Another own goal by the vaping lobby?
I wonder, sometimes, why I bother defending vaping. There’s the important principle of choice, of course, but it amazes me how often the vaping lobby shoots itself in the foot.
This week, for example, the online vape retailer HAYPP released the results of research concerning vaping on public transport. According to multiple reports, most of which were headlined something along the lines of ‘People vaping at bus stops might be hit with £1,000 fine under new rules’:
New figures from HAYPP have revealed a staggering 188% surge in complaints about vaping on public transport, with reports nearly tripling between 2022 and 2023. A Freedom of Information (FOI) request to Transport for London (TfL) has shed light on just how prevalent vaping is on public transport.
Leaving aside the small matter of why a vape retailer would want to highlight complaints about vaping on public transport, what really stood out was this comment by the company’s head of external affairs:
“Vaping on public transport can be disruptive for other passengers and, in some cases, harmful for those with respiratory issues or illnesses. It can also increase the risk of fires in enclosed spaces.”
What a sales pitch! Extraordinary.
For years I’ve defended vaping in indoor public places by arguing that it’s possible to stealth vape so no-one is any the wiser. Vapers have told me this, countless times, and I’ve seen it with my own eyes. Or rather I haven’t seen it because if someone is stealth vaping it’s often hard to tell, if they’re discreet about it.
(The IEA’s Chris Snowdon is particularly good at it and I sometimes think he’s only pretending to vape.)
As for ‘the risk of fires in enclosed spaces’, what is HAYPP suggesting – that vaping in any enclosed space (including the home) is a fire risk? I get that recharging a vape could conceivably be a fire risk if there is a fault with the vape, the battery, or the charger, but surely not while inhaling a vape on public transport? (If there is a fire risk the relative risk must be very small, surely?)
Last year VPZ, another vape retailer, openly supported a ban on disposable vapes which was odd because director Doug Mutter was (and still is, as far as I know) an occasional spokesman for the UK Vaping Industry Association which strongly opposed the ban.
Earlier this year a spokesman for Totally Wicked, another vape retailer, also backed the disposable vape ban, describing it as a ‘positive’ step. Since the ban was introduced questions are now being asked about renewable vapes, and if you supported the disposable vape ban on environmental grounds how can you justify the sale of similar priced renewables that consumers are also chucking away after a single use?
Of course, when they’re not indulging in friendly fire against their own products, sections of the vaping industry think nothing of targeting combustible tobacco. Three years ago VPZ launched a campaign to ‘ban smoking for good’, ignoring the fact that if smoking is prohibited then vaping will be next in line.
Anyway, that’s all I have to say on the matter at the moment. Like a squirrel, I’m storing this information away for future reference. But return to it I will.
See also: Normalising prohibition (Taking Liberties)
Update: Responding to my post, Peter Beckett, who runs the Clearing The Air campaign, has commented on X. ‘Haypp,’ he says, ‘majors as a nicotine pouch vendor. This is clearly designed to make the argument [about] nicotine pouches over vapes. It's classic digital PR, and it's designed to drive traffic to their nicotine pouches. And it's worked: they got a follow link in the article’.
He has a point. However, the company’s website is clear - ‘Haypp UK: Buy Nicotine Pouches and Vapes Online’ - so it seems a bit perverse to promote pouches by creating a negative narrative around vapes. When I get a moment I might return to the subject, but if it continues on this trajectory the nicotine industry is going to eat itself until there is nothing left.
