Own goal?

Back in November I wrote:

Vapers in Ireland learned a harsh lesson yesterday. Despite admitting that vaping is less harmful than smoking and more popular than gum and other NRT products as a quit smoking tool, the Irish Cancer Society and Irish Heart Foundation yesterday called for the age of sale of tobacco and e-cigarettes to be raised to 21.

The ICS and IHF also want a ban on all e-liquid flavours, a ban on all vaping advertising, and the introduction of plain packaging for e-cigarettes.

The point I was making was that enemies of smoking will never be true friends of vaping – other than as a temporary quit smoking tool en route to the endgame, nicotine cessation – and to think otherwise is almost wilfully naive.

Anyway, the platform for their demands was a meeting of the Irish Parliament's Joint Committee on Health which is currently engaged in a tortuously slow 'pre-legislative scrutiny' of the long-delayed Public Health (Tobacco and Nicotine Inhaling Products) Bill 2019.

This week the Irish vaping industry had an opportunity to respond.

During what were described as 'sometimes testy exchanges', one representative of the Irish Vape Vendors Association (IVVA) conceded that "Nothing is better than fresh air" while another said not vaping is always better if you are a non-smoker.

The same person agreed that some e-cigarette packaging is "overly colourful" and a third said, "I would have no problem increasing the age [of sale] to 21."

WTF?! It's one thing to give an inch but a mile?!

Raising the age of sale of e-cigarettes (and tobacco) to 21 sends entirely the wrong message. As I have argued in relation to tobacco, it infantilises young adults who should be allowed (and encouraged) to make informed choices for themselves.

Specifically it sends the wrong message about e-cigarettes which, if nothing else, is a harm reduction product, not something to be feared or unduly restricted.

The principal IVVA spokesman also admitted that, "Yes, I am addicted to nicotine", which is fair enough.

Later however he added, "I would prefer not to be addicted to nicotine", which is hardly a great endorsement for a nicotine-based consumer product.

The point surely is that nicotine itself is relatively harmless – no more harmful than caffeine apparently – so why would a representative of the vaping industry "prefer not to be addicted to nicotine"?

Would a representative of Nespresso (other brands are available) say "I would prefer not to be addicted to caffeine"?

The IVVA reps were particularly weak when it came to online sales of e-cigarettes to minors (under 18). Their responses were torn apart by Committee members.

To be fair, I have some sympathy with them. Having been grilled by hostile parliamentary committees myself I know it's not easy.

But vaping advocates should be better and stronger than this because everyone knows that if you concede too much to parliamentary committees – and rely too much on "anecdotal" evidence – you will pay the penalty further down the line.

Luckily the vaping industry will have a second bite of the cherry in a couple of weeks because I understand that John Dunne, managing director of the UK Vaping Industry Association (UKVIA), will give evidence to the Committee on March 1.

John was a guest on a 2021 Forest webinar (Why Should Smokers Switch To Vaping?) so I will watch the hearing with even greater interest.

Meanwhile we continue our own battle to persuade the Committee to invite a consumer representative – Forest Ireland's John Mallon – to give evidence.

Curiously members seem reluctant to do so. Can't imagine why.

See also: Oireachtas Health Committee hears concerns over vaping products (RTE)