Vaper-friendly conference restricts and even prohibits vaping to appease "non-vaping delegates"

I like a challenge so I'm tempted to accept Dick Puddlecote's suggestion that I attend the Global Forum on Nicotine in Warsaw next month.

Read his full post here.

As things stand it's probably the only opportunity I'll have to see A Billion Lives before it goes to DVD (see previous post).

Anyway I've just been on the GFN website and my eye was immediately drawn - I don't know why - to the vaping policy.

I must have a sixth sense for the absurd because this is what I found:

GFN is a vaper friendly conference, actively encouraging participation by consumers and advocates. For various reasons this year we have had to introduce a vaping policy, which we hope will accommodate everyone's needs. The main reasons for this are:

- that some non-vaping delegates last year felt that they were 'trapped' with the vapour, which they found unpleasant and distracting, particularly in the plenary and parallel sessions where there are a lot of people packed into a relatively small space;

- that the Polish government are pushing for indoor usage restrictions - there may be regulators present and we would like them to leave with a positive view of vaping and vapers, and indeed of the conference;

- that since last year the majority of experienced vapers have switched to high powered devices and sub-ohming, which is fine for vape meets but not so good in the conference venue where it tends to create a rather disconcerting fog bank for those who are not used to it.

So who were the "non-vaping delegates" who felt "trapped" by "unpleasant and distracting" vapour?

I'm guessing it was some of those "pro-vaping" public health campaigners. You know, the ones vapers are so keen to join forces with.

Well, they're so "pro-vaping" vaping is now banned in all "plenary and parallel sessions". Furthermore:

You are free to vape in the networking and public areas, but please be discreet and considerate.

Use low powered devices as it helps to keep the amount of vapour created to a minimum.

If you want to blow clouds there will be a terrace available on the same floor as the conference takes place, or please go outside the venue.

In other words, if you must vape please try very very hard not to draw attention to it, ask before you vape near "non-vaping delegates" (they might not like it), and if you insist on using a high powered device – sorry, that's now prohibited indoors but, don't worry, you can use it outside with the smokers.

Some might argue (with some justification) that the organisers are merely using their common sense. But I can't help thinking this is yet another example of how public health campaigners are dictating the agenda on e-cigarettes.

It's clear the hotel hasn't got a policy on vaping otherwise the organisers would have said so and used that as an excuse. Instead, and in order to placate those "non-smoking delegates", the organisers have imposed their own vaping ban.

The hope is that by prohibiting the use of even low powered devices during formal sessions – while driving the use of high powered devices outside – it will give regulators a "positive view of vaping and vapers".

It may work. The problem is they are effectively conceding that in order to achieve that goal vaping has to be banned or severely restricted in enclosed public spaces, while the use of "high-powered" devices must be policed in exactly the same way as smoking.

How on earth are vapers going to argue that vaping should be allowed in pubs and other indoor public places when a conference organised and attended by advocates of e-cigarettes voluntarily imposes its own prohibitive policies because of the "rather disconcerting fog bank for those who are not used to it"?

I'm sure the organisers are doing their best to be socially responsible but by imposing this policy on delegates the implication is that vapers cannot be trusted to be discreet and considerate without a formal "policy".

Meanwhile what happens if someone chooses to ignore the policy? I can think of several delegates who will view it as a challenge but perhaps the fear of being exposed by "some non-vaping delegates" will force them to comply.

Either way it should be interesting.

No UK premiere (yet) for A Billion Lives. Why not?

I've been a bit unkind about the 'pro-vaping' documentary A Billion Lives.

I respect the passion and commitment of director Aaron Biebert but I'm uncomfortable with the way the film is being promoted.

The trailer was a classic example. I won't repeat my objections – you can read them here. Dick Puddlecote had similar reservations.

Perhaps this is what you have to do to get an independent documentary noticed but I much prefer the more nuanced approach of documentary makers like Louis Theroux that leave viewers to make up their own minds.

In contrast the Michael Moore style of film-making leaves me cold. I suspect it's also counter-productive, polarising rather than changing people's opinions.

Anyway I'm not going to judge A Billion Lives until I've seen it. And that's the point of this post. As things stand I may have to wait until it comes out later in the year on DVD. And here's why.

The "world premiere" takes place this Wednesday (May 11) at the DocEdge film festival in New Zealand. So far (literally) so good.

