August 29, 2018 Rendez-vous #15
with Philippe Poirson.
Philippe Poirson, writes the blog Vapolitique. The blog is written in French, but it can be automatically translated into different languages.
Thank you Philippe for taking part in this rendez-vous. May I begin by asking you to introduce yourself with a brief summary of your journey and how you came to create the blog Vapolitique?
Philippe Poirson: Thank you for inviting me. I have been a bit all over the map. I have been involved in 'alternative culture' groups, a not for profit and revendicative environment. I worked as a carpenter for several years but I had to stop due to health issues. I went back to university and studied philosophy and ethnology, with a special interest for the epistemology of science. Later, and with a bit of chance, I got work as a journalist for a local newspaper. For reasons that I am not going to talk about, I had severe depression, which led me to take part in support groups with various approaches and sessions. During this recovery process I decided to quit smoking to regain some control, and above all, because my 30 years of smoking had somewhat impacted my health.
I tried to quit smoking several times using what I could: patches, gums, hypnosis, etc. I always relapsed after a few weeks. In April 2014, I tried vaping; at first, I was quite reluctant. It was not easy during the first months because I was not using enough nicotine but I did quit smoking once I started vaping. That's when and why I decided to learn a bit more about the subject. I started to discover issues that I did not expect to find when I began doing more research. I created the blog to keep track of what I found, writing my notes in an attempt to have a better understanding of certain topics. Some of my writing and blog posts were also my reactions to what was happening. During the last few months, I felt I had the energy to get more involved within organizations I was already part of; I joined the executive board of Sovape, and this Spring the board of Helvetic Vape.
Q1. When I look at the topics of your last ten posts (published at the end of July and beginning of August) I see they concern 7 different countries: UK, Germany, Italy, Greece, Australia, France, USA, EU. Only on July 15 is there an analysis of the situation in Switzerland. What do you do to have such an international approach?
Philippe Poirson: As Olivier explained (see rendez-vous #6 with Olivier Théraulaz), there was a prohibition of the local sale of liquids with nicotine in Switzerland. Right after his interview in the Spring of 2018, the Federal Administrative Court rescinded this ban, a decision we had been hoping to see for a long time. When I created the blog in 2015, I wanted to think about our situation. I thought it was necessary to compare it with what was happening in other countries to underline this waste of public health. Except for Pr JF Etter, anti-tobacco elites in Switzerland are opposed to harm reduction strategies or don't have the courage to dare to support us. To strengthen our argument, and also by curiosity, I started, little by little, to get interested in various countries. Now, I am trying to follow up. This aspect of the blog is also a way of thinking globally: think globally, act locally, something I inherited from the alternative culture.
Historically, cigarettes were a key part of the industrial age. They spread thanks to the Bonsack machine, and then had an influence on society. For instance, the smoking breaks formatted the rhythm of work. Cigarettes also entered politics when they were, for a while, a symbolic support for feminism, influenced culture through marketing… The downfall is logical after the socio-technical rupture impulsed by the electronics.
The miniaturization of parts has allowed the building of vaping tools, and internet networks have created the possibility of direct exchanges between users and manufacturers. This broke down the obstacles that had previously prevented similar innovations like the Favor cigarette or Herbert Gilbert’s patents to take hold and grow. The global dimension of this breakthrough requires trying to get a broad international perspective. Vaping is a social phenomenon with various intersections: social, medical, political, cultural, scientific, and of course ethical components. Obviously, I don’t completely cover it all, but that’s my intention.
Q2. I have access to a service that selects daily news published in English worldwide about all things related to vaping. On average there are at least 100 news items per week. Very quickly, this abundance of information is overwhelming and can be difficult to digest. At the same time, maybe because this search is only done in English, it seems to miss many of the news cycles you find and analyze. Can you tell us about how you select the news you choose to analyze? Do you have correspondents who share with you what happens in their respective countries and languages, and are you multilingual?
