Public Health and The Tractor

Yes it has been ages since I last wrote anything and yes I know that blogging requires more work than I have been putting in and YES I am sorry!

Anyway, what particular thing is it that has made me log in and start typing? Well, it is kinda mundane actually and starts with a thought I had whilst driving...what better premise for a blog?

As some of you may know, I live in Cornwall. Deepest...darkest...North Cornwall. Sparsely populated and riddled with a myriad of tiny, narrow and unfriendly roads without white lines and with a good many completely blind corners that appear quite without warning. This is also holiday-maker heaven; every school break the population of North Cornwall explodes with terrified drivers whose cars swell to at least twice the size on the journey down here which means none of them fit on our roads. Or so they think. The result  of this is many 20 mile an hour journeys stuck behind some poor soul who thinks every tractor coming towards him is going to drive straight over his 4x4 which has never seen a muddy puddle, let alone left the tarmac. It also provokes a special kind of rage in locals who are forced to drive behind someone who positions themselves in the middle of the road, or worse, find themselves half way round one of our many blind corners facing some idiot who is driving in the middle of the lane with those 'this is the middle of the road' white lines under the very centre of his car!

I digress (that felt good though). One of the major problems we have down here on the roads are people who blindly follow their sat navs places that simply are not suitable for those who are incapable of putting their car into reverse and driving backwards a little bit. Not just  holiday makers either, a quick Google search will bring up stories of lorry drivers wedging themselves between buildings in a tiny village they have tried to squeeze their massive bulk through. I once watched a coach beach itself on a hairpin bend as it had followed the sat nav down a road that it could not possibly make to the end. How we laughed as it sat there, its wheels spinning futilely in the air and its belly resting on the road, rocking slