Thoughts, Ramblings, Opinions, the Return

Over the last few years vaping has been placed under an increasingly magnified microscope, every single aspect from safety through to perceptions have been heavily scrutinized. The consumers, that is US, have been deliberately lumped into the same bracket as smokers and subsequently have been treated no different to smokers. We’ve had scare stories about “cancer causing chemicals” and have been told that vaping is a “public health threat”.

Time for a rewind, to 2009 specifically. I was still happily smoking and had no idea that the vaping community and industry existed. I had no idea that the MHRA wanted vapourisers to be placed squarely under medical regulation. Instead, all I saw in relation to smoking was the incessant beat of the anti-smoking organisations, and campaigns on the telly-box. I never had cause to contact my MP or MEP at the time simply because I didn’t care.

SmokerDefinitionFast forward to 2014 and my personal choice to try vaping. Sure there was a trigger for it, but giving up smoking was not one of them. Asking if I consider myself a “non-smoker” raises a few questions in my mind, on the one hand yes I do consider myself a non-smoker, given that the “definition” of a smoker is “a person who smokes tobacco regularly”. I no longer smoke tobacco regularly (if at all), ergo I am a “non-smoker”.

However. “Smoker” is defined as a noun in the English Language – “a word (other than a pronoun) used to identify any of a class of people, places, or things common noun, or to name a particular one of these proper noun.” – “used to identify a class of people”. So by definition, a smoker; and the plural of smokers are a “class of people” – rather like “Upper”, “Middle” and “Lower” classes used to differentiate between segments of society based on wealth or standing.

But on the other hand, a lot of people associate the hand-to-mouth action as “smoking”; the action of inhaling and exhaling something (usually tobacco and now e-liquid aerosol) and subsequently associate that with “smokers”. Therefore, technically in some people’s minds I am still a “smoker”; if we go by public perceptions and definitions I can be considered a “smoker”, despite the fact that I am not inhaling and exhaling tobacco or a “person who smokes tobacco regularly”. It’s a bit of duality, and something that I feel has a detrimental effect on any effort to convince the public that we are not in fact smokers any longer.

As a community, we have touted several statements about vaping:

  • Substantially safer
  • Significantly safer
  • Safer
  • Safe
  • Harmless
  • Less harmful
  • Lifestyle choice
  • alternative to smoking
  • and so on

We have of course had Public Health England stamp a figure on how “safe” vaping is deemed to be given the state of current research – 95%. Giving a figure to it, I’ve wondered if it is a good thing or a bad thing. On the one hand, politicians who haven’t got that much knowledge of vapers or vaping will look on this figure as being something they can somehow base policy on. The media love figures (even the stupid misleading ones), and having a bold claim of “95% Safer than Smoking” as a headline certainly fits that bill. But how do you actually define risk?

RiskDefinition

Every time an individual makes a decision to do something, there is always a calculation of risk whether it be conscious or not. As per the definition, “risk” involves a “situation involving exposure to danger” or “expose (someone or something) to danger, harm or loss”. It is pretty clear that a lot of situations could (in theory) lead to a harmful situation, whilst many clearly do not lead (at least directly) to a harmful situation.

So why are many insisting that the “95%” figure is actually a good thing?

Well, every time a smoker sparks up, they have made the conscious (or subconscious) decision to inhale the constituent byproducts as a result of burning tobacco. We know that many of these constituents have links to a variety of cardiovascular problems, but there is also the possibility that these constituent byproducts would have limited effect on the individual.  It’s exactly the same for us vapers, though the quantifiable risk is substantially lower – of course there is no combustion – but the question remains, and it has been highlighted rather blatantly thanks to the media reports, how much risk is acceptable?

Carl Phillips has written a thought-provoking post on his blog about this very topic:

It has been suggested to me that the report’s headline claim, that vaping is 95% less harmful than smoking (a made-up number that was reported as if it were science-based), was intentionally chosen to be able to claim that switching is clearly better than continuing to smoke, but still poses such a high risk that no one should do it (or be allowed to do it) unless they absolutely have to.

