While France now has the second largest number of European newspapers, public authorities appear to be reluctant to adopt an attitude towards this rapidly expanding phenomenon, oscillating between the temptation of prohibition and the temptation of common sense. Vapers Alliance, the least dangerous.
By Michael Landell, WVA Director
Look at the public interest before the effects of advertising
If no one doubts the harmful effects of cigarettes, many countries are still reluctant to adopt an e-cigarette policy. Some, like Australia, are leaning towards bans while others, like Sweden, are taking a more lenient approach that seems to be having tangible results. Australia has not seen a decrease in the percentage of its population that smokes, unlike Sweden which has noted that smokers, who are concerned about their health, are moving significantly towards consuming an alternative to nicotine such as an electronic cigarette which will reach the EU smoking target rate of less than 5% 17 years ahead of schedule.
Some will object that vaping remains a consumption of nicotine, which is an addictive chemical that can lead an entire segment of the population, especially younger ones, to nicotine consumption. also. But this reasoning forgets one of the first and cardinal rules of medicine: first do no harm—a principle that some regulators have also mistaken as an overly precautionary principle. However, as the Australian example proves, bans on e-cigarettes do not reduce the proportion of the population who smoke at high risk, while preventing them from being able to turn to less harmful alternatives. Why, in order to take advantage of the interface of straightforwardness, prevent smokers who want to reduce the impact of their consumption on their health from the solution?
Bypassing attitudes by leaving freedom of choice to consumers
The harmful effects of smoking, without being non-existent, are so much less than those of cigarettes, that many doctors no longer hesitate to suggest this alternative to their patients who cannot quit smoking completely. This does not prevent some from continuing to fight for outright prohibition, forgetting that no prohibition has ever been able to put an end to consumption, whether it was alcohol in the United States in the 1920s or more recently prostitution. The Association for Victims of Violence prefers to believe that freedom, accompanied by a real prevention policy, is more effective.
Therefore, the WVA finds it more appropriate to allow the priority in question, the consumers, to decide for themselves this debate, particularly on the issue of flavors appearing to screen in the name of a hypothetical risk of stimulation. We hope and work for France and the European Union to respect this opinion and legislate according to the values of freedom.