Winds Of Change ?

I was recently invited by Cancer Research UK to take part in an eCig Briefing they were holding at the Welsh Assembly in Cardiff Bay. I knew it was happening some time ago because one of the speakers is somebody with whom I have regular contact – one Prof Linda Bauld of Stirling University. However, I was still rather surprised to be invited to participate in the event by CRUK.

So, on a bright sunny morning (yes, we do sometimes get those in Wales), I drove down to Cardiff Bay to have a look-see and, if necessary, put a vaping perspective on the conversations that were going to happen.

On arriving at the Assembly Buildings, I immediately spotted Linda just inside the doorway and so walked in introduced myself. Although I often speak with Linda across Twitter, this was the first time for me to actually meet her in person. After a pre-meeting chin-wag, we made our way into the Conference Room for the Briefing.

Entering the Conference Room, I could already see that it was filled with many from the ‘Tobacco Control Industry’. Several of these people I have met on previous occasions in other Conferences or face-to-face meetings. However, I didn’t have clue who many of the others were, so was quite surprised to be instantly recognised by many in the room. This either means that I am doing something very right or very wrong. I choose to believe the former. However way one looks at it, the fact that I am instantly recognised in such meetings does show that the message I, and many other vaping advocates, are saying is hitting home with these people.

Exchanging pleasantries with people and doing some light networking, the room gradually filled up with more and more people. I was disappointed not so see more Assembly Members attending the briefing, but I amongst the throng I did manage to spot Labour AM Mike Hedges (who happens to be my constituency AM). I also spotted David Rees AM (the Chair of the Health & Social Care Committee whom I had met two weeks previously). I think David was a little surprised to see me there, but nevertheless he acknowledged me and said Hello with a smile. Finally, at the back of the room I believe I did spot Plaid Cymru’s Health spokeswomen (and ecig supporter) Elin Jones.

The Briefing was only scheduled for 90 minutes duration, with much material to get through, so it commenced almost precisely on 8am. The meeting was kicked off with a brief introduction by John Griffiths (a Labour AM representing Newport ) who explained the reason for the briefing. He also explained that due to the time constraints, each speaker would be restricted to 10 minutes. He then handed over to Alison Cox.

Alison is the ‘Director Of Prevention’ at CRUK and quickly delved into the research that CRUK has funded into eCigs. She had a positive message and stated categorically that based on the research that CRUK have either funded or performed themselves, they are supportive of eCigarettes as an effective smoking cessation tool. In my opinion, this was a very good start.

Next up, we had Chris Tudor Smith from the Welsh Government Tobacco Policy Branch (that basically means he is part of the Welsh Department of Health). I knew Chris, having met him back in January 2015. Indeed we had chatted casually before the meeting had started. Chris’s role was to briefly detail the responses that had been received back during the Public Health White Paper Consultation. I had seen all of this information previously (it is published and available from the Welsh Government website), so none of it surprised me in the least.

Following on from Chris, we heard from Dr Julie Bishop. I first encountered Dr Bishop at the eCigarette Summit in Swansea in the summer of 2014. Those who remembered my conversations about that Summit will recall that I referred to her as almost a clone of the CMO Dame Sally Davis as their views were so similar. Accordingly, I was not expecting to hear anything positive from her presentation. How wrong I was !!

Dr Bishop quickly ran through her slides stating how Public Health Wales recognises that eCigarettes have a role in smoking-cessation and that they are magnitudes safer than lit tobacco. I didn’t agree with everything she said (e.g. she did trot out the usual guff of concern of them being a gateway to smoking, worried about kids taking it up, normalising smoking etc), but overall I felt her presentation was positive towards eCigarettes. I noticed how she kept looking nervously in my direction during her presentation (I was sat near the front directly in front of her), but I have to give her credit that her views have changed substantially since I had last met her in 2014. I trust (but don’t know) that this was a result of her reading the emerging evidence and/or listening to the positive research and evidence that has been reported by the likes of Hajek, West, Farsolinos etc. As mentioned previously, I didn’t agree with everything she said, but overall I was actually pleasantly surprised with her positive tone in regard to eCigarettes that she presented.

Next to present was Prof Linda Bauld. I have seen Linda present on the subject of eCigarettes several times over the past 12 months and so knew what to expect. True to form, Linda did not let us down. She rattled through her slides explaining the different types of eCigarettes there are and why it is important to distinguish between them, stating that only Gen 1 eCigarettes look like real cigarettes (and that they are almost exclusively owned by Big Tobacco). Talking about the futuristic appearance of Gen 2/3 eCigarettes, she challenged anyone to say how they could possibly be confused for lit-tobacco cigarettes.  As if to emphasise this, she introduced me to the audience as a Vaper and invited the audience to engage with me to see examples of Gen 3 devices. Linda then went on to talk about the ongoing studies that she has performed in regards to eCigarette use, in the process completely demolishing Dr Bishop’s fears that they would be Gateway products to smoking, that they would entice children etc. Linda also referenced studies performed by ASH and CRUK, as well as those performed by the other well-known luminaries in Harm Reduction. Throughout her presentation I was glancing around the room to gauge how people were reacting to presentation and I can confirm that there a clear ‘opening of eyes’ to the truth. Linda’s presentation was warm, concise and articulate – and it got the message over to the doubters big-time.

