Joe Jackson on A Billion Lives

Thanks to those who responded to director Aaron Biebert's reply to my review of the pro-vaping documentary A Billion Lives.

Carl Philips provided his usual thought-provoking analysis and there were strong views from several others, many of which I agree with. I chose however to remain silent (I think I've said enough) and let others do the talking.

One commentator was Joe Jackson. Joe and I don't see eye to eye on everything but I consider him to be a great friend of Forest and I always listen to and value his comments, even the more critical ones!

If I get a moment this weekend I will post some pieces from his website where he writes beautifully and often very amusingly about his favourite music and musicians.

In the meantime here is his response to Aaron Biebert. It includes an amusing twist at the end:

Dear Aaron Biebert,

If Simon isn't ready to respond to your points, there are plenty of us who are. And plenty of us who defend smoking and smokers not because of a 'right to smoke', but because we are in the midst of a huge, well-funded, nasty crusade against us, and it's a crusade powered by lies, exaggerations, and misleading statistics.

Just to respond to a couple of your points: Statistics really are the issue here because that is what anti-smoking is built on - not on genuine science. Where you have 'lost the plot' is that you seem to think the war against vaping is dishonest and corrupt, but the war against smoking is pure as the driven snow.

You can't claim your movie is 'not about' smoking or the tobacco industry, since your whole premise is based on accepting outrageous antismoking propaganda as gospel. Why are people making a big deal about your 'Billion Lives'? Because it's the TITLE of your movie, for God's sake! You then back-pedal by saying 'so what if that's not the exact number? What's the right number?' That's just the point. THERE IS NO RIGHT NUMBER.

'70%' of smokers want to quit'. No, we don't. This is one of many antismoking 'soundbites' that are simply repeated over and over because they don't get challenged. Others include 'biggest preventable cause of death', and 'tobacco will kill half its users' - which I've watched rise from a quarter, then a third - not because of new evidence but because they can say anything they like and get away with it.

Infuriating when that happens, isn't it?!

This is just a blog post, so no room for lots of facts and figures, but there are many sources. All I can add is, if the work you've put into the vaping issue serves you as preparation for the real issue - which is that the whole damn antismoking industry is dishonest and corrupt, and that antivaping is just the latest offshoot of it - then your time and our time will not have been wasted.

On the other hand ... !

Just the existence of this movie is symptomatic of a growing interest in the issue of vaping, something that could turn out to be the 'game-changer' many of us hope for. It puts 'tobacco control' in a deliciously awkward situation. On the whole, they're anti-vaping, for three reasons: (1) ignorance and prejudice against anything that 'looks like' smoking; (2) neither they nor their supporters in the Pharma industry created it or profit from it, in fact it could mean loss of funding for them; (3) the more attention vaping gets, the more the rest of their lies and corruption could get exposed.

Update: In my introduction to Aaron Biebert's response I mentioned that A Billion Lives is due to be screened in Delhi on November 9, coinciding with the seventh session of the Conference of the Parties (COP7) to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC) that takes place in Delhi from 7-12 November.

A key interviewee in the film is the former Winston Man David Goerliz who has worked for the tobacco industry and public health and is now an outspoken advocate of vaping.

Goerlitz was due to appear at the screening of the Delhi screening but Biebert last night announced that the Goerlitz has been refused, without explanation, a visa.

Funnily enough this reminds me of the hoops we had to jump through when attending the Global Tobacco Networking Forum (as it was known) in Bangalore in 2011.

I got my visa but I was advised not to say I was attending a tobacco industry conference.

Likewise, when we arrived at Bangalore Airport at 4.00am, tired and disheveled after an eleven hour flight, we were under strict instructions not to mention the reason for our visit.

"Don't mention the c-word," hissed one of the organisers as we queued to show our passports.

She meant "conference".

Finally, Lisbet from Norway tells me that A Billion Lives will be shown in London on December 12.

I assume she means central London (unlike the Greenwich screening that takes place on November 16).

When I get further details I'll let you know, if you're interested.

Update: Lisbet now says December 12 was only a rumour which means I have failed the first rule of journalism - always get your story corroborated by a second (reliable) source!!

LBC presenter Iain Dale offers a nice take on this here.

Stoptober celebrities feel the pinch

Credit where credit's due.