But how, exactly, is that reassuring? The inevitable answer is that it is a step the right direction. But does that step really suggest a trend, or is this “as far as they could go” really “as far as they will go”?

If you haven’t read Carl’s post, I strongly suggest you do so. It certainly gave me something to think about, yes it isn’t entirely positive about the recent deluge of media articles, but the one take away from it I had is that the report itself is a good step in the right direction, but it isn’t necessarily the Holy Grail we’ve been looking for. Which leads me on to my next point, what do we now do to follow the report’s release?

Well for the most part, you only have to see the comments on the initial media articles on the report to see just how much more work is needed to convince the general public, and there is still much work to do to convince some of those in power (yes FPH I’m looking at you, you bunch of dunderheaded buffoons).  Sure the PHE report is a positive thing, and when I saw the media previews on the report I was disappointed with what I saw, then I read the actual report (all 111 pages of it) and initially thought that yes, it’s a bloody good thing.

But since then I’ve seen a lot of reaction on the report, both positive and incredibly negative from both sides of the debate. Looking back at my initial thoughts on the PHE reports and the media reaction, I was fairly buoyant about the report but at the same time I was also pretty disappointed with how the media presented it to the public. That on its own has most likely caused much of the negative reaction from the public, after all the NHS is already heavily burdened and the vast majority don’t support any of the media’s interpretation of the PHE report, to be fair neither do I.

We know that back in 2009 the MHRA declared their intent to medicalise vapourisers, an intent that was roundly defeated by the consumers. Is the current media interpretation an indication of how the implementation of the TPD (with the MHRA as the oversight body) is going to be? The cynic in me says yes.

So what do we do? To be honest, I have no definitive answer to that. I have opinions on it, and I aired one of my opinions last night on Twitter:

This was in response to a change.org petition circulating around the various vaping groups. As with anything on Twitter, a lot of nuance is lost thanks to the limited character count and frankly I cannot be bothered to fully explain my stance on these petitions on Farcebook, hence this blog where I can air my opinions in full detail. I’ll admit to feeling frustrated and incredibly disheartened by one of the responses I got in the Twitter discussion:

Now I have a lot of respect and admiration for Lorien and everything that she does on behalf of the vaping community, she truly is selfless and I’m glad to call her friend (despite the occasional disagreement). But this reaction did surprise me, so I’m going to try to clarify my thoughts.

On Change.org, people everywhere are starting campaigns, mobilising supporters, and working with decision makers to drive solutions. — Change.Org

Having looked at the “about” and “impact” statements on change.org you can be forgiven for believing that any petition created can make a difference. Looking at the site, it does appear that some do indeed achieve “victory”.

Victories

Now, being cynical I’m not entirely convinced that these are actually victories (as such), bet for the sake of this post let’s assume they are, the one thing that struck me immediate were the total number of supports on each petition. Each one managing over one hundred thousand supporters. In contrast, I ran a search on petitions related to vaping, currently there are 37 petitions, two or three of which aren’t actually related to vaping specifically (they’ve used the word “vaping” in the text to garner some attention no doubt). The total number of supporters for these petitions? 66,672, which is only 1802 per petition. Now look at the ones that scored a victory.

Even all 37 petitions combined hasn’t reached 100,000 supporters which would suggest to me that signing a change.org petition for anything to do with vaping is utterly pointless. I’m not the only one who thinks this. The trouble with the community as a whole, and the Totally Wicked legal challenge is a prime example of this, is that many don’t give a flying fuck. At last check, the TW challenge was only just over 40K signatures, which when compared with the EFVI campaign is pretty disappointing.

EFVI started in November 2013, and ended on 25th November 2014 and was meant to gather 1 Million supporters EU wide with 54,750 in the UK. As the above image shows, the community missed the target by a pretty big margin. EFVI started before I joined the vaping community and was spread far and wide by the time I started vaping, but even then it still failed. Did I sign it? Of course I did, I believed that by signing it I might be able to help but it seems that the either community wasn’t large enough, or simply didn’t care enough.

The point is, petitions can only be successful if the community cares enough to see it succeed. From a UK perspective, and in my opinion the only petitions that should ever be started are petitions on the Official UK Government site.

