2016

Well, I’m finally back after a hectic few days in Warsaw for the Global Forum on Nicotine 2016. I really wish I had decided to fly out earlier and stay a bit longer as everything felt a little squeezed on my trip. But the bottom line is it was really worthwhile. This will likely be a multi-part blog as there is a lot to cover.

The start of the event just happened to be a screening of Aaron Biebert’s (watch this space for something special in the near future!) documentary film A Billion Lives at the Kinoteka in the Palace of Culture (or as Sarah described it, the big spiky thing). Setting aside the film for just a moment, the architecture of the Palace of Culture is truly fascinating, and I wish I had more time to explore - maybe that is something for GFN 2017 (if they’ll let me go).

There is a strap-line from HM Revenue & Customs - “tax doesn’t have to be taxing” - yet despite their best efforts, if you really want to wade through the system, you are going to have to employ someone with letters after their name. The proles don’t really stand a chance of navigating the endless forms, cross referencing and waiting. Not to mention there are certain rules that need to be followed with regards to things like wage slips, P60 (end of year stuff for UK employees). Yet I’d be willing to bet that many folks don’t wholly realise how much tax they actually pay. Especially when it comes to tobacco.

This letter is intended for all MPs, MEPs and Lords.

Thank you for your varied replies to my correspondence, it is appreciated that you take time out of your busy schedules to read and reply.

Unfortunately I am dismayed at the wide variety of those responses, not to mention the boilerplate responses which are intended to say very little other than provide some limited platitude. Those boilerplate responses did not address any of the concerns I had raised. It is a classic fobbing off and I am incredibly disappointed that you have felt it necessary to do that, to put it mildly.

To be fair, I’m not your average anything. I have multiple - often conflicting - views on a wide range of subjects, most of which will never end up on this blog. When I switched to vaping almost two years ago (June 11th 2014 in case anyone is interested), I had absolutely zero interest in all the nuances of vaping. At all.

I joined some Farcefook groups, engaged with like-minded folks - gamers, geeks, IT people, doctors, electricians, plumbers, carpenters, bloggers, and folk that do weird things on Twitter - people from all walks of life. Different ages - mostly older than me at the time, though there were a few that were younger. The community was, and still is as wide and as varied as the devices folk choose to use.

There are times when I do get a kick out of receiving e-mail updates from medical journals. The Lancet in particular (it is free, and somewhat annoying at times - especially the “Department of Error” - which doesn’t actually tell you much in the e-mail, you have to click the bloody link - unlike every other link in the mail; sadly none of these are ever about vaping) does give plenty of entertainment value. Their own manifesto is a source of much hilarity, considering its penchant for allowing ridiculous anonymous smear jobs in its esteemed digital pages. The logo itself “The best science is a good start” provokes a minor snort and a Spock eyebrow, but it’s the message underneath that is my source of hilarity (emphasis mine):

Seeing as one of the leading tobacco control ex-purts tweeted about this particular analysis, I decided to have a look. Well after he tweeted this, how could I refuse?

Well, seeing as I’m not an industry stooge - as the “Caped Crusader” would like to believe - I’m not actually going to “attack” it. Not as such anyway. Seeing as he asked soooo nicely.

So, what’s this analysis all about then? Well, as you expect from Gloomy Creepwell it’s all about the “risks” from e-cigarettes. Specifically, the “risks” from passive exposure - i.e. “second-hand vapour” - to e-cigarette vapour. I did wonder when they’d get around to trying to drum up some more fear and confusion about this. Y’see, second-hand smoke is a myth and second-hand vapour is no different. Well, OK it is slightly different in that there is a distinctive smell to vapour as opposed to tobacco smoke. But that’s about it.

First, let me be absolutely, 110% crystal fucking clear. I do not care which method of cessation you choose. I do not care if you are smoke free through one method or another. I do not care if you smoke. I do not care if you vape. Whatever choice you make is yours and yours alone.

I vape, and I do encourage others to do so if I feel they want to. I do not preach.

I do like it when someone poses an intriguing question on Twitter (or anywhere for that matter) that gets the ol’ grey matter churning. Not only does it make me think, it also makes me consider the implications of my own thinking - which is largely based in personal experience and opinion (on particular subjects), with some foundation in fact.

This question, posted by Gillian really got me thinking.

General Q: Where on hypothetical scale of reducing smoking rates wld you rate smoking cessation (by means that include a switch to vaping)?

Whenever there’s some “new research” being touted in the media-news-space, I often find myself switching automatically into newspeak as 99 times out of 100, what is written on these online media places has little or no bearing on what is being said. (hint look up doublethink). Tracking down the cited paper was pretty darn easy (for once) and it is currently open access - which is rare considering that it was published in the journal Tobacco Control - you know, the subsidiary of the BMJ variant.

New EU rules on nicotine strength not a problem for most vapers is the headline of a pretty dire press release from ASH where, once again, they show that they’ve never really been the ‘vapers friend’. With an increasing number of smokers switching to vaping - estimated to be around 2.8 million in 2016 - ASH reckons that the Tobacco Products Directive “need not cause problems for most vapers”.

How on earth do they figure that the TPD “need not cause problems” ? Despite regular discussions with members of the New Nicotine Alliance and the increasing number of public health experts (actual experts mind) in the fields of smoking cessation, respiratory medicine, cancer research and many more - ASH have today announced that they simply do not care about vapers, and in particular a “small” group - roughly 9%, which when stated like that doesn’t mean much, how does 252,000 sound? - use e-liquid that falls foul of the TPD rules.