Philippe Poirson: It’s funny, I had never really thought about how I work before you asked. It varies. One source I use a lot, at least to identify issues that could be pertinent, is the content on the sites, blogs, and tweets produced by the vaping community. They often share information and articles that are more interesting than mainstream media. I have a few regular readers who send information to me and also a few privileged contacts with people who are active in user groups or news sites. I don’t speak English well but I can read it, as well as Italian and Spanish. I double-check, like any classical journalist. But my blog is only a blog, not a news channel, even if specialized. I don’t mention a lot of news because I know they’ll be addressed elsewhere, for instance by the Vaping Post that does a good job in this field for the francophone readers.
As you noticed, this mass of information can act as a new form of censorship, with a flood of biased or non-significant messages. In this context, it seems important to provide a key to understand what’s going on. The vaping community cannot not nourish an independent culture of harm reduction to accompany its own development.
Q3. Lately, you have been looking at taxation issues in the EU, and on the national level for the United Kingdom, Greece, Italy, and the negative consequences. What lessons have you drawn from the various countries around taxation? Are certain strategies working better than others? Are they transferable from one country to another? Can one imagine and set up an international support system, or maybe it already exists?
Philippe Poirson: The European Commission already organized a survey/public comment process about taxation in 2016 where close to 90% of respondents opposed an anti-vape tax. Because the Commission is considering reviewing taxes on tobacco, they are now bringing up the issue again about an anti-vape minimal tax for all countries. The survey for public comments is open until September 3: 16 users groups launched a petition against this project. This issue is very much in the news. I noticed that 14 European countries have enacted anti-vape taxes, many very recently: some are not yet implemented. Maybe it’s a sign that vaping has taken market shares to cigarettes that bring a lot of revenue to the coffers of the state. Still, the first countries that have created a taxation against vaping were met with catastrophic results.
Italy is probably the clearest example of such failure. In early 2015, the state created an excessively high tax based on an absurd calculation comparing vaping liquid and cigarettes: they estimated that 1mL of liquid was the equivalent of 10 cigarettes. In the end, the tax amounts to €4 plus VAT that is about €5 for one pod while the tax is only €0,77 on a pack of heated cigarettes Glo and € 1,27 for a pack of Iqos, that are both sold at a price similar to combustibles, around €5. A significant number of vapers returned to smoking combustibles while others turned to the black market. After a promising start, the vaping sector collapsed in 2015, sales divided by three, and many bankruptcies.
A complaint was filed with the Lazio Administrative Court. The professionals estimated, incorrectly, apparently, that the complaint blocked the tax decision. The anti-vape tax brought practically nothing: €5 million in 2016 while they were expectant €115 million. At the end of 2017, the Constitutional Court validated the principle of the anti-vape tax and the government decided to place the whole industry under the control of the State Monopoly in charge of tobacco and customs to enforce the tax collection. They also banned internet sales. Sales fell again and consequently, the rest of the industry suffered as well. The new government passed an amendment to temporarily suspend the tax. We are waiting for a reform that would abolish the control of the Monopoly and the tax itself, a promise made by the Vice Prime Minister, Matteo Salvini, which should take place in September.
The number of smokers rose by one million between 2016 and 2018 to reach more than 12 million while the number of vapers has fallen by one million according to the data of the Istituto Superiore de la Sanità (ISS). Until 2015, Italy was in a situation similar to the UK, with smokers switching to vaping. The public health waste is complemented by the destruction of the vaping businesses at the local level. In a country where voters rejected traditional political parties, particularly the Democratic Party, this story did not play well with the vaping community.
