Morning Call asks 'Is it time to toughen up on e-cigarettes?'

Another day another interview on e-cigarettes.

This time I was woken up by a call asking me to go on Morning Call, the BBC Radio Scotland phone-in:

Sales of e-cigarettes have soared by 340 per cent over the past year leading to calls for greater restrictions on them … Charity ASH Scotland say e-cigarettes normalise smoking, and are calling for age restrictions and limits on advertising the products. Louise White asks: Is it time to toughen up on e-cigarettes?

I was on for 40 minutes but didn't say an awful lot, which wasn't a bad thing. It was far more interesting listening to callers, the majority of whom were smokers and/or vapers.

My direct opponent was a woman called Merissa (?) who was described as a "PhD researcher". She favoured the precautionary principle and was very articulate.

Nevertheless her opening comments were peppered with the word 'may'. E-cigs 'may' result in this, 'may' result in that.

Michael Matheson, minister for public health in Scotland, was also on. I got the feeling that his position on e-cigs is driven primarily by hatred of the tobacco industry, which is extremely short-sighted (in my view).

One or two callers were equally hostile to the companies and didn't want them advertising any products on television.

The caller I agreed with most was comedian Karen Dunbar who was vaping as she spoke. She made the strong case that nicotine is a recreational drug and should be treated no differently to caffeine.

Another caller, John, was an ex-smoker with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). It's not sexy to have lung cancer, he said, and I don't know anyone who would disagree with that.

However this is not an argument against advertising e-cigarettes on television or anywhere else. There is no evidence that vaping leads to smoking, or causes lung cancer (or COPD).

I have never come across anyone who started smoking through vaping.

Indeed, every caller on Morning Call who said they vaped was either a smoker or ex-smoker.

E-cigs - I'm no expert but ...

I was on LBC last night talking about the EU's Tobacco Products Directive.

We discussed the ban on menthol cigarettes and ten packs and how this was an attack on consumer choice.

I pointed out that these products were being outlawed yet there had never been a debate in the UK parliament.

I also queried the need for plain packaging since the health warnings must in future cover 65 per cent of the front and back of the pack leaving little room for branding.

Then the issue of e-cigarettes came up.

"I'm not an expert," I said, "but ..."

And I burbled on about that for half a minute.

As it happens, I had just read Chris Snowdon's post about Martin McKee's sudden interest in e-cigarettes.

According to Chris, McKee showed little or no interest in e-cigs until last year. Now he's portrayed as an 'expert' (who wants to regulate them into oblivion, apparently).

Now I happily admit I'm no expert but in the wake of Chris's post I did a quick search of this blog to see when I first mentioned e-cigs.

The answer was January 20, 2010 when I wrote a post entitled 'Wanted: Comments on e-cigarettes'.

Apart my obvious ignorance, the most interesting thing about that post was the response - 111 comments.

Since then I have written (and been interviewed) about e-cigarettes on numerous occasions. For example:

A touch of the vapers (September 7, 2010)
Their own worst enemy (November 7, 2010)
The arguments against e-cigarettes (December 8, 2011)
Why I hate (some) e-cigarette retailers (March 7, 2012)
E-cigs and a crafty fag – join the conversation (November 5, 2012)
Will e-cigarettes take centre stage in 2013? (January 1, 2013)
More on e-cigarettes (January 8, 2013)
Wanted: a consumer champion for e-cigarettes who is not anti-smoking (February 17, 2013)
I won't invest in smoker phobic rants, I'm out (September 2, 2013)
Forest, e-cigarettes and the BMA's "self-serving politically correct agenda" (October 21, 2013)

And of course I've written several more posts about e-cigs in the past few months.

The problem is, while I say all the 'right' things about consumer choice and do my best to support e-cigarettes, I find it hard to empathise with vapers in the way I empathise with smokers.

The reason is simple. I hate the quasi religious zeal of some vapers and the refusal/reluctance of many to support smokers in their struggle against oppressive regulations that will affect vapers just as much as smokers.