The last person to present was Prof. Marcus Munafo of Bristol University. I had heard of Marcus before and knew he was positive toward eCigarettes. However, I had never previously spoken to him or met him in person. An amiable chap, Marcus’ presentation was slanted towards vapour production, contaminants in the air and the effects of eCigarettes in enclosed spaces. For his presentation, Marcus leaned heavily on the work produced by Dr Konstantinos Farsalinos and Prof Riccardo Polosa – a fact he acknowledged at the start of his presentation. I think it is safe to say that Dr Farsalinos would have approved of the way Marcus presented the information, clearly and concisely demonstrating that eCigarette vapour is nothing to be scared of. He used his graphs and diagrams to demonstrate that any contaminants that may arise from eCigarettes were so low that they were barely detectable. One graph clearly demonstrated that there is barely any change in the atmosphere of an enclosed space when eCigarettes are introduced. He also took the time to demolish the recent ‘Formeldehyde’ scare by pointing out that the human body naturally produces formaldehyde anyway and that eCigarettes did not increase this process in any significant way. Quite frankly, I believe his presentation blew away a lot of preconceived ideas people may have had about the harm of vapour and ‘second-hand’ vapour. One could almost hear the pennies dropping in the room.

Thus, the presentations were over and the floor was thrown over for a Q&A Session with the panel. Disappointingly for me, there was a deathly silence. I do not think anybody really knew how to formulate their questions. So, despite not wanting to ‘take over’ the Q&A Session I decided that I would have to get the ball rolling.

I started by stating that I had a question for Dr Julie Bishop. At this point, I glanced over her and could visibly see her shoulders and head drop as if she was dreading what was coming. However, when I commented on how much her position on eCigs had changed between last year and this – and thanked her for her change in position – she relaxed. However, I was not going to let her off without answering a question so I asked her how she had arrived at her conclusion that Big Tobacco was taking over the eCigarette industry when they were almost exclusively in the Gen 1 marketplace. I probably should have ended the question there, but got carried away and started stating how the TPD would hand the entire eCig market to Big Tobacco and that it was not supposed to be the result she was looking for. I think this flustered her somewhat as she tried to find an answer to the question. Just as I believe she was about to answer, Linda Bauld cut in and stated that the TPD was not part of the discussion for that session. She was right of course and it was probably my fault for not stopping at the first part of my question. However, Linda did agree with me that Big Tobacco is a small player in the eCig market currently.

I waited a few seconds to see if anyone else was going to come up with a question. When that did not happen, I decided to ask Linda to explain to the room what was happening in Scotland and why the Scottish Government was minded not to introduce a ban on vaping in public spaces. As Linda has been heavily involved with the Scottish Consultation, she was of course able to give a comprehensive report on what happened in Scotland and how they arrived at their conclusions. 

That broke the ice and other people started asking questions and stimulated discussion – which is precisely what I wanted to provoke.

Eventually, time ran out and the panel was asked to present any closing messages. Alison Cox, Marcus Munafo and Linda Bauld all stated their support for eCigarettes and that they were nothing to be afraid of. They also all stated that they did not believe there is evidence to support a ban on vaping in public enclosed spaces.

And that was it. The Briefing was over and a period of networking could begin.

Looking around the room, I could clearly see that all of the AMs previously present had disappeared by now. However, I was still to have one more welcome surprise.

I was approached by a young lad (unfortunately I do not recall his name) who identified himself as a researcher from Kirsty Williams AM’s (Welsh Lib-Dem Leader) office. He told me that Kirsty wanted him to let me know that she was still 100% in support of our campaign against the proposed ban of vaping in public spaces and that she would continue to support us in every way she can. Apparently, we can also call on Kirsty for further help and support at any time. She remains committed to our cause. I love that lady :-)

So there we have it. A nice bright note upon which the whole thing ended.

In summary, I felt that the Briefing was very positive towards eCigaretts and Vaping in general. I also believe that the presentations turned the heads of a great many people present in the room and I think that it played a great part in turning a significant corner in our battle against Mark Drakeford’s insane and ideological crusade.

This is a battle we can win. This a battle we ARE winning. It is a battle we WILL win !!

Finally, I would to register my personal thanks to Alison Cox, Clare Bath and the entire CRUK Team present in Cardiff for their invite to participate in the Briefing, and for warm welcome and discussions we were able to have. I look forward to having the chance to participate again.

I would also like to thank Profs Marcus Munafo and Linda Bauld for their great presentations and ongoing support. I am in awe of you both !!

Vaping Advocates - Now Is Our Time

Over the coming weeks in the run-up to the 2015 General Election, we are going to have a massive opportunity to corner those (sometimes) elusive Parliamentary Candidates and get their views on the subject of eCigarettes.

They are all going to be knocking on our doors. This means for perhaps the only time, they will be coming to see US !!

