Breaking news: TPD could be stopped in the UK!

We got some good news today and again it comes from the UK: Lord Callanan has tabled a "fatal motion" in the house of lords today. I'm no expert in UK politics and how this works, but apparently this means there is a real chance that the TPD could be stopped in the UK. You can read more about it on the Ashtray blog in a guest post by Ian Gregory of Abzed and The 100k Campaign.

Unless Lord Callanan is forced by pressure from Downing Street to withdraw his motion there will be a debate and a vote. Under parliamentary rules if the Lords agree to this motion the statutory instrument implementing the TPD in the UK will fall. Such procedures are called “fatal motions” because the regulations get killed outright and do not go back to the Commons.

You can find even more links and info about it on vapers.org.uk, and there is a petition that I urge everyone to sign.

Again, my thanks go across the North Sea. If these efforts end with the TPD being stopped in the UK it will open a lot of eyes around Europe and we might see more political moves to stop it in other countries as well.

British Lords joins the pro-vaping forces

Matt Ridley - the man we can thank for this
debate in the House of Lords

As I said yesterday, the fight against deadly regulations by the EU and FDA have turned into a full scale war. We've been aware that in the UK the government has been quite positive to vaping and not been that afraid to say so publicly either.

In December 2015 David Cameron became the first world leader to endorse e-cigarettes. He told a packed House of Commons that they were "a very legitimate path" which had helped a million people in the UK to quit tobacco smoking (http://100thousand.com/).

But now it seems British politicians have taken this some huge steps further and fully joined the pro-vaping forces in this war. In a debate in the House of Lords the EU TPD was, as Christopher Snowdon puts it, savaged. I think the transcript, video and summaries of the debate says it all so I'm not going to comment any further, and to be honest I'm a bit lost for words... in a good way.

Political support for the TPD among Westminster politicians has close to disappeared. All that is left is the legal shell (Ashtray blog)

You can find a summary, note and transcript on the Ashtray blog, and Christopher Snowdon has also published the transcript and taken the time to highlight some of the best parts and added a couple of comments. I recommend reading the whole thing through as it is indeed some of the most enjoyable reading I've done in quite some time. There is also a video of the debate available on youtube. I've picked out a couple of my favourite quotes below. 

Thankfully—and my noble friends will know how painful it is for me to say this—the European Parliament voted down the folly of exclusive medicinal regulation, but it did not vote down the rest of Article 20 of the tobacco products directive which, in that wonderfully undemocratic way, is now being forced upon us. The truth is that these regulations were scripted in Brussels by pharmaceutical companies desperately trying to protect the sales of their widely unloved nicotine replacement therapies. What we have before the House is still a piece of legislation that is not fit for purpose. When even the Department of Health says that it risks increasing smoking, we know that we are facing a moral responsibility as legislators to review this in great detail. It most certainly should not just be nodded through.
- Matt Ridley

Nevertheless, we ended up with this directive. It was a messy compromise and it is very badly worded, but it is a lot better than it could have been had we not campaigned on it. My noble friend Lord Ridley is quite right to point out the somewhat murky role of various pharmaceutical interests in the production of the directive. When I asked questions in the Commission and the Council—it seemed to me self-evident that these devices were brilliant for reducing tobacco smoking, which I thought was what we all wanted—I asked why they were even in the directive in the first place, given that it is called a tobacco products directive and e-cigarettes are not tobacco products in any sense of the word. The answer I received many times was that this was argued for by the pharmaceutical industry, which would have an awful lot to lose if e-cigarettes supplanted or replaced nicotine patches and gum. I do not know the truth of that, but it seems that it was very successful in getting what it wanted.
- Martin Callanan (who was an MEP at the time the TPD was created)

This is truly a terrible piece of legislation, and I plead guilty for the part I played in helping to produce it in the first place. However, it is not too late to undo some of that harm and to help encourage the taking up of e-cigarettes and, consequently, a reduction in tobacco consumption. Instead of trying to restrict e-cigarettes, the Government should in fact be trying positively to encourage them.
- Martin Callanan

I certainly hope that enforcement will be more Italian than traditionally British, if I may put it that way.
- David Prior (Health Minister)

As I said, I'm a bit lost for words, but I believe a big thanks to the British is in order. From the trends I've seen in the UK lately, I suspect, and I hope this is not the last time I send a big fat THANK YOU across the North Sea. Again, I encourage you to read the whole transcript or watch the video... there is a lot of goodies in there.

