What matters more: freedom of choice or harm reduction?

I had an interesting meeting last week.

It was with someone who wanted to know more about our new campaign, Action on Consumer Choice.

He was particularly interested in our plans to defend e-cigarettes and vaping.

"But what?" he asked, "is your USP?"

It was a fair question. There are numerous groups and individuals – including tobacco control campaigners – already fighting on behalf of vapers so what makes our initiative different?

The clue is in the name.

"Freedom of choice," I replied.

That, I believe, is the difference between us and everyone else bar a handful of advocates like Dick Puddlecote and Chris Snowdon.

We believe in freedom of choice for all nicotine consumers. Can that be said of the majority of e-cig users? I'm not sure it can.

It certainly can't be said of the tobacco control campaigners who have become outspoken supporters of e-cigarettes.

With few exceptions they are driven by one thing and one thing only – harm reduction.

Nothing wrong with that. Harm reduction is a laudable, even admirable, goal.

But, and here's my point: in a free society freedom of choice is no less important.

You rarely hear that argument from advocates of e-cigarettes. All I hear are the words "harm reduction" repeated ad nauseum as if nothing else matters.

Of course we support harm reduction – it would be insane not to – but we also support an adult's right to make an informed choice to smoke tobacco, which is still a legal product.

After all, if harm reduction was the only goal think what it could mean for other potentially hazardous activities.

Average speed cameras would become the norm; drinkers would be restricted to one pint of beer a day; tackling would be eliminated from every form of rugby, and so on.

Sadly, in their understandable but holier-than-thou enthusiasm for a product that may or may not prolong their lives, a great many vapers have lost sight of the bigger picture.

So the answer to the headline 'What matters more: freedom of choice or harm reduction?' is … 'neither'. They are equally important.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is Forest's USP.