Still on vaping, Twitter threw me another bone this week:
A new era of the anti-smoking movement begins today in the US. We're a small (but very proud) part of it.
— A Billion Lives (@ABillionLives) May 5, 2018
Check this out!https://t.co/Ee9H0T972c
You may remember A Billion Lives. It was a worthy but rather dull pro-vaping documentary that was shown in a handful of cinemas at the back end of 2016.
I wrote about it several times and reviewed it here. Dr Attila Danko (see previous post) was one of many vaping advocates featured in the film.
At the time director Aaron Biebert insisted his film was principally about corruption. Commenting on this blog in response to my review, he wrote:
The movie was created for future generations to tell the story of how millions (or even a billion given enough time) people will die early from smoking and how corruption in our government and NGOs helped enable that death.
Even though I agree 100% that smokers should have the right to smoke (and not be harassed), the movie was not about the right to smoke. With some estimating that there are now 1.4 billion smokers, that right is alive and well. It was about the right to quit.
If I interpreted that correctly, A Billion Lives wasn't an anti-smoking film. It was anti-corruption and pro the 'right to quit' (a strange concept I shall return to in another post).
Fast forward 18 months and the Billion Lives' team is not only working for Derek Yach's Foundation for a Smoke-Free World (funded by PMI), it's "very proud" to be part of the "anti-smoking movement", a racket that is driven by many of the NGOs and governments A Billion Lives was supposed to expose.
As for "the right to smoke (and not be harassed)", I don't remember seeing that in any tobacco control manifesto.
Harassment of smokers – whether through bans, taxation or 'denormalisation' – is central to the anti-smoking crusade.
When you become a "very proud" member of that movement you signal your support for policies that are designed specifically to coerce smokers to quit.
Forest, on the other hand, is proud to belong to the pro-choice movement. If adults choose to smoke, or vape, or smoke and vape, or quit, or never smoke, good luck to them. It's their choice and whatever they choose they have our support.
As it happens I was invited to talk about about vaping on BBC Radio Essex on Wednesday.
They were running a story about a woman whose e-cigarette battery exploded in her car, burning her hair and scalp, but they wanted a broader discussion about vaping and were interested to hear what Forest's position was.
I defended vaping in pubs and other public places including hospital grounds.
I said e-cigarettes are popular (with some smokers) because they offer a pleasurable alternative to smoking.
I refuted the suggestion that e-cigarettes might be a gateway to smoking, pointing out there was no evidence for this.
I also stressed that tobacco is a legal product and Forest will continue to support adults who choose to smoke.
Would vaping advocates stand up for smokers in the same way? Some would but not many.
As for the team behind the pro-vaping documentary A Billion Lives, they make no attempt to disguise their allegiance. In their own words, they're "very proud" to be part of the "anti-smoking movement".
Who could have predicted that?