Don't stop fighting the FDA deeming regulations and EU TPD!

Just a week or so after the Royal College of Physicians released their report backing e-cigarettes and vaping, urging governments and regulators to "Promote e-cigarettes widely as substitute for smoking", the EU Court of Justice ruled that the TPD is valid, will be enforced and thereby making sure that the EU will not follow RCP's advice. Yesterday, just a couple of days later, the FDA released their new deeming regulations that basically will ban vaping as we know it in the US and hand the remains of the market over to Big Tobacco. Since I read about it yesterday, an image has been developing in my head of the ANTZ holding the arms of a guy called "Smoker" or "public health" on his back while Big Pharma commands the EU and FDA to take turns punching him in the face. Big tobacco stands on the side with a big grin on his face, cheering and rubbing his hands. Any cartoonists reading this... feel free to draw it up and publish it widely. The last days, the EU and the FDA has shown us very clearly that this is not about health at all, it's all about the money. Either that, or their incompetence have reached levels I did not think was possible for human beings. I'm not sure which one is most frightening.

A lot of people have commented on the two cases, which are indeed public health disasters bordering to political genocide, so I'm not going to go into the details on how these draconian regulations will shorten the lives of millions. However, I've found some good posts and articles for you below. I've written about the consequences of over regulating earlier and Clive Bates have summed up the unintended consequences of these regulations: Harmful and negligent to ignore unintended consequences of e-cigarette policies

On the TPD:

• The EU’s new rules for vapers: this is Brussels at its most petty and pointless (Christopher Snowden in the Spectator Health)
• Regulators and the compliance fallacy – buying 99% nicotine e-liquid from China (Clive Bates)
• What is wrong with the Tobacco Products Directive for vapour products? (Clive Bates) 
• Health? Yeah, Right (Dick Puddlecote)

On the FDA deeming regulations:

• FDA deeming regulation on e-cigarettes: an effective ban on most (and on most effective) products (Dr. Farsalinos)
• The FDA’s Vaporous Thinking About E-Cigs (Wall Street Journal)
• FDA E-Cigarette Deeming Regulations are a Disaster for Public Health (Michael Siegel)

It doesn't look very good for vaping right now I have to admit. Well, actually, for the lucky ones that have already made the switch it's not the end of the world. We've known about this, and expected these regulations for a while now and most of us will be able to continue vaping. It might mean that we have to turn to the thriving black market that undoubtedly will rise and shine brightly now, but we'll manage. For current smokers and future generations however, this last week has been a complete disaster. The regulations will cost a lot of people a lot of years of living, but who cares? I mean they never new that their governments deprived them of a better life so they won't be complaining about that right? Well, that's were we as vapers should prove the EU and the FDA wrong. We need to make sure that everyone knows what has been going on. We need to make sure that future generations will grow up knowing that we put an end to the tobacco epidemic. And we need to make sure the heads start rolling in certain organisations. Because they will, eventually, if we manage to expose to the world what their real motives are. A great way to start helping out is to support and promote Aaron Biebert's upcoming documentary "A billion lives". Sign up for their newsletter, pay attention to their facebook page, and start mentioning their movie everywhere where vaping or e-cigarettes are the topic of discussion. The EU and the FDA have now thrown a couple of hard punches our way, but there is no reason to give up now. This gives us even more reason to fight on, or start fighting if you're not there yet! "The tried to bury us. They didn't know we were seeds"... and we'll grow through concrete and break their castles apart I might add.

Vapers: Your stories can save millions of lives!

Vapers fighting for their rights
photo credit: #VAP_IN_LIBERTY via photopin cc

After the TPD was approved on the 26th of February, a lot of vapers probably ask themselves: What now? Is the war over, or is there still something we can do? Do we have to live with and adapt to article 20 and accept the fact that we had a chance to save millions of lives, but the greed and ignorance of the EU Parliament effectively smashed the snowball we had rolling?

