The Norwegian Heart and Lung Patient Organization (LHL) asks employers to ban e-cigarettes

The Norwegian Heart and Lung Patient Organization
don't want me to vape at work.

In this article in Norwegian publication "Dagens medisin" ("Daily medicine") The Norwegian Heart and Lung Patient Organization (LHL) asks employers, and other owners of premises where people gather, to ban e-cigarettes in the same way smoking is banned. The Norwegian Health Department wanted e-cigarettes to be part of the Norwegian tobacco law when it was revised last year, but the suggestion was left out by a mistake. Turns out they forgot to ban e-cigarettes. This means that it is up to the employers themselves to decide whether or not e-cigarettes is permitted indoors. And now, LHL is asking employers to act as if the tobacco law included e-cigarettes. Their arguments for doing this? Not surprisingly they pull out their precautionary principles and that "we don't know enough about the e-cigarettes yet", which I agree with them on. They don't know enough about e-cigarettes yet, because the haven't taken the time to ask someone or just google it.

General secretary of the LHL, Frode Jahren, says that even though e-cigarettes are assumed to be far less harmful than normal cigarettes, there is people that will react to it and that one shouldn't need a law to tell us to use common sense show respect for others... but still he wants employers to implement rules to ban e-cigarettes everywhere indoors even if no-one reacts to the vapor. Where is the common sense in that?

Jahren is then asked this question: "Some will react to the use of perfume in public spaces as well. Should we ban everything we don't like?" Seems like the journalist might have caught the point here. Jahren responds saying that we don't know enough (editor: Wrong Jahren, you don't), and then he pulls out the normalization argument, which I wrote about yesterday: http://goo.gl/dYjyJk.

But, luckily, we have SIRUS here in Norway. Again, Karl Erik Lund comments on the case and tells the readers of "Dagens medisin" what we do know about e-cigarettes, and how "dangerous" they really are. He argues that if we should ban e-cigarettes because of the health risks, we also need to ban theatrical smoke. Lund also says that a lot of people have learned to hate smoke and their resistance towards e-cigarettes are based on feelings rather than reason. He concludes that the arguments for banning e-cigarettes by including them in the tobacco law is "pretty weak".

After reading the article I'm left with the feeling that a lot of these organizations are just the victims of ignorance. I really do think that LHL doesn't know enough about e-cigarettes and vaping, and that they do believe the gateway argument and the normalization argument. It's not that strange really, cause these arguments are the same as thos used by the Health Department here in Norway. And this is potentially a big problem. If the patient organizations stop thinking and just adopts whatever argument the health department give them, they become rather useless. A lot of these organizations have done a lot of great work, fighting for their members patient rights, but in the case of the e-cigarettes, I say they haven't done their job at all. And I'm sad to see that.

E-cigarettes and vaping will normalize quitting, not smoking

Can you tell if she's smoking or vaping?

One of the favourite arguments of the anti-e-cigarette movement these days seems to be that vaping and e-cigarettes will "re-normalize" smoking. This argument has no proof to back it up, and seems to be constructed due to the lack of good arguments.

First of all smoking is not at all de-normalized as some of these guys claim. This is just not true. In 2012 18.1% of the adult population in the US was smoking (http://goo.gl/EWmCM), in the UK the number is around 20% (http://goo.gl/ZUoj0B), and European Region countries have rates varying from 20-40% mostly (http://goo.gl/FhhkTr). I would say that something that 20% of people does is pretty normal. In fact it's more normal to smoke than to be left-handed (around 10%: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handedness), or having blue eyes in the US (around 17%: http://www.ask.com/question/eye-color-percentages). So to look at smoking as abnormal behaviour is just narrow-minded and wrong.

Then there is the question of why vaping and e-cigarettes would make smoking more normal. Why? Cause it look like smoking and has the same ritual? I don't think so. With the exception of some of the cig-a-likes that the TPD allows, it is pretty easy to see that someone is vaping, not smoking. It's also pretty easy to tell by the smell. There is also no scientific evidence at all that people go from vaping to smoking. Cause why would they? There is just no reason that someone would want to do that, except for ex-smokers who for some reason like the taste of normal cigarettes so much better (because of limited flavours in e-liquid due to the TPD maybe?) that they are willing to kill themselves for it. Vaping will not normalize smoking. In fact as more and more people start vaping it will become more normal to vape, it will normalize vaping, and smoking will finally be de-normalized.