I understand why vaping organisations and spokesmen have stood apart from smokers. Culturally and politically, however, we are in the same boat. If the vaping community didn't understand that before, yesterday's vote by MEPs may have brought some of them to their senses.

Like it not not, smokers and vapers are cut from the same cloth. The common bond is nicotine. The only difference is the delivery system.

I recommend therefore that you read this article, Time for vapers and smokers to unite, published on Monday by Forest's Free Society website.

Via Twitter we encouraged vapers – and smokers – to retweet the link. Hardly anyone did.

That said it all, really.

Update on Thursday, February 27, 2014 at 13:16 by Simon Clark

The Advertising Standards Authority has reacted quickly to complaints about an "overly sexual" e-cigarette ad:

"I want you to get it out. I want to see it. Feel it. Hold it. Put it in my mouth. I want to see how great it tastes."

Full story: 'Overly sexual’ VIP e-cigarette ads attract 1,156 complaints (Marketing Week)

Meanwhile it's almost 14 months since Forest complained about a government ad that was equally explicit (15 cigarettes can cause a mutation that leads to cancerous tumours) and we are still waiting for the ASA to publish its final adjudication.

See Lord Smith: Another fine mess.

EU adopts TPD so why do we need plain packaging?

Update: Tough EU smoking rules approved (BBC News)

NEWS RELEASE Wednesday 26 February 2014

Campaigners question need for plain packaging of tobacco following adoption of revised a Tobacco Products Directive

The smokers' group Forest, which campaigned against revisions to the EU's Tobacco Products Directive, has questioned the need for standardised packaging of tobacco after MEPs voted to adopt a revised Tobacco Products Directive.

In addition to a ban on menthol cigarettes and ten packs, the Directive forces EU member states to increase the size of health warnings to cover 65 per cent of the front and back of the pack.

Simon Clark, director of Forest which ran the No Thank EU campaign, said:

"If health warnings are going to be even more prominent, dominating both sides of the pack, why on earth do we need plain packaging?

"At the very least the government should wait and see what impact the larger warnings have before introducing standardised packs which are opposed by so many people."

He added:

"Banning menthol cigarettes and ten packs is a serious attack on consumer choice that will do little to stop children smoking.

"The revised Directive is typical of the nanny state mentality that is prevalent not just in Brussels but also in Westminster."

There must be more to Cuba than cigars

This time last year I was sitting at Gatwick waiting to board a Virgin Atlantic flight to Havana.

I'd been looking forward to it for months and I was genuinely excited.

As it happens the 'trip of a lifetime' was a bit of a disappointment. From the uncomfortable nine-hour flight to the variable weather and unremarkable food, I returned seven days later a little underwhelmed.

Nevertheless I'll never forget that initial sense of anticipation and I look forward to returning to Cuba when the Americans have moved in and there is a McDonalds on every corner.

Cigar aficionados attending the annual Habanos Festival (which begins today) may not want the country to change but poverty and a totalitarian regime shouldn't be a tourist attraction.

See Your man in Havana: notes from a Caribbean Island.

The Smokefree Formula – sing when you're quitting

The launch of a new quit smoking book was celebrated recently with a special event at University College London.

The SmokeFree Formula, "a revolutionary way to stop smoking" by Professor Robert West, is said to contain the "best available information" on electronic cigarettes, nicotine patches, prescription medicines, websites, smartphone apps, hypnotherapy, telephone counselling and much much more.

Speakers included Deborah Arnott, CEO of ASH; Dr Andy McEwen, director, National Centre for Smoking Cessation and Training (NCSCT); and Andrew Black, tobacco programme manager at the Department of Health.

There are nine launch event video clips. The one I genuinely like is the last one. It features a breezy little number – 'Don't Give Up Giving Up' – performed live with impromptu audience participation.

It's one of the few times I've seen tobacco control campaigners having fun so it's either a rare collectors' item or most of the people were just passing by and took advantage of the free drinks.