The short answer is: Yes, there is still something we can do. The battle was lost but the war is not over. The e-cigarette-industry and user-organizations are still fighting and people like Clive Bates and Dr. Michael Siegel continue their hard work, ripping the anti-ecig-movements arguments and so called "science" apart. And to me it seems like a lot of their fighting is paying off, slowly. I've got a feeling they are getting to the media and we're gradually seeing more reasonable journalism now than we did some months ago. The feeling I'm left with is that the media used to swallow everything the anti-ecig-movement fed them whole, and most media coverage of e-cigarettes we saw was focused around "scientific" reports that "proved" the dangers of e-cigarettes and stories of pets dying from chewing on e-liquid bottles. But I do feel that the tireless efforts of Dr. Siegel, Clive Bates and a lot of others, criticizing these articles, writing letters to the people appearing in the media and publicly proving them wrong has forced the media to dig deeper and report if not the whole story, at least more of it. I'm not saying we're there yet, but in my eyes, there is a positive tendency. And having the media reporting the whole story and not just the propaganda from the other side, will be incredibly important to win the war in the end. As it stands now, "normal" people (people that don't spend hours on the internet searching for information like yours truly) cannot turn to the health organizations for reliable information about this matter, so what is written in the media will be one of their strongest influences when they make up their opinion.

Another, maybe just as important, source of information about vaping is YOU! Well, most of you at least, as I think the poll I had some weeks ago told me that around 99% of my readers are vapers. In the heading of this post I asked the question: Can we, as vapers, still do something? Sharing your story is one of the most important things you can still do. I don't expect all vapers to spend a lot of time searching the internet for scientific data, writing long letters to politicians to convince them to do the right thing and engage heavily in the online debate. And we don't need to do that either. But share your story to the people around you. As I've stressed several times before: You are proof that vaping works, so go show people that. Your story matters. And once you've told your story, you might get some questions from smokers who wants to try this out. Make it easy for these people to take the step. You can make sure you already have a web-page and a starter kit recommendation for them, or even better (if you can afford it) buy a small starter kit you can give away or lend to them. For you, as a vaper, this requires minimum effort, but I bet most of you used some time researching before you bought your first kit and that might be what is stopping a lot of smokers from trying. The more smokers that switch to vaping before 2016 comes and the TPD is to be implemented into the laws of the member states, the more stories will be told, and the better the data collected regarding the efficiency and security of e-cigarettes will be. Your story is important to keep the snowball rolling. Have a look at what the EU writes in their press release after the TPD was approved:

Can the rules on e-cigarettes be revisited at a later date?

Monitoring and reporting on all developments relating to e-cigarettes – including market and health related developments – has been built into the new Directive. The information collected will provide a good overview of what additional legislative action, if any, is required, and the Commission will revisit the issue if necessary.

This means that the TPD can be changed if we can make sure health developments are shown to be very positive, and the market develops in a healthy way. And to do that we, the vapers, can make sure the market grows by telling our stories which will in turn show the EU the huge impact this will have on public health. And when this data emerges, I'm pretty sure well have Dr. Siegel and Mr. Bates here to make sure it appears in the media, making it VERY hard for the EU to ignore. Vapers: Your story can save millions of lives!

Another thing we can do, is to support and sign the European Free Vaping Initiative. As a Norwegian citizen I can't do this myself, since Norway is not a member of the EU, but I can help spreading the word. And so can everyone else, which is just as important as signing it yourself. It is very important to note that his is not just another petition. The EFVI is a European citizens' initiative, which means that if 1 million people sign this EFVI will have the opportunity to meet Commission representatives in person and to present their initiative at a public hearing in the European Parliament. This means the EU is forced to listen to the vapers in this matter, something they have not been willing to do voluntarily. So if you're a EU citizen and haven't signed this, I urge you to do it now (sign here:  http://www.efvi.eu/), and then spread the word to as many people as possible... along with your vaping story.

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

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.

The 2 ml cap on cartridges: Only affecting HUGE cig-a-likes?

