I haven’t written about the ‘US vape scare’ until now.
One, I’ve been busy on other things and, two, there’s been no shortage of people commenting, or adding their tuppence ha’penny, on both sides of the Atlantic.
I have however done one or two interviews on the subject and issued a statement on behalf of Forest.
On Monday, for example, I was on a new digital radio station, Voice of Islam UK. They wanted to have a discussion about the ‘harmful effects of smoking and the dangers of vaping and e-cigarettes as an alternative.’
They also wanted my thoughts on ‘recent events in the US’ by which they meant the deaths of eight (now nine) people and the 500+ cases of illness in 38 states, allegedly as a result of vaping (but more on that in a minute).
Yesterday, I recorded a short piece for BBC Radio Essex on the same topic. During a three-minute interview I told them:
“There is a moral panic about vaping in America that is out of all proportion to the actual risk.
“Consumers need choice and evidence suggests that, in terms of risk, vaping is a significantly less harmful option to smoking so anything that reduces choice is bad news for those who want to quit smoking and potentially improve their health.”
I'm not sure whether they used any of it, but I caught the 7.00am news bulletin which included this brief summary:
The pro-smoking [sic] group Forest thinks Donald Trump is over-reacting by calling for a ban on flavoured vaping products in the US.
For those who haven’t been following the story, the cause of the nine deaths would appear to be consumers using unregulated THC – a component of cannabis – in e-cigarettes which they probably purchased on the black market.
The reason for the 500+ cases of illness is less clear but there is currently no evidence that they were caused by products purchased from legitimate sources.
Furthermore, according to PMI, the FDA has not advised consumers to stop using legal forms of e-cigarettes and vaping liquids.
That’s the ‘good’ news.
Unfortunately, around the same time that the deaths from apparently rogue (and illicit) sources were being reported, figures were published that showed vaping rates among high school students were continuing to rise in America.
It was this - not the deaths or the mysterious illnesses - that prompted Donald Trump to call for a ban on flavoured e-cigarettes a couple of weeks ago.
Several states, including New York, announced immediate plans to prohibit flavoured e-cigarettes. This followed the announcement, in June, that San Francisco is to ban the sale of all e-cigarette products.
Forest was invited by a couple of media outlets, including Sky News, to comment and we issued this statement:
“In the land of the free, consumer choice should be paramount. Prohibition never works and a ban on flavoured e-cigarettes will merely drive consumers, including children, to the unregulated black market.
“It would be a grossly disproportionate reaction because most of the current evidence suggests that vaping poses a significantly smaller risk than smoking.
“No-one wants to see children smoking or vaping but to ban flavoured e-cigarettes, which is one of the most attractive aspects of vaping, would discourage millions of smokers, young and old, from switching to a reduced risk product.
“In public health terms, that would be absolutely criminal.”
On reflection the use of the word ‘criminal’ was a bit over the top but it was nothing compared to some of the comments I have read on social media.
To be clear, calls to ban e-cigarettes, flavoured or otherwise, are ridiculous but calling prohibitionists “murderers” and arguing that a ban will "sentence" vapers back to smoking suggests that some people have lost the plot.
The argument seems to go like this:
E-cigarettes are safer than traditional cigarettes, flavoured e-cigarettes encourage smokers to switch, switching to e-cigarettes saves lives therefore a ban on flavoured e-cigarettes will cost lives, ergo those responsible are “murderers”.
A further argument is:
E-cigarettes have helped smokers quit. Ban flavoured vapes and those who have switched to life-saving e-cigarettes may go back to deadly cigarettes, ergo those responsible (politicians and public health officials) are “murderers”.
This is insane.
Being accused of killing people is something tobacco company executives have lived with for decades, but here's the thing.
No-one is a “murderer”. No-one has been "sentenced". Smokers aren't victims. They know the risks. They choose to smoke. No-one holds a gun to their head and says, “Smoke.”
