To want the advertising of e-cigs banned

[Singsongsungagain]

I'll set my stall out from the off here. I have no time for smoking. I find it smelly, disgusting and of no benefit to anyone other than the fat cat tobacco company directors. I was delighted with the smoking ban and all of the limits that have been imposed on advertising and packaging etc, feeling that the world will be a healthier place for my children with the least amount of smoking possible. I'm all for a complete ban- although I appreciate the complexities of that.
But now it seems we have this new wave of e-cig promotion and personally I've been disappointed to see the TV adverts- which include the word "cigarettes". Surely this is a backward step in the promotion of a healthy nation?
I've just been reading an article from The Independent in which various well educated scientists, doctors etc have stated that there is now evidence that e-cigs damage cells. They are NOT a healthy alternative to smoking, and yet they are being promoted on our TVs in the same way that conventional cigarettes once were.

AIBU to think that e-cigs should be subject to the same regulations as conventional cigarettes?

Ah...

Don't you just love that silence after actual proof has been posted?

Though, if you listen carefully enough you can hear the distant sound of gnashing teeth and furious Googling.

Ok to touch on your 'data' regarding children of smokers becoming smokers, without wishing to be rude you have massively misunderstood the concepts behind this... It's defined as learnt behaviour replication in addiction services

The evidence behind this that supports therapies designed to combat it is famously qualitative not quantitative as figures have been shown to be unable to accurately reflect the issue due to the amount of variables that learnt behaviour mechanisms depend on .... E g. Socio economic status, education , sibling behaviour etc... So to quote figures is ridiculous and somewhat low rent to pander to the lowest common denominator need for stats .... Usually a daily mail trick

Your blanket generalisations on the addiction. Of smoking indicates you are very ignorant about the whys and wherefore of why people smoke and the level of individual and community input so why do you feel that you're view should be given credence?

Basically you don't like it (clearly without any thought or knowledge around the practice of smoking, quitting or e cigs) so it should be banned?

Right then.... Do you by any chance work for a tabloid? Or possibly Nigel far age?

Please research learnt behaviour before you wax lyrical .... It's irritating to those of us who understand it

Apologies that should read impact not input

AIBU to think that e-cigs should be subject to the same regulations as conventional cigarettes?

Yes YABU. If vaping cannot be advertised, how will smokers find out about it?

Advertising of vaping products currently has to comply with these rules which are broadly similar to the restrictions around advertising of alcohol. The worst thing about these rules is that advertisers are not allowed to say that ecigs are safer than smoking or that vaping can help people quit smoking, even though both of these are true. If they could say these things, I expect the ads would be a lot less 'glamorous' and a lot more down to earth and factual.

Even though yabu, you are about to get your wish, as others have pointed out. Nobody I know gives much of a shit about the brands that advertise on TV. They are generally the type made by the tobacco companies (who only own a tiny proportion of the market currently) - little, overpriced, ineffective 'cig-alikes'. When the TPD comes into force in May it won't just ban ads on TV, radio, billboards etc. but will also affect websites, social media, vaping forums ... all the user-led content that has made such a difference to the success of the 1.1 million vaping ex-smokers in the UK. In short, it will be a and will contribute to tens of thousands of preventable deaths.

The only bit of your post I agree with is the use of the word 'cigarette'. It's a shame that vaping devices have come to be called e-cigarettes because they are nothing like smoking and we could really do with distancing vaping from smoking. Nobody's in charge of words though, language just kind of evolves and that's the name that has stuck over the ten or so years that vaping has been around. I still favour Personal Electronic Nicotine Inhalation System

YANBU. I don't think they should be marketed except as an aid to giving up smoking - and therefore only by health professionals. Before the research was in the news this morning, there was an item on the Today programme yesterday where someone was saying that e-cigs should only used as part of an overall strategy to giving up smoking and never on their own.

If they are dangerous in their own right, arguably they should not be marketed at all. But as someone says there are new EU laws coming in in May in any event. But I was surprised that the ASA/CAP allowed advertising in the interim.

I do not want them normalised and permitted in trains, cafes, offices etc. Apart from anything else I don't want steam blown in my face, even if it is harmless (which it now appears that it is not according to the research, assuming that it is correct).

Why do people even start smoking? It's utterly bizarre. Expensive, bad for your health, bad for your skin, makes you look 20 years older and you stink. Mind-boggling.

on the Today programme yesterday where someone was saying that e-cigs should only used as part of an overall strategy to giving up smoking and never on their own. How odd! We don't espouse that. It would be stupid to do so as they are the most effective stand alone NRT ever invented, it seems - stats for that have been included all over the place!

I have never worked through the Quit Strategy with someone who switches to vaping, unless they have tried other NRT previously. Smokers who go straight to vaping simply vape. they continue to self medicate with nicotine, have the had to mouth action embedded and, quite simply, don't need any other intervention. Fewer of them fail and return to smoking, again many stats to support that.

