Proof that ASH is the enemy of consumer choice
Monday, May 16, 2016 at 11:59 Fancy that.
Having kept very quiet when vaping was banned along with smoking on a Pembrokeshire beach, and again when the use of e-cigarettes during work breaks was prohibited by Nottinghamshire County Council, the "pro-vaping" tobacco control group ASH has finally angered even the most gullible vaping activists by declaring that "new EU rules on electronic cigarettes need not cause problems for most vapers".
Concerns raised in Parliament about the EU rules are not borne out by the ASH Smokefree GB Adult Survey [published today].
Only 9% of vapers report using e-liquid containing 19mg/ml or more of nicotine (the limit set by the EU Tobacco Products Directive is 20mg/ml). And only 11% of daily vapers use more than 4ml of liquid (the EU limit for tanks and cartridges is 2ml), indicating that only a small proportion of them are likely to need to refill their device more than twice a day.
The minority of vapers using higher strengths and higher volumes of e-liquid will continue to be able to buy these until 20th May 2017, leaving time for products to evolve to meet their needs.
Deborah Arnott, chief executive of ASH said: “The new ASH research shows that most vapers use less nicotine than the limit set in the new EU regulations and are likely to have to refill their devices no more than a couple of times a day. Concerns that the EU regulations would force the products most vapers use off the market seem to have been overstated.”
See New EU rules on nicotine strength not a problem for most vapers (ASH).
Strictly speaking ASH is broadly correct. The overwhelming majority of vapers will not be inconvenienced by TPD regulations. But what the press release reveals - not for the first time - is their complete and utter contempt for consumer choice.
So what if "only" 9 per cent of vapers report using e-liquid containing 19mg/ml or more of nicotine and "only" 11 per cent of daily vapers use more than 4ml of liquid? That's still a significant number of people who will be denied their preferred product.
As readers know I have been extremely cynical of ASH's transformation into the "vapers' friend". Jumping on the bandwagon doesn't even begin to describe it.
I've also been discreetly critical of some of the leading vaping activists (ie I've never named them) who have naively sucked up to Deborah Arnott in the hope she will lead them to the promised land where vapers and public health can live happily ever after.
ASH, I have warned repeatedly, will never be the consumers' friend because they have no interest in or commitment to choice.
For the 500th time, this is not about health, it's about control. In the eyes of ASH e-cigarettes are a smoking cessation tool – nothing more, nothing less – and the quicker consumers move to lower strength, lower volume e-liquids the better because it means they are well on the way to another 'public health' target – a world free of any nicotine dependence, least of all the sort you might actually enjoy.
If ASH's support for TPD regulations on e-cigarettes opens a few eyes today that will be a step forward but this is just the tip of the 'public health' iceberg.
If there is anyone in the tobacco control industry who truly supports vaping as a long-term recreational activity I would be very surprised, but I can guarantee you this.
No-one in 'public health' believes in or supports choice. The concept is anathema to them.
Update: Last week it was reported that "Vaping has been permitted outside Nottingham hospitals, making them the first in England to embrace it."
You would imagine that 'pro-vaping' ASH would have been delighted. If so they concealed it well:
Amanda Sandford, from anti-smoking group ASH, said her group were likely to welcome the news too.
She said: "I think in principle we would support it. There's evidence to show e-cigarettes are helping people to quit smoking.
"E-cigarettes aren't 100 per cent safe and we don't want to be in a situation where there are products that young people are supported to use.
"(But) where people are using them as an alternative to smoking or to quit smoking, we shouldn't put restrictions on their use.
Have you ever heard anything so mealy-mouthed? With 'friends' like that etc.
Reader Comments (12)
So what if "only" 9 per cent of vapers report using e-liquid containing 19mg/ml or more of nicotine and "only" 11 per cent of daily vapers use more than 4ml of liquid? That's still a significant number of people who will be denied their preferred product.
Given that ASH were quite happy, nay, jubilant to successfully lobby for legislation that would destroy the social lives of 23% of the adult population, (that's a LOT of people) wreck tens of thousands of businesses and cause more than a hundred thousand people to lose their jobs, (not to mention legitimise the sort of vitriolic discrimination and bigotry that we though we had left behind us in the latter part of the last century) the discomfiture of a few thousand vapers is as nothing to them. Pfft! Not even worth a fleeting thought.
