Opinion

It’s one of the hottest topics in public health right now. It’s divided scientists and researchers across the globe. It’s even divided the community on some aspects of it. Vaping. A consumer driven market that has enabled 2.6 million people (UK) to either reduce the harms of smoking or stop smoking full stop.

The question that rattles around in my head regularly is why is this topic so divisive and why are so many intent on heavily restricting it? To that end, I try to go back to basics, with a little help from some friends.

Before I start this post there’s a few points I simply have to clarify:

• Underage vaping or smoking

As an advocate for vaping, I have no issues with teens taking to vaping or smoking if that is their choice. I would prefer that they didn’t do either of course, but if they were to do one or the other, I would prefer they vaped but I have no issue with them doing either.

This is another one of those “something on my mind” type posts where I’m going to try to clarify some thinking, and maybe organise the thoughts rumbling through my addled brain. It may also bring together some threads from previous posts that I’ve mentioned but not expanded upon.

Nothing really prompted this post as such, just a bunch of thoughts that need to be emptied out to make room for more. Time for a rewind.

The thing with journalists is they tend to get friendly with regular sources of information. The “go-to” folks for soundbites and information, no matter how bizarre that information is. The flip side of that, is when they are ‘confronted’ by opposing views the immediately adopt the “hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil” stance by retreating past la-la land up to cloud cuckoo.

This whole thing really started to gather momentum when Public Health England released the recent evidence update on electronic cigarettes. We knew that there would be some responses from the opponents to vaping, the trouble is the evidence update was in fact a response to the multitude of rubbish science and poor media.

What follows here is purely my opinion on what seems to be a subject that is becoming the flash point for a lot of debate, argument and bickering. I’ll try to be as coherent as possible.

Most of you know that the All Party Parliamentary Group on ecigs met last week and a lot of good things came from that, there is already a very good write-up on the meeting from James Dunworth over on the Ashtray Blog, after all he was there. I wasn’t. Most of the information that came from the APPG I know through either that blog, the VTTV show The Haze Hour the following day, twitter (of course), plus the following two blog posts. Sarah Jakes, guest posted on Lorien Jollye’s blog to clarify her personal stance followed by a second posting by Lorien herself.

There’s been a lot going around in the media lately about conflict of interest with regards to research into vapourisers. The biggest mud-slinging has of course been from The Lancet about the PHE Report. Of course, the trouble with the public health industry and science is this. There will always be a conflict of interest. These conflicts range from pure ideological views (Nanny McPhee et al), to funding conflicts. Sometimes the COI is subtle and sometimes not.

There is a saying on Twitter, “If you can’t debate in 140 characters or less, you’ve lost the argument”. Sometimes this could be true, but in others the character limit is incredibly, well, limiting, even with character substitutions and abbreviations it is incredibly difficult to get your point across on a complex subject.

This is one of the reasons I have a blog, so I can take my time and be as wordy as I need to be to explain the things I’m writing about.

Another day, and yet more divisiveness in response to yesterdays PHE Report. You’ll remember that construction companies relied heavily on the advice of the BMA for information about vaping in the workplace, in light of the PHE Report those companies look like they may have to have a bit of a rethink.

Even in a radio interview on BBC Scotland (approximately 20 minutes in) with the BMA and Linda Bauld, the BMA representative admitted that they would “review” their stance on workplace bans in light of the evidence stating that vapourisers are substantially safer than smoking. It was, one of the many wonderful moments of yesterday’s deluge of reports.

Late last night various tweets were being posted by the media with previews of today’s papers front pages from i, Daily Telegraph, Daily Mirror and The Times. All four were based on an impending publication from Public Health England (PHE), but as is the norm for the media, the headlines didn’t actually reflect the contents of the publication.

I’ll admit to being a little wary of today’s news based on those previews alone, despite assurances from Lorien Jollye that the report from PHE was actually a very very good thing. As with anything related to vaping and smoking I’m very cynical and the preview headlines all had a common theme which sadly led me to believe the wrong thing.

If you weren’t already aware, the FDA are currently accepting commentary on “Nicotine exposure warnings and child-resistant packaging for liquid nicotine, nicotine-containing e-liquids, and other tobacco products” whereby they are looking to, from those that are interested to comment, for information on the regulation of “tobacco products”. They are specifically looking for comments, data, research results and any other information that may inform regulatory actions that the FDA might take. If you haven’t done so yet, the link is here, it’d be worthwhile adding your own comments.