Enjoy!

PS. The Smokefree Formula is available from Amazon, Waterstones and WH Smith.

Another nail in the coffin of free speech

I was chatting to a student over dinner last night.

She told me she had written a review of a play for her college newspaper and the director – a fellow student – had complained because it contained one or two mildly critical comments.

I am told there were accusations of libel but her worst crime was to suggest that some of the acting was a bit "wooden".

This, it was alleged, was a "racist" thing to say.

I haven't read the review but having spoken to the author I find it impossible to believe there is any truth in this.

She's a 20-year-old student reviewing a college play, for Christ's sake! She's entitled to express her opinion.

Or I thought she was.

Predictably the newspaper reacted by removing the review from its website. Instead of upholding the concept of free speech, the editor rolled over without a whimper.

If this catches on critics will have to think twice before expressing their views.

In fact, it's getting harder and harder to say or do anything without being accused of some heinous crime.

A couple of weeks ago I retweeted a mildly derogatory comment that someone had made about me on Twitter.

If I remember, my views on smoking in cars were described as "crazy".

I didn't comment, or complain (why would I?), I merely retweeted the tweet.

Philip Davies MP does this all the time. I like to think it's self-deprecating, although others may see it a sign of a rampant ego.

Anyway, the person who tweeted that my views were "crazy" responded by accusing me of "bullying" her because I retweeted her tweet!

I couldn't believe it.

She seemed quite young – in her twenties – so I had a dilemma. If I fought back it might seem that a middle-aged man in his fifties was picking on a girl 30 years his junior.

So after a short exchange of tweets in which I chose my words very carefully (one tweet contained the single word, 'sigh'), I backed off and let her have the last word.

The questions I am now asking myself are:

Am I cyber bully because I retweeted a tweet (about myself) without comment?

Is my new college friend "racist" because she described some actors as "wooden" in a review?

Who is bullying whom here?

If this carries on no-one will be able to express any opinion. We won't even be able to repeat other people's opinions!

It's mad.

Spare us the angst about 'smoking' coming back to TV ad land

This morning I had to be at the BBC studios in Cambridge at 7.20.

It's 20 miles from where I live and I was almost late because I set my alarm for 5.30 and woke up over an hour later.

Good Morning Scotland (BBC Radio Scotland) had invited me to discuss the new TV advertisement for Vype, an electronic cigarette manufactured by Nicoventures which is owned by British American Tobacco.

Some journalists have been getting a little over-excited. According to the Telegraph (a paper I have increasingly little respect for), 'Smoking is back on TV for first time in 20 years'.

Er, no it's not.

I've seen the ad and it is totally innocuous – two young adults running along a street before leaping up and being hit by a small explosion of vapour. (I can't describe it any better. You try.)

No-one is smoking. No-one is even vaping. You don't see any product until the very end when you see the packaging. At no point in the 30-second ad do you see anything that resembles a cigarette – not even an electronic cigarette.

Online the ad finishes with the slogan "Satisfaction for smokers". But that's the only reference to smoking and I understand the TV version says "Satisfaction for vapers" which will mean nothing to large parts of the population.

As it happens I've only seen the ad online. (Someone sent me the link via Twitter.) I was told it would be on television last night, after the 9.00pm watershed, and I spent a frustrating 90 minutes flicking to and fro between ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 in order to catch the ad breaks, and I didn't see it anywhere.

But back to this morning's discussion on Radio Scotland. My opponent was Alex McKinnon, director of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society in Scotland.

I read on Twitter we were to debate the ethical issues but I kept my argument rather more prosaic. I expressed amazement that public health campaigners weren't embracing e-cigs, and ads like this, with open arms.

I said many people use them as a smoking cessation aid. They are not used by children (to the best of my knowledge), and there is nothing to suggest they are a gateway to tobacco use.

McKinnon talked about the safety of e-cigs so I said we should welcome Big Tobacco's involvement because, with their resources being put into research and development, the quality of the product was sure to be high.