Public Health England responded with impressive speed to my request for information about Stoptober.

I'm still waiting for an answer to my query concerning the number of smokers who signed up for Stoptober 2016. (It was 215,000 last year, down almost 15 per cent on the previous year.)

I do however have a figure for the amount of money PHE paid Phil Tufnell, Craig Revel Horwood, Chris Kamara and Natasha Hamilton to promote the campaign.

The total sum was £29,000.

Compare that to last year when Al Murray, Bill Bailey, Rhod Gilbert and Shappi Khorsandi were paid a total of £195,000 to promote Stoptober.

Or 2014 when PHE allegedly paid £250,000 to Al Murray, Paddy McGuinness, Lee Nelson and Andi Osho for their work.

Anyway, in response to Forest's enquiry, PHE has issued this statement:

"The celebrities were paid £29,000, significantly less than last year, and we worked with Carat, DST, Freuds, M and C Saatchi, MEC, Ogilvy One, Serco and 23Red on the campaign. We operate tight controls to ensure our campaigns return on investment, by delivering savings for the NHS and other public services."

Knowing what some celebrities charge for an after dinner speech, for example, I can't pretend this is unreasonable.

For example, at the height of his popularity Forest was quoted £35k for Al Murray.

Other people we made tentative enquiries about included Stephen Fry (£25k), Joanna Lumley (minimum £12k) and - before he was Mayor of London - Boris Johnson (£10k).

I should stress that our enquiries never went further than an agency so even if we had the money I have no idea if any of them would have agreed to speak at one of our events.

The point is, if you ignore the use of taxpayers' money, £29,000 for four celebrities, two of whom are currently on prime time television shows, is not a bad deal.

It does however beg the question, who approved the payment of £445k for eight comedians (seven if you allow for the fact that Murray was hired twice) over the previous two years.

A more blatant example of a taxpayer-funded quango burning our money I have yet to see. The good news is, such profligacy appears to be over.

Nevertheless, PHE still spent one million pounds of public money on the 2016 Stoptober campaign, so where has all the rest gone?

We know that £500,000 was allocated for Facebook ads and I'm guessing that Carat, DST, Freuds, M and C Saatchi, MEC, Ogilvy One, Serco and 23Red didn't volunteer their services for free.

What will be interesting is how the figures for Stoptober 2016 are ultimately spun. In September, in an interview with Sheila Mitchell, PHE's marketing director, Marketing Week reported that:

Stoptober has been a shining success for the government health body. Out of the 2.5 million smokers who made a quit attempt last year, 500,000 were successful.This is the highest recorded success rate and is up from 13.6% six years ago.

If 215,000 signed up I'm not clear how they can also claim that 2.5 million smokers attempted to quit during the campaign with 500,000 being successful.

Aside from the suspiciously round figures, how on earth do they know?

In the meantime let's take heart from the fact that, this year at least, a bunch of 'C' list celebrities aren't being paid excessive amounts of money at our expense.

Questions for Public Health England concerning Stoptober 2016

Last year, without prompting or prevarication, Public Health England reported that over 215,000 smokers had signed up to Stoptober 2015.

The announcement was made on October 30, 2015, and was posted on the UK government website.

What it failed to mention was that the number was 15 per cent fewer than 2014 or that PHE, a quango funded by taxpayers' money, paid four comedians including Al Murray and Bill Bailey a total of £195,000 to promote the campaign.

The latter wasn't revealed until February 2016 when the Mail on Sunday blew the whistle.

Meanwhile we await comparable figures for Stoptober 2016.

Given the alleged cuts to Stoptober's budget, it will be particularly interesting to know how much PHE paid Phil Tufnell, Craig Revel Horwood, Chris Kamara and Natasha Hamilton to promote this year's campaign.

This afternoon Forest will invite PHE to provide answers to these questions.

Don't hold your breath but watch this space.

Update: 'Thank you for your email. Your enquiry will be forwarded to a relevant press officer or to the public enquiries team, who will respond as soon as possible.'

Why I hate all this poppycock

There are clearly more important things to write about today, which is one of the reasons I find the poppygate issue so ridiculous.

People who should know better are still milking FIFA's refusal to allow the poppy to be worn on the shirts of the England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland teams during next week's internationals.

