We’ve all seen the tweets from Drew Johnson from his time in Moscow when he was reporting on the Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (FCTC)– if you’ve not seen them, then follow him on twitter @Drews_Views.
Drew is a journalist and despite being frogmarched out of some FCTC meetings he managed to report what was going on – i.e. the removal of the press, the removal of the public and the holding down of dissenting delegates. He also told us about e cig discussions held behind closed doors – and we can all draw a parallel with the EU TPD there.
But what did COP6 do for vaping?
Did they head any of the warnings and letters that were sent?
Yes, yes they did.
They took note of all the ones that hate e-cigs.
We sent them a briefing – you can read it here:
Now, words have power – just say the word should, and then say the word love – and you will hopefully feel a difference in the way you feel and react. Should will probably make you tense a little, love will hopefully help you to relax. Words have a profound effect on how you feel and respond.
So, bearing this power in mind – why have the WHO FCTC coined the acronym ENDS when discussing electronic cigarettes. Are they subliminally telling us something?
But back to COP6 and was it a good COP or bad COP scenario?
Starting out with the good COP (to soften you up, make you relax a little – have a tea and some donuts…)
Did the WHO FCTC do anything good in relation to e cigs?
Well, they want to prevent e cigs ending up in young non-smokers hands – they don’t want a new generation of nicotine addicts.
They want to prevent unproven health claims for e cigarettes.
But that’s it – (remove said tea and donuts and let the heavy take over…)
Bad COP wants to ‘monitor’ e cigarettes, he wants to ban them, ban the advertising of them, and destroy the tobacco industry, (I’m paraphrasing here but you get the idea). He also wants make e cigs a tobacco product so the FCTC can destroy those too.
Now, there have been a great many articles written about the WHO’s FCTC COP6 meeting, and the usual phrases have been trotted out to defend these awful decisions –i.e., ‘they are protecting the children’, plus a nice new one – they are also protecting women and foetuses.
But what will the effects of these e cig policies be? Bearing in mind that signatories of the FCTC are obliged to implement them – and that includes good old Blighty.
The majority of the suggestions made are already in the TPD, so nothing too new – except the desire to ban e cigarettes if possible and to make them a tobacco product.
And these are bad things because they will warn people away from e cigarettes.
People do still give the WHO the credence it no longer deserves, they do listen to what comes out of the WHO media, and surprisingly, many see them as an authority on health.
I know, I know.
Essentially what the FCTC is doing though is telling people that switching to a product that is in the realms of 95% less harmful than tobacco is not the right thing to do – and they are doing it on the grounds of poor research and listening to people who just don’t like e cigs – its an ideology, much like communism or libertarianism.
It’s a belief.
But a belief that will harm people. People will carry on smoking instead of switching.
We at Save e-cigs think global health is far more important than implementing ideology, and it is a sad day for Public Health and the FCTC that they can come up with regulations like these.
Looks like Bad COP wins the day.