ASH's weasel words on vaping bans
Friday, April 22, 2016 at 12:45 I was interviewed by Julia Hartley-Brewer on TalkRadio this morning.
I like Julia. I admire her forthright views and I agree with her on many things. On smoking however it's a matter of agreeing to disagree.
She doesn't strike me as a delicate flower yet she hates everything about smoking including the smell. She would happily ban the sale of cigarettes entirely.
She's a good presenter though because she gives people a chance to have their say without excessive interruption.
The result is, I think, fairly entertaining radio because we don't shout over each other, as sometimes happens. We simply make our very different points.
Today we were discussing the decision by Nottinghamshire County Council to ban smoking and vaping during work breaks.
Julia, naturally, was all in favour of extending the smoking ban. So too was my fellow guest, Amanda Sandford of ASH.
Given ASH's deafening silence on the council's decision to ban the use of e-cigarettes during working hours (offenders could even face disciplinary action), I thought I'd ask Amanda a simple question:
"Given that e-cigarettes are used by many smokers to help them quit, will ASH condemn the decision to ban vaping?"
Credit to Amanda, she was quick on her feet. Cleverley avoiding a 'yes' or 'no' answer, she responded by saying (I paraphrase), "If we had been asked we would have advised against a ban on vaping."
Brilliant!
Nottinghamshire County Council announced proposals to ban smoking during work hours in September 2015. At the time it was made clear that the measure would extend to e-cigarettes.
ASH advocates the use of e-cigarettes to help people quit smoking. You would think they would have lobbied the council to exempt vaping.
It seems not. Why? "We weren't asked."
Until today's interview on TalkRadio I've read and head nothing from ASH on the issue.
Why? "We weren't asked."
I think two things are going on here.
One, ASH don't want to criticise a policy that comes under the general heading of 'tobacco control'. Nothing must be allowed to derail the prohibition or denormalisation of smoking. If vaping is caught in the crossfire, so be it.
Two, ASH and their fellow 'pro-vaping' advocates in the public health industry are not really defenders of vaping.
Their current advocacy of e-cigarettes is a means to an end. That end is not a smoke-free society but a world devoid of any form of nicotine addiction.
That's the real endgame.
If anyone thinks ASH et al are anything more than fair weather friends to vapers you haven't been paying attention.
The fact is, whenever the use of e-cigarettes is banned - on a Pembrokeshire beach, on hospital or council grounds - the 'pro-vaping' public health lobby goes missing.
The sound of tumbleweed is in stark contrast to their normal blathering when it's a struggle to shut them up.
On the matter of vaping during work hours you'll struggle to find a single tweet.
Why? "We weren't asked." Doh!
With 'friends' like that who needs enemies?
Vapers, you have been warned. Again.
Reader Comments (19)
Wasn't asked??? Since when does that vile bullying organisation that has persecuted and led discrimination against smokers ever waited to be asked for their opinion on anything before paying for junk science to support their prejudices which they then screech about over and over again until their demands become outrageous and discriminatory laws targeted at people with no representation or voice that law, demanded by ASH, decides cannot be heard.
This organisation cannot help itself but lie and lie is what Sandford did again when put on the spot.
And they'll keep lying about vaping and vapers until they don't need them anymore and then more lies will be told backed up by funded junk that they then demand leads to vaping bans and persecution, including job and health discrimination, against vapers.
Anyone who trusts these dishonest thugs is an idiot. They have form and it is well documented.
To be fair to Amanda, Pat, I don't think she lied. I think she told the truth. They weren't asked to comment so they didn't. The hypocrisy is that ASH hide behind "We weren't asked" when any self-respecting advocate of ecigs would be out there fighting against vaping bans. ASH aren't alone, btw. I've seen very few comments this week from leading vaping advocates about the Notts Council policy. (None, actually, but I may be looking in the wrong places.)
I agree. Perhaps "lied" is too strong so I'll settle for an accurate description of dishonest. I also agree about vaping advocates.
