Road To Ruin?

Search This Site
The Pleasure of Smoking

Forest Polling Report

Outdoor Smoking Bans

Plain Packaging

Share This Page
Powered by Squarespace
« "There is never a situation where it is better to smoke than it is to vape." Never? | Main | Another one bites the dust »

How the IBVTA shot itself in the foot

Others have written about this already but, for what it's worth, I'll add my bit.

On Friday the Royal Society for Public Health published the results of a special investigation into the sale of e-cigarettes in vape shops in the UK.

The BBC report (Vaping shops selling to non-smokers) was typical of the way the story was covered by the media:

Almost nine in 10 e-cigarette shops in the UK are selling vaping products to non-smokers against the industry's code of conduct, an investigation reveals.

The Royal Society for Public Health (RSPH) said 87% of shops were knowingly or unwittingly prepared to sell e-cigarettes to people who have never smoked or vaped.

Only later in the report did it credit the "industry's code of conduct" to the Independent British Vape Trade Association (IBVTA).

The specific point the media focussed on reads:

"Vape products are for current or former smokers and existing users of vaping devices, therefore [you should] never knowingly sell to anyone who is not a current or former smoker, or a current vaper."

There are several issues here.

1. This 'investigation' could be said to amount to a form of entrapment. Non-smokers were sent in to vape shops with the specific intention of finding out whether they could purchase e-cigarettes in breach of the "industry code of conduct".

2. It is not against the law to sell e-cigarettes to adults so not one vape shop was doing anything illegal or even morally wrong.

3. The "industry code of conduct" is nothing of the sort. The IBVTA is one of several e-cigarette trade associations and cannot be said to represent the e-cigarette "industry" as a whole.

4. Membership of the IBVTA is, I believe, quite small (fewer than 50 members according to its website) and it was not disclosed how many of the shops 'investigated' by the RSPH were actually members. If many/most were not members of the IBVTA it was disingenuous of the RSPH to suggest that "nine in 10 e-cigarette shops in the UK are selling vaping products to non-smokers against the industry's code of conduct [my emphasis]".

If the RSPH does not come out of this 'investigation' very well, the IBVTA has suffered what is arguably a worse blow.

The RSPH, after all, is a leading tobacco control body. We know the depths to which they will sink to control people's behaviour. In contrast the IBVTA should be on the side of the consumer fighting for freedom of choice.

Instead the declaration that "vape products are for current or former smokers and existing users of vaping devices" and should not be sold "to anyone who is not a current or former smoker, or a current vaper" is beyond fatuous, it's nonsense.

I agree that e-cigarettes should not be marketed at non-smokers, teenagers or otherwise, but that's as far as any code of conduct should go.

The suggestion that a vape store worker should have to ask a potential customer whether they are a "current or former smoker, or a current vaper" is a disgaceful invasion of privacy.

If a non-smoker (me, for example) walked into shop and asked to buy a pack of cigarettes I would be appalled if I had to confirm or, worse, prove I was a smoker before they would serve me. I'm 58, for Christ's sake!!

I agree with the ban on proxy purchasing of tobacco for anyone under 18 but I might be buying it for an adult friend. Or I might simply fancy a smoke myself.

Unlikely perhaps but what business is it of anyone else, and why should the shopkeeper be put in that position?

The same is equally true of e-cigarettes. If, as a non-smoker, I choose to walk into a shop and buy an e-cigarette, that's my right.

The reality, of course, is that the number of never smokers who have taken up vaping is insignificantly small so on this point the IBVTA's code of conduct is a solution to a 'problem' that barely exists.

Even if never smokers are attracted to try e-cigarettes, so what? As long as they're adults they can make that decision for themselves.

What the IBVTA has done is to fall into the trap of trying to appease the tobacco control industry which sees e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation aid and nothing more.

The idea that anyone – smoker or non-smoker – might choose to vape for pleasure is anathema to them. Vaping, in their eyes, is merely a stepping stone towards a smokefree (sic) world, and after that ...?

As I have written countless times, the Utopian endgame is not smoke free, it's nicotine free.

Public health has far too many jobs invested in tobacco control to quit when smoking rates dwindle to five per cent or less. There will always be the 'next logical step'.

A code of conduct mandating shops to question their customers about their smoking history opens a can of worms.

Codes of conduct, like guides to etiquette and 'voluntary' bans, have a nasty habit of being enforced in law.

Put an idea into the head of a public health professional or politician and it rarely goes away. Like a nasty case of indigestion, it rumbles on. Often it's only a matter of time before campaigners lobby government to regulate ... and we know what happens next.

A few years ago a former Labour government advisor, Professor (now Sir) Julian Le Grand, proposed a £10 licence to smoke (BBC News).

The idea has yet to fly but I'm sure it will be resurrected at some point. After all, if you want to restrict the sale of cigarettes to existing smokers, or people born after the year 2000, one way to do that is to insist on some form of ID – a licence to smoke, for example.

Likewise, if you want to prohibit never smokers from purchasing e-cigarettes, the best way is to insist that "current or former smokers and existing users of vaping devices" are identified as such.

Insofar as protecting their members' interests is concerned, the IBVTA no doubt meant well. But appeasing tobacco control almost always ends in tears.

The RSPH 'investigation' and the way it was reported by the media is a classic example of that.

Anyway, here is a selection of blog posts on the subject. The growing antipathy towards the allegedly 'pro vaping' members of the public health industry suggests a welcome realisation that tobacco control will never be a friend to vapers or consumer choice in general.