EU regulators, stay away from my dripper! :)

There has of course been a lot of talk about the TPD the last days, naturally, and a lot of it has been about the 2 ml cap on refillable cartridges. Such a limit on the tank or cartridge size would favour the cig-a-likes that the Tobacco companies are investing heavily in, as these would almost be the only e-cigarettes allowed. Add the advertising ban, that big Tobacco is already used to dealing with, and it would be a pain for others to compete in such a market. Another concern is of course that these (1st generation) e-cigarettes are not as effective as the more advanced ones as shown in this study by Dr. Farsalinos and others: http://goo.gl/VT61k2. There is 2 problems with this alone:

1. Less effective e-cigarettes of course means lower chance of successfully managing to quit smoking. And the heavier the smoker, the more severe this effect will be, as these are also the ones that are the most addicted. So this, along with the 20ml/mg cap on nicotine in e-liquids, affects the people that could have benefited the most from switching... in all possible ways.
2. You would need to carry more e-liquid around. Less effective cigarettes would make vapers use more liquid, and refill more often. Low capacity and low efficiency means more nicotine bottles of e-liquid being carried around, which means less safety. Quite the opposite of what I think was the intention.

So will this cap mean that all the mods and atties we're used to are effectively banned and we'll all end up having to smoke cig-a-likes in 2 years from now? To be honest I don't really think so. For one thing there will be markets selling these, call them what you like... grey or black. But there is also another thing. Have a look at article 20, point 3 a.: http://goo.gl/ROfRpE. This is the only place the 2 ml limit is mentioned in the directive from what I can see. Here is what it reads:

"nicotine-containing liquid is only placed on the market in dedicated refill containers not exceeding a volume of 10 ml, in disposable electronic cigarettes or in single use cartridges and that the cartridges or tanks do not exceed a volume of 2 ml;"

Well, this only says how nicotine-containing liquid is allowed to be sold, doesn't it? So cartridges, tanks and re-buildables with larger capacities can be sold freely as long as they are empty? To me it sure looks like it, but I got to admit I am afraid that there is something in there that I've missed. But then again, have a look at the European Commissions own "E-cigarettes myth buster": http://goo.gl/7fzTVs

“Why regulate a product that doesn’t even contain nicotine?”
The Directive only covers e-cigarettes which contain nicotine.

Well, most, if not all advanced e-cigarettes are sold empty, not containing a drop of nicotine e-liquid. Actually almost only cig-a-likes are sold pre-filled. So... this 2 ml cap... is it really just banning HUGE cig-a-likes? As I said ... I'm afraid I have missed something, or that the directive will be altered to take care of this, but I'm still going to make sure I get to try some of those Havanas from House of Liquid before 2016.

TPD split vote WAS allowed by the EU Parlament

MEP Nikki Sinclair

According to MEP Nikki Sinclair a split vote on the TPD was actually allowed by the EU Parliament yesterday, but it was of course then to late. Nikki posted a video on Youtube (http://goo.gl/UDDBSZ) saying that at 10.49 yesterday morning the Parliament had allowed a split vote. But this was just 41 minutes before the vote and on that short notice no lobbying could be done and no information could be given so the vote of course went against us.

This is just another example of the political skullduggery that is going on in the EU Parliament. As Nikki says, the e-cigarettes was put into the TPD "with a spoonful of sugar". The TPD has a lot of useful regulations for example to stop children smoking, which of course is something we all want. So putting the e-cigarette legislation in there is just a way of getting it approved, even though most MEPs (from what I understand) was against it, by piggybacking it to regulations that the most MEPs would vote in favour of. A split vote would have countered this effect. It has been argued for such a split vote for months now, but president Martin Schultz wouldn't listen... until 41 minutes before the vote, way to late for it to become a reality. And Schultz of course knew that, so this is, like I said before just political skullduggery and it shows how the EU Parliament is ignoring the principles of democracy. And the result this time can be that the markets of Big Tobacco and Big Pharma is protected and millions of lives that could have been saved won't be, because the technology that could have ended the Tobacco plague is slowed down substantially. Why they do this, one can only guess... corruption, loss of taxes or just lack of common sense are reasons that comes to mind. We do know that Big Tobacco and Big Pharma is benefiting from this, so it's not very hard to imagine that their shady lobbying tactics have played a great part in this. But one thing is for sure, their reasons are not what they want us all to believe; that they do this to protect public health.

But as I said yesterday: The war is not over. There is no reason for vapers to give up. Remember, most of us don't fight this fight for their own sake, we have already made the switch, and the TPD won't stop us from vaping. But we are fighting for all the smokers that haven't made the switch yet, and for reasonable regulations that will enable them to do this. I believe that if we keep the scientific evidence coming, grow in numbers and continue to work with MEPs and media we will win in the end.