What I would ask ALL vapers and vaping advocates to do is to actively engage with those Parliamentary Candidates and take the opportunity to 'bend their ears'.

We all know the scientific evidence stacks up fully in support of eCigarettes. Now we have the perfect opportunity to use that scientific evidence to our advantage.

If the Parliamentary Candidate shows no interest in the subject, then make it clear that it is an important issue to you and that it will influence your decision about who gets your vote. If they show no knowledge on the subject, then EDUCATE them. If they are against, then show them the scientific evidence and try to talk them around, again stating that it is an important issue to you and that it will influence your decision about who gets your vote.

Most Vaping Advocates run their own blogs. So use your blogs to get the word out there about which of the Parliamentary Candidates are sympathetic/supportive of eCigarettes and which of them are against.

If we all do this, then in the run-up to the General Election, we should be able to produce a list of the Parliamentary Candidates who are prepared to stand up and fight for eCigs on our behalf. That list can then be used to enlighten ALL vapers, wherever they may live, about which Parliamentary Candidates to consider supporting if you wish to protect your right to vape.

Obviously, it is not for me to decide who you should and should not vote for. That decision is yours and yours alone. I realise that supporting a candidate based on a single issue such as vaping would be daft. However, knowing the thoughts of prospective MP's on the subject of Vaping may also influence your decisions when considered with other issues that you hold dear to your heart. I know that the stance of any Parliamentary Candidate on eCigs will be a big deciding factor as to who gets my vote.

Ultimately, all I am looking to do (with the help of the vaping community) is to help everyone to understand which of the Parliamentary Candidates are supportive of eCigarettes, and which are not.

There are an estimated 2.1 million vapers in the UK. NOW IS THE PERFECT OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE OUR VOICES HEARD. Vaping could turn out to be a bigger bargaining chip than we realise in the run-up to the General Election. Let's grab the issue by the balls and make it a key subject on their agendas.

Remember, you may not get such an opportunity to face a prospective MP and get eCigarettes on the agenda again for 5 years. Make this opportunity count.

Thankyou !!

eCigarettes - Why Is It Personal ?

I thought I would take a slightly different tack with my latest blog entry. With sad advent of the death of Leonard Nimoy a few days ago, I have seen some wildly inaccurate claims, ghoulish band-wagon jumping, and downright complete ignorance expressed on social media and even in some newspapers. Like many people, I was appalled at the behaviour of many in the Tobacco Control Industry who immediately jumped upon the man's unfortunate death to push their own agendas by highlighting the fact that he once smoked (which he gave up 30 years ago). However, this blog isn't about his sad passing away. As an avid Star Trek fan, I have known, watched and admired Nimoy's acting abilities from a very young age. He has been a part of my life for the majority of my time on this planet and I am saddened by his passing. People should now just leave his family in peace to grieve and just remember the man for what he was - a very talented actor, director and (from what I gather) artist.

Unfortunately, such outrageous comments have not only happened since Leonard Nimoy's death. There is a vast amount of ignorance around the subject of smoking (and vaping) amongst the general public, and the blame for that lies firmly on the shoulders of the Tobacco Control Industry.

Many people will know that I am very active in campaigning against the lies and misinformation against eCigarettes. Many of you will also know that I am one of the people leading the fight against the proposed ban on vaping in public enclosed spaces in Wales. It is no secret that I have been taking the fight to the Senedd by actively seeking out meetings with AMs to fight back against the misinformation that is constantly emerging against eCigarettes.

So, why is this fight so personal for me ?

A lot of people reading this blog will only ever have known me through this blog, my interactions on Twitter, or maybe even my occasional appearances on Vapour Trails TV. A small number of you may also know me in person. However, practically nobody knows the background to why I fight so hard for eCigarettes.

There is a simple one-word answer to why I fight for eCigarettes - CANCER !!

Over the last 10 years, I have seen 4 members of my extended family lose their fight against differing forms of Cancer. Even now, there are 3 members of my family in a current fight with different forms of Cancer - sadly for one of those family members the diagnosis is terminal.

The Tobacco Control Industry would immediately jump on this news and blame smoking. But the truth of the matter is that only 3 of the 7 people described above were smokers. This proves the case that Cancer can afflict anyone - smoker or not.

I personally have also had my health problems. I WAS a smoker and 5 years ago I suffered heart problems which Doctors attributed to smoking. Personally, I don't think they were correct as heart problems are also a genetic condition and I know there are many instances of it on the paternal side of my family. I probably inherited that condition. However, having almost been killed by my heart condition, I felt it wiser to quit smoking. After almost 3 years of Vaping, my GP tells me that I have the lungs of a non-smoker and that my health is as good as any non-smoker of my age, and even better than many others.

More so, I have removed the dangers of the apparent 600 carcinogens I was taking in whilst smoking, and replaced them with an alternative that contains none - eCigarettes. From what I understand from all the proper research that has been done on eCigarettes, I have also greatly reduced the chances of my contracting Cancer.