However, according to an email sent out by the producers last Thursday, there won't be a European premiere until mid June and it's not going to be at a film festival nor will it be a standalone event in a major European city like London, Paris or Berlin.

Instead the European premiere of A Billion Lives will take place in Warsaw as part of the Global Forum on Nicotine conference and the audience will be predominantly vaping activists and "pro-vaping" public health campaigners.

Apparently the film includes "many speakers and participants at last year's conference" which is one way to ensure a standing ovation but I'm not sure it lends itself to impartial reviews.

And after Warsaw? Here, in the words of director Aaron Biebert, is a worldwide guide to the current state of play:

United States: "We'll set a date in the US once we've figured out a way to pay for it."

Canada: "Same as above for the US."

Australia: "We are getting closer to a plan for a proper Australian Premiere in July."

Germany: "We have interest from several theaters and distributors. If we keep at this, there will be a wide release throughout all of Germany, possibly Austria and Switzerland too."

Norway: "Growing interest from movie distributors."

France: "We will have a premiere in France, a country that has been so wonderfully supportive." So supportive there is no mention of a date.

Sweden: Conversations are happening, apparently, and the director is "confident that the Swedish people will get a chance to see A Billion Lives."

Last but not least, here's what Biebert has to say about the good 'ole United Kingdom:

We'd really really really like to host a UK premiere soon. Our friends in Scotland did their best to bring the movie to a film festival in Edinburgh, but we just found out the festival wasn't interested in the topic.

Despite having several prominent UK thinkers in the movie, we are not seeing much other interest at this time from the UK. Hopefully that will change soon.

Seriously? No-one has offered to host or support a UK premiere?

I find this incredible and it's not the first time the thought has crossed my mind. Five weeks ago I wrote:

Curiously I've yet to see any mention of a UK premiere. There's been talk of a European premiere (in Paris?) and a special screening at the Global Nicotine Forum in Warsaw in June, but nothing to suggest a screening in dear old Blighty despite the fact that several Brits feature in the film.

Given the UK is arguably the most vaper-friendly anti-smoking country on earth I'm surprised no-one has yet booked a cinema in the West End for such an event. There are many auditoriums available for hire in London including some of the most famous commercial cinemas in Leicester Square.

They don't cost the earth either. I know because I once booked a cinema for a private screening and I've just checked the current prices. They're available from £100 an hour.

Look, if no-one else will do it and Aaron Biebert will work with us, perhaps Forest should host the UK premiere (subject to a few terms and conditions!).

It beggars belief that no-one in the UK vaping community (manufacturers, representative bodies, consumer groups) has stepped forward and offered to host or sponsor a premiere for this unique if possibly flawed documentary.

Compare this to Brexit: The Movie which, by coincidence, also has its premiere on Wednesday.

The premiere will be in London's Leicester Square. There will be a red carpet, paparazzi, flashing lights, celebrities, politicians, and members of the press.

Now that sounds like fun. With a bit of imagination and some financial support A Billion Lives could get the same treatment. It could and should be "an event".

I wish Aaron Biebert well with his film. Anyone who puts so much time and energy into a project like this deserves credit, even if there are concerns about the extent to which it will repeat public health propaganda about smoking while attacking the industry for not doing enough to embrace e-cigarettes.

The United Kingdom is possibly the most liberal country in the world when it comes to e-cigarettes. Time, I think, for the UK vaping 'family' to put its money where its mouth is. And if 'pro-vaping' sponsors won't step forward what about a crowd-funding initiative?

Come on, guys. Stop whinging about TPD and the new FDA regulations for a few days and give Aaron Biebert the support he's clearly crying out for.

Below: How to promote the premiere of a low budget campaign movie. The Brexit Movie premiere looks and feels like a proper cinematic event.

In contrast A Billion Lives ("People are going to die") hardly sounds like a fun night out. There are ways to sell a premiere to a wider audience and I'm not convinced this is one of them.

Losing the plot

I know, another post about vaping, but some things need to be said. Sorry.

One, the reaction to the FDA regulations on e-cigarettes (which won't come into force for two years) has been hysterical and over-wrought.

Some vapers have even been tweeting that they will forced to go back to smoking. What nonsense.