UKPetitions

A UK Government petition interacts with the Petitions Committee, which if they choose to accept the petition for publication allows the signatories to interact with the UK Government and at two benchmark points the Government has to respond at 10,000 signatures and at 100,000 (a benchmark for “victory” on change.org) the issue can then be considered for debate in Parliament.

A Government petition, based on those benchmark figures is likely to be far more effective, the troubling issue is that despite the number of petitions related to vaping on change.org, there isn’t enough support to reach the point where the subject can be considered for Parliamentary debate.

So are petitions pointless? On some subjects, no they aren’t it’s only when it comes to vaping that they are. As I said on Twitter last night in response to Lorien:

A petition for vaping especially one on change.org, to my mind is of limited value (I won’t be signing the change.org petition, but have signed the UK Government one) and is almost to the point of being worthless. Instead of showing strength and unity within the community, petitions are highlighting the divisive and fragmented nature of it. Many signatories of petitions believe that by signing, they have “done something” and therefore don’t need to do much more. I’ve seen in some Farcebook groups petition links get multiple “done” or “signed & shared” type comments, and then almost immediately one of the users posts something about a new mod or juice and the petition post rapidly begins to disappear. The reach of social media, both Facebook and Twitter is limited, which is where the petitions are generally shared (does the phrase “preaching to the choir” mean anything to anyone?), what we need is to get notice off social media and into the mainstream public eye, after all the online presence of vapers is a small, nearly insignificant portion of the 2.6 Million users in the UK.

So if petitions are next to worthless, what can the community do to continue to apply pressure in the wake of the PHE report? I have no real answer to that, I have some ideas on that, and I’m open to other suggestions.

  • Write to your local paper and explain how vaping has helped you
  • Write to your MP AND MEP (if you know who that is)
  • If you can, arrange a meeting with your MP to discuss vaping and how it’s helped you
  • Think outside the box, who else has an interest in the PHE report ? (GP’s, Pharmacists, Stop Smoking Professionals)

Advocacy is often perceived as dull and boring, to be honest it usually is especially when responding to consultations because they are very dry and “technical”, but there is a fun side to it which is often overlooked. There are a lot of advocates worldwide with a lot of diverse experience and opinions so it is entirely likely that they have other ideas.

Of course, the PHE report hasn’t been fully welcomed by some, and those individuals are becoming increasingly desperate to quote anything and everything that they believe will sully the report, the trouble is the community is reacting to this which to my mind only serves to play their game when we should be playing ours. From now on, I’m going to be completely ignoring the known shit-stirrers, there’s no point in trying to engage those that are completely disregarding any and all evidence that doesn’t suit their ideological views. All we’re doing by commenting on stuff like that is giving them the attention they crave, and in some cases giving them potential ammunition to use against the community somewhere down the line. It might be worth remembering this post from Lorien.

Bottom line, the PHE report has triggered a lot of divisive opinions both within and without the community. Yes it’s a good thing, but looking back over the week we have had I suspect that it isn’t as good as initially believed. It’s a good step, but let’s not lose sight of some simple facts:

  • Vaping is orders of magnitude safer
  • Vapourisers are a consumer product
  • Stop Smoking Services are a major benefit to the community
  • Smokers should be encouraged, but not forced (if smokers don’t want to switch, it is their choice let’s play nice)
  • The TPD is burdensome, overreaching & unjustifiably disproportionate
  • The community needs to unify and support organisations like the NNA (UK), NNA (AU), CASAA, etc
  • The industry needs to innovate in the starter kit space

Of course, these are simply my opinions, and they are not necessarily right, so feel free to take them or leave them and I’ll continue to air my opinions whenever necessary, but let’s not lose sight of the fact that we are all in this together.

Just to be clear, I will continue to keep doing everything I can with the limited time & resources I have, some may not agree with the way I do things and I’ll take their opinions on board and if I can, I’ll make the necessary adjustments.