In Portugal, a tax of €6 for each pod of 10 mL of nicotine liquid was decided in 2016 then lowered to €3 in 2017. Almost no nicotine liquid is sold legally. From what I’ve heard, people in Portugal do what we did in Switzerland under the prohibition: they give nicotine for free. You buy a liquid without nicotine and without tax then you receive a gift of nicotine. The consequence is that vaping remains marginal (like in Switzerland under the prohibition) and smoking prevalence does not fall in Portugal. In Greece, where vaping had a bit more time to grow, the tax decided on in 2017 created a black market that is now bigger than the legal sales according to the newspaper Kathimerini.
Anti-vape taxes protect smoking, They start the development of an informal market and incite people to buy abroad. They also reduce supply because only the biggest players are able to afford the amount of taxes to be paid in the legal market. VAT taxes on vaping products go down with the sales and this loss is not compensated by new taxes. It’s a lose-lose approach except for the people who profit from smokers bad health, i.e. pharma.
There is also a political consequence, as recently described by the English Labor MP, Mary Glindon. When they assimilate vaping to an unhealthy behavior with a sin tax, governments are pushing smokers to keep smoking cigarettes. That brings part of the public to stop believing the reasons governments claim for those taxes. With the growing distrust of people toward institutions, sincere anti-tobacco advocates should worry about initiatives that negatively impact the credibility of their arguments and their actions. If a tax similar to the tax on tobacco is levied on vapers because they quit smoking, the message is public health has nothing to do with those taxes.
Q4. The World Health Organization’s headquarters is based in Geneva. How do you assess WHO’s position toward vaping? What is Switzerland’s official take on those issues? How do you feel about the next conference of the parties that is going to start on October 1st?
Philippe Poirson: Switzerland signed, but did not ratify the FCTC treaty. That is because there is no specific law regulating tobacco products at the federal level. For instance, there is not one age limit to buy tobacco at the national level. Most of the counties have chosen 16 or 18 years old as a limit, except for three counties, including Geneva. A tobacco law is in the works. The Federal Council sent back the first draft to Parliament, asking for changes in three areas: fewer restrictions on advertising for tobacco products, provide a separate status for vaping and legalize snuff. This second version is being drafted by the Federal Office of Public Health on behalf of the Federal Council. A public consultation about the project took place this spring. There is still a long way to go through the parliamentary process with potential changes and delays. The goal is for the law to be in effect in 2022. Alongside it, anti-tobacco advocates launched a campaign to collect signatures for a referendum that would insert in the constitution a complete ban of advertising for tobacco products. One argument is that without such a ban, Switzerland could not ratify the FCTC.
As for the next COP8 meeting, I don’t think there has been any official announcement from the Swiss authorities. For the previous meeting in India, only two observers were to attend and one canceled for personal reasons. So maybe one person from the embassy was present. This time, since this takes place in Geneva, there will probably be an official representation, at least to impress the media. The mainstream media support the World Health Organization without any criticism but a fair share of the Swiss population is rather suspicious toward supranational organizations. WHO’s bureaucracy has lost a lot of its credibility. If there was hope in the 1980s that health could be improved worldwide, it went down with lack of efficiency, deals with big lobbies and billionaires like Gates, Bloomberg or Zuckerberg who use it for their own agenda.
I think that most vapers feel they are powerless about what’s going to happen during this conference and don’t care about it. I can see why they do, but it’s probably a mistake.
WHO’s power to harm vaping is worrying, especially in low and middle-income countries. Jagdish Kaur, a WHO’s executive in Asia, published in an Indian public health review, an article where he called for a criminalization of vaping, targeting not only selling but also using like what is done in North Korea and under the military junta in Thailand. It has been influential, especially in Asia. According to the preliminary report for the FCTC Secretariat, 30 countries would now prohibit vaping. Even if this report is very mediocre and does not detail what is prohibited (sales, usage, nicotine?) his content needs to be taken with caution, it is still worrisome.
The FCTC’s Secretariat goes farther than a simple public health orientation against taking into account harm reduction while harm reduction is still included in the Treaty’s Chart in the first article (d). It’s clearly a call to violate human rights. I find it shocking that Jagdish Kaur was not fired after this shameful article. The same goes for the partnership between WHO’s anti-tobacco bureau and the military junta in Thailand that owns the tobacco national monopoly: this is a violation of the convention this bureau is supposed to implement. Any collaboration with such a regime is sordid.