I added that if Big Pharma was advertising e-cigarettes, just as they advertise nicotine inhalers and patches, no-one would have a problem.

The product wasn't the only thing McKinnon didn't like. The ad, he seemed to be saying, risked making vaping "cool".

I wanted to point out that if vaping was to become "cool" at the expense of smoking that would be a net gain for tobacco control, but it won't become cool if the marketing of e-cigs is over-regulated and heavily restricted.

Unfortunately we ran out of time, for which the producer apologised. No problem, it happens.

I suspect this is going to end up at the door of the Advertising Standards Authority because it only takes one complaint for the ASA to get involved.

Expect them to spring into action, especially if the complaint comes from an anti-smoking organisation.

In contrast, when we complain (about contentious government funded anti-smoking ads, for example) the ASA moves so slowly it's like watching a blind 90-year-old pensioner with rheumatoid arthritis on a drip.

But that's another story.

Update: ASH Wales has just tweeted:

A puppy has died after chewing on an e-cig nicotine capsule. Nicotine is really dangerous for pets! http://t.co/xUaKqkYlnh

Is it time for the CEO of ASH to get on her bike?

Further to my previous post, I've been thinking about the reason for Deborah Arnott's bad mood.

This is pure speculation but could it be the gradual marginalisation of ASH London within the tobacco control movement?

Think back to 2006 when Deborah and her then deputy Ian Willmore were happy to claim credit for persuading MPs to vote for a comprehensive ban on smoking in public places ('Smoke and mirrors', Guardian).

Halcyon days. Mind you, I've always wondered how that went down with other tobacco control campaigners. Perhaps they were too busy patting each other on the back to notice.

Since then - and I'm sure it's not my imagination - ASH's influence has waned. The campaign for plain packaging has been driven by Smokefree South West, Cancer Research and other bodies; the ban on smoking in cars with children was a triumph for Labour's public health spokesman Luciana Berger and the British Lung Foundation; and since the BBC's move to Salford, Forest spokesmen are far more likely to be sat alongside Andrea Crossfield of Tobacco Free Futures, formerly Smokefree North West.

The North East is ably covered by Fresh so one has to question the purpose of a 'national' London-based group whose role is duplicated by so many other organisations. Do we really need them all?

In Scotland the anti-tobacco crusade is driven by the far more dynamic ASH Scotland whose CEO, Sheila Duffy, is rarely out of the papers and probably never sleeps. (I imagine she's composing a letter to the Scotsman even as I write.)

Likewise ASH Wales - and associated campaigns such as The Filter - prove that anti-tobacco campaigns can have style and occasional flashes of humour. Compare that to the leaden, po-faced pronouncements favoured by Deborah Arnott's ASH.

As for the All Party Parliamentary Group on Smoking and Health, which is run by ASH, it seems very quiet. I don't even know who the new chairman is, the previous incumbent, Stephen Williams, having stood down when he became a junior minister last year.

On e-cigarettes ASH is hopelessly conflicted. Are they for or against? Who knows. A belated attempt to 'own' the issue at the recent E-Cigarette Summit backfired spectacularly with Deborah Arnott's extraordinary presentation, highlighted here by Chris Snowdon.

No Smoking Day is run by the British Heart Foundation and Stoptober is an NHS initiative, I think.

So what does ASH do that justifies its continued existence? I'm damned if I know.

Forest may not, ahem, be the most successful pressure group in the world but at least we have a unique selling point and don't cost the taxpayer a penny.

The same can hardly be said of ASH who, let us not forget, spend most of their time pushing on an open door.

"You want to stop people smoking? Come in, m'dear. How can I help?"

It's hardly challenging work, is it?

Perhaps - and I say this with great respect - it's time Deborah got on her bike and cycled off into the sunset.

As for her replacement - if indeed ASH has a future - I believe Clive Bates is available.

If I was a vaper I'd start a campaign to get Clive (re)appointed as soon as possible.

Now that would be fun, wouldn't it?