Clients who choose the 'usual' NRT have to work at the psychological withdrawal much more determinedly - that is why so many fail. Vapers may take longer to quit but, as very many studies show, they reap the benefits quickly and don't have to go through the psychological withdrawal, they can reduce their nicotine intake in a much more controlled fashion.

The downside is that many replace smoking with vaping. The upside is that vaping is measurably healthier!

Should there be any long term problems discovered it is doubtful that they could be worse than the usual prognosis for smokers. Meanwhile we non smokers have the benefit of much less smelly surroundings.

Win win, really!

I can't exercise any common sense with anything related to smoking. I won't, in fact

Absolutely your choice to make, of course - but hopefully you won't then mind if others (as with the silly remark about a smell permeating the whole floor) fail to take you seriously

Well said as usual, pubegardens

I'm reading comments from all sides and there are clearly some very knowledgeable people on this thread.

I am still of the view though that if they are tools to be used as cigarette replacements then why not advertise them as such? Why are the TV ads not all about giving up smoking with the e-cigs promoted as one, very successful, method? However, you are telling me that in May this will be the case anyway so I guess my wish has been granted!

I must just add that I agree that e-cigs are undoubtably safer than smoking. However, they are not as safe as not smoking and they do carry potential risks, on which research is on going. There are posters on this thread who state that they have taken up vaping as a seperate activity- not as a cigarette substitute. Surely that's not something to be encouraged?

Because if they are to be advertised as medicinal smoking cessation aids they need to have a medicines licence- only 2 products currently have licences, both cigsalikes made by tobacco companies.

Does that mean that the others aren't technically smoking cessation aids then?

Who on this thread has taken up vaping not as a tobacco substitute?

Yup. Come May vaping will no longer be, in any way, as accessible or affordable.

NB the following is form a pro vaping site and will have the usual biases, but does give you an idea of the consequences of the new directive.

Bold, point, normal, their explanation, italic, my comment.

The new directive will come into force on the 20th May 2016.

Some of the new rules that the TPD require all member states (including the UK) to abide by include:

The maximum size of refill containers of nicotine containing liquid is 10ml.
Say goodbye to “normal” size containers and buying in larger sizes to reduce cost. Apparently this is to reduce the chance of accidental poisoning although you can still buy a 2 litre bottle of lemon bleach from your supermarket.

Maximum size of cartridges or tanks do no exceed 2ml.
This means the end of large tanks that many people now use. It is hard to see any justification to support this restriction.
As far as I can see it just means vapers will have to carry more kit with them

Maximum nicotine strength of e-liquid is 20mg
No more 24mg strength – the high strength that a lot of people start off with to transition from tobacco. Apparently again due to poisoning concerns which have been proven to be totally false link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00204-013-1127-0/fulltext.html
Apart from issues highlighted in the study, this means that heavy smokers will find vaping harder to access succesfully. Thus defeating the main benefit of vaping

Electronic cigarettes must provide a consistent dose of nicotine.
How this is interpreted could make or break e-cigs. No current device can provide a consistant dose as you can draw for as little or as long or as hard as you want. Not even tobacco cigarettes have to comply to this unworkable requirement.
^Yay. A win for Big Tobacco*

^E-cigs and refill containers must have a mechanism to ensure leak free refilling.*
Again how this is interpreted will determine how damaging it will be. No current system can ensure leak free refilling as this is largely down to the user. Although why this should be an issue is unknown, any e-cig user is used to a little bit of leaking and learns how to deal with it.
and the health risks of a bit of spillage compared to the risks of smoking is... that's right, unknown!

If a “competent authority” believes any product may present a health risk they may be prohibited.
If 3 member states prohibit a product this can then be extended to all EU member states, in other words a blanket wide EU ban.
You can see how well that will work

On top of the restrictions on products there is plenty of unnecessary red tape and requirements for manufacturers and distributors to comply with.
Anyone manufacturing or selling e-cigs must notify and submit information to their member state for each and every product, or product variation that they wish to sell. This includes ingredients lists, detailed emissions data, toxicological data, information on nicotine doses and absorption data, opening and refilling mechanisms and production processes for every single product variation that they wish to sell. Every year data on sales volumes, product types, consumer preferences and surveys must be submitted to member states. This will only increase cost which will ultimately have to be passed on to the consumer making e-cigs less attractive.
cigelectric.co.uk/e-cig-uk-regulation-2016/

'Someone on the Today programme said ...' is only a small step up from 'bloke down pub said ...' There are only a tiny few high profile people left in public health who are still anti vaping so my guess is either Martin McGee, Dame Sally Davies or some twit from the BMA. They invariably either tell blatant lies or witter on about vague 'concerns' for which there is no evidence. It's funniest when they lie because it gets put on youtube so we can all see their lies for ever more, like when Dr George Rae, chairman of the BMA in the North East, , or when Chief Medical Officer Dame Sally Davies .

