Guest Post By Mark Oates, We Vape founder.
IN AN air-conditioned convention centre in Panama, the future of vaping and its global impact on tobacco consumption will be shaped by a group who want e-cigarettes banned.
The World Health Organisation (WHO) made this position clear, when it gave India a Special Award by its Director General for prohibiting vaping in 2019.
So at least we know where we stand.
But what is now becoming apparent, is this un-elected group of strategic health policy ‘advisors’ wish to attack personal freedoms under the guise of the public good.
In my view, this is what will happen during WHO’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) Tenth Conference of the Parties (COP10), in Central America this November.
Flavours
You see, WHO has taken the unusual position of advising a ban on all vape flavours to protect minors, whilst simultaneously accepting they are appealing to smokers trying to quit.
In their view, a smoker should not be allowed to choose a flavoured tobacco alternative, even though it will help him stop smoking.
Instead, flavours should all be banned, because removing a person’s freedom of choice is easier than enforcing the simple regulation required to stop sales to children.
WHO’s approach to flavours can be surmised from documents compiled to affirm their positions after previous COPs.
In one, it is made clear electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) should either be banned, or flavours removed.
The report states that: “Parties that have not banned the importation, sale and distribution of ENDS and ENNDS may consider ‘banning or restricting the use of flavours that appeal to minors.’”
It later reads: “Among adults, e-cigarette flavours increase product appeal and are a primary reason for using the product”.
And: “Flavours also seem to play a role among adults and experienced ENDS/ENNDS users in helping migration away from tobacco.”
However, it then adds: “A full ban on all flavours in all nicotine and tobacco products would appear to be a strong approach to curbing young people’s use of tobacco products.”
Rights
WHO believes – uniquely, when it comes to vaping – children should be protected by circumventing the application of laws applied to every other age-restricted product designed to protect minors. In this case, enforcement of regulation by government agencies like Trading Standards.
An adult, tax-paying voter has the right to make informed health decisions, whether the government agrees with them or not.
And a smoker wanting to quit – and unburden a healthcare system of their eventual, often costly support – has the right to access all available and less harmful, legal alternatives even their critics admit are proven to work.
To withdraw this availability – knowing it will doom some smokers – is not only wrong, but an attack on a person’s right to choose.
Influence
WHO now has healthcare influence over billions of people.
While it cannot force domestic policy, the guidelines it sets in Panama will be a significant reference point for the healthcare plans of its 194 member states. The UK has a delegation, and a history of adopting WHO guidelines, as it did with tobacco advertising.
It is vital, therefore, wider implications of their recommendations are considered, because while global healthcare is a great thing, protecting the right to choose is a greater thing still.
WHO should recognise keeping children away from legal vapes – flavoured or not – has always lain with the strict enforcement of the law.
There is no difference between a case of illegal, unregulated, vapes and a crate of illegally produced vodka.
Enforcement
Both the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and Trading Standards can enforce regulations on vaping products and WHO member states each have an equivalent. Massive fines and jail time for repeat offenders would impact sales to children and the number of counterfeit products sold.
It should be remembered too, when considering a ban on flavours, that removing a product does not remove its demand.
Such restrictions would see a surge in unregulated, under-the-counter flavoured products, as those affected by the ban seek alternatives elsewhere.
This will further stigmatise vaping, as those desperate to use flavoured vapes as an alternative to smoking are forced to buy illegal products.
And all of this remember, would be a move not based on science, or the health findings regarding vaping so far.
WHO is supposed to unite nations with common goals surrounding global health.
As vapers, we are united in our understanding that vaping is a tool for good, our right to choose matters and both must be protected.
That’s why it’s so vital that vapers take 2 minutes to save flavours and support our campaign to be heard at COP10 here – BackVaping.