Quitting smoking is easier said than done. This is something that the Tobacco Control Industry can't get into their (rather thick) skulls. The gums, the sprays, the 'suicide' tablets (yes I am looking at you Champix) that are peddled by the Pharma industry are, quite frankly, complete shite. They do NOT help you quit. All those forms of NRT do is make you depressed or ill.

But where all the big money of Pharma failed, Hon Lik (the modern inventor of the eCigarette) succeeded. He actually invented an alternative to tobacco that WORKED - and Pharma just hate that. They hate that they have been found out and sales of their ineffectual 'quit-aids' are plummeting.

eCigarettes have been around for more than 10 years now and there is not a single death anywhere in the world that is attributable to them. Not one. There is ever growing research that has been performed that proves that eCigarettes are 99% SAFER. Despite what the Tobacco Control Industry will tell you, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS 100% SAFE.

Yet the Tobacco Control Industry still pushes out lies and misinformation to try and discredit eCigarettes. I have heard many theories as why they take that stance. Some have said it is down to not researching the evidence properly, some say it is because they have their noses too firmly attached to the tax-payer funded trough, others say it is the influence of Pharma, yet others mutter murmerings of corruption. This blog is not going to examine any of those things.

There are two main reasons why I am prepared to go out and fight for eCigarettes:

Reason 1:  I am Libertarian by nature. I do not feel it is the role of Government (or anyone else for that matter) to poke their noses into our private lives and dictate to us how we should live them. We are adults and we are perfectly capable of making informed decisions

Reason 2: eCigarettes enabled me to quit using lit tobacco and I now feel healthier than I have ever done for the vast majority of my adult life. My taste and smell returned overnight, my physical health improved and I now have bundles of energy. Most importantly, that 'early-morning cough' is gone. No longer does that particular 'foghorn' wake everyone up early in the morning.

I have regular 6-monthly health check-ups as a result of my heart condition. Every time I attend those health check-ups, a marked improvement on the previous check-up is observed. No sign whatsoever of any heart problems re-occurring are identified.

Therefore, I am NOT an anecdote, I am living proof that eCigarettes are not harming me. Research also consistently proves that vaping is NOT causing any harm to others around me.

I nearly died a few years ago, but eCigarettes have given me a new lease of life because they enabled to quit lit tobacco. Whilst nothing in life is certain, the improvement in my health over the past few years since I quit lit tobacco by switching to eCigarettes shows me that my children can expect to have me around for many more years to come.

I know all about death and illness. I have seen (and continue to see) far too much of it in my own family. But I also know that my survival odds have been significantly improved by my switch to eCigarettes.

AND THAT IS WHY I FIGHT

There is no political line to why I fight. I have no links to either Pharma or Tobacco industries. I have no hidden agenda (unlike many in Tobacco Control). I simply want to help others to quit lit-tobacco if that is what they want to do. eCigarettes are the safest and most effective way of quitting lit-tobacco.

I want to save lives in the same way as I saved my own. How many in Tobacco Control can claim that with a clear conscience ?

A Meeting with David Rees AM - Chair of the Health & Social Care Committee

‘Here we go again’, was the thought resonating through my mind as I stood outside the Senedd in a cold and windy Cardiff Bay. Having a last minute vape, I pondered the meeting that was about to come. A meeting with the Chair of the Health & Social Care Committee – and also the very first time that a Labour AM had agreed to meet with me. For that reason alone, I was not sure whether I was going to be going into a hostile environment or not.

Entering the Senedd, I went through the usual ‘Airport’ Security procedures and made my way in to announce my arrival. Then followed a 15 minute wait before I was finally collected and taken to a small meeting room deep in the bowels of the Senedd Building.

David Rees AM arrived, a few minutes later than planned due to an overrunning previous meeting. We shook hands and exchanged greetings and then we got right down to it. The silence that first greeted me led me to believe that this could be a hard meeting to get through. However, I needn’t have worried about that as it turned out.

I kicked off the meeting by explaining why I was there and why I think that Mark Drakeford’s plans for a Ban on Vaping in Enclosed Public Spaces are both flawed and wrong, quickly rattling through all the points I have raised many times in meetings with other AM’s. I also made a point of mentioning to David that he was the first Labour AM that had agreed to meet with me. This brought a smile to David’s face and finally the ice was broken.

David explained to me that he had been reticent to meet with me (at first) due to his intent to stay completely neutral to the issue as he knew it was eventually going to come before the HSCC anyway.

I informed him that I was not there to influence him. I just wanted him to understand why Drakeford’s plans are flawed and present the counter-argument and evidence which proved Drakeford’s plans to be flawed. I also presented David with a few examples of the kind of evidence I have in my possession. This included the recent article from Cancer Research UK which was highly supportive of eCigarettes, the ‘Vitality’ article on the ‘myths’ of eCigarettes (most of which are what Drakeford relies upon), Professor Linda Bauld’s excellent eCigarette article recently published in The Guardian newspaper, Derek Yach's recent article in The Spectator magazine (where he took the WHO to task), and Clive Bates' highly informative briefing on eCigarettes.