Think of it, when you see someone using an e-cigarette, do you think that "this is someone who is trying to start smoking"? No-one in their right mind would think that, not even kids if told once what it is. You'd probably think that "this is someone who used to smoke, and has now quit, or is trying to". So vaping and e-cigarettes will in fact normalize quitting, and in the end de-normalize smoking.

However, there are some things that can be done to make the anti-e-cigarette movements "normalizing-argument" a tiny bit more plausible. One could, for example, try to make sure that e-cigarettes look as much as cigarettes as possible, try to limit the range of flavours or maybe put a limit on nicotine content to make sure smoking becomes the only way to get a sufficient nicotine hit for some... oh wait... this is starting to look familiar.

photo credit: alexanderferdinand via photopin cc

New years resolution update: Completed!

When I started this blog in the beginning of this year I wrote that I'd give you some updates on my new years resolution: running a half marathon in less than 2 hours. 2 years ago I couldn't walk up one flight of stairs without getting out of breath, and my kids could tell that I was coming home 3 minutes before I was actually home... cause they could hear me coughing my lungs out a long way down the street. As I've said before, we vapers are the best proof that vaping works (http://vapingiraffe.blogspot.no/2014/02/you-are-proof-that-vaping-works.html), and I've encouraged you to challenge yourself a bit and try to do something you couldn't do before. In that way you can show people what you can do now that you've done the switch. This is one of the reasons I set this goal for myself, and hopefully I could inspire others by writing about it here.

So this morning I went to the gym to do a 10k run, but after 10k it felt pretty good so I decided to keep on running. And it helped a bit that they had put a sticker on the treadmill announcing they had a competition going on where 21.1km was one of the exercises and I could win a bag of goodies if I completed. I have no idea what is in that bag... yet. It's just raffled among everyone entering I think, so with my luck I'm never going to either :) Anyway, after 112 minutes I was done, in all possible ways, and very happy that this years new years resolution is completed. I think this might be the only new years resolution I've ever completed as well.

So again, hope I've inspired some of you to challenge yourself a bit. It doesn't have to be running a marathon (or a half one), but find something you couldn't do when you were smoking and show people around you that vaping does work. Cause YOU are the best proof of this.

Norwegian Institute for Alcohol and Drug Research (SIRUS) comments on the approval of the TPD

Norwegian Institute for Alcohol and Drug Research
- Sirus supports Norwegian vapers

After the TPD was approved SIRUS and their head of research, Karl Erik Lund, received a lot of requests for comments on this. Not very surprising as SIRUS has been one of the biggest supporters and advocates for e-cigarettes here in Norway. Due to the amount of requests, Karl Erik Lund and SIRUS chose to write a public response on the Norwegian Union of Vapers' (Norsk Dampselskap) Facebook page. We are indeed lucky here in Norway to have SIRUS to support us vapers. Karl Erik Lund is usually the one speaking on their behalf in the media and I've got to say his statements always appears well though out, well formulated and convincing, which is really helping the case here in Norway. (Lund also spoke about the TPD and what it means for us here in Norway in an article on nrk.no on the 28th of February: http://goo.gl/zYdu0e, in Norwagian but google translate might work)

On the before mentioned facebook page Lund writes that it is appropriate to consider two different aspects of the TPD: The procedures that has been followed, and the result. He says that from his point of view the results are much better than the procedures, but that does not necessarily mean the results are good. The procedures have been close to a scandal, he says, with allegations of corruption leading to John Dallis resignation as Commissioner (read more about the "Dalligate" scandal here: http://goo.gl/Hkwnug), absence of consultations with scientific groups, abuse of research results, skullduggery concerning the voting procedures and so on. He refers to Clive Bates' blogg (http://www.clivebates.com) for more information on this. The results are not optimal either, according to SIRUS: The 20mg/ml limit has no scientific foundation, the option for members state to regulate them as medicines creates openings for over-regulation (read my post on the consequences of over-regulating here: http://goo.gl/mrE4bS) leading to less product variety, higher prices and standardized products that have as little appeal to smokers as the nicotine inhalers of the pharmaceutical companies have today, standardized nicotine delivery that requires technology that is not available yet, refill limitations, and so on. So as you can see, SIRUS really gets the point, which is a very good thing for Norwegian vapers.

