E-cigarette regulations, who wants it and why?

Ivo Vegter

We all know there is a lot of organizations and individuals out there calling for strict regulations or even bans on e-cigarettes. Looking at the proven benefits of vaping and the research done on them, e-cigarettes could (and probably will) save the lives of millions of smokers, by replacing the most deadly consumer product on the planet with a product that will do anywhere from 95 to 100% less harm to its users. So why is it then that some people and organizations are so eager to get rid of them?

Via the NDS (Norwegian Union of Vapers) official Facebook page I came across this great article by Ivo Vegter that sums up a lot of the reasons, and I though it deserves to be shared as much as possible: Only Big Tobacco and Big Pharma want e-cig regulation. It's a great read with a lot of good links to relevant information. Highly recommended by the Vaping Giraffe.

The tobacco industry is not unique. Both it and the pharmaceutical industry would like to monopolise the e-cigarette action. And government is only too happy to sacrifice public health to big business lobbyists. The truth is that they are safe to use and effective to quit smoking. If governments were consistent, they’d hand e-cigarettes out like condoms.

I totally agree Mr. Vegter. Sadly though, I think it's more likely that they'll ban condoms, arguing that they might be a gateway to unprotected sex.

Is this Big Tobacco's death rattle?

Have a look at what Deborah Arnott says about the decline
in smoking. (Thanks to the Ashtray blog for the illustration)

Yesterday, my friends at the Ashtray blog published a great post asking "Are e-cigs leading to a drop in smoking rates?". It's not possible to prove that e-cigarettes are causing the rise in successful quit attempts we are seeing right now, but the fact that this rise seems to have started when ecig sales exploded certainly suggests it. The numbers presented in the Ashtray blog also goes a long way in disproving the gateway theory.

What really got me thinking in the article was what the tobacco marketing executive applying for a job that Smokers Angel advertised said when asked why he wanted to leave his job:

The tobacco industry is dying – everyone is leaving.

Are the lobbying for bans on open systems and the new horrible warning labels on Big Tobaccos e-cig brands really a final desperate attempt to keep their sinking ship floating? Is this the death rattle of Big Tobacco? Has this marketing executive realized that the e-cigarette revolution cannot be stopped?

I think he might have. I think what he fears is this: Even if the WHO, FDA and all the other anti-ecig organizations and people (Big Tobacco included) manages to slow down the revolution, even if they manage to ban ecigs, there will be ways for people to keep vaping and the number of vapers will increase. There will be black markets and there will be ways to avoid the bans. Because there are now huge communities perfectly capable of providing it's members with nicotine e-liquid and vaping equipments and no way to stop them from doing so. And the research will continue, and evidence will keep showing that e-cigarettes are not killing people, but saving their life. At some point the anti-ecig movement will have to pull up their white flag and admit they were wrong, and that no-one have died or gotten sick from e-cigarettes in years. It is just a matter of time and how many lives they are willing sacrifice on Big Tobaccos altar in the process. And seeing this, I don't blame the guy for wanting to get out as soon as possible.

Big Tobacco's new e-cig warning labels are not what they look like

MarkTen e-cigarette packages now feature a 117-word warning (http://goo.gl/2WHa7z). The full warning can be found on MarkTen's website and goes like this:

This product is not a smoking cessation product and has not been tested as such. This product is intended for use by persons of legal age or older, and not by children, women who are pregnant or breast feeding, or persons with or at risk of heart disease, high blood pressure, diabetes, or taking medicine for depression or asthma. Nicotine is addictive and habit forming, and it is very toxic by inhalation, in contact with the skin, or if swallowed. Nicotine can increase your heart rate and blood pressure and cause dizziness, nausea, and stomach pain. Inhalation of this product may aggravate existing respiratory conditions. Ingestion of the non-vaporized concentrated ingredients in the cartridges can be poisonous.

It's kind of weird that MarkTen and other Big Tobacco companies choose to put warnings on their products that are several decrees more severe than the warnings on their tobacco products, especially when it's not even required by regulation. So what do they hope to achieve with this?

The New York times thinks this is to appear more responsible, open and frank and to insulate themselves against future lawsuits. I think this is an explanation Big Tobacco really likes and can live with, cause wanting to be more responsible and making sure they don't get sued in the future sounds like a reasonable strategy and it doesn't really hurt someone. Sounds like the responsible thing to do.

But I believe that one has to look at what the possible effect of such warnings to see what Big Tobaccos real reasons behind them are. I can think of several rather dangerous effects that would suit Big Tobacco perfectly:

• Even though the warnings are only on Big Tobacco's products, people will draw the conclusion that these warnings apply to all e-cigarette and vaping products. Remember also that Big Tobacco's cig-alikes are entry level products... a lot of vapers start out with them. And according to "Motherboard", Big Tobacco has officially lost its hold on the e-cigarette market: http://goo.gl/1WX9sG. Such warning will serve to keep the customers in a market that Big Tobacco is not loosing, the cigarette market.
• I think Big Tobacco is trying to set a standard on how warnings will look like if they get required by regulations in the future. Such warnings will, as mentioned above, stop some people from buying and using the products. For an independent e-cigarette manufacturer this means loosing customers, but for Big Tobacco it doesn't. They will keep their customers, because the customer is already a smoker. 
• I've written earlier that e-cigarettes work as a firewall, protecting young potential customers of Big Tobacco from the dangers of cigarette smoking. Such warnings would weaken this firewall effect, and make it easier for Big Tobacco to gain new customers in their cigarette market. 

In other words, I don't think Big Tobacco is issuing this warnings just to appear responsible and avoid lawsuits (although it's a nice side-effect), but I think they're doing it to weaken, or ultimately try to get rid of the competition. Big Tobacco has used a lot of money to get into the e-cigarette market, but looking at their morale track record I think it would be pretty naive to think they are doing this because they suddenly realized what they've done and want to make up for it. If you have a closer look at how they are behaving and navigating in the market, you'll see that their actions are not exactly helping the cause. This latest warning labels are a good example and it also gives us a clue to why they've chosen to stay in, and try to get as much control as possible in, the entry level market: Stopping people from switching is the best way of keeping them smoking right? Or even worse: Making teens believe that e-cigarettes are worse than cigarette might lead them to start smoking instead of trying an e-cigarette.

Not everything is what it looks like eyh?