Unfortunately, to use a Spitting Image analogy, there are some pro-vaping bodies who seem happy to play David Steel rather than David Owen. And how did that go, exactly?

Real implications of the RSPH “sting” of ecig vendors (Carl Phillips)
Dear Public Health: This is why we're angry (Fergus Mason)
Today's lesson in who not to trust (Dick Puddlecote)
Much ado about nothing (Paul Barnes)

Update: Here's another blogger less than impressed by the IBVTA.

Should e-cigarettes be sold to non-smokers? (Andrew Allison)

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (6)

A smoker's licence is just one way of marking us out without the need for a yellow star sewn into our coats.

Everything that is being done to vapers was first done to smokers. They are using the same template. Vapers are not unique and ecigs don't save lives but smoking less probably does and that message is one that can serve us all rather than divide and offend some of us.

Even if ecigs did "imporve health" , that wouldn't matter to public health who has simply used vapers to divide and conquer smokers and vapers happily obliged - such as this one playing the sort of pathetic addict victim that tobacco control loves.

I do so wish vapers would stop speaking as smokers. They're not and they are not helping themselves or their cause by bashing smokers or smoking to win permission to vape from public health.

They should demand that right because we live in a free society, allegedly, and as such they should also support the right of all consumers to smoke or vape without moaning about it.

Monday, April 10, 2017 at 14:32 | Unregistered CommenterPat Nurse

I feel very sorry for non smokers, Public Health seem to treat them like children, without minds of their own.

First,under Clive Bates, they were supposed to segregate themselves from their friends and meekly go into their own special room.

When they refused to do it, under Deborah Arnott, they made sure that they couldn't still sit with their smoking friends unless they were willing to go outside with them.

Now it seems that Public Health think that non smokers are too dim to even make the choice to try a puff of flavoured steam, so shop keepers shouldn't serve them.

If I were a non smoker, I'd be furious.

Monday, April 10, 2017 at 15:52 | Unregistered CommenterRose2

Rose, that is truly inspired!

I'd never thought of it in those terms, but you are absolutely right. Non-smokers are being treated like infants, with their protectors in Tobacco Control chivvying them like a mother hen to make sure they don't step out of line in their naivety.

I may well plagiarise that at a later date! With acknowledgement, of course.

Monday, April 10, 2017 at 19:36 | Unregistered Commenternisakiman

Dear Mr Clark

In next week's news: McDonald's sells burgers to thin people.


Monday, April 10, 2017 at 20:37 | Unregistered CommenterDP

Ooh dear! Certainly put the cat amongst the vaping-pigeons, this one, hasn’t it? They’re all over their favourite blog sites complaining like billy-ho about what meanies Tobacco Control are, and how unfair it all is, and how it’s all rubbish, etc etc etc. Well, boo-hoo. There’s even some saying that “I don’t trust anything that Public Health comes out with these days,” as if that qualifies them as Rebels of the Century. And yet, as usual, their definition of “anything” falls just short of including all the manipulated and over-exaggerated hype about real smoking. It has to, of course, because if they were really now rejecting “anything that Public Health comes out with” then there’d be no reason for them not to switch back to smoking real cigarettes again, would there? And their foolish pride won’t allow them to do that. So “anything” doesn’t quite mean “anything,” does it? It's empty words.

Vapers are between a rock and a hard place right now – they can either truly start rejecting “everything that Public Health says,” including about smoking, and thus stand a chance of putting up some real opposition to the Public Health juggernaut heading their way; or can just claim to reject everything that Public Health says, but continue to tacitly agree with everything they say about smoking, in which case they’ll simply be ignored as NIMBYs, and that juggernaut will keep on rolling. Alas, vapers, just as everyone on here predicted long ago, have been backed right up into a corner on this one by foe far more experienced and a darned sight more cunning in these matters than they are, and they can rest assured that now the worm has turned, there’ll be more to come along these lines, regardless of all of their protestations, unless they get real, and get real quickly. Vapers had it coming; they just wouldn’t see it. And, as mostly ex-smokers who have been there, done that and got the t-shirt that’s actually a pretty poor show, to say the least.

Smokers are still here, and smokers are still the only ones who can predict with some certainty what Tobacco Control's next moves against vapers will be so that they can be forewarned and forearmed. But none of the smokers I know feel inclined to give out any such handy pointers if we aren't going to get some support (real support, I mean - not just the occasional rather vague "I think smokers are treated unfairly" type comment) coming our way from the other direction, too.

Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 3:24 | Unregistered CommenterMisty

On the question of whether vaping limited to those who "need" it or freely available as an adult consumer product... I'd suggest that's much too narrow a question.
The authoritarian responses could range from outright criminalization to mandatory indoor vaping during flu season (on the theory that PG is anti-microbial).
The opposite, personal liberties view, doesn't ask much more than "leave me alone to choose for myself". But I personally, push it just a wee bit farther and suggest (scandalously!) that everyone ought to try vaping at least once. Any imagined possibility of physical harm is dwarfed by the very real harm caused by creating yet another social division to pit us against each other. Shared experience promotes tolerance and understanding - we may never change the minds of the prohibitionists, but we might defuse the fears they use to turn the naive public into weapons against us.

shameless self promotion:
tldr: Yes, I would recommend vaping to anyone at all, because reasons.

Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 5:17 | Unregistered CommenterSteve Peach

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>