OK, so England players were allowed to wear armbands embroidered with a poppy a few years ago but, before that, when was it ever an issue?

I agree there's some hypocrisy in the fact that the Irish team was allowed to commemorate the 1916 uprising on their shirts for two international 'friendlies' earlier this year.

But, again, why are people (Conservatives in particular) making such a fuss?

In recent years I have grown increasingly annoyed by what can only be called poppy fascism.

Look, I happily buy and wear a poppy. I do it every year because I believe it's the right thing to do.

But if someone chooses not to that's a matter for them and I won't criticise them for it.

What is far worse than not wearing a poppy is the sense you are being forced to whether you like it or not.

Ironically this less than subtle campaign has been driven in recent years by the 'liberal' BBC and other broadcasters who insist on every newsreader, presenter or guest wearing a poppy.

OK, perhaps they don't insist but before you're interviewed it's someone's job to offer you a poppy (if you're not already wearing one) and the clear implication is that you should wear it.

As I say, it's not the wearing of a poppy I object to, it's the less than subtle sense of compulsion.

Perhaps the broadcasters are just looking after your best interests because look what happens if someone does appear on screen without a poppy:

ITV news presenter hits back after abuse for not wearing poppy (Guardian).

The same thing happens in football.

In recent years top Premiership clubs have added poppies to their shirts around Armistice Day. In theory players have a choice but when West Brom's Irish striker James McClean exercises his right not to have a poppy on his shirt he attracts all manner of abuse (and not just from politicians in Northern Ireland):

Politician claims James McClean is "wrong" not to wear poppy (Joe.co.uk)

Outrage as football star James McClean REFUSES to wear poppy on his shirt (Daily Express)

The fact is, for most presenters, guests and football players there is no choice, unless you want to nail a target to your head and invite people to throw metaphorical darts at you.

I've no doubt that the overwhelming majority of people in this country are happy to wear a poppy and show their respects to those who have fought and died in wars, but what we are seeing with the faux outrage towards FIFA is the sort of virtual signalling we detest in others.

The nonsense doesn't end with poppies. A Tory MP, Andrew Rosindell, today called for the national anthem to be played on TV every night. For goodness sake.

Personally I would ban the playing of national anthems at all sporting events, especially the Olympics where most competitors are competing as individuals even though they may have been selected to represent their country.

Kit wise, I would ban any accessory to the basic shirt, shorts and socks. Football is a team game so why should players be given the choice of embroidering their kit with added extras?

I would also ban the choice of short or long sleeved shirts. Long sleeves only, please.

And no gloves or hair bands!

It's probably too late to ban coloured boots (other than black) but there has to be a rule that boots must be colour coordinated with the team's strip (home or away).

Anyway, for the first time ever I seem to be in agreement with Kevin Maguire of the Daily Mirror who has tweeted:

England played 10/10/01 Armistice Day eve. WW1 veterans alive. More from WW2. No poppies. 2016: manufactured row pic.twitter.com/RTrZubQi3c

— Kevin Maguire (@Kevin_Maguire) November 3, 2016

Update on Friday, November 4, 2016 at 12:29 by Simon Clark

It seems I was wrong about that the Republic of Ireland escaping censure.

The Irish media is reporting that FIFA intends to charge the Football Association of Ireland (FAI) over its 1916 commemoration shirts.

FIFA charge FAI over 1916 celebration logo (RTE)

Director Aaron Biebert replies to my review of A Billion Lives

Aaron Biebert, director of A Billion Lives, has replied to my review of his documentary.

His comments are posted here, below the review, but I thought they deserved greater prominence. Unlike ASH Scotland I don't have a problem publishing opposing views or giving people the right of reply.

Aaron's response follows the film's latest trailer that promotes a special screening in Delhi on November 9.

Billed as the film's Indian premiere, it will coincide with the seventh session of the Conference of the Parties (COP7) to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC) that takes place in Delhi from 7-12 November.

Hi Simon,

First of all, thanks for taking the time to go see the movie and to provide a thoughtful review. I don't agree with all of your conclusions or remarks, but I do appreciate them.

The movie was created for future generations to tell the story of how millions (or even a billion given enough time) people will die early from smoking and how corruption in our government and NGOs helped enable that death. Even though I agree 100% that smokers should have the right to smoke (and not be harassed), the movie was not about the right to smoke. With some estimating that there are now 1.4 billion smokers, that right is alive and well.

