Another own goal by the UK's 'leading vape store'?

Interesting to see VPZ in the news again.

VPZ is the UK's 'leading e-cigarette and vape store' and last year the company launched a lamentable campaign that urged the Scottish Government to 'Ban smoking for good'.

Sadly the short-lived initiative, which I wrote about here and here, quickly ran out of steam.

Aside from a brief flurry of media reports featuring campaign ambassador, former England footballer Neil 'Razor' Ruddock, a petition subsequently posted on the Scottish Government website by VPZ director Doug Mutter attracted a paltry 103 signatures.

As I noted a few months later:

The Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee agreed to close the petition under Rule 15.7 of Standing Orders on the basis that the Scottish Government is not currently considering an outright ban on smoking in favour of vaping.

Yesterday it was reported that VPZ has suffered another blow. According to the Scottish Sun:

An advert for a Scots vaping firm which said it could help people quit smoking or give them their money back has been banned ...

In a written ruling, the ASA [Advertising Standards Authority] said: "Claims that e-cigarettes were capable of helping users to quit smoking cigarettes or reduce the amount that they smoked were considered medicinal claims for the purposes of the [Advertising] Code."

As it happens – having endured a long and frustrating experience with the ASA that ultimately didn't go our way either (albeit Forest was the complainant) – I have some sympathy with VPZ because I'm struggling to spot any medicinal claims that justify the ASA's decision.

I can't say I'm surprised though that the ASA has sided with ASH Scotland, the single complainant.

What did surprise me was the revelation – during an excoriating nine-minute report on Channel 4 News last night – that VPZ has received 25 million pounds worth of loans from Philip Morris.

Then again, Philip Morris wants the UK government to ban the sale of cigarettes in England by 2030 so I guess the two companies are perfectly aligned.

I wonder, though, what other members of the vaping community think of the VPZ/ASA verdict. Another unnecessary own goal, perhaps?

See: Advertising watchdog rebukes firm over claims its 'vape clinic' could help people quit smoking (Channel 4 News)

Comments

[Pat Nurse]

PMI treat their consumers with absolute contempt. Why else would they chuck millions at vaping advocates to attack us and our choice of product?

I think that as Forest is constantly dismissed as being a tobacco mouthpiece dependant on "Big Bad Eviiil Tobacco" funding, then it needs to be made more widely known that tobacco influence is shifting from one of support and respect for their consumers to one of harassment and abuse with a view to forcing their consumers to quit or switch.

There is nothing wrong with so called harm reduction but only if it also includes a method acceptable to all smokers and for some of us, smoking less is far more enjoyable than vaping more and in time may prove to be less risky once more is known about the long term effects of vaping, especially on those who suck away all day and night and don't know where to stop.

We have to stop accepting that vaping in itself is safer than smoking. The absolute truth is dose makes poison in all things. Heavy vaping like heavy smoking is no good for anyone. It isn't a miracle cure but a means for new profit margins. It's not revenge (as Micheál Martin argues). It's just business.