Bottom line is that she said the first thing that came into her head. ASH are clever manipulators and clever communicators. They are the ones who launched the hate campaign against legitimate consumers and they used a lot of mistruths, half lies and dishonest tactics to do so.
Personally I'll never believe a single word that lot say again and I wonder why in this age of alleged "equality" that bunch of thugs is allowed to keep pushing the idea that it's OK to discriminate against us.
They also told the biggest whopper ever when they demanded money to help "tackle health inequalities for smokers." Those inequalities never existed until ASH created them and that's what they meant by "tackle". They had to force people against us to be able to deny us healthcare and employment. Hate motivates them and so they lied again when they pretended their actions were motivated by "care."
So, maybe we can say she didn't lie on air but as a member of ASH, I believe the evidence is clear - she lies for her living and so does every other member of that truly dishonest, prejudicial and bigoted organisation that has done more this last 20 years to turn back the clock in terms of equality of all.
They are nothing more than a bunch of social regressives and shame on our politicians for giving these hate mongers money to push that hate into legal discrimination.
Well said Pat.
The bottom line is the tobacco controllers seek prohibition of smoking, vaping and anything that looks like smoking. Their ideological crusade won't tolerate compromise in the long-term.
If they aren't stopped they will seek prohibition of smoking, then vaping, then return to alcohol (they have already started), add sugar, fats, processed meats (goodbye bacon and sausage), and then whatever else become the next healthist fad.
They are not interested in health or truth, they are fanatics (no matter how charming or articulate they may be on air).
It’s like I’ve always said, Simon, Notts Council (and the likes of Sandford – regardless of what her organisation’s “official” stance on e-cigs might be) dislike e-cigs and always support banning them along with real cigarettes because, in the event of a draconian ban like this on smokers, e-cigs would provide a means for smokers to adhere to the new rules in a way which doesn’t involve suffering. And that’s what this is all about – it’s about punishing smokers for daring to defy the orders of “their betters” by continuing to smoke – if smokers have the opportunity to become, relatively seamlessly, dual-users, then that whole “suffering” element fails to materialise. And that’s no fun, is it? These people are like the playground bully who steals the little kid’s dinner money, but then steals his sweetie money, too – not because they need or even want the extra few pennies, but because they like the kick that they get out of seeing him going hungry.
I believe Misty is right. I've always maintained that the reason for the draconian legislation and punitive taxes is purely to punish smokers for not doing as they are told.
It patently has absolutely nothing to do with health, since they have had to lie through their teeth to provide the legislators with 'evidence' to justify enacting the ever increasingly onerous (for smokers) laws. That politicians can't see through their duplicity is a source of constant wonder to me, since all it takes is the application of a bit of commonsense to see that their claims are very obviously utter hogwash born of spiteful hatred.
And that is why, whatever they may be saying now, e-cigs will legislated against in the same way as tobacco. As Misty points out, TC have spent years ratcheting up the rack upon which smokers have been forced to lie. They aren't about to issue 'get out of jail free' cards to vapers when they are avoiding those punishments so carefully crafted for those who smoke. Heaven forbid that smokers should be able to evade the cruelty and pain created just for them by packing an e-cig. "Vaping in a pub? But we only just got them thrown out of pubs! They can't come back in. Not until they have totally renounced their evil habit."
I know I am being punished because I was a child smoker who hasn't done the decent thing and either quit or dropped dead yet.
They don't care about kids who might start smoking even though they use them as weapons and human shields in the war against smokers.
Any child who is forced into smoking by ASH today, because of the ASH created black market which removes all good protection against kids starting to smoke, is just fodder to be attacked and abused by ASH once they grow up into adult smokers.
ASH is a hate organisation and nothing else. It is time people started to see what we see. Never has any organisation that alleges to speak up for people ever been so despised by the very people it claims to want to "help". ASH is not for smokers but for smokerphobics who hate smokers.
Putting them in charge of what smokers can and can't do is like putting the BNP in charge of immigration.
The Govt and councils should be ashamed of themselves for supporting these nasty thugs.
If ASH gets public funding they shouldn't need to be asked.
