How mixed messages are undermining the vaping advocacy industry
Monday, June 26, 2023 at 16:00 I sometimes think the biggest threat to vaping are vaping advocates.
I've previously highlighted several examples of foot in mouth syndrome, so before I record the latest let's recap.
In March 2021, Edinburgh-based VPZ, the UK's largest vape retailer, launched a campaign to 'Ban smoking for good' in Scotland.
Commercially you can see where VPZ was coming from. Ban a more popular rival product and, hey presto, millions of potential new customers will be forced to switch. Ingenious!
Or perhaps not. As I wrote at the time:
Calling for a ban on a rival commercial product enjoyed by millions of consumers is not a good look.
I’m not sure it does much for the reputation of the wider vaping industry either. I certainly don’t see it impressing the Scottish Government, not even one as anti-smoking as Nicola Sturgeon’s.
In fact, the 'campaign' (launched on No Smoking Day, natch) was quickly abandoned following the failure of a petition to 'Ban smoking for good' that was signed by just 103 people.
Eleven months later, whilst giving evidence to the Irish Parliament's Joint Committee on Health, a 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."
As I subsequently wrote ('Own goal?'):
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.
I also noted that after admitting that he was "addicted to nicotine", the principal IVVA spokesman added, "I would prefer not to be addicted to nicotine", which is hardly a great endorsement for the nicotine-based consumer product he was supposed to be defending!!
At the time I wasn't alone in thinking that some of those comments beggared belief and were potentially counter-productive if not damaging to vaping, but foot in mouth appears to be endemic within the vaping industry.
In the last week our old friend Doug Mutter of VPZ in Edinburgh was reported to be backing a ban on disposable vapes. Seriously.
To be fair he qualified this by saying the company's support for a ban was dependent on "proper punishments and policing" so it didn't create a black market (which of course it will!), but that nuance was lost on the BBC whose report was headlined 'Vape store boss supports ban on disposables'.
Doh!
The thing is, why risk a headline like that? Had it been me (and I have done this several times in interviews) I would have firmly rejected any suggestion of a ban and added, "Banning disposable vapes will create a huge black market and drive consumers into the hands of illicit traders."
But instead of that Mutter and VPZ appear – deliberately or not – to be on the side of the prohibitionists, which is extraordinary considering he is both a director and occasional spokesman for the UK Vaping Industry Association (UKVIA) whose principal spokesman, director John Dunne, is adamant that a ban on disposables is a BAD idea!
A quick shout out too to Louise Ross who was quoted by the Guardian on Friday in a feature headlined 'No need to rush': How to give up vaping:
Unlike cigarettes, where official advice is to completely stop smoking, going cold turkey is not recommended when giving up vaping.
Louise Ross, a clinical consultant at the National Centre for Smoking Cessation and Training, says the most important thing is to be ready to give up. “If you stop too quickly, the risk is that you go back to smoking.” She advises reducing the strength of the vapes gradually, vaping less often and in fewer places, and making sure your vape isn’t always in your hand. “It’s about setting controls,” she says.
Nothing wrong with that advice. But it's worth noting that Louise is still interim chair of the New Nicotine Alliance, a vaping advocacy group that, if I'm not mistaken, was originally launched to represent 'new nicotine' consumers, including those who, having quit smoking, discovered they enjoyed vaping so much they had no intention of quitting.
Today the current chair of the NNA is a former smoking cessation professional who offers advice on how to quit vaping as well.
To be clear, I am not questioning Ross's integrity because she is obviously well-meaning, but I do find it odd that some of the vaping advocates most often quoted by the media are increasingly minded to talk about quitting, or not starting (to vape).
At risk of repeating myself, is this really the best endorsement of a product we are continually told (by the same people) carries a fraction of the risk of smoking?
But that's not all:
And for teenagers who have never smoked, Ross advises them to consider the environmental benefits of stopping vaping, as well as the health benefits. Vape batteries contain lithium, aluminium, steel, copper and plastics.
Question: Why stop at teenagers who have never smoked? Surely the same message applies to anyone who vapes, or is thinking of switching to vaping (ie current smokers)? Think of the environment, people!!
If you're confused by these mixed messages, join the club. The most extraordinary thing, though, is the fact that they are coming not from opponents of vaping but from within the vaping advocacy industry itself.
As the saying goes, with friends like these who needs ....
Update: UK vaping industry called to account following rise in use among children (UK Parliament, Wednesday June 28)
Reader Comments (3)
I agree, it drives me to distraction the way so many advocates try and appear reasonable by buying into prohibitionists talking points.
"Nothing is better than fresh air."
Err, speak for yourself. Maybe for those obsessed with biological health, but for the rest of us our well being includes more than just biological health.
"official advice" is often driven by propaganda so, especially these days, should be taken with a pinch of salt.
The best way to quit smoking is exactly the same as Louise advises for quitting vaping. Cutting down is better than cold turkey and other anti vaping advice like not carrying the vape in your hand is like not taking your tobacco or cigarettes out with you or keeping them at a distance when home. Both are psychological habits rather than physical addictions so it is about changing the mind set and habits that trigger the desire for a smoke.
I never want to quit but I did want to cut down and I found it very easy to quit smoking in the day time and limiting my intake to seven during the evening when I've always enjoyed smoking more. Now, I don't even think of lighting up before 5pm.
I can already hear the sneers of smoker haters who think they know better than people like me who have lived the experience of smoking for almost 6 decades - without hospitalisation or any grim health issues, I might add.
It is precisely because I profoundly distrust the advice of today's "officials" that I will never quit. After a lifetime of smoking I think quitting rather than moderate smoking would be very bad for me personally. Dose makes poison in all things, including vaping.
These so called "officials" couldn't care less if their one size fits all advice is not good for everyone. One more dead smoker is one less to worry about in pushing the political agenda of a future with no smokers in it.
Regarding that advice, it always leaves me gobsmacked that vaping advocates push that smoking is so profoundly dangerous based on the advice of so called officials and experts and then in the next breath absolutely dispute the same warnings from the same sort of people about vaping if that advice doesn't support their product of choice.
Each to their own, dose makes poison, and adults being free to use adult products based on informative advice rather than propaganda or psychological health terrorism, should be the message of both smoking orgs and vaping orgs but, as you say, unless vaping advocates are promoting smoking as akin to a nuclear fall out then they would never push smokers to buy their products. The politics of fear is a useful marketing tool.
The media and many others including politicians and the general public, are not buying into the "ecigs saves lives" mantra as there are too many stories starting to surface from people who claim to have been hospitalised because of vaping.
If vaping is to survive, the believers need to get a grip and change tactics. Rolling over backwards to please the anti smoker industry and the puritanical health industry won't help their cause.
I did quit vaping advocacy cold turkey "with such friends who needs enemies"