I made David very aware that I hold much more evidence such as this, but I was wary of overloading him with information, and that he was free to take away the information and read it at his own leisure. Whether he will do that I cannot say, but I sincerely hope that he does read the material provided.

The CRUK article in particular was discussed in detail as Mark Drakeford had quoted CRUK as an example in his initial introduction of the Public Health White Paper. I was at pains to point out to David about how CRUK’s stance on eCigarettes had changed over the last year as they reviewed the evidence. So much so that they were now supportive of eCigarettes rather than negative toward them as they had been only a year ago. This was, I suggested, evidence of how the science and the evidence was stacking up in ever greater levels in support of eCigarettes.

I also informed him how the Scottish Government have decided not to proceed (for the time being) with any Ban on Vaping in Enclosed Public Spaces having heard the evidence and because they also chose to publically engage with interested parties. This was in stark contrast to the way that Mark Drakeford had proceeded. I also reminded him that they had decided against banning Vaping in Westminster having reviewed the evidence.

Finally, I handed David copies of the response to the White Paper that were submitted by both ASH Wales and the RCP. David admitted that he had already seen the ASH Wales response, but that he had not seen the RCP response.

We moved on to discussing the responses to the White Paper from the general public. It was here that I was astonished to learn that whenever ‘templated’ responses are received, they are treated as just one response – just as if it has been received from one organisation. I disagreed with this view, but David assured me that is the way all consultation responses are collated – whether at Welsh level, or indeed at UK level.

So, the lesson to be learned from that is that people should NOT use template responses to consultations. Individually prepared responses (such as the one I had submitted) would treated as separate responses, but template responses are ALWAYS treated as a single response – no matter how many are received.

From here, I asked David to explain what the next steps are. This is where I learned a great deal about the process that will be followed.

The White Paper will not go to the HSCC until it has been formally published. David stated that it is expected (but not guaranteed) that this will happen before the Summer recess. At this point a ‘Call For Evidence’ will be issued publically.

The interesting part about the ‘Call For Evidence’ is that ANYONE can respond to this. That means Doctors, Scientists, Trade Bodies, Organisations and even individuals (including the general public) can respond with evidence for or against the proposals. This is something I had not previously known. I had always expected that only the AM’s involved in HSCC could call on individuals or organisations for evidence at this stage, however it appears that is not the case. To that end, I have been added to the mailing list at the Welsh Government so that I will be informed when the ‘Call For Evidence’ happens.

Stage 2 is where the HSCC collate the responses received during the ‘Call For Evidence’ and can then suggest changes, amendments or removals to the proposals.

At Stage 3 (if I recall correctly), AM’s can either agree or disagree on the content and/or refer it back to the HSCC.

Finally, Stage 4 is the point at which the Proposals are voted upon by the entire Assembly. No changes are allowed at this point. Whatever is contained in the proposed Legislation is either approved or rejected in a vote. That vote is on the Legislation (as it stands at that point) in its entirety. This means that an AM may only agree with parts of the legislation (for example, they may agree with Minimum Unit Pricing for Alcohol and with the Tobacco Register, but not with the proposals on eCigarettes), but must decide for himself/herself whether to vote to pass the Legislation as a whole, or reject it. If it is passed, it comes into Law, if it is rejected it fails.

If this sounds familiar, then it is probably because you remember how the process for the TPD in the European Parliament progressed. The White Paper in Wales will go through the exact same steps.

This sounded like a lot of steps to me and I queried David on the timescales. He admitted that he expects that the whole process would not likely get to Stage 4 much before March 2016. If his estimate is correct (and I have no reason to doubt him), then there is still a long way to go in this legislation.

As you may imagine, these discussions took quite a bit of time to occur and we did overrun the allotted time of 30 minutes by quite some way. However, I felt it was a very worthwhile meeting. David patiently listened to my ‘arguments’ against Mark Drakeford’s proposals on eCigarettes and enlightened me on how he see the whole process progressing.

I also informed David of the Breakfast Briefing that Professor Linda Bauld will be holding for the AM's at the Senedd on the 25th March 2015. I urged him to attend that briefing and to inform other AM's to attend.

 

I would like to thank David Rees AM for taking the time to meet with me and for the enlightening and friendly discussion.

Grow a Pair - It's Time To Be United

I've got something to get off my chest, so this week I am going to have a damn good rant. At the end of the day, I figure that nobody cares less what I think, so I am just going to say what is on my mind. I am going to say this as an indivdual. These views are mine and mine alone. If you don't like what I say, then TOUGH. It needs to be said and I am going to be the one to put my neck on the line and say exactly what I think.

Over the past 7-10 days, I have seen a lot of posts telling how vapers are selling smokers down the river and how smokers do not respect the views of vapers etc etc. What we are seeing is the exact outcome the ANTZ have been looking for. For a long time now, they have been looking to drive a wedge between the smokers and the vapers. For the majority of that time, they have failed. Failed miserably in fact. Then, all of a sudden. the very outcome the ANTZ have looked for has occurred completely spontaneously and without their input ... and I am sure that the ANTZ are absolutely delighted.