Now, regarding the situation in Norway, Lund says that the health authorities and the Cancer Society are still clinging to their precautionary principles, but as the scientific results are starting to get to the people in charge, the ban here in Norway is loosing support among them, and the reasoning for keeping the ban is pulverizing. Lund, and a lot of the vapers I know, including myself, is especially disappointed in the Cancer Society. In my opinion their arguments have been based on speculations, not science and they appear to just take everything the EU say as the truth. The smokers could really have benefited from having this organization supporting them in the fight for a harm reducing nicotine alternative and the design of a strategy for increased product safety, Lund says.

"Norsk Dampselskap" (Norwegian Union of vapers)
fights for vaping in Norway

Despite it's many deficiencies, article 18 (editor: now article 20) will have more positive than negative consequences - in Norway, Lund writes. Norway is not part of the EU, but we are part of the EEA, which means we implement most EU directives anyway. So here in Norway, if the TPD is implemented in it's current form, the ban we have today will be repealed and we'll have regulations (although totally over-regulated) to ensure product safety. Now it is still uncertain how the Norwegian health authorities will regulate e-cigarettes but now, with the TPD the debate has changed from being focused on whether or not a ban should be in place to being a debate on how to regulate them. This is progress, says Lund. The demonizing of nicotine (for example in the anti-tobacco movement) is an inappropriate approach to the regulation question, he adds. 

I've seen some positive feedback on the TPD among Norwegian vapers lately, stating that it will actually better situation for vapers in Norway. And they are right about that, as SIRUS also points out here. But I'd like to stress, again, that we are not fighting this fight only for our own sake, but for all the smokers whose lives could be saved, not only in Norway but all over the world. And I think it's important for Norwegian vapers to be aware that even though this means a step in the right direction for Norway, it's a long step backwards for the countries where we buy our vaping equipment and e-liquid today. And thus it is very important that we continue the fight here in Norway as well, and try to get our politicians to take science and facts into consideration when the laws regarding e-cigarettes in this country is written, and not just adopt the EU directive directly. As I said yesterday: Vapers should write the law on vaping. If we do win that fight we would be a good example for the EU on how it should be done as well and might be able to help others.

Why vapers should write the law on vaping

Do the EU know how these work?

It's very clear to us vapers that the parts of the TPD that concerns e-cigarettes is written by people with limited knowledge of vaping, e-cigarettes and e-liquid. I doubt that any vaper was ever close to helping out writing that text and the science that is referenced to support the directive is picked to fit the text, not the other way around like it should be. The EU claims that the directive will make sure that e-cigarettes and vaping is as safe as possible, but as I mentioned yesterday, some of it will actually work the other way around, making it less safe. Less effective equipment, smaller bottles and smaller cartridges will actually lead to more bottles and more cartridges that can get into the hands of children ... or eaten by pets. And then there is the issue of a black market that will thrive as long as restrictions are unreasonable. Why can't they see this?

Yesterday I read some news article where some health authority again was asked about why they want restrictions on e-cigarettes. Don't really remember who or what but it's not that important cause we have all seen this statement a million times by now: "We don't know enough about it yet". As usual I was a bit angry at it at first. But after thinking a bit about it I realize this person was absolutely right. They (the health authorities) don't know enough about it. Seeing how the TPD was written the EU don't know enough about it either. Writing to the Norwegian Cancer Society on Twitter yesterday I tried to ask where they got their information from as well... the answer was: "The EU has calculated this". So the Cancer Society don't know enough about it either. Turns out they were right all the time... they don't know enough about vaping yet.

So who are the experts on vaping then? The answer is pretty obvious: vapers and scientists that has actually done research on vaping. And who are the people that benefits the most, and has the most interest in making vaping as safe as possible? Vapers. Who knows what e-cigarettes are the most effective, and which aspects of vaping that keep people from reverting back to cigarettes? Again... vapers ... of course! This means that to ensure a directive that will make vaping as safe and effective as possible, vapers should be the authors, or at least co-authors, supported by scientists that has done research on vaping. Because vapers are the experts on vaping and e-cigarettes, and it is in their interest to make vaping as safe as possible. But instead the EU has chosen to let Big Tobacco and Big Pharma dictate the directive. That's like having a farmer writing a directive on fishing. I'll leave it up to my readers to make up their own opinions on the reasons the EU has for doing this, but the point is: Vapers should write the law on vaping, simply because they are the experts on vaping.