  • Liam Bryan

    Nice post Paul, considered and thought-provoking. Just an idea – how about if signing a petition is like baby steps, or cycling with stabilisers? Not quite the real deal but a step you go through before full blown advocacy (like your excellent suggested actions)?

    • In all honesty Liam, I feel that many view a petition as doing something then move onto other things with little or no regard to trying something else.

      Maybe I’m just being cynical, I’d dearly love to be proven wrong but the sheer scale of missed targets on EFVI and the poor showing of support for TW and the Welsh Lib Dems lead me to believe that petitions, in our case are next to useless.

      It’s a harsh conclusion, but you only have to see the number of petitions on change.org to see how little support there is for them. There’s been too many over the last 18 months, we need something different to reignite the passion within the community.

      Sadly, I don’t have any ideas on how to do that…yet, but something introductory is a great idea, but the key point is it needs to be “fun” and effective. I’m going to mull it over in the coming days to see if I can come up with something!

  • Jessica Harding

    I agree that petitions are a useless tool for influencing policy makers but I do think that they are worthwhile in other ways, providing they are well written. I think that this recent Change petition is really helpful: It is short and therefore likely to be read. It succinctly makes the point that the Article 20 needs to be defeated but that it is law now – lots of people who signed it were probably not aware of that. We’ve had a very confusing week and this petition has neatly summarised what needs to happen now in a few sentences – I think that’s really helpful.
    I saw some of the exchanges on Twitter yesterday – and disagree that having an official UK government petition would be better – that wouldn’t get enough signatures either. It’s immaterial really which petition site is used – the only useful function of a petition is to raise awareness.
    (Although this petition might be interesting to journalists this week – or could be, if it raised a huge amount of signatures in a very short time).
    Also, I doubt that people who signed the petition would have written a letter instead if the petition hadn’t been there – it isn’t an either or. I do think (hope) that some of the people who signed the petition would then go on to write a letter another day.

    • Thanks Jess, I’m not entirely convinced that change.org is the best way – hence the limited effectiveness comments; but I do appreciate that they can be useful to an extent.

      I do remain convinced that getting Parliament to acknowledge the official UK Petition, and if we get 100K they can schedule a debate, whether it is the right course remains to be seen.

      I do remain troubled by the poor support shown on EFVI, the TW challenge and the Welsh Lib Dems petitions.

      Sadly, the right course on the back of the PHE report and media deluge, for me at least remains shrouded. I’m sure an opportunity will present itself, if not I’ll damn well make one 🙂

  • Roger Hall

    Excellent thought provoking blog my friend. I’ve always believed that it’s results that matter and the lack of success of all the previous vaping petitions in my mind highlight one very simple, but unequivocal fact: Vaping petitions haven’t been managed successfully. we simply aren’t reaching or engaging with the general public to reach the numbers necessary. It requires a structured strategy, with effective marketing targeted at specific groups with specific reasons to persuade them to sign. I don’t believe that there isn’t at least 100,000 people that would sign a vaping petition, so the key question must be “what are we doing wrong (based on previous petitions) and what must we change in order to be successful.

    • Somehow as a community, we need to think outside the box in order to reach the rest of the general public but there’s a few stumbling blocks in our way.

      I have no doubt we’ll get there eventually, maybe a step by step approach is right, maybe it isn’t. Sadly I don’t have all the answers, I’m hoping to have some idea soon 🙂

  • westcoast2

    Some, maybe contrarian comments…

    Vaping is orders of magnitude safer
    Drinking water is safer than drinking alcohol. Cycling is pretty safe too. When comparisons between vaping and tobacco (I assume you mean tobacco) are made, people think about tobacco first and foremost with all the associations they have. Btw Herbal cigs have no tobacco, yet it is still smoking. Tobacco is orders of magnitude safer than smoking heroin, so tobacco is ok? It is unfortunate but I’m not sure comparisons between smoking tobacco and vaping can be avoided even when not mentioning tobacco explicitly.

    Vapourisers are a consumer product
    Yes, though this mainly impacts users. I am not interested in how safe a lathe is unless I actually want one. Exploding batteries are a problem though. This is a battery issue not an e-cig issue although news reports often go on to talk about smoking issues when it happens. They don’t talk about Linux when a Windows laptop battery explodes do they?

