people can't see the wood for the trees. I think it's INEVITABLE that vapers and the producers of e-cigs should try to define themselves AGAINST, rather than with, smoking and smokers. If you are marketing e-cigs, why would you not take advantage of the enormous power of the antismoking industry and use it in your own favour? And if you vape rather than smoke, of course you're going to think it's because e-cigs are 'better' - healthier, less stinky, whatever. OK, not all vapers, but many. Imagine that for decades, we had been bombarded with negative propaganda and restrictions on drinking coffee; and many people had therefore given it up and now have orange juice with their breakfast instead. Do you really expect 'juicers' to stand up for 'coffeers'?
I'm allergic to dogs, but if someone tried to pass a total dog ban, I would oppose it, on principle. But how many people can see beyond the end of their own nose, and think that way? I'd have to say, not many, and that is one of the most depressing things I've learned from getting involved in the whole smoking issue. The pub industry, for instance, should have fought the smoking ban en masse, on principle - the principle of being able to run their pubs how they want - but all they cared about was whether their own business would suffer if there wasn't a 'level playing field'.
I don't think many smokers or vapers think they have a common cause. But we do have a common enemy, and the only hopeful thing I see in Public Health attacking vaping is that it makes their dishonesty and nastiness more and more obvious. I think we will at some point see a general (delayed) reaction against the excesses of the healthist nanny state, but we still have a way to go.
Jan Johnson is spot on as usual. A vaper, like Vaping Liz, who completely gets it. Both have been great friends to smokers, both fight the vapers and the smokers cause as one. To become strong and effective, that's what we need to do.
Joanne Lincoln also makes great points. We should be one group and that would terrify MPs and MEPs who wouldn't be so hasty in attacking us if they knew we were protected by a large, specialised, consumer group with influence at public voter level.
Imagine if we could also join forces with those fighting against stigmatisation of the overweight - now insultingly called obese. I'm not sure the moderate drinkers would be that bothered - even though the anti-alcohol brigade say they are close to getting Govt to make even having one glass of wine while pregnant a criminal offence. After all, the pretentious hypocrites who attack us and fat people because they see us as less than perfect human specimens generally like their glass of vino at Wine O'clock or in their favourite trendy bar with their fashionable mates.
What really stinks about this issue, and the others that are now following in its footsteps, is that we've never been allowed a voice. The internet gave us that but politicians prefer to ignore the grass roots for the minority of well paid professionals in a myriad of quangos and uncharitable charities who have the money to shout loudest.
On the plus side, I don't think the general nice public buys much of this public health crap for a second. Those who are anti-smoking are not necessarily anti smoker.
I spoke to a lovely lady the other week who hates smoking, always has. Not only was she surprised that I smoke, she said she'd never smelled tobacco on me, but she also said to her surprise while walking behind a man smoking a pipe, she kept on following him because the fresh smell of aromatic tobacco burning was "lovely"
We need to start bypassing the politicians, and agree and tactically vote out and keep out those who take pleasure in attacking us - like Stephen Williams, Anna Soubry, Luciana Berger and smokerphobic MEP Bill Newton Dunn - and appeal to the good common sense of the non-smokerphobic public which I am convinced is a minority - albeit a dangerous one.
After the TPD, I received quite a few messages that said "I don't smoke but I think this is madness." We need to appeal to more of the great tolerant British public who know that marginalisation, stigmatisation and humilitation of targeted groups is anti-British.
Simon, I think all of our hopes rest pretty much squarely with Forest. Perhaps you could speak to Ecca about working together and avoiding the offensive language of tobacco control in pushing forward vapers rights? Maybe you could educate them about the smoker's fight which is pretty much just to be left alone in peace these days.
You and Angela have the skills, the contacts, and the ability to take this issue and make it wider and maybe bring all of these stigmatised lifestyle groups together as one. Perhaps as the tobacco companies have opened up an ecig arm of industry, perhaps Forest could open a wider lifestyle rights arm to its work. Widen it out to also fight for the rights of the fat and the alcohol connoisseurs and then ASH, which has changed its description from an anti-smoking "charity" to a public health "charity" won't be able to continually attack your good work with the dismissive comment that you are funded by Big T to keep us poor helpless smokers as "addicts."
We have vaping products consumer groups supporting us and they OCCASIONALLY get quoted in the media as experts on behalf of? vendors/vapers. What we don't have is a group like Forest. And Forest does get some funding from dreaded Tobacco. (am I right?) Yet Forest actually does get airtime/quote time in the media. For a while, I have been unhappy that vapers call themselves "non-smokers". As someone said in these comments, it is a mind set. In the survey I ran on my blog, MOST vapers think of themselves as "non smokers". I find that is depressing. Because if that wasn't so, vapers could cuddle up very comfortably with Forest (and could support it financially too). Forest already has a face. There is no friend of vapers organisation. Thank god for Forest. When the EU ban on our freedom of speech kicks in, we'll be truly stuffed!