Actually it's not funny at all is it? As the image shows, the number of smokers who believe that vaping is as bad as smoking is rising and if they don't believe vaping is safer they won't make the switch. If they carry on smoking, half of them will die prematurely. This is why Public Health England made such a strong statement in support of vaping - large numbers of actual lives are at risk.

Pubegarden

I am still of the view though that if they are tools to be used as cigarette replacements then why not advertise them as such?

Because they are not allowed to! Apparently it's a medicinal claim and the MHRA will not allow this for anything which does not have a medicinal licence. See here:

Rule 5:
Marketing communications / advertisements must not contain health or medicinal claims unless the product is authorised for those purposes by the MHRA. E-cigarettes may be presented as an alternative to tobacco but marketers must do nothing to undermine the message that quitting tobacco use is the best option for health.

Advertisers may obtain a licence for their product from the MHRA. Such a licence would typically allow marketers to make smoking cessation and reduction claims in the same way as other licensed nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). Marketing for such products is subject to the rules in section 12 of the CAP Code and section 11 of the BCAP Code. Claims that e-cigarettes are an “alternative” to tobacco may be made.

Although the rule remains mostly in the form originally proposed, the second sentence has been augmented slightly to include the requirement “...but marketers must do nothing to undermine the message that quitting tobacco use is the best option for health”. This responds to comments made by various consultation respondents and seeks to make clear that, although unlicensed e-cigarettes may not make smoking cessation / reduction claims and may be described as an alternative to tobacco, advertisers should be cautious not to imply anything other than cessation of tobacco offers the best chance for health improvement.

Vaping works and a large part of why it works is that it is not a medicine - it's customisable to individuals' needs and preferences and yes, it's fun and enjoyable which is why loads of smokers are switching. This is a good thing because they are massively less likely to die early and also stop harming those around them. We already have lots of different forms of medicinal NRT and frankly they are dismal failure. Without additional support, over-the-counter NRT users fare worse than those who go cold turkey. Why on earth would we want to emulate that?

However, you are telling me that in May this will be the case anyway so I guess my wish has been granted!

There will be no advertising of vaping products at all after May. The only product that has a medicinal licence is the Voke inhaler which is not an ecig. It's also made by a tobacco company because they're the only ones with enough dosh to jump through MHRA's hoops.

However, they are not as safe as not smoking and they do carry potential risks, on which research is on going.

Vaping is not smoking. Inhaling smoke from burning stuff is really bad for you, whatever the 'stuff' is. There is no combustion with vaping, therefore no smoke. It's true that there are a few theoretical risks from long term vaping. The leading science in this area is concerned with whether vaping is 95% safer than smoking or perhaps a bit safer than that. 95% is a very cautious estimate. Given that regular use among never smokers (including youth) is rare, why is this a problem?

There are posters on this thread who state that they have taken up vaping as a seperate activity- not as a cigarette substitute. Surely that's not something to be encouraged?

There is one post from an ex-smoker who vapes a little bit having quit smoking a while beforehand. I can't see that's a major problem. Who knows, it may have prevented her from relapsing to actual fags which have a very high risk of actually killing her.

There's a brilliant debunking here of the article in the OP (or the Telegraph version which the Independent just copied).

I hear you Plenty I really do. You make excellent points and are clearly far more knowledgeable about the whole thing than I am.

Eurip- learnt behaviour was precisely my point and the stats I posted are completely relevant to that aspect of the conversation, although not particularly relevant to my OP.

Gin, the answer to your question was LordBrightside although others have referred to people they know, young people particularly, who have done so.

My point was that stats in general are not considered a valid indicator of the truth of learnt behaviour

I've spent along time in addiction services including training in the feedback cycle of learnt behaviour and I understand your point but I believe you have it skewed.... you are starting at a point of personal dislike rather than evidence of negative impact

I do apologise for the snarkiness of the rest of my post though .... its no excuse but a newborn and a three year old have decimated my sleep to the nth degree but I apologise because you are in fairness considering other points of view

To be fair I haven't rt whole ft in detail, but:
who do you think has the greatest vested interests in vaping being made more difficult/expensive/less attractive? Might it possibly be big pharma and big tobacco?

Subsidiary question for the more 'bleeding heart' type posters. Why do you think the premature death of one in two smokers - saw figure of a billion worldwide being bandied around - an unquestionably bad thing? This is a pretty crowded planet.

Further question: if tobacco revenues to the UK govt ceased tomorrow at midnight, what services would you like to see cut to make up that shortfall? And don't say it would immediately be made good in less demand on health services, because it wouldn't.

For completeness given that the OP declared various well educated scientists, doctors etc have stated that there is now evidence that e-cigs damage cells here's the science behind the claims of cell damage (by Pfizer funded researcher) www.clivebates.com/?p=3534#update , debunking of the Harvard diacetyl crap (by J&J funded researchers) Farsalinos and finally no researchers in the PHE study had/have links to the tobacco industry.
That fraudulent piece does nothing more than keep people smoking.