I'll be honest. I don't know who fired the first salvo, and in all honesty I don't care. But what I do care about is that all of a sudden, the united front against the lies that the ANTZ continually spout, has suddenly become splintered.

I have no need to name names. You know who you are. All I ask is that you all grow up and stop it at once.

What am I talking about ?

I am talking about the open warfare that has erupted between vapers and smokers through the medium of social media and and blog entries. It simply has to stop and it has to stop NOW !!

I've read bitter Twitter exchanges between people I thought were friends with each other. I've read claims and counter claims through a number of blogs. each telling how they are right and the other side is wrong.

Whether you are a smoker or whether you are a vaper. You will have developed alliances with different people that can help to advance your cause. You are not going to agree with everything those alliances may have to say. In fact, I would be amazed if you all do. However, we each have to fight our own battles and we have to fight them the best way we know how. However one side chooses to do battle with the ANTZ, the other side is not going to necessarily agree with either the tactics, the wording, the alliances or  the method. But the key to all, this regardless of what side you are on, is that we all have the same common enemy.

I was a smoker for over 30 years. I have now been a vaper for almost 3 years. What has not changed is the fact that I am a libertarian. It is my firm belief that that is nobody's business what you (as an individual) decide to do with your life. It is most certainly NOT the business of Government, nor indeed of the ANTZ, how you decide to live your life. If you want to gamble, if you want to booze, if want to smoke or vape, that's YOUR choice. It is nothing to do with Government or the ANTZ how you choose to live your life.

What IS of consequence is the battle we all have with a common enemy. We all know the ANTZ will not rest with getting rid of smokers or vapers. If they won that battle, they would soon find another target to go for. We have already seen hints of this happening with the first stirrings of the war against salt, sugar, obesity. These people have tax-payer funds to defend. If they win one war, then they have to find another to keep the tax-payer funded lifestyle they have grown accustomed to. They don't don't care about health. They don't give a shit whether you are a smoker, vaper, drinker, gambler or whatever else cranks your chain. All you are to these ANTZ is a cash cow. A cash cow that they will milk until it is dry, and when it is dry they will find another target.

So, I don't particularly care what cause you are supporting. All I will say to you all is to grow a pair. I couldn't care less who started it all. This is NOT a school playground. Bickering amongst ourselves will only serve the cause of the ANTZ. The only way they can win is by divide and conquer. An enemy divided is far easier to beat than one that is united. Over the last 12 months, we have seen the ANTZ slowly splintering into ever smaller factions. We were winning the war. Now I am seeing us start to fight amongst ourselves. That is an absolute gift to the ANTZ. They have to tried to manipulate such a situation for years without success. Now we appear to be doing it for them.

All I ask is that whatever our petty differences, remember who our common enemy is. If we splinter now, we will all regret it for years to come. I realise that many of you have developed years of building up respect for what you do for your cause. I respect your cause regardless of whether it a cause I share. I am also fully enveloped in such a cause. But I am humble enough to swallow any pride I may have and understand that we are all united in a fight against a common enemy.

Yes, we will have different ways of fighting our cause. We will also have alliances that others may not approve of. But we all must fight out battle in the way we best deem fit to advance our individual causes. But when all sides have a common enemy (the ANTZ), the last thing we need to be doing is fighting amongst ourselves.

Whatever viewpoint you are coming from, please think on this. There are people amongst the smoking fraternity that I have a lot of respect for. The same can be said on the vaping fraternity (of which I am one). But we all have a common enemy and our venom (for want of a better word) should be directed at that common enemy. Not each other.

I am probably going to be criticised from pillar to post for this blog, but it is something I need to get off my chest. All I ask is that you all think about what is happening and the ammunition we are freely giving to the ANTZ.

A Meeting with the Welsh Dept of Health

New Year, new challenges, same barriers to overcome. It may now be 2015, but the battle against the insane proposals by the Welsh Government to ban vaping in public enclosed spaces rages onward. Throughout 2014, a group of us had been meeting with different AM’s to explain our point of view about why they should oppose any proposals to ban vaping in public enclosed spaces. We had met with a great deal of success in this matter, bringing those AM’s to our point of view and gaining their support. Now I was preparing to go into the Lion’s Den. I was about to sit down and discuss the issue with the Tobacco Control people at the Welsh Department of Health. I have to admit that I have done this so many times over the last few months that I no longer feel nervous at all in these meetings and have got very used to them occurring.

So it was that I found myself entering the Welsh Government building in Cathays Park, Cardiff. I was not going to be alone in this particular battle. Today I was going to have the support and help of Richard Hyslop – organiser of the UK Save eCigs Campaign. Strangely, until this time I had never actually met Richard !!

So I walked confidently into the Welsh Government building to be met by Richard (fortunately he somehow recognised me). We signed in, and then awaited to be collected for our meeting.

After being collected at reception, we were taken to the meeting-room deep in the bowels of the Welsh Government building and awaited our hosts. Presently, we were joined by Sue Bowker, Chris Tudor-Smith and Sarah Meredith (who would be taking the minutes of the meeting).