The assessment that FCTC’s Secretariat is out of control is confirmed when one reads their preliminary report for COP8 that claims their proposal to prohibit or restrain vaping that would include criminalizing vapers was accepted by COP7 in New Delhi without mentioning Canada, EU, and UK delegates refused to endorse it. One could not understand and accept that democratic countries do not react to at least reaffirm control over the FCTC’s Secretariat during COP8.
It is possible that this evolution of the bureau led by Vera Luiza da Costa e Silva comes from the growing influence of Michael Bloomberg and his partners Zuckerberg and Gates. They seem to aim to completely control populations behaviors with computer tools in partnership with pharma. They use the World Health Organization to that effect. The repression against vaping could be a tactical move to enact measures against freedom, creating precedents to limit human rights. Michael Bloomberg reminds me a lot of Randolph Hearst who led the prohibition of cannabis in the thirties. After failing on cannabis, drugs, sex, tobacco extended to nicotine is the last target of the Puritan ideology that tries to impose an authoritarian approach to people’s behavior. It’s probably why they invest so heavily against vaping and harm reduction.
Q5. According to you, what are the questions that vapers should first be asking about? Do you have any suggestions about how to organize and communicate?
Philippe Poirson: Globally, what is at stake is the human right to reduce the risk for one’s own health. Situations are very different depending on each country. It’s hard to say something that would apply everywhere and lately, I am perplexed. Except for the UK, anti-tobacco bureaucracies oppose harm reduction to protect their power, their grants and the financing from the pharmaceutical lobby. I just read on August 12, an article in El Pais that mentioned that more than 70% of Spanish vapers have quit smoking. Instead of being happy about it, Francisco Lozano, who is the President of the European Network for Smoking Prevention tells of the benefits of quitting without help when he knows that 95% of people who try to quit that way, fail. ENSP receives millions from the European Commission to -among other things- denigrate vapers.
In France, vaping is by far the main way smokers quit smoking cigarettes. But there is nothing about tobacco harm reduction and vaping in the training of health professionals, no serious public information from Santé Publique France. Tabac Info Service, the official quit-line criticizes vaping and promotes pharmaceutical products. Like Nathalie Dunand told you, during the last month without tobacco, there was a support group on Facebook managed by vapers that showed how effective such an approach can be.
Meanwhile, anti-tobacco groups put more energy to sow doubt and fight vaping as a cessation tool than fight tobacco smoking. We do have the support of a few sincere tobacco control leaders who see vaping as an opportunity to reduce tobacco-related diseases but the majority of the elites prefer to defend their interests to keep the system as it is as they profit and live from it.
In Switzerland, the situation is even worse. The smoking prevalence has remained at 25% for the last ten years, reaching almost 40% for the youth in Romandy. But the anti-tobacco elites refuse any tobacco harm reduction strategy to help smokers quit. They have supported a repressive approach that has maintained the level of smoking during the last few years. Because smoking is most prevalent among poor people they have no compassion nor interest to change their authoritarian paradigm.
I doubt, therefore, of the possibility to follow the British model toward a peaceful integration for vaping. Many health professionals who work directly with smokers see how vaping is useful and a few are open to vapers’ support groups. There is a growing gap between one side of the health professionals: ‘on the battleground’ the consumers, and on the other side, the leading bureaucracies. In the short term, people who are against harm reduction succeed in creating doubt and slowing helping people to quit with vaping. In the longer term, they could lose their credibility.
Q6. Is there anything else you would like to add?
Philippe Poirson: No, I think I already spoke long enough.
Thank you Philippe, for taking the time the time to answer our questions and for all the work you do on a volunteer basis to collect and share information.
Comments