Editorial. With all the bans and calls for restrictions on e-cigarettes, you have to stop and ask yourself: who benefits from this? And who pays the price?
Perspective. It is now recognised that e-cigarettes and 'regular' cigarettes are so-called substitutes in the market. When one is restricted, increases sales of the second - particularly among young adults. This is despite the fact that the intention was to 'protect' young people from nicotine use.
It is also clear that the long-term health effects of vejpning are likely to be a fraction of those caused by smoking, although no nicotine use is risk-free. Legislators in all countries should be aware of this by now.
Biased discussion
It is not that difficult to acquire knowledge beyond the newspaper headlines. There is plenty of solid research on vejpning and e-cigarettes and they are openly available via independent institutions. The campaigns that drive the news flow, however, are not as transparent. The aim is to create uncertainty in a debate where science says one thing and one's own ideological beliefs say another. What we see today is a very distorted discussion where advocates of the "nicotine-free" society can roam freely, get a lot of media space and can pick and choose from their list of "talking points" without having to defend their position. User perspectives or a more pragmatic approach to harm reduction are often completely missing.
Coordinated action?
And this of course affects legislation. We see it in countries like Hong Kong, Vietnam, Denmark, The Netherlands and most recently in Bulgaria. We note restrictions or comprehensive bans on such a fundamental component as flavourings, high taxes on e-liquid, accompanied by grossly over-simplified, often misleading, information on the differences between smoking and vejpa from government agencies. It is arguable whether this is a internationally coordinated action, but that's a question for another column. But regardless of who is behind it, the result of all these ideological regulations on nicotine is primarily that cigarette sales are increasing. Especially in the groups that the legislation is supposed to "protect" - something that a recently published study confirms.
Dangerous and misleading
A further consequence is that legislation affects the perception of e-cigarettes as an alternative to cigarettes. A majority of smokers today seriously believe that smoking 'natural' cigarettes is less dangerous than taking 'unnatural' nicotine. The fact that these products are in many cases more heavily restricted than cigarettes (they are in some cases banned altogether - as in the case of disposable models in France) fuelling the myth that these are 'really harmful' products. Science clearly points, with all its might, to the contrary, but what does it mean when a smoker regularly read headlines about exaggerated risks (with claims that "vejping is worse than smoking") or get their information from equally ill-informed doctors about "the unknown dangers of e-cigs"?
Protects no-one
And somewhere it is here a political issue. What alternatives do our politicians want to promote or discourage in an already existing market? What and who do they really want to protect in Hong Kong, or in other countries, where hugely tougher restrictions on e-cigarettes are gaining legal force?
Not the smokers, anyway. And apparently they are not "protecting" any young people either.
