Public authorities in Scotland ban e-cigarettes in public buildings

This escalation of banning e-cigarettes does look odd, doesn't it? They are even banned in some outdoor areas around public buildings.

The fear seems to be as expressed by a Glasgow health board spokesperson: 

NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde said: “The use of e-cigarettes in NHS grounds perpetuates the idea smoking is acceptable in public areas.”

But this approach seems very unscientific. E-cigarette use is not smoking. People are using e-cigarettes instead of smoking, either on a selective basis or completely. After being told more times than most of us have had hot dinners that there is nothing better for your health than stopping smoking, the device people are turning to in their thousands is now facing significant restrictions, and EU legislation still hovers over them.

The only thing that needs to be done is regulation. Tobacco is regulated, and all consumer products require some regulatory oversight to protect consumers. There is no call whatever for a ban.

Health authorities who ban e-cigarettes because they make users look like smokers should take a good hard look at themselves. Having derided tobacco companies for the alleged health records of smoking for over 30 years, it seems perverse to ban the use of a product that can eliminate the most hazardous elements of smoking, namely the absorption of tar and smoke. If smokers can use this product at less than the cost of smoking, they may not return to smoking.

Anti-smokers have little to be complacent about. Illicit tobacco is becoming more plentiful on our streets, and can remove any price advantage that the less harmful product has.

Scottish public authorities need to get a grip on themselves. They provide a valuable service but they are not (or should not be) empowered to pronounce what recreational products the public should find 'acceptable'; or to assert ownership of 'public areas'.

NZ: Tarania Turia fails to count the cost of smoking

New Zealand, we are told, is heading for total prohibition. The NZ press is full of stories about the Government's hopes for a tobacco-free New Zealand, with short term price increases a first step. Fortunately reactions from  tobacco retailers are being reported too: rapid increases in price will not suppress demand, but fuel crime rates. People will get tobacco if they want it. A rise first implemented in April will see the price of 25 cigarettes increase by 30 per cent by 2014.

Health minister Tarania Turia has cast doubt on the figures for smoking-related costs to the health services (scroll down for costs of tobacco). in a letter reproduced here. Her letter admits that the $1.bn dollar figure provided by the Ministry of Health 'has never been portrayed as a measure of the money that might be saved if compared to a world where smoking had been eradicated'.

One might asks what on earth it has been flagged up to prove, if not how much money not smoking will save.

People are going to die anyway. They might die later, they might require more care of different kinds. Or some people might need something to replace tobacco and resort to something more dangerous, whether illegal drugs or a comfort that is quite legal like cream cakes or booze in copious amounts.

In the end they don't know, as Mrs Turia is right to point out, how much money would be saved if smoking were eradicated, or even if any money would be saved at all.

H/tip Dick Puddlecote