Thankfully the Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association (CASAA) slept on the FDA's announcement (as I suggested vapers should) and last night posted a reasoned evaluation (FDA Deeming Regulations: Release and Next Steps) that includes this important comment:

"Vaping as we know it will continue and we are not done by any means. Keep calm."

This echoes what Forest keeps saying in relation to smoking. OK, so we lose menthol cigarettes (in 2020). It's regrettable, obviously, for those who like the flavour of menthol cigarettes, and for those of us who believe in consumer choice I'd go so far as to say it's outrageous.

Likewise the directive to ban packs with fewer than 20 cigarettes and smaller pouches of rolling tobacco. But smoking as we know it will continue and we are not done by any means. So keep calm.

Two, following the FDA announcement on Thursday a number of vapers, including some of the leading advocates, have been 'congratulating' the tobacco industry, albeit in an ironic way.

A typical tweet read:

I'd like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Tobacco Industry for the market it will own in 2yrs.

As a supporter of harm reduction and consumer choice I too am concerned that the FDA regulations will force out of business some of the smaller e-cigarette manufacturers.

But have faith. If there is sufficient demand the market will do its best to meet it.

What annoys me is that many ex-smoking vapers seem to think that if it's a Big Tobacco product it must be rubbish because the tobacco industry doesn't understand what vapers want.

I'd take issue with that. Does anyone really believe, with the money they're spending on the development of 'emerging products', that the tobacco companies aren't conducting research into what smokers and vapers actually want?

How do you think the most successful companies survive? They do it by changing their products in accordance with public demand. Look at Coca-Cola and the range of products they offer.

Three, what the most vociferous vapers have to understand is they are in a minority, a minority whose choices must be recognised and defended, but a minority nonetheless.

And I don't just mean a minority of the population. I mean a minority among vapers.

For them vaping is a hobby. They love the paraphernalia, the gizmos and the camaraderie. I understand that.

H/T, btw, to the person who drew my attention to the fact that vaping is a hobby while smoking is a habit. I can't remember who it was but it's a good point.

It's only half the story though because vaping is a hobby only for a minority of vapers. For others it's primarily a smoking cessation tool and for the rest it's a habit just like smoking.

Furthermore the majority of vapers are dual users not evangelical ex-smokers. They smoke and they vape. Some may be on the path to quitting smoking altogether but most haven't got there yet and they may not want to.

Like it or not a lot of smokers and dual users enjoy smoking and don't want to quit. Hard to imagine if you're an ex-smoking vaper who's seen the light but it's true.

Four, I'm delighted for you if you've chosen to quit tobacco and enjoy vaping as an alternative to smoking. It's wonderful that you are enjoying the 'freedom' from your 'addiction' to smoking and getting pleasure from your electronic gizmo. I get that too.

But the suggestion that vapers should be actively enlisted in the fight against smoking is abhorrent. This isn't a public health issue, it's a private issue.

Enjoy vaping (a habit or hobby I'll defend to the hilt) but unless a smoker asks for advice or information about e-cigarettes leave them alone. It's none of your business if they continue to smoke.

In particular stop the nonsense that you're part of a crusade to save a billion lives. This World Health Organisation figure is a wild estimate of the lives saved if everyone stopped smoking over the next century.

By repeating it you're regurgitating baseless propaganda that is being used to harass smokers throughout the world. Who you do think you are – tobacco control?

Five, it was brought to my attention this week that Conservative MP Anne Main has sponsored an Early Day Motion (EDM) on e-cigarettes. It reads:

That this House agrees with the Royal College of Physicians that it is crucial that e-cigarettes are priced as advantageously as possible in relation to tobacco; believes that the EU Tobacco Products Directive would significantly inhibit the development and use of harm-reduction products by smokers and cost lives; further agrees with Public Health England that e-cigarettes are around 95 per cent less harmful than smoking, and that nearly half the population does not realise that e-cigarettes are much less harmful than smoking; further believes that restricting advertising will have the perverse effect of reducing the rate at which cigarette use is declining; notes that the total cost of smoking to society, including healthcare, social care, lost productivity, litter and fires, was conservatively estimated by Action on Smoking and Health to be around £14 billion per year; and calls on the Government to exclude e-cigarettes and other harm-reduction products from the Tobacco Products Directive.