Greetings and pleasantries exchanged, both Richard and I were surprised to be asked if we had any direct or indirect links with the Tobacco Industry. It simply demonstrated the level of paranoia in the Tobacco Control Industry that we were asked such a question. Vapers in general are well-used to being accused of being Tobacco Industry shills. It is something that vapers find extremely annoying that the Tobacco Control Industry cannot understand how we are not shills of Big Tobacco. But that is the plain old truth of the matter. We are all individuals with no connection to Big Tobacco whatsoever. What we do have is a network of knowledgeable people who openly share information, science and studies with each other via blogs, forums and social media.

Though I admit that I had a strong urge to ask them if they had any direct or indirect links to the Pharma industry in return, I chose to bite my tongue on this matter. Richard and I simply confirmed the truth of the matter, which is that neither of us have ANY ties whatsoever to the Tobacco Industry.

After the introductions, Richard kicked off the meeting by explaining what the Save eCigs campaign is all about and why we are opposing the proposed ban the use of eCigarettes in enclosed public spaces. Sharing the brief he had prepared for the meeting, Richard argued that from a Public Health perspective it was absurd to propose to ban something that helps smokers to quit.

Chris Tudor-Smith then responded by explaining how at this stage in the Bill process, the Welsh Government and only hear and respect the views put forward by people such as ourselves. He went on to describe how the White Paper had received a large number of responses, particularly on this aspect of the proposal and that the summary was now published.

It was at this point that I felt I needed to respond to Chris’s assertions by pointing out the flaws. Contrary to hearing and respecting the views put forward by opponents of the proposed Ban, I pointed out how Mark Drakeford (on speaking in the Senedd) had sought to disregard the views of 60% of the respondents who had written to oppose the ban because he felt that they had come from a template. I stated that such an attitude was a gross misrepresentation of public opinion and that just because a response had come in a template format, that did not annul the fact that those individuals had made the effort to respond. Furthermore, I pointed to the statements in the published summary that NHS Trusts had ‘colluded’ in their response yet their responses were accepted. I stated that it was extremely hypocritical to disregard the template responses when the NHS Trusts had effectively done exactly the same thing. I also raised my concerns about Mark Drakeford’s reliance on evidence from Stanton Glantz (who I pointed out is a Professor of Mechanical Engineering NOT Medical Science) when far more robust evidence and studies were available from the likes of Profs West, Hajek, Stimson (in the UK), and the likes of Etter, Farsalinos, Polosa et al from further afield. I re-affirmed that these names are the true experts on eCigarettes and NOT the likes of Glantz.

Chris acknowledged my point and then stated that the current position is looking at the responses received to develop a draft Bill and that at this stage they could not confirm which aspects of the proposals might be taken forward. He also confirmed that the Bill is due to be presented to the National Assembly before the summer recess and will be considered by the Health and Social Care Committee for their consideration.

I then questioned Chris on how amendments may be arrived at and who would be able to propose them. Chris replied that ONLY the HSCC can table amendments at Stage 2 of the Bill and that it will be down to the HSCC alone to call for further evidence (I have an update on that toward the end of this blog).

Richard then asked how the Welsh Government planned to handle any eCigarettes that may gain a medicinal license. Sue Bowker admitted that this was one of the ‘complications’ that they were considering and looking at how best to handle this scenario.

At this point, I decided that it might be a good idea to take the meeting into my personal journey into eCigarettes. I won’t go into the detail of that story here, but suffice to say that my story is typical of many vapers journey. I simply used my story as a way of demonstrating how eCigarettes can help in the journey away from lit tobacco and to demonstrate why I think they are a successful of means of quitting lit tobacco. I pointed out to them that far from what some Public Health people would have them believe, I am NOT an anecdote and that I was a living proof of how effective eCigarettes are.

I continued by discussing the ramifications of any Ban on vaping in enclosed spaces. I stated that by enacting the smoking ban, the Welsh Government had taken on a ‘duty of care’ for non-smokers. Therefore, if they were to force vapers outside with the smokers, then not only would they be placing vapers at risk of relapse, but that they would also be failing in their ‘Duty Of Care’ as vapers are also non-smokers. My solution to them was that (for example) Pubs which were happy to allow Vaping should place a sticker at their entrances stating that Vaping was allowed on the premises. Therefore, anyone considering entering that Pub would know of that fact before entering and could make up their own mind as to whether to enter. I pointed out that there are plenty of pubs that do not allow Vaping therefore this measure would be effective.

Sue Bowker then raised concerns about Nicotine addiction. I countered this by stating  recent findings that Nicotine itself is not addictive, but rather that it is only addictive when mixed with other chemicals found in lit-tobacco – all of which are absent in eCigarettes. I also reiterated Prof Peter Hajek’s assertions that Nicotine is no more harmful than Caffeine.

