You are here:   Columns >  On the Contrary > Puff Justice
 
Puff Justice
September 2013

 

The e-cig wars are heating up. Web forums on electronic cigarettes have grown nearly as excitable as sites about cycling. Lacking any medical evidence, the Daily Mail claimed earlier this year that e-cigs "can cause more harm than smoking" — after which the paper was obliged to print an apology.

Duplicating the pleasures of smoking without the inhalation of tobacco toxins, "vaping" (OK — a naff expression) is taking off. UK sales in the last year having multiplied by ten, e-cigs have the potential to overtake the smelly, cancerous version within a decade, in time making the traditional cigarette an anachronism. At natural history museums of the future, school children may gawk at glassed-off, realistically scurfy ashtrays, scattered with tenderly curated butts. So why isn't this great news?

Some governments are laissez-faire, while others are banning e-cigs outright, or proposing such stringent restrictions, as the EU has done, that the gizmos might as well be illegal. In this ambiguous regulatory environment, the "vaping" community has grown so anxious that numerous users are stockpiling supplies, like survivalists preparing for the end of the world.

Even if you've no interest in trying this supremely 21st-century invention, which direction your government heads in the e-cig wars is a good litmus test of whether you live in a truly free country.

For once, the UK has displayed admirable rationality and moderation. Classifying the e-cig as a non-prescription drug like aspirin as of 2016 still keeps it on offer in pharmacies and convenience stores, and I'm all for testing these things for purity. But British common sense could readily be trumped by EU alarmism.

Acting only on a prejudice against any habit that resembles smoking, several American states have banned e-cigs from public places — though the mechanisms emit only vapour and pose no risk of second-hand smoke. California is considering a measure that would allow landlords to forbid vaping, which is odourless, leaving no taint in furnishings and carpets. Brazil has banned the product. Egypt not only bans e-cigs, but will confiscate the kits of tourists at customs, though nearly half of Egyptian men smoke tobacco.

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
Paul Kendrick
August 30th, 2013
10:08 PM
Ooh no, sorry, Lionel. The UK government has handed over the regulation of electronic cigarettes to the MHRA who will regulate them under medicine regulation. Jeremy Mean (MHRA) has already stated that no existing ecigs will pass MHRA regulation. They are as good as banned. So I don't think the UK government is in any way sensible.

Oliver Kershaw
August 30th, 2013
1:08 PM
Overall a superb article by Lionel Shriver, which hits the nail on the head regarding the utter stupidity of what's happening in the European Parliament. I must take issue with one point, however: The 'admiral moderation' that she credits the UK (i.e. the MHRA) with will in fact destroy the industry as it currently stands. The MHRA have confirmed that no product currently on the market will qualify for the standards that medicinal regulation will impose upon them. In other words, after 2015, the only e-cigarettes that will be available to smokers under the UK's proposition will be a limited range of bland and overpriced products. And the biggest irony is that the only company currently on their way to jumping these regulatory hoops is.... British American Tobacco. Of course some form of regulation is needed, but to impose greater regulatory burdens than are in place for tobacco products is absurd, and bordering on criminal. What's needed is a liberal, light touch, non-medical regulatory structure which lets e-cigarette manufacturers compete strongly with tobacco products, making them more attractive to smokers than cigarettes.

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.