Main's EDM prompted an interesting discussion on Twitter between vapers who are delighted at this development (they obviously don't know the real worth of EDMs) and others who took umbrage – rightly – at the use of ASH propaganda to further the cause of vaping.

I've commented before about advocates of vaping embracing junk science and other tobacco control propaganda about smoking then complaining bitterly when politicians and public health campaigners use junk science against e-cigarettes.

The hypocrisy is sickening but I know why they do it. This week, when it was pointed out on that the £14 billion estimate "is just bullshit propagated by the likes of ASH", one vaper (a leading advocate of e-cigarettes) responded, matter-of-factly:

"I understand that but will not cut off my nose to spite my face."

In other words, "I'm happy to throw smokers under the bus and endorse any old rubbish about smoking if it helps our cause."

That also explains the refusal by some vapers to condemn further anti-tobacco measures. I hope Forest is never so dumb-witted or unprincipled.

I was going to make a sixth point but I'll leave it there. This post is quite long enough and there's something else I want to write about.

It's about the A Billion Lives documentary. I'll publish it later.

Things are always better in the morning

A week is a long time in politics, and also in public health.

Last Thursday advocates of vaping were celebrating a report by the Royal College of Physicians that found that:

... e-cigarettes are likely to be beneficial to UK public health. Smokers can therefore be reassured and encouraged to use them, and the public can be reassured that e-cigarettes are much safer than smoking.

The online vaping community was delighted, naturally. I wrote about it here but added a word of caution, pointing out that "vapers still face numerous threats and obstacles, just like smokers before them":

Tobacco control campaigners are fickle and the war between opposing camps – one 'pro-vaping', the other 'anti' – could go either way.

Worse, this is a global battle that's unlikely to be settled by what happens in the UK. For example, the imposition of the EU's Tobacco Products Directive which restricts the sale and marketing of e-cigarettes is a few weeks away.

That's going to have a significant impact on the e-cigarette industry yet the UK government has been powerless (or unwilling) to oppose the new regulations.

This week the e-cigarette company Totally Wicked lost its legal challenge to the European Court of Justice which means the EU has been given the green light to ban e-cigarette advertising and there will also be various restrictions on the manufacture, sale and marketing of e-cigs.

On top of that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in America has today announced it is to assume regulatory authority over e-cigarettes.

Fighting 'public health' is a rollercoaster of emotions and as I write vaping advocates are in meltdown.

Some are even trying their hands at 'satire' which neither works nor suits them, if I'm honest (NNA would like to congratulate the tobacco industry).

My advice? Don't throw your toys out of the pram just yet. At the very least sleep on it. Things are always better in the morning.

Battle of the Brands, Tuesday 17th May

STOP PRESS.

Following today's news that the European Court of Justice has ruled that the Tobacco Products Directive is lawful and EU member states can introduce plain packaging and other measures, I have another announcement.

To mark the introduction (subject to a UK legal challenge) of standardised packaging in Britain later this month, Forest and the Tobacco Retailers Alliance will host a special reception with drinks, speeches and special guests at the Churchill War Rooms, King Charles Street, Westminster.

We're calling it Battle of the Brands and it takes place on Tuesday 17th May in the historic Harmsworth Room which is described this:

Steeped in the atmosphere of a wartime bunker, the iconic Harmsworth Room incorporates the 1940s electric generator wall featuring LEDs, switches and dials, creating a stunning backdrop.

Confirmed speakers are Dr Madsen Pirie, president of the Adam Smith Institute; John Noble, director of the British Brands Group; and Suleman Khonat, national spokesman, Tobacco Retailers Alliance.

Places are strictly limited so if you want to join us advance registration is essential. RSVP events@forestonline.org.

For further details click here.

Challenges to Tobacco Products Directive fail

So the European Court of Justice has ruled that the EU's Tobacco Products Directive is lawful.

The BBC has the story here:

Click here to read the ECJ press release.

[Update: The Press Association also has a report, with a quote from Forest.]

Elements of the directive were challenged by tobacco manufacturers, an e-cigarette company and even the Polish government, supported by Romania.

The new measures will be implemented across the EU from May 20 although manufacturers and retailers have a year in which to comply.

Consumers will notice larger health warnings. Smaller pouches of RYO tobacco will disappear together with all packs that contain fewer than 20 cigarettes. From 2020 menthol cigarettes will also be prohibited.

