Today is the closing date for the Scottish Government's consultation on e-cigs and further tobacco control.
Proposals include a ban on vaping in enclosed public places and the prohibition of advertisements for electronic cigarettes.
There are also proposals to ban smoking in cars carrying children, in outdoor children's areas, and on all NHS grounds.
I submitted Forest's response this morning and here's a taste. On advertising and the use of e-cigarettes in enclosed public places we wrote:
There is no evidence e-cigarettes are harmful. There is also very little evidence that non-smokers, including children, are using e-cigarettes as a gateway to tobacco. Overwhelmingly the vast majority of vapers are existing or ex-smokers, many of whom are using the products as a means to quitting smoking.
Excessive regulation on advertising will inevitably compromise the ability of businesses to market and sell a product that could have a significant impact on public health if it helps smokers switch from combustible products to electronic cigarettes. This in turn will have an impact on those consumers who wish to quit smoking and want to use a product that mimics the act of smoking without burning tobacco ...
The threat of a comprehensive ban on the use of e-cigarettes in enclosed public places is as bad if not worse than the smoking ban. There is no evidence that bystanders are at any risk from exposure to the vapour exhaled by consumers …
For smokers who have taken the decision to cut down or quit smoking and have found e-cigarettes to be a useful smoking cessation aid, legislation to ban vaping indoors would be the final straw. It would confirm that the Scottish Government has little interest in public health or evidence based policies but is merely interested in controlling people’s behaviour to the nth degree …
Describing legislation to ban smoking in cars with children as a "gross over-reaction to a very small problem", we wrote:
In practice very few adults still light up in cars carrying children. The vast majority have changed their behaviour voluntarily without government intervention and should be applauded, not demonised with unnecessary legislation that even its supporters accept will be difficult to enforce.
Banning smoking in a private vehicle represents a serious invasion of a citizen’s private space. What next? A ban on smoking in the home if children are present?
Education is always better than legislation and we would welcome the opportunity to work with the Scottish Government to encourage the small number of adults who still smoke in cars carrying children to change their behaviour without the need for heavy-handed legislation that a hard-pressed police force would find very difficult to enforce.
Opposing legislation that would make it an offence to smoke on NHS grounds, we added:
Smoking in the open air presents no risk to the health of non-smokers so a comprehensive ban on smoking on NHS grounds is disproportionate to the problem. The size and location of hospital grounds can vary enormously so it should be left to individual hospitals to decide on a policy rather than having a national one-size-fits-all policy forced upon them.
On the subject of smoking in children's outdoor areas, we wrote:
We don't condone smoking in children’s outdoor areas but we believe a national ban is heavy-handed and unnecessary. Relatively few adults still do it and there is no evidence that those who do light up in open air play areas pose any health risk to those around them, including children.
It has become fashionable for anti-smoking campaigners to say that adults must be role models for children and not smoke in view of them, but there is no evidence that the sight of a stranger smoking influences children to start smoking.
In general adult smokers know how to behave when it comes to smoking around children and they don’t need yet another law telling them what to do. It is not the job of government to micromanage people’s lives, especially when the overwhelming majority of smokers have already taken steps to change their behaviour voluntarily.
We are concerned that legislation will result not only in the further stigmatisation of smokers but will lead to a ban on smoking in other outdoor spaces where children might conceivably be present, even though there will be no threat to their health if someone lights up. At best this is an issue that should be left to local authorities. It is not a matter for national government.
Responding to the Scottish Government's insistence that all respondents should disclose whether they have any direct or indirect links to or receive funding from the tobacco industry, I concluded our submission as follows:
In view of the threat that e-cigarettes pose to other nicotine delivery systems such as nicotine patches and gum we are disappointed the Scottish Government has not asked respondents to disclose whether they have any direct or indirect links to, or receive funding from, the pharmaceutical industry.
For the sake of transparency we believe you should also have asked respondents to disclose whether they receive public funding, given that this sometimes results in a phenomenon known as 'government lobbying government'.
We'll upload the full submission on the Forest website in due course.
One thing that interests me is how many leading advocates of electronic cigarettes will join us in opposing further tobacco control policies that will in all likelihood be extended to vaping at some point in the future (if not immediately).
I couldn't help notice, for example, that the list of respondents to the UK Government consultation on smoking in private vehicles carrying children (published last month) featured very few organisations or bodies opposed to the measure.
A quick glance revealed only three: Forest, the Tobacco Manufacturers' Association and (I think) the AA. (I haven't read the AA's submission but comments I've read suggest they think legislation is unforceable.)
Of course, when the Government published its response to the consultation last month Twitter was ablaze with people aghast at the thought of legislation banning smoking in private vehicles (with or without children).
They included a significant number of vapers.
Such indignation would have carried far more weight had the the people involved submitted a response to the consultation.
I'll be fascinated to see who's responded to the Scottish Government consultation on e-cigs and "further tobacco control".
Given that some of Britain's most active anti-smoking campaigners are also worshipped as leading advocates for e-cigarettes, I'll be fascinated to read their submissions (or those of the bodies they work for).
My guess is they'll support further tobacco control measures while supporting a softly softly approach to e-cigarettes.
Whether they'll get their wish remains to be seen. I wouldn't bet on it.
Inviting government to adopt draconian policies on one product in the hope they'll become all gooey and liberal on another not dissimilar product is wishful thinking, I'm afraid.
Once politicians get a whiff of power they like to exercise it at every opportunity. As several of us keep saying, this is not about health, it's about control.
In my experience it's impossible to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. Some people think differently, obviously. Time will tell.
Update: In its submission to the Scottish Government consultation the New Nicotine Alliance has responded only to "those questions which relate to our areas of competence (ie reduced risk nicotine products such as e-cigarettes)".
Consequently the NNA has chosen not to answer questions "on the wider issue of general tobacco control" including smoking in cars with children and smoking on NHS grounds.
I'm surprised but not surprised, if you know what I mean.
Given that a ban on smoking in cars with children and a ban on smoking on NHS grounds will sooner or later be extended to include e-cigarettes, it seems odd that the NNA (and, I'm guessing, other e-cig bodies) haven't dug in and expressed opposition to such policies.
I wish them luck but it's a dangerous game to play.
Thursday, January 8, 2015 at 10:33 