I'd have thought it was a given that if you get taxpayer money to advise, and purport to be a public health advisory group, then you do that, fully and impartially, every time that you are aware of an opportunity to do so.
I know, naïve, isn't it?
Vapers do not need to be given warnings about ASH especially from smokers who never mounted any kind of opposition to them for over a decade and changed nothing.
Vapers will not be a walkover, we are large in number, prepared for direct action and supported over many forums full of members supporting Vaping.
The warnings we heed are do not follow what smokers have done.
Simon start to preach to smokers not Vapers.
We did mount challenges. We still fight but you don't notice because you are happy to believe your own prejudices about what smokers do or don't do. In fact to say after almost 40 years we don't fight is a bloody insult. Forest still fights and has been fighting since 1979, probably since before some of these trendy new vapers were even born.
We were too often let down by apologetic smokers, like those who are now vapers, who dragged our cause down because they were not intellectual enough to see through the junk and recognise what was going on and failed to stand up and fight, happy to sell out our rights to any old liar who made them feel bad for smoking.
You lot are still at it. You are dragging us down and weakening our cause to strengthen you're own and you are happy to use any old junk science to do so while dismissing any old junk science that attacks vapers and vaping.
Our voice is not allowed to be heard. One day yours won't be either. We smokers are just sitting and watching and waiting for it to happen and then we'll say serves you right.
Meanwhile. keep your filthy vapesticks away from my lungs. No one knows what vaping does long term but I am sure the studies are in the pipeline that show it kills, babies, dissolves buildings, makes the user insane, (insert lie here to get something banned.)
BTW, smokerphobia harms you and others around you. You have been warned.
Sorry, Andy, but to say we haven't mounted "any kind of opposition ... for over a decade" is such an ignorant and crass thing to say I can't be bothered dignifying it with a proper response. Do some research, that's all I'll say, before you come on here shooting your mouth off.
I have already done some research after being directed to Freedom2choose, that outdated forgotten website seems to be leading the Independent opposition and and speaks for smokers.
Forest dosen't appear to have a membership or any organisation behind it, there is no forum, no public involvement.
The smoking public are still out there smoking in their millions, why is there no sign of them online.
I wonder if the quisling Andy Oakley sometimes goes under another name? Tricky Dickie, perhaps? Adopting slightly different tactics?
There are many ways to campaign, Andy. I'm not a huge fan of forums that are mostly talking shops, generating far more heat than light. I'm not a great fan of membership organisations either. I used to work for one. Most of the members were apathetic; the handful who weren't spent far too much time engaged in personal and political battles against each other and the executive. I don't recommend it.
Forest isn't a membership organisation and never has been. Our role is to defend the interests of adults who wish to smoke by lobbying politicians and promoting the principles of choice and personal responsibility via the media. By working very hard in an extremely hostile environment our record over many years suggests we have consistently punched above our weight in that respect. In media and political circles we have a profile (in terms of recognition) that many far larger bodies can only dream of. That's no accident, I assure you. Going back over many years it's the result of Forest employing some very committed people working long and often anti-social hours.
In terms of combatting anti-smoking legislation I accept we have been on the losing side far too often but the way we are governed in the UK has changed and I don't think you can blame Forest for the wave of legislation we have experienced over the past 15 years. Personally I think we deserve credit for fighting our corner (often alone) and never giving up, whatever the odds against us.
I accept criticism of our work but you appear to have come very late to this debate and are unaware of the campaigns we have run against various anti-smoking measures including smoking bans and, most recently, plain packaging when we delivered (amongst other things) a petition signed by 265,000 people to the Department of Health plus 53,000 letters to 10 Downing Street. Believe me, that didn't just happen. It took a great deal of organisation from a small team of dedicated staff and campaigners. The same can be said of other campaigns and initiatives we have organised over the last decade or so.
I can't speak for Freedom2Choose (which was launched in, I think, 2006) but I wonder how politically active the vaping community will be in ten years' time. In my experience it's very difficult to maintain a high level of interest in a single issue over a long period. In the UK CAMRA is one of the few organisations that has succeeded in this regard. I think it's because CAMRA works on different levels. It runs political campaigns but it's also a source of consumer information and it organises events that are far more social than political.