This was about the right to quit. Something that is quite serious to those seeking to do so (obviously not your camp).

I agree that some parts are less interesting to older people now, but the younger (& future) generations will be shocked.

A couple notes:

• I was saying "Preachers", not "Teachers"

• If 1.4 billion people are smoking and 70% would like to quit, that's approximately a billion people "trapped"

• You seem unsure if there's widespread corruption and lying about the topic, yet your blog is full of posts abouut such things. Are we both "conspiracy theorists"?

• We don't seek to interview the tobacco companies, because this film was not about the players in the vaping industry (which now includes tobacco companies). It was about the other side.

• I named the film "A Billion Lives" because that was the stat that caught my attention. I realize now that it's a contentious stat, but I'm not sure why the continuous harping on it. Smokers are dying early from cigarettes. People are dying early from many things they choose to do and I am ok with them choosing to do so. However, it seems a bit of a red herring to keep arguing about the stats. Would it be better if we called it 756,000,000 lives? What number is ok? I'm curious.

• The target audience is the public, who is very curious about these devices and the battle they hear about. We appear to have an audience, as it will be successfully shown about 100 times during the opening month. The UK is less curious for obvious reasons.

• We don't focus on the enjoyment that people get out of vaping, because that's not the point of the film. The internet is full of videos and blogs about how great it is. This was a corruption film.

• You might find my part to be a bit too strong, but we let the experts speak for themselves. No scripting. No hyperbole. Their recurring message was the base of the film.

• The reviews (professional and amateur) found on IMDB are quite positive. After 1000+ reviews, we have a 9.6 out of 10 rating. The two professional reviews they link to were fairly positive. The LA Times said we made "a compelling case".

Here are some other reviews:
NYC Movie Guru
Screen-Space
Ryan Jay Reviews

I've appreciated your continued interest. Honestly, I'll miss your blog posts. I always got such a kick out of how many people send me them all upset ... and how I usually was quite entertained. Even your review has me smiling a bit. We don't see eye to eye, but I do respect your passion.

Aaron Biebert
Director, A Billion Lives

------------------------

Thanks, Aaron, I appreciate your response and respect your passion too.

You make some valid points. I could reply to some of them but I won't because this debate could go on for ever.

Also, I know you're busy and I don't want to take advantage of that by trying to have the last word. Others can of course comment if they want to.

Good luck in Delhi. That's a premiere I would love to have attended!

And the award goes to ...

Forest has been nominated for an award. Seriously.

Unfortunately we had to nominate ourselves. Here's what happened.

A couple of weeks ago I took a call from someone who organises an annual awards event.

They'd heard good things about our Eat, Drink, Smoke, Vape party at the Conservative conference in Birmingham and thought it should be nominated.

Good-oh, I thought, recognition at last.

But there was a catch. We had to nominate the event ourselves and there was a small cost involved.

To cut a long story short they offered to waive the fee and I agreed to nominate our event.

This involved writing a short entry that I duly submitted two days after the closing date.

Not only was our nomination accepted but I then got a follow-up call inviting Forest to sponsor some element of the evening or book a table for ten.

I didn't reply.

They rang again yesterday, leaving a message. Today I shall respond as follows.

Thanks but no thanks. If our nomination (which we haven't paid for) is shortlisted I will happily purchase two tickets to attend the dinner.

Beyond that – sorry, not interested.

If we win an award (which is long overdue, btw) I don't want anyone to think – fairly or unfairly – that money is a factor.

Nominations are being considered by a team of judges and a shortlist for each category will be announced next week.

If Eat, Drink, Smoke, Vape is shortlisted I'll be pleasantly surprised.

If we actually win an award I'll be more than surprised. I'll be tickled pink.

Watch this space.

Update: The organisers have assured me that support for this event is definitely NOT a factor when considering their awards.

I am happy to make that clear!

PS. The winners of the inaugural Voices of Freedom Awards that Forest launched in July were:

Rod Liddle, associate editor, The Spectator
Claire Fox, director, Institute of Ideas
Chris Snowdon, director, IEA Lifestyle Unit
John Mallon, spokesman, Forest Ireland
Barry Curtis, campaigner against smoking bans in mental health units

I am happy to confirm that not a penny changed hands before, during or after our deliberations.