Some people may become addicted to nicotine and find it hard to quit, but the idea that it’s impossible to stop without third party intervention is a fallacy promoted by the tobacco control industry to keep itself in business and maintain the fiction that for most people smoking is an addiction not a choice.
Sadly, instead of taking responsibility for their habit (or ‘addiction’), some vaping activists are accusing politicians and tobacco control of being “murderers” for taking away a reduced risk product that has helped them quit and might help others quit too.
I repeat, I’m fiercely opposed to bans on any kind of nicotine product but the idea that prohibiting flavoured e-cigarettes will condemn smokers to death feeds three misleading narratives.
The first is that most smokers would switch to e-cigarettes if only they were properly informed and given access to reduced risk products.
Hard though it is for the more evangelical vaping advocates to understand, many smokers have tried vaping and they have chosen not to switch because, for them, e-cigarettes aren’t as enjoyable as traditional cigarettes.
The second narrative is that smokers (and vapers) are victims of their habit and are not in control of their choices.
It is therefore assumed - wrongly in my view - that a ban on flavoured e-cigarettes will lead to a large number of papers going back to smoking.
What does that say about vapers? It says that even those who have quit smoking completely are so weak-willed or addicted to nicotine that any sort of ban will send them running back to combustible tobacco.
Will it? Having given up smoking - most likely on health grounds - and switched to vaping, why would you go back to a product you believe is dramatically more harmful and likely to kill you?
The third narrative is this: if you go back to smoking as a result of a ban on e-cigarettes, flavoured or otherwise, it is not your fault, it’s all the fault of those pesky prohibitionists.
Vapers and vaping advocates, stop playing the victim card! It’s great that e-cigarettes exist to help smokers quit (although it would be better still if they were accepted as a legitimate recreational product in their own right).
But if risk reduction options are prohibited, and you genuinely want to quit smoking, don’t use that as an excuse to keep smoking. If you want to quit, quit.
The choice is yours and it’s no one else’s fault if you continue to smoke or, having switched to vaping, revert to smoking.
To be fair, vapers are not alone in playing the victim or ‘murder’ card. (According to climate change campaigners, our species is being 'murdered' by a greedy economic elite.)
But I would advise against it because it's unlikely to win many friends or influence people, whether they be politicians, public health officials or the general public.
I know because I've often been accused of being an accomplice to the murder of smokers. Has it ever changed my position? Far from it. I dig in!
Meanwhile, I’m sure I’m not the only person to be a little weary of the argument that, if we ban e-cigarettes, why don’t we ban cigarettes as well?
I’ve seen that argument several times on social media and the person making it is usually a vaper or the owner of a vape business.
Look, two wrongs don’t make a right. Neither product should be banned. Fight for choice.
Sadly, that is where smokers’ rights campaigners part company with our vaping counterparts. I’ll fight all day for your right to vape but I see no evidence that vaping organisations will support smokers against the punitive regulations being imposed on the use of combustible products.
This is probably why. Speaking on a panel at the Global Tobacco and Nicotine Forum in Washington DC yesterday, a leading tobacco control 'expert', David Sweanor, declared that smoking is a “crazy” system for delivering nicotine when there are less harmful alternatives.
“Get rid of the smoke and get rid of the problem,” he said. (I’m quoting from the official conference account on Twitter.)
If I had been there I would have challenged him as follows:
The pursuit of pleasure isn’t always rational. Many smokers have tried less harmful alternatives but don’t enjoy them as much as smoking.
The challenge is to develop reduced risk products that appeal to many more smokers. Either way, we must respect people’s decision to smoke.
I would also have challenged him on the use of the words 'get rid'. That sounds unnecessarily provocative to me, like 'eradicate' or 'eliminate'.
Speaking of which, the CEO of Juul, Kevin Burns, has stepped down and has been replaced by a former tobacco executive, KC Crosthwaite.
Perhaps Juul will now abandon its vainglorious mission of ‘eliminating’ combustible cigarettes and will adopt the more reasonable and practical aim of extending choice to informed consumers.
Now that would be good news.