The Problem with Vapers

I think our major issue as Vapers is that no one wants us.

We know non-smokers don't because we are still evil and dirty and poisoning their perfectly healthy lives in their misguided opinion.

Smokers don't because we have made the healthier life saving choice that they refuse to acknowledge for reasons I cannot fathom.

We know why tobacco and pharma don't and government for their loss of revenue and increasing problem of an ageing population.

So we are fighting against every side. The fact that we have got this far is purely because we are supporting the just cause.

We have scientific fact on our side. And countless living examples of an improved life.

Keep fighting for what you know is right.

Letter to MP

Dear Mr Coaker,
Further to our previous correspondence, I am disappointed to see Andy Burnham's stance on E-cigarettes (as guided by his 14 year old son) in approaching them as a threat to be stamped out and deciding they are definitively a gateway to smoking. He is wrong on both counts and just proving himself absurd and clueless.
Your party needs to consider this issue much more closely. It is reported there are approx 2 million vapers in the UK now, I suspect this is widely innaccurate and there are significantly more. A progresive and supportive policy on vaping will win you votes and draconian statements and unfounded policies could easily cost you the election. Vapers tend to be tech savvy and are  uniting to defend what we know to be a significant health benefit that is saving our lives. So think of losing a solid block of over 2 million votes.....
I do not believe anyone in the vaping community is anti-regulation to ensure quality of product or further research to confirm (or contradict) the facts that vaping is saving lives and harmless (in real terms).
You sent a flyer to my house asking what I consider the biggest issues. Well for me saving lives and encouraging small business would be high on the list and vaping does both. I urge you to take a more active role in this debate. Not only are lives at stake but votes are too - I'm never sure which is more important to politicians.
And a word of advice, if you do care to research this in any detail you will be able to find reports telling you any side of the argument. Much of the anti vaping being backed by large pharmaceutical companies who stand to lose out on their failed NRT products or tobacco who are slowly giving in and joining the revolution. A number of others cloud the issue with any number of side matters or minutae that draw you away from the major point - these products stop people dying of cancer from cigarettes. A policy positively supporting vaping as a gateway out of smoking can only benefit smokers and if you think about it if 11 year olds were to be trying e-cigs rather than cigarettes they should be applauded for making the better choice.
Vaping does not 're-normalise' smoking, it normalises vaping which is a distinct and unique hobby. Vaping is not a gateway to smoking, it is a gatway from smoking (anyone who has tasted both will concur). In conclusion, Vaping is not the problem, it's the solution. If you want my vote then Mr Burnham needs to be educated.
Yours sincerely,

Support for ecigs from all sides

I can't think of any other product that gets support from both sides of the fence

Pro Cig group backs ecigs

http://www.forestonline.org/news/headlines/government-must-resist-temptation-to-over-regulation-e-cigarette/

"Banning e-cigarettes in non-smoking environments makes no sense because the product is very different to a real cigarette. There's no combustion, no smoke, and no evidence that vaping encourages anyone to start smoking."

Anti cig group back ecigs

http://www.ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_715.pdf

There is little real-world evidence of harm from e-cigarettes to date, especially in comparison to

smoking.

• E-cigarettes are used by both smokers and ex-smokers, but there is little evidence of use by

those who have never smoked or by children.

• ASH supports regulation to ensure the safety and reliability of e-cigarettes but, in the absence

of harm to bystanders, does not consider it appropriate to include e-cigarettes under smokefree

regulations.


So who was it who wants them banned exactly?

In response to employer ecig ban

This is a copy of what I have put into my employer on their new policy banning ecigs - I don't expect it to get anywhere but at least I have vented my spleen.

The Amendment

An amendment was recently made to the Smokefree Workplace Policy in the People Management Handbook which reflects the fact that the Council does not support the use of e-cigarettes and other vapour producing products. The use of these products is not permitted in Council owned and operated buildings and associated outdoor areas such as depots, yards and car parks or in Council vehicles.

The decision is based on the fact that these products are not currently regulated as a licensed nicotine replacement therapy. Many of these products may make the users appear to be smoking, so the addition to the policy also reflects the reputation and professionalism of the Council.

Background

The term “electronic cigarette” is a generic term and not very helpful since, despite their name, “electronic cigarettes” are totally different from cigarettes. Many, but not all, are in the form of thin white tubes that look like cigarettes. Some electronic cigarettes contain nicotine, some do not. Some produce a white odourless vapour; others produce no vapour at all. They do not burn tobacco and do not create smoke (products of combustion). They bare only aesthetic resemblance (and then in only certain cases) to cigarettes.

