Does banning the sale of e-cigarettes to teenagers increase teen smoking rates?
A new report suggests it does, although the "statistically significant" increase among 12-17 year-olds was only 0.9 per cent.
It was enough however to generate a flurry of excitement on Twitter, beginning with the very excitable Dr Attila Danko:
Wow.Evidence that banning ecigs for teens increases teen smoking rates! https://t.co/s8tqvnonrC
— Dr Attila Danko (@AtelierDanko) October 25, 2015The tweet that really caught my eye however was from Clive Bates, the former director of ASH who is now a prominent advocate of e-cigarettes:
I used to think age restrictions on #ecig sales were a political necessity, but make no real difference. But what if they increase smoking?
— Clive Bates (@Clive_Bates) October 25, 2015The reason I'm commenting on this is because – almost alone, I think – Forest has publicly taken the view that it might be counter-productive to ban the sale of e-cigs to 16 and 17 year-olds.
Last month, for example, in response to a consultation on the Public Health (Wales) Bill, we wrote:
If the primary aim [of public health] is to discourage children from smoking combustible cigarettes it makes little sense to prohibit the sale of e-cigarettes to those aged 16 or 17. Setting the minimum age of sale for e-cigarette devices at 16 rather than 18 would distinguish between two very different nicotine delivery systems. It might also nudge those teenagers who are tempted to smoke towards electronic cigarettes in preference to the potentially more harmful combustible cigarette.
We made an identical statement in our response to the Health (Tobacco, Nicotine etc and Care) (Scotland) Bill in August and when I was invited to appear before the Scottish Parliament's Health and Sport Committee last month I reiterated the point:
There should be a restriction on the age of sale. There is an argument to be had over whether the age restriction should be 16 or 18. Until a few months ago we were firmly of the opinion that it should be 18. As more evidence comes to the fore – Public Health England and the Royal Society for Public Health have said in recent weeks that e-cigarettes are potentially a lot less harmful than combustible cigarettes – it might be a courageous stance for the Scottish Government to take to create a clear marker between combustible and electronic cigarettes and allow people to buy electronic cigarettes at 16.
In contrast my fellow witnesses stuck firmly to the 18 age restriction. Linda Bauld (Cancer Research) declared:
There was almost universal acceptance in the responses to the consultation on the bill that we need an age-restriction on nicotine-containing products, and there is a commitment to bring Scotland into line with the rest of the United Kingdom by introducing an age-of-sale limit of 18. There is no reason why a child who has never smoked and never used a nicotine product should start using nicotine, so even among members of the smoking and vaping community there is strong support for an age-of-sale limit.
The NNA's Andy Morrison was even clearer:
I agree with what Linda Bauld said: we do not want under 18s to pick up these devices.
And then there was Sheila Duffy, CEO of ASH Scotland and a late convert to the potential of e-cigs (out of political necessity, perhaps?), who added:
We support an age restriction of 18 for consistency and because it is the internationally accepted age for protection.
At the time I felt a little uncomfortable because no-one else in the room seemed to share my view that legislators might consider an age restriction of 16 rather than 18. Instead I discover the reason some e-cig advocates are shying away from the issue is because, by their own admission, they're playing politics.
This is hardly news, I know, but how many other issues are vaping activists trying hard not to comment on as a result of some misguided sense of "political necessity"?
Outdoor smoking bans, certainly. Invited by the Health and Sport Committee to comment on smoking in hospital grounds, the NNA's Scottish spokesman neatly side-stepped the issue by declaring, "I would rather not talk about tobacco, to be honest."
When vaping activists fail to condemn excessive regulations including outdoor smoking bans they clearly hope that by doing so they can distance vaping from smoking.
As for endorsing something merely out of "political necessity", we would never back regulations that are inconsistent with our belief in choice and evidence-based policy. That, and our long-standing opposition to excessive regulation in all areas, not just tobacco.
That's the type of consistency we believe in, not the ASH Scotland variety (ie if other countries do it we'd better do it too, even if it's wrong or counter-productive).
I don't expect Forest will get any credit (or support) from the ex-smoking vaping community. But we'll continue to support their cause because, ultimately, it's very similar to our own.
See also: Why smoking bans matter to vapers (Action on Consumer Choice)