Amusement and contempt

On Friday ASH Scotland posted an article on their blog that raised questions about the Forest-funded Smokers' Survey.

We answered their principal complaint - that respondents won't represent smokers "as a whole" - on Twitter.

In addition I and several other people submitted comments to the ASH Scotland blog, Tobacco Unpacked.

That was three days ago. So far not one has been published. Not one.

I'm not angry because I couldn't care less, to be honest. But I thought I'd mention it so it's on record that ASH Scotland is happy to have a pop at Forest but when we (and others) respond they won't even give us the customary right of reply.

To be clear, I don't publish every comment that's submitted to this blog. That's why I have comment moderation in place.

But if I criticised anyone directly I wouldn't think twice about publishing their reaction (subject to the laws of libel and defamation, of course).

Tobacco control doesn't work that way. Their aim is to shut down discussion, ignore opposing views and censor dissent, just like totalitarian governments the world over.

So, no, I'm not angry. I'm not even surprised. I'm just sad for anyone who has to work in such a stultifying environment.

Forest may be a corner shop compared to ASH Scotland's state-funded superstore but I could never work for a body that's the complete antithesis of a free, open-minded society.

Anti-tobacco campaigners talk about people's addiction to smoking but their addiction to propaganda and control is a far, far greater threat to society.

I genuinely pity them and their small-minded illiberal attitudes.

But my principal reaction is one of amusement and contempt.

It's all they deserve.

Thoughts on A Billion Lives

The most poignant moment in the pro-vaping documentary A Billion Lives takes place towards the end.

Vince, an Australian who was successfully prosecuted for selling e-cigarettes and could lose his house as a result, stares directly into the webcam on his laptop and declares:

"Don't let the bastards win."

Even my wife, who has no interest in the subject, felt for Vince and considered his treatment harsh and unjust.

A Billion Lives should have made more of Vince because his is a genuine human interest story. Instead he's just one of many talking heads, some more interesting than others.

The first third of the film focuses on the history of the cigarette, the health risks of smoking and the role of the tobacco industry that was eventually forced to admit - decades after evidence first emerged - that smoking was a potentially deadly habit.

A familiar tale illustrated with archive footage, it wasn't uninteresting but I'm not sure it achieved much apart from reaffirming Big T's less than glorious history for openness and transparency, which most people know about anyway.

Eventually, almost 30 minutes in, A Billion Lives finally addresses the issue of e-cigarettes.

As readers know, I've been uncomfortable with the 'billion lives' messaging ever since I saw the inaugural trailer in November last year. Far from being toned down, in the film it becomes a mantra, repeated ad nauseum:

"A billion lives are at stake."

"A billion people are going to die."

"A billion people are being condemned to death."

"A billion people are projected to die of smoking."

"A billion people will die early from smoking cigarettes this century."

"This is a battle for a billion lives."

Yeah, yeah, we geddit.

The problem is this. Pro-vaping evangelists like Biebert accuse the World Health Organisation of lying about e-cigarettes. What he seems to have overlooked is that the title and recurring message of A Billion Lives is based on the same organisation's highly contentious estimate of the number of people who will die prematurely this century if smoking is not eradicated.

You can't have it both ways. I don't dispute that electronic cigarettes are a significantly 'safer' alternative to combustible cigarettes but if WHO is lying about e-cigs why should we assume they're telling the truth about the global impact of smoking?

Despite this Biebert seems happy to believe that a billion lives would be saved if only smokers quit or switched to vaping. It's an extraordinary leap of faith based more on hope than evidence.

Another misstep is the conceit that "a billion people find themselves trapped" by smoking. Trapped? The implication that all smokers are victims of their habit is another generalisation that drives this well-meaning but flawed film.

Biebert may have discovered an affinity with vapers but his understanding of those who choose to smoke and don't want to quit seems minimal.

We're told the film is "about freedom, about corruption" but the freedom to smoke is never acknowledged. Instead it's all about the freedom not to smoke.

However, the message that really undermines A Billion Lives is the suggestion that the war on vaping is some sort of conspiracy.

According to Biebert, during Prohibition in America there was an alliance between the bootleggers and what he calls the preachers - the temperance movement and, I think, the authorities. (It was dark in the auditorium and I was struggling to write notes!)