E-cigarettes will also be hit with restrictions on tanks and e-liquids and a ban on advertising.

Forest's response reads:

"The Tobacco Products Directive treats adult consumers like children.

"Smokers know the health risks and they have a right to buy and consume tobacco without excessive regulations that are designed to stigmatise both the product and the user and reduce consumer choice."

"The implementation of the Tobacco Products Directive highlights the way the European Union imposes measures on member states with little or no public debate and very little scrutiny by national parliaments.

"Consumer rights have been sacrificed by unelected officials in Brussels supported by a compliant government in Westminster."

Click here.

The TPD also allows individual member states to devise their own packaging rules, hence the introduction (subject to a legal challenge) of plain packaging in the UK.

Later today I'll have news of a special event to mark that very issue. Watch this space.

Why do smokers continue to smoke?

E-cigarettes are 'much less harmful than smoking' and smokers should be encouraged to quit or switch to vaping.

That was the message of last week's Royal College of Physicians report.

Given the lack of evidence that e-cigarettes pose any serious risk to the user and the frequent abuse and disinformation hurled at smokers, why would anyone choose not to switch?

To be clear, I'm not suggesting smokers should switch. I've been around smokers long enough to know that many enjoy the ritual, the taste or simply the act of inhaling or exhaling smoke from a combustible cigarette.

I'm just curious what smokers think of bodies like the RCP urging you to switch to e-cigarettes and what reason/s you would give for sticking with combustibles when every public health campaigner in the world seems intent on denormalising and stigmatising you for that decision.

I asked this question on the Friends of Forest Facebook page. Here are some of the responses:

EJ wrote:

I don't smoke as an addict. I do it for enjoyment and don't smoke most of the time. Maybe once a month. I think the fact that MANY smokers live to 90+ is enough evidence to debunk whatever theories people have about smoking being a cause of premature death or chronic illness. My grandma was on about 40 a day and lived to 85. It's far more about the hand you've been dealt than anything else.

JB wrote:

Seen as a way to quit smoking, yes, sure, e-cigs are probably the best method out there but it's just not for me. I don't like e-cigs, that's about it. It feels nothing like burning tobacco. I will carry on smoking my moderate dozen cigarettes a day, the occasional pipe or cigar, for as long as possible. I hope to reach 70 that way. If not, never mind.

JN wrote:

Why would I want to switch to a product that hasn't been tested long term? I know the risks of smoking cigarettes. (I don't believe all the bullshit.) I enjoy smoking and have done for 50+ years and have no intention of giving up :)

LB wrote:

I tried e-cigs for a couple of weeks but they gave me a tight chest and sore throat so went back to rollies. Better the devil you know. It's entirely up to the individual. It works for people I know but not for me. I didn't like the feel of the plastic filter either. Been smoking for 35 years. I know the risks. It's my life therefore my choice.

SB wrote:

I smoke. I enjoy it. Have smoked for 46 years. Switched to roll-ups due to cost about 25 years ago. Use an e-cig when I can't (not allowed to) smoke. Fed up with being told what to do and told what and how to think. I don't take any notice.

MS wrote:

I tried e-smoking. I didn't like the taste. It's not what I want from smoking. I also need the routine of hand rolling my cigarette.

I can't remember where I read it (it may have been on this blog) but someone else commented that they like the fact that the time taken to smoke a cigarette is finite - approximately five minutes - unlike vaping.

The elephant in the room is of course the issue of addiction. Do you smoke because you're addicted, because it's a habit, because you enjoy it, or is it a combination of these and other factors?

Further thoughts welcome.

Update: Over on Facebook HJ has added this comment:

I enjoyed smoking. I expected it to be the last thing I would ever give up. I feel so grateful now that I was one of those who took to vaping as a fish to swimming. I had no intention of quitting but just became aware that I enjoyed vaping more than tobacco – and I had been a smoker for 45 years! Strange world.

Vive la différence, I say.

Absolutely fabulous

I wasn't planning to watch the forthcoming Absolutely Fabulous movie.

Not in the cinema anyway.

The first TV series, in 1992, was genuinely funny and original but it's been downhill ever since.

This hilariously indignant post on the Smokefree Movies website – brought to my attention by Chris Snowdon who tweeted the link – has changed my mind.