The current situation

Smokefree workplace policy

This Policy has been developed to

·         protect all colleagues, Councillors, citizens and visitors from exposure to second-hand smoke

·         ensure compliance with the Health Act 2006 and the 2007 Smokefree Regulations

·         contribute to the Nottingham City Council's Health and Wellbeing at Work Strategy

All of these aims are entirely supported by vaping so there is no justification for preventing their use on these grounds.

Ban from smoking in work time across all council properties and vehicles

It’s simply not working. As a previous smoker any amount of publications, internet statements and even manager reprimands made no difference to my smoking habit. You need to remember that this is an addiction to nicotine, which can be accurately compared to a caffeine addiction. You try to stop a coffee addict from his/her morning cuppa! It just makes smokers more devious, dig their heels in and, in the case of vehicles, is not monitorable. The number of smokers who still congregate around by the Employment offices on Station Street at any time of day is not checked or mentioned. The ‘out of sight, out of mind’ policy was appreciated whilst I smoked but it is not addressing core goals which should be increasing productivity and improving health.  

 

 

The Alternatives

As you were with ban on E-cigarettes

As mentioned above, this is not working to reduce smoking or improve productivity. It engenders morale issues between smokers and non-smokers. Given that there are no recognised significant ill effects to the vapour or anyone else and nicotine is a dangerous as caffeine, to prohibit the use of these devices seems counter to good health and smokefree policies.

Given the increasing evidence demonstrating the proven success at reducing cigarette addiction a policy supporting colleagues (and citizens) into vaping and away from cigarettes would be more progressive for the good of Nottingham.

Ban cigarettes, promote vaping

There is an opportunity for a progressive health policy, being at the forefront and leading the way in reducing smoking by seizing on the benefits of vaping. Everyone (even those that stand against the industry) agrees that e-cigarettes are better for the individual and second hand by massive degrees of magnitude than smoking. Don’t let any minutiae of detail cloud this fact. These things don’t kill you or anyone around you. They don’t even harm you or anyone around you in any discernable way – and remember, given the advances in technology since cigarettes were invented we can ‘discern’ considerably more than we could.

Vaping and e-cigarettes have been called the biggest breakthrough in medical science since the discovery of penicillin, so why is there resistance? This is largely coming from big tobacco, which is losing millions financially, pharmaceutical companies, who are losing money on other Nicotine Replacement Therapies and on cancer drugs no longer required and even from the Governments who stand to lose out on tax revenues as people move from cigarettes to vaping.

The debate then becomes what are this Council’s aims?

·         To improve the health and wellbeing of citizens and colleagues? 

·         To line to coffers of central government and private companies?

One policy clearly encourages ongoing use of tobacco whilst the other encourages healthier options like vaping.

It is going to take someone to be brave and stand up for this young activity. In a city where we have above average smokers (28% of over 16s compared to 20% nationally) it seems we have the opportunity to lead the way.

Policy ideas

Policies could be tailored and limited in whichever ways thought appropriate but the overall aim would be to encourage people out of smoking and hence limit impact on health to a significant extent.

A policy could allow vaping in office only, not public facing; it could limit to ‘mod’ type devices and still ban ‘lookalike’ e-cigarettes; it could even restrict flavours so any residual ‘smell’ from the vapour (which is minimal and does not linger) is pleasant.   – Any of these options would be more ‘professional’ than the street smokers and cigarette ends littering the floor outside that we currently have.

If an employee is allowed to vape inside workplaces, there will be no need to take smoking breaks outside, against the policy of the council. The employee can stay and remain working at his/her desk while enjoying vaping break.

It will also boost office morale. Non-smoking coworkers will not feel resentment or dislike toward a smoker colleague due to the frequent breaks that person is taking outside.

No one will be at risk from second-hand smoke. There are no messy ashtrays or littering cigarette butts within the office or outside as well.

In the UK smokefree legislation exists to protect the public from the demonstrable harms of secondhand smoke. ASH does not consider it appropriate for electronic cigarettes to be subject to this legislation as there is no second hand smoke.

http://www.ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_715.pdf

If this is part of the Smokefree Workplace Policy then having the discussion based on preconceived notions, misleading data, and scaremongering does nothing but encourage smokers to keep using tobacco.