    Stop Smoking Services are a major benefit to the community
    Are they really? They take up funds that could be used elsewhere. They encourage the use of ineffective NRTs which doesn’t seem beneficial. People have been told about the risks, although a bit of honesty of the risks might not go amiss, why can’t they then be free to make up their own minds? Many now promote denormalisation. In what way is denormalisation a beneficial policy?

    Smokers should be encouraged, but not forced (if smokers don’t want to switch, it is their choice let’s play nice)
    People who smoke do so for various reasons. By all means suggest someone tries vaping whether they want to quit or not. Vaping is not a smoking cessation tool. Some people do not take to vaping, some do not find it as satisfying and some just want a choice. If vaping were NRT then it can easily be medicalised, do you want to take your daily medicine and, as you vape in public, be seen in that way? During the MHRA consultation many went for Option 2 (Light regulation) because they thought it was ok and they had no choice. I suggested, at that time, no regulation was needed other than the currently in place consumer products regulation. (Option 3 – do nothing). Fortunately that position gained traction.

    The TPD is burdensome, overreaching & unjustifiably disproportionate
    For all consumers.

    The industry needs to innovate in the starter kit space
    In what way?

    Tobacco restrictions were brought about because of the Second Hand Smoke issue, in other words and whether you agree or not, harm to others. Many people do not engage because it doesn’t affect them, they neither smoke nor vape. The general public will become engaged when it affects them. Look back at the Skol Bandits (Snus) hysteria. Look also at the PP campaign and how it was won and lost. Vaping has had a relatively easy time, up until now, as it had been seen to be relatively benign as far as the public are concerned.

    Vaping should stand on its own two feet. It is enjoyable and safe, as far as the science goes, for both consumer and public. Thinking in terms of Tobacco vs Vaping, quitting and benefits to society will lead down the path of medicalisation. See Carl V Philips other posts. Presenting straightforward facts will eventually undermine the case for restrictions, although, because of the path taken, this may take a while.

    • Thanks for the comments, I assure you all comments are taken on-board 🙂

      True, I should have been explicit in the post with regards to the “orders of magnitude safer” statement and made sure I compared vaping to combustible tobacco use.

      Batteries; they are an issue regardless of the consumer electronic product (iPhones are probably the most common smart phone and there are plenty of reports of battery failures in those), yet no-one seems to bat an eye to reports on those failures, because a battery fails within the context of a vapour product, all hell breaks loose and that is simply down to the contentious nature of the sector.

      SSS: If the majority of the organisations (either for or against) insist on vapour products being a “possible aid for cessation” (which in a way they are) then availability via existing services should be considered. I’m fairly ambivalent on this, I applaud those SSS that have considered them to be a potential aid, however I do not want vapour products to only be available via that route. Maybe there can be a balance there?

      Smokers: I wholeheartedly agree, however the choice should be available to them if they so choose. I try to make that crystal clear in a number of my posts, I have no problems with smoking or smokers (I used to smoke myself of course), and I abhor the continuing crusade against them; for me it is all about choice, but I would like to see the vaping community not shun or stigmatise smokers further, in fact I’d love to see the opposite and have the communities support each other. Wishful thinking? Maybe.

      Starter Kits: To be honest, from the e-tailers I’ve looked at, as well as some of the B&M’s there is a shortfall in the availability, and by extension, effectiveness of the starter products. The industry has been driven to bigger capacity tanks, higher wattage output, rebuildable and sub-ohm style products that the starter market in my opinion is somewhat lacking.

      SHS: True, however there is a trend now where anything connected to smoking or vaping is criticized based upon the past crusades against the second hand smoke. I urge you, read any of the comments on any article on smoking or vaping and you’ll find a fair number that “don’t want it anywhere”; many of the public (in those comments) don’t find vaping benign even if it doesn’t affect them.

      I totally agree, Vaping should stand on it’s own, but at the moment it can’t (imo) as it has been “led” to where it is by both sides where proponents insist on having “quit smoking” by the use, thereby implying a medicalisation stance. I do not believe that vaping is a medicine, not to mention many opponents are claiming efficacy issues – thereby forcing the issue as a cessation aid.