It's too late for smoking but there could be a vaping equivalent of CAMRA. When I visited Vapefest last year however I discovered a clear disconnect between those who understand the need to actively defend or promote the use of e-cigarettes as a harm reduction product and those who merely want to left alone to enjoy them. Those two factions should be working together but they're not. In fact I was told the organisers of Vapefest were initially quite averse to any political advocacy taking place at their event.
Over the years Forest has suffered from a similar problem. Those who enjoy smoking either don't understand the need to be politically engaged or they have no interest in campaigning. It's understandable too that many smokers feel beaten into submission and most are now reluctant to stick their heads above the parapet. By comparison ex-smoking vapers have a new, apparently safer product to get excited about. There is anger too that having quit smoking they now face unjustified restrictions on the use of these harm reduction products (although I would argue that many anti-tobacco measures are unjustified too). It's understandable therefore that there is an active and sometimes angry online community of vapers. How long it will stay active – and continue to grow – remains to be seen. Andy talks about "direct action" by vapers but I've seen little evidence of it in the UK.
Final point: Forest is strongly supportive of vapers and vaping. In interviews and submissions to government consultations we have repeatedly opposed restrictions on vaping and excessive regulations on e-cigarettes. We have a website, Action on Consumer Choice, that actively defends vaping and criticises those who use junk science to prohibit the use of e-cigarettes. Check it out. This week alone – in a series of interviews – I repeatedly pointed out how ludicrous it was that Nottinghamshire County Council was banning vaping during working hours.
I find it weird, then, for you to attack us when the point of my post was to highlight the hypocrisy of ASH, a group that pretends to be the vapers' friend but is silent on something as basic as being allowed to vape in working hours.
Forest promotes choice and personal responsibility. We have done so without a break since 1979 (37 years, not a bad record). As long as we exist we will defend those principles. We will continue to be outspoken in defence of smokers and we will defend without condition consumers who choose to use e-cigarettes or any other harm reduction product. Sometimes that will bring us into conflict with the "pro-vaping" public health lobby. So be it. I just hope vapers know who their real friends are.
The "tyranny of the majority" is so painfully obvious in these bans. I understand the spittle-spewing zealots' motivation I think, but the thinking people - moderates, if you will, have to throw in with the rabble-rousers in order to pass some pretty provocatively head shaking and unholy legislation.
I'm a former smoker who has decided not to cross the floor on smoker's rights. Around here they're trying to pass bylaws to ban smoking on city property, period. Indoors, outdoors, parks, sidewalks, you name it. It is an outrage, and a passive-aggressive insult to the poor and homeless who spend a lot of time in the downtown parks. Almost all of them are smokers.
Simon, I don't think it is too late for smoking. There is a stable and hopefully growing backlash against the antismoker movement. In the US the smokers right movement appears to be gaining momentum despite a strong and well-funded tobacco control regime. It's perhaps an uphill struggle, but resistance continues.
Sorry, I meant it's too late for a CAMRA style organisation that promotes smoking in the way that CAMRA promotes real ale. Defending smoking, promoting choice and personal responsibility, opposing excessive regulation and the nanny/bully state - those battles will continue.
I agree the plain packs issue was impressive in numbers produced which was a commercial litigation issue over advertising by a professional paid for lobby firm, but had really nothing to do with smoking or the smoking ban in my opinion.
My point is that smokers in their millions all connected to social media are absent online over protesting.
There only appears to be 2 organisations that speak for smokers Forest and Freedom to choose, you have described why there is no organisation, no membership, no public involvement in Forest, and as far as I can make out there is nothing anywhere else.
Smoking ban protests never got started in my opinion due to lack of organisation and the longevity of Forest is down to funding from rich companies, smokers can be really obnoxious when they dish out patronising advice dressed up as expert advice when they never did their tour of duty in the first place.
Simon even though you dish out patronising annoying advice...at least you have done something even though its for a salary.
Thanks for your support for Vapers and harm reduction.