Finally, it should be remembered that offering a safe and effective alternative to smoking tobacco to people who are addicted to nicotine may turn out to support compliance with smokefree legal requirements and make smokefree policies easier to implement.

It is up to people using nicotine to decide, and a decision to switch to electronic devices has two beneficial effects: a dramatic reduction in risk, and a staging post for complete nicotine cessation, if the user wishes to take that step. If they conclude they want to keep the nicotine without the harm, we – the coffee and wine drinkers – should not sit in judgement of the use of a different recreational drug.

It really comes down to the purpose of the policy. If we are looking to promote good health and a smokefree city then vaping promotion would appear to play a key role in achieving this.

I would be happy to discuss this further as it is something I feel very strongly about and I think we could be seen to be as the vanguard of smoking cessation if we take the right step now.

Degrees of degrees - public vaping

I have seen debates on forums about vaping around children/in public places where genuine ITK vapers stand against this activity.

What?

Really?!

We are talking about minutae here people. IF there is anything harmful in the vapour we expel it is so infinatessimally small in quantity so as to make it entirely negligible in this modern world of traffic, factory and natural pollutants.

I vape around my kids because it is so much better than smoking around them. They know not to touch it and it has normalised it in their minds. If they choose to smoke in the future I would much rather they chose a funky mod than a pack of marlboro.

Is there a difference between E-Cigarettes and Vaping?

It annoys me that e-cigarettes and vaping are actually grouped together.

I bet I am not the only one who used e-cigarettes as the gateway out of smoking and then, as I researched and learnt a bit more, took the plunge into the world of vaping?

I believe we, as vapers, need to start disassociating ourselves from e-cigs because

• e-cigs can and are being produced and effectively monopolised by big tobacco as they run for their lives to get a new market
• e-cigs COULD potentially be seen as a gateway into smoking although I would still contest this. They do LOOK like cigarettes
• Vapers are developing (or already have) their own sub-culture. Loads of you go into it much further than I do and it's fascinating to be on the edges looking in. I just like trying flavours and buying different mods but many of you drill and coil and wick and build and it's great. This bears little resemblence to someone puffing on a white stick, electronic or otherwise.
• We need to disassociate ourselves from the word 'cigarette'. We aren't smoking, we're vaping. It does nothing to you and is as dangerous as caffeine.

We are distinct and should be recognised as such in terms of regulation and legislation and in public.

Just my thoughts leyk

I just wanted to write down what I see happening with regard to Vaping and E-ciggs

What has happened.

As far as I can see this is the story so far that is undisputable

• A new method of getting nicotine into addicts was developed that took out all of the more harmful toxins associated with cigarettes.
• This new methods significantly reduces the harm to the individual and to anybody in the vacinity of the participant. The degree to which harm is reduced is still open to debate but I believe that EVERYONE accepts harm is reduced over smoking.
• Smokers began to find and prefer the options and flavours on offer through vaping.
• The burgeoning industry was largely unregulated using 'word of mouth' and trust to sort the wheat from the chaff when it comes to reputable and irreputable e-liquid dealers.
• Big Tobacco began to take an interest as their profits began to fall
• Big Pharamceutical began to take an interest as their profits (on cancer meds and quit smoking aids) began to fall
• Governments began to take an interest as their taxes on cigarettes began to fall
• Legislation started to be introduced essentially associating vaping with smoking in most cases and seeking to restrict or ban vaping.

From what I can see (my interpretation alone)

• The majority of people making decisions on this have never tried vaping and only know what reports tell them.
• Reports can tell them whatever they want to hear.
• The majority of early reports that got to Government were (ahem) 'sponsored' by Tobacco companies or Pharma
• Governments are only concerned with getting tax revenue and not the health and well being of its public. It is not in their interest to 'promote' vaping.
• The existing methods to quit smoking (patches/sprays/gum) don't work for the majority
• Pharma and Tobacco are concerned with profits.

It's the same argument as electric cars. We all know they are better for the environment and should be encouraged and potentially mandatory in our lifetime but it works against Government revenue and car manufacturer profitability so 'progress' is slowed to a crawl (like most electric cars)

BBC getting on board

Maybe the tide is turning?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-27161965

A BIG THANKYOU

When starting to write this I have finally found a published article in the press that pretty much covers what I wanted to say.

So three cheers for The Spectator

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9197731/vape-alarm/

I'm still gonna say it.