He now invites us to believe that Big Pharma, Big Tobacco and Big Government are working together, deliberately or otherwise, to destroy a product that could save a billion lives.

The argument, I think, goes like this. Today's bootleggers are Big Tobacco, who don't like competition from e-cigarettes; Big Pharma, who want to protect their own harm reduction business; and governments that, thanks to tobacco duty and the enormous amount of revenue it raises, are effectively the biggest shareholders in tobacco.

The preachers in this modern day analogy are bodies like the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the World Health Organisation.

According to Biebert it's one of the most "fascinating alliances in history" and it's based on the principle that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Public health advocacy, the film adds, is a multi-billion dollar business. Tobacco products are being protected, sending smokers to an early grave. Everyone is lying, government is corrupt.

There may be some truth in this, I don't know. Unfortunately conspiracy theorists don't have a great track record and the message is rammed home with the subtlety of a sledgehammer.

Much has been made of the many public health bodies that declined or ignored invitations to be interviewed for this film. A list appears in the closing credits.

What has been overlooked is the fact that similar requests do not appear to have been made to representatives of Big Tobacco, an industry that clearly has a huge role to play in the development of e-cigarettes and other harm reduction products.

Like it or not the tobacco companies are part of the vaping revolution and there are some very articulate advocates for e-cigarettes and other harm reduction technologies within their ranks.

Finally, ever since I saw the film on Wednesday, I've been struggling to work out the target audience.

Vapers? Probably not. Yes, it might inspire some to become activists but consumers are notoriously apathetic when it comes to fighting political battles. As we have seen in the UK, getting vapers to support even a few screenings has been harder than pulling teeth.

Smokers? Unlikely. A Billion Lives might attract a handful who would like to quit and want to know more about vaping. The problem is they won't learn much because no-one ever really explains the appeal of vaping beyond harm reduction – and for many smokers that will never be enough to convince them to switch.

In the film Dr Atila Danko, a GP and ex-smoker, describes vaping as "something exciting, better than smoking" but there's little to support this. I longed for an enthusiast to explain the appeal of e-cigarettes as a recreational device. Where are the Jilly Goolden or Oz Clarke figures who could have described the flavours and sensation of vaping to a wider audience?

Instead the film devotes much of its running time to a number of rather dry pro-vaping public health advocates.

The most colourful commentators are Dave Goerlitz, the former Winston Man, and Bill Godshall, founder and executive director of Smokefree Pennsylvania, but they appear so often they eventually become irritating.

By the end (and this may surprise you) I wanted to see less of them and more of Clive Bates, the former director of ASH, whose contribution felt relatively minor in comparison – a pity because, despite our differences, I acknowledge Clive to be one of the most authoritative and articulate pro-vaping advocates.

When it came to interviewing vapers, why weren't they filmed in pubs or bars? The handful of vapers who were given the opportunity to comment were invariably shot via webcam at home so instead of vaping being seen as a social habit, they appeared as solitary souls, home alone with their gadgets and gizmos.

If the target audience is politicians and public health professionals are you really going to have a positive impact on policy making by accusing them of being involved in a conspiracy that will prematurely kill one billion people?

The best you can hope for is that the media will start asking questions but in my experience journalists are even more sceptical of conspiracy theorists than the general public.

According to its director, A Billion Lives is "more than just a movie, it's a movement". I admire what Aaron Biebert has achieved and the energy with which he is promoting his documentary, but a cooler more objective head would avoid such hyperbole.

The rise of the e-cigarette is a story that doesn't need embellishment. Both the science and the testimony of consumers speak for themselves.

In short, anyone who expects a balanced, unbiased documentary will be disappointed. However, as a starting point for a debate about vaping, public health and the role of government, A Billion Lives is worth a look.

Click here for details of forthcoming screenings in the UK.

Update: In addition to the screening I attended in Glasgow last week, A Billion Lives premiered in Los Angeles (Wednesday) and New York (Friday).

Before posting my thoughts I avoided reading any reviews but now that I have here are three you might like to read too:

Pro-vaping documentary 'A Billion Lives' makes a compelling case (Los Angeles Times).

‘A Billion Lives’ Claims There’s a Conspiracy Against Vaping (New York Times).

'A Billion Lives': Film Review (Hollywood Reporter).