      I stand firm behind vapour products as purely a consumer product I do not believe that they need to be regulated as a medicinal product, however if there is a two-pronged approach where both avenues are left open, I’d be OK with that.

      Again, thanks for the comments 🙂

      • westcoast2

        SHS: I agree, there are the ‘if it looks like smoking, ban it’ brigade. I said benign as the hysteria, which was pushed, didn’t really take hold, maybe ambivalent is a better word. It doesn’t really capture the public mood which doesn’t seem swayed to support or reject vaping. A possible reason why petitions are poorly supported.

        SSS: If Vaping is a “possible aid for cessation” then vaping is time limited, isn’t? Cessation for smoking or nicotine? Should smoking, er vaping, zero nic be encouraged? (Zero nic vaping raises a lot of questions) Why do SSS not speak out about Vaping bans? I think vaping really comes into sharp focus when you ask the question “Would you suggest trying vaping to a non-smoker”? If not why not? It is safe and enjoyable isn’t it?

        Starter kits: You’re right, my DSE101 (bought in 2007) was a total failure 🙂 If it wasn’t for mixing my own, after I got a DSE901, I probably wouldn’t have bothered carrying on. The starter kits are now quite good. What could be more helpful is easier progression or even some acknowledgment that they are just ‘Starter kits’.

        As a seasoned vaper you probably know they are not great but when you first start out, for many, that’s all they really want and the marketeers know this. The trouble is many stop there or declare that vaping is not for them as the hype doesn’t always match the experience. Perhaps a more advanced kit marketed as an easy progression from the starter is needed, rather than leave people floundering in a world of sub-ohms? We have 1st, 2nd, 3rd… generation. maybe we need Beginner, Intermediate, Advanced, hi hi.

        if there is a two-pronged approach where both avenues are left open, I’d be OK with that.

        My direct concern here is that the two-pronged approach will become a single prong.

        • SSS: Valid points, to my mind (and my personal thinking & experience), they are a route away from smoking; though I consider vapourisers more as an alternative to smoking rather than a cessation aid (as is often touted). The question of “would you suggest trying vaping to a non-smoker” is perfectly valid, and in all honest I am indeed torn on that particular question; certainly one to consider carefully, though my initial reaction is no, but that comes from the mind of a former smoker. However, on the flip side of that, vaping (as it stands) is pretty damn safe (no I’m not putting a “figure” on that 😉 ), so in that respect I wouldn’t have an issue with a non-smoker deciding to take up vaping, nic or no-nic; after all isn’t one of the key factors about vaping all about individual choice?

          Starter Kits: That’s certainly an avenue worth exploring isn’t it? A “tiered” starter kit route, but would you consider a “closed system” for that route, at least for the “beginner” variant, or would you maintain the open systems that are there currently for all tiers ?

          Since 2009, it is clear that the MHRA is intent on taking control one way or the other. Like you, I have the same concern that the two pronged approach would eventually become a single route. But, with the efforts of the folks at PHE, NNA, CR UK et al my feeling is the two pronged approach will stick; I could of course be wrong, but from what I’m hearing from the various little birds, it’s the route everyone seems to be taking; at least in the UK – until the TPD that is. We shall see.

          • westcoast2

            Starter Kits: Closed systems are really ‘Trial’ packs. They are very limited. As I mentioned I quickly moved to MYO. I wanted to control flavour and strength. Once commercial flavours appeared this wasn’t as necessary although I still dabble. From talking to others, flavour choice is important and it takes a little experimentation to find the ones you like. As a result I believe it is important, even for beginners, to have ‘open’ systems.

            So we have Trial, Starter……Advanced and Advanced+ the all singing all dancing latest best thing since the last one. The biggest gap seems to be between Starter and Advanced.

          • Which is where the innovation really is lacking, though I suspect I should have clarified that in the post 😉

            Certainly some food for thought, thanks! 🙂

  • Pingback: Tanks for the thoughts... - Facts Do Matter()