Sue then pursued the point that I vape in bars and asked if this had caused any issue because many people do not like the presence of clouds of vapour in the air. I answered truthfully that it is a very rare occurrence when this has happened, and when it has that I have invariably been defended by other non-smokers who appreciated that I had actually quit smoking. I also went on to state that somebody ‘not liking’ the vapour is not a viable basis upon which to propose legislating for banning vaping in enclosed public spaces. I pointed out that are always things that people will dislike. As an example I stated that many people will wear strong perfumes or after-shave that give out strong aromas that not everybody will like, but nobody has proposed banning those on this basis. Furthermore, that strong perfumes/aftershaves also give off far more chemicals into the air than an eCigarette.

Richard followed up on this by putting forward the argument that if the smoking ban was to protect the health of non-smokers, then extending the ban to eCigarettes implied that second-hand vapour is also harmful to health. He went on to details studies such as those from Farsalinos, West and Hajek which showed this not to be the case. He also used examples of establishments which had reversed their ban on vaping (Cambridgeshire Police, Warrington Wolves etc) and work that had been done by ASH and the CIEH on how to develop eCigarette friendly policies. Sue Bowker then pressed Richard to produce any evidence of where the banning of eCigarettes had an adverse effect. As one we both cited New York and Spain as examples of where a ban on vaping in public spaces had caused the smoking rate to skyrocket.

During that last exchange, the precautionary principle had been mentioned in passing, so I took the opportunity to point out how Mark Drakeford was misusing the precautionary principle and that nothing in life is 100% risk-free. I used condoms as an example of a proper application of the precautionary principal as it was used in the fight against HIV. In the HIV campaign, nobody suggested that everyone should stop having sex, merely that they should use a condom to reduce the risk of infection. eCigarettes are exactly the same as they are merely a ‘safer’ way of enjoying nicotine.

Richard then stated that there is universal agreement that there is never a situation where it is better to smoke than to vape and used the recent ONS data on adult vapers to reiterate that e-cigarette use is mostly restricted to ex or current smokers and that smoking rates in the UK were at their lowest levels ever.

At this point, Sue Bowker commented that Mark Drakeford had made it clear that he does not want to prevent use of e-cigarettes where they are proving to help smokers quit but this needs to be balanced with the risk of renormalising smoking behaviours. My response to this was to ask how ‘not smoking’ could possibly renormalise smoking and then produced my Hana Modz DNA 30 to ask how she could possibly mistake that for a cigarette.

Pushing on, I proceeded to describe the unintended consequences on e-cigarette vendors by describing the buying process of eCigarettes such as calculation of cost savings of e-cigarettes compared to conventional ones, calculation of initial nicotine strength required, flavour preferences (including sampling), and that all this was done within the shop premises. A ban on vaping in enclosed spaces would prevent this and reduce chance of smokers switching to e-cigarettes. I suggested that a Ban could also be construed as restraint of trade.

At this point, Sue Bowker interjected by stating that eCigarettes can be bought in any newsagent. So I had to educate her on the fact that only cigalikes are found in Newsagents as a rule and that the cigalike market is dominated by her arch-enemy Big Tobacco. I went on to advise that second and third Generation eCigarettes are far more successful in enabling smokers to quit and that Big Tobacco is a very small player in this market. When Sue Bowker started talking about the ‘benefits’ of the TPD, I showed her Clive Bates’ excellent critique of the TPD and pointed out to her that all the TPD would do is hand the entire eCigarette market to Big Tobacco.

A few other smaller topics were covered off as the meeting drew to a close, and the meeting in general ended in good spirits.

One important fact that did come to light during our meeting is that the Welsh Dept of Health follow a number of Vapers blogs to guage opinion and also to glean evidence. So for all you vaping bloggers should be aware that it is not only Vapers that read your words ;-)

So how did we feel the meeting went in general ?

I think it is fair to say that our ‘adversaries’ in this meeting were very much anti-vaping. We knew that before we entered into the meeting. I have no real idea of whether they will take on board everything we had to say. Neither do I have any idea of whether our arguments will have done anything to sway their opinion. However, all we can ask is that such people do meet with us and hear out point of view. So, in fairness, the Welsh Dept of Health did exactly that. They met with us and they discussed and debated the issue of eCigarettes in an open and non-hostile way. The minutes of the meeting will be available eventually on the Welsh Govt website as a public record. All we can do is to thank Chris, Sue and Sarah for agreeing to meet with us and for listening to what we had to say. I trust that Welsh Vapers are grateful (and happy) for us acting on their behalf in this way.

Finally, earlier in this blog, I mentioned that I have an update on things from the Health and Social Care Committee (HSCC). Many Welsh vapers (and quite a few beyond) will be aware that Members of this Committee include Kirsty Williams (Lib-Dems), Elin Jones (Plaid) and Darren Millar (Cons). All three are staunch supporters of eCigarettes and oppose the proposed ban on vaping in enclosed public spaces. I tweeted all three of these AM’s later on the same day as the meeting and received reassurances from them that when the call for evidence comes about, they will want to see ALL of the evidence. Furthermore, they asked me who they should be contacting during this call for evidence, so I have suggested that the experts who should be consulted are Professor Robert West, Professor Peter Hajek, Professor Gerry Stimson and Clive Bates. So hopefully all four will be available to give evidence when the time comes.

It’s a long old fight folks, but I am still confident we can win that fight !!