In twelve years working in and around advocacy for safer nicotine products, I’ve seen my fair share of hypocrisy from the prohibitionist wing of the tobacco control movement. It’s getting worse: we’re now seeing an EU Health Commissioner talk about vaping-induced popcorn lung as if it actually exists (it doesn’t) and saying that vapes are even worse than smoking (they aren’t).
But sometimes, the hypocrisy is too much even for someone as battle-hardened me to take. Enter this op-ed by Karen Evans-Reeves, of the fundamentalist University of Bath Tobacco Control Department. No need to click the link unless you’re into particularly odd forms of masochism: I’ve read it, so you don’t have to.
The UK Government recently banned disposable vapes on environmental grounds. CTA’s editorial line has been hostile to this move and there are good reasons to be suspicious of it (which we will come onto), but on balance I personally think it could be quite a positive step.
It makes no sense to send refillable batteries to landfill when a few simple design changes – making the pods replaceable, adding a charging port and potentially opening them up for refilling – could make them both cheaper (and therefore more accessible for smokers who need to quit) and reduce their environmental footprint.
One of the arguments against banning disposables that most worried me was that it would make the cost of trying out vaping much higher for smokers. I’m delighted to be able to report that I was dead wrong about this.
Manufacturers have been forced to keep prices where they are but modify devices in ways that are more consumer friendly: that means refillable and rechargeable devices that look like the disposables they have replaced are now hitting the market at the same price point.
Sounds like a win-win, right? Wrong, apparently.
According to this Karen – and it does amuse me that her name is an actual internet meme – replacing your disposable products with refillable alternatives because disposables were banned “feel like they are against the spirit of the law”.
By this logic, of course, all vapes will eventually need to be banned because they’re similar to the last lot that the tobacco control movement wanted to ban. And perhaps that’s exactly the point here: once you’ve managed to ban one set of safer nicotine products that don’t adhere to your sensibilities, you need to go after the next lot.
In law, of course, this is utter nonsense. If a product can be refilled and recharged it’s legal: there is no “loophole” here, as Karen argues, just manufacturers complying with the law.
She argues, with no evidence whatsoever, that consumers are using these newly refillable and rechargeable products just like they would use disposables. We’re less than a month into the disposables ban here, there is absolutely no research to back that statement up whatsoever: Karen just has such a dim view of smokers that she assumes they’ll always behave like animals unless herded, like sheep, into accepting her preferred behaviours. Actually, most vapers I’ve met quite like the option to re-use and refill they’re now able to avail themselves of.
Sometimes, the hypocrisy of the other side can be clarifying. Many in the tobacco control movement who campaigned hard for plain packaging – a measure I personally support – drew the line at holding back safer products from smokers who need them. But those who keep fighting against them often try to hide their real motives: to punish smokers for wanting to quit through methods they don’t approve of. Articles like this serve to remind us of who they really are.