"Strictly speaking ASH is broadly correct. The overwhelming majority of vapers will not be inconvenienced by TPD regulations."
I disagree. There will be significant inconvenience due to the eventual banning of all refillable tank devices currently available. They cannot be refilled without the possibility of leakage. Having to buy eliquid in 10ml bottles is a huge inconvenience. However, the biggest inconvenience will be a huge cost increase if the large ecig companies manage to shut out refillable tanks, leaving the way free for their "printer ink" business model. Leaving aside the uselessness of 18mg liquid for 20% of vapers, the cost of vaping would rise from as little as £1 a week for home mixed liquid, to over £50 a week. A £2000 a year inconvenience.
Hey Aaron Biebert, how's that whole 'respecting'...'thang' shaping up for you now?
Once again for the vapers here: These people are NOT your friends. Your friends are outside enjoying the subtle mix of real, proper, tobacco smoke, rain and diesel fumes.
"Strictly speaking ASH is broadly correct. The overwhelming majority of vapers will not be inconvenienced by TPD regulations."
This is inaccurate. ALL vapers will be inconvenienced, by reduced choice, higher prices and a totally unnecessary six-month delay in new products reaching the market. ASH aren't even technically correct, and nor are they mistaken; they're lying through their back teeth.
Yes and what about smokers not knowing whether their brand of chojce will be available after plain packaging come in on Friday ?
ASH is interested in maintaining their own power through furthering their goal for eradication of tobacco products. They seek prohibition of smoking. Vaping is an inconvenient distraction from their goal to exile smokers,
Timothy is right Simon. Vapers won't be told and you have smokers to think about as we are thrown more and more to the dogs. What does Plain packaging mean for us? How will we know what we're buying in future? What are our consumer rights from now on?
Don't abandon us for vapers like so many others have done.
BTW, where people are allowed to vape, whether inside or outside, I will smoke and that smoke will get lost within the huge cloud of vape. I refuse to allow vapers to shove me into 3rd class citizenship.
Government funding of this dubious outfit along with other dodgy tax funded outfits is the enemy of choice. Because they have crossed my path, big mistake.
Nothing new here for most observers. I hope it is a kick up the @rse for those 'vapers' who have tried to 'play the game' - ASH are experts at their game and the 'vapers' are lacking in their skills in that area.
The real game is to engage 'normal' folk and to show them how something as insignificant as 'vaping' shows up the hypocricy, double standards and corruption of the 'public health machine'.
It's not likely to happen soon as the majority do not see the significance of all this 'cloudy' stuff 😯
For those worried about PP, or "propaganda packaging" as I think of it, you may find that it has the benefit of making your favourite brand of smokes cheaper. This is what happened in Australia when the PP came in. Tobacco companies had to compete on price, as they could no longer rely on brand loyalty. The poo brown packs all looked the same, (apart from the gore porn), so there was no prestige to be had from carrying a certain brand around. Tobacco companies tried to fight the PP in the courts, but lost, they have done nothing to help smokers themselves, you know, the people who are actually buying their products, but put millions into fighting for their "brand" names.
Anyway, what happened in reality was that smokers were inconvenienced in having to spend far more time at a checkout, because the shop workers took far longer to find the brand the smokers asked for. This in turn inconvenienced everyone else. Teens thought it was cool to collect the various porn pics on the packs, and teen smoking increased after PP was brought in.
Me, I decided to quit smoking and switch to vaping, which is far more inconvenient, as the sale of vape gear in my state is illegal, and nicotine liquids are illegal to sell across the whole country. However, even though smokers have it far easier than vapers here, I'm not complaining, as at least I know that I am no longer giving money to a corrupt government to persecute me, or supporting a tobacco company that treated me with indifference at best, and contempt at worst.
I don't give a fat rats arse what the tobacco control industry, or those prodnoses in "public health" think. They will find out that they are becoming sidelined, as vapers, and smokers, (the black market in Australia is huge and growing), ignore them.
Brilliant Jude. I hope that is what happens in the UK. I