This is my introductory Substack post. I hope this interview will help readers see where I am coming from and why I hold the views I do. I hope it may even persuade those who disagree to engage.
My own policy would have been to point out that not only are cigarettes dangerous but they heap unpleasant costs on non-smokers - stinging eyes, smelly clothes, and so on.
Therefore people should revert to the pre-Great War habit: smoke a pipe, not cigarettes. Much more civilised, much less harmful.
Thanks, Mark! What’s going on? As investment legend Charlie Munger put it: “show me the incentive and I’ll show the outcome”. But your question demands a more complete response… coming soon.
Wonderfully thorough introduction, Clive, I love it but have one question. Regarding your last comment, why do you say that a more restrictive approach may be adopted when smoking is largely squeezed out? If the harm from THR products is minimal, is there really justification for any restrictions beyond age limits and standards? In my ideal world, using THR products, enjoying them with colourful batteries, a range of flavours etc would be no more controversial than packaging and flavours in say, alcohol, which creates so much more havoc in society than nicotine without combustion does. Look at the effort that goes into the labelling of wine bottles!
Dear Pam, this is a very good question, and I have my own doubts about it for much the same reasons you raise. Why might vaping policy evolve over time to become stricter?
Here is my reasoning:
Firstly, policy can evolve over time and generally does (and should); it is never "once and done". So I would always advocate starting gently, learning, and developing based on how it goes. I have advocated this approach for proposed limits on nicotine in pouches, for example. Would you want a rule that takes out 90% of the products people use on day 1 (as in Spain or Denmark)? So, as an alternative, my recommendation is to start with a much higher limit and see what you learn before going any further.
Secondly, policy should always be adapted to the context in which it is applied. So there is a big difference in the context for vaping policy if smoking prevalence is 30% or 3%. In the first case, you probably would not want any barriers to switching at all. But in the 3% smoking case, the public health goal may be more focused on limiting uptake, and therefore, you might tighten up on marketing, age restrictions, branding, and taxation. The 3% is illustrative.
Thirdly, this is partly pragmatic. Many excitable activists want to go too far and too fast, without evidence or understanding potential consequences. Suppose there was a campaign to ban flavoured vapes for all the usual (usually bogus) reasons. It would be better to try banning youth-oriented flavour descriptors and branding before imposing a ban on all flavours other than tobacco.
But my instinct is with your take on this - if it isn't that harmful, then restrictions should be proportionate. Show us the harm, show us what causes it, and show us that what you propose is likely to work without making a big mess (nearly all anti-vaping policies).
I agree that a degree of caution must be employed in our advocacy, given what we're up against. Don't scare the horses! I certainly wouldn't be putting my ideal vision to the politicians or the skeptics. I do believe that - eventually - our day will come.
My own policy would have been to point out that not only are cigarettes dangerous but they heap unpleasant costs on non-smokers - stinging eyes, smelly clothes, and so on.
Therefore people should revert to the pre-Great War habit: smoke a pipe, not cigarettes. Much more civilised, much less harmful.
That'll be ten thousand pounds, please.
Great introduction to Substack Clive! Captures the issues of tobacco control brilliantly and there can be only one conclusion. What’s going on?
Thanks, Mark! What’s going on? As investment legend Charlie Munger put it: “show me the incentive and I’ll show the outcome”. But your question demands a more complete response… coming soon.
Wonderfully thorough introduction, Clive, I love it but have one question. Regarding your last comment, why do you say that a more restrictive approach may be adopted when smoking is largely squeezed out? If the harm from THR products is minimal, is there really justification for any restrictions beyond age limits and standards? In my ideal world, using THR products, enjoying them with colourful batteries, a range of flavours etc would be no more controversial than packaging and flavours in say, alcohol, which creates so much more havoc in society than nicotine without combustion does. Look at the effort that goes into the labelling of wine bottles!
Dear Pam, this is a very good question, and I have my own doubts about it for much the same reasons you raise. Why might vaping policy evolve over time to become stricter?
Here is my reasoning:
Firstly, policy can evolve over time and generally does (and should); it is never "once and done". So I would always advocate starting gently, learning, and developing based on how it goes. I have advocated this approach for proposed limits on nicotine in pouches, for example. Would you want a rule that takes out 90% of the products people use on day 1 (as in Spain or Denmark)? So, as an alternative, my recommendation is to start with a much higher limit and see what you learn before going any further.
Secondly, policy should always be adapted to the context in which it is applied. So there is a big difference in the context for vaping policy if smoking prevalence is 30% or 3%. In the first case, you probably would not want any barriers to switching at all. But in the 3% smoking case, the public health goal may be more focused on limiting uptake, and therefore, you might tighten up on marketing, age restrictions, branding, and taxation. The 3% is illustrative.
Thirdly, this is partly pragmatic. Many excitable activists want to go too far and too fast, without evidence or understanding potential consequences. Suppose there was a campaign to ban flavoured vapes for all the usual (usually bogus) reasons. It would be better to try banning youth-oriented flavour descriptors and branding before imposing a ban on all flavours other than tobacco.
But my instinct is with your take on this - if it isn't that harmful, then restrictions should be proportionate. Show us the harm, show us what causes it, and show us that what you propose is likely to work without making a big mess (nearly all anti-vaping policies).
Understood.
I agree that a degree of caution must be employed in our advocacy, given what we're up against. Don't scare the horses! I certainly wouldn't be putting my ideal vision to the politicians or the skeptics. I do believe that - eventually - our day will come.