UK's 'leading vaping specialist' wants to 'spearhead' fight against smoking

The Scotsman reports that:

Edinburgh-based vaping firm VPZ will push ahead with its “vape clinic” roll-out after launching a pilot outlet in the capital ...

Director Doug Mutter said: “VPZ is the UK’s leading vaping specialist and we are spearheading the fight against the nation’s number one killer – smoking.

“We are proud to be launching the very first vape clinic here in Edinburgh and will soon be rolling the service out across our entire retail estate to give smokers the support they need to quit and help the country regain its momentum toward becoming a tobacco free nation by 2030.

You'll be familiar with VPZ because I've written about them before (UK's largest vape retailer targets a smoker free future, May 13, 2020).

Prior to that, after Mutter complained about government cuts to smoking support services, I noted:

But here's the twist. Prompted by the “huge cuts in public health spending”, 'VPZ said it is set to launch a new support service in its stores to help smokers turn from cigarettes for good, amid the reduction in available support.'

Great idea. If vaping companies want to encourage smokers to switch to alternative products by setting up ‘support services’ within their own stores, that’s absolutely fine. The point is, they – not the taxpayer – should foot the bill.

The vape clinics currently being announced by VPZ sound very similar to the 'support services' the company was set to launch in 2019 so I'm not sure what happened to the original initiative.

Nevertheless I have no problem with the concept as long as it's funded by the private sector not the taxpayer.

Invited to respond to the story by an online e-cigarette resource, I wrote:

"If the aim is to educate smokers about reduced risk alternatives to combustible tobacco, and help those who want to switch, then privately-run vape clinics are a good idea.

"We draw the line though at publicly funded vape clinics and smoking cessation services because we don't believe they are in the best interests of taxpayers who shouldn't have to pay for smokers to quit or switch to e-cigarettes.

"The difference between the two is important because vaping empowers smokers to switch on their own terms whereas many smoking cessation services have a whiff of the nanny state about them."

"If vaping firms are to attract more converts to e-cigarettes we believe they should talk less about spearheading the fight against smoking, and supporting the Government's smoke free agenda, and focus their efforts on promoting e-cigarettes as a pleasurable and safer alternative to smoking.

"If more smokers are to switch to vaping it won't be because it's associated with an illiberal tobacco control plan imposed on consumers by politicians but because the product is more enjoyable than combustible tobacco.

"Vape clinics should also reject the public health message that vaping is only a stepping stone to complete abstinence from nicotine. If they don't, and cigarettes are eventually eradicated, other nicotine devices like e-cigarettes will be next, regardless of their relative risk."

Pressed to comment on whether the government should support vape clinics in order to achieve its smoke-free 2030 target, I reaffirmed that:

"Vape clinics are a good idea if they inform more consumers about the relative risks of smoking and vaping and help those smokers who want to switch to do so, but they should be supported by government as a private sector initiative not with public money.

"If smokers want to quit or switch, and the vaping industry wants to help them do so, it should be at their expense not the taxpayers'."

As for the Government's 'smoke free' 2030 goal, I said:

"Government should support vaping with light touch regulation based on relative risk, but smoke free targets are intrinsically wrong because if adults still choose to smoke, knowing the health risks, that choice must be respected."

I'm not sure if it was the response they were looking for but I personally think the vaping industry is making a mistake if it thinks it will convert many current smokers by exhorting them (and society at large) to 'fight' or 'beat' the habit.

Most smokers, even those that want to cut down or quit, are not at war with smoking and probably never will be. Even those who consider it an addiction don't seem to mind because they enjoy it, which brings me to an interesting interview with tobacco harm reduction advocate Patt Denning in Filter Mag:

Denning realized something that many smokers do: They are ambivalent about quitting, despite all the nagging, shaming and warnings from friends, family, health care providers and public health organizations. Smoking’s “dirty little secret” is that it’s actually an enjoyable activity. The powerful rituals of smoking and the benefits of nicotine are such that many people don’t want to trade them for a life of abstinence.

Full article: “I Rarely Vape Until Cocktail Hour”—Patt Denning’s THR Journey (Filter Mag).

Thanks to Alan Beard, an associate of the New Nicotine Alliance, for bringing it to my attention.

Comments

[Pat Nurse]

I do not want to trade my enjoyment of cigarettes to help vape pushing bullies replace Big Tobacco and shove me out of public spaces even more to aid their profits whether funded by force via the taxpayer or choice via VPZ's own marketing, which seems to be beat up smokers and watch the cash roll in.

More evidence if needed that vaping is simply being used as a coercive tool to force people into the anti smoker industry's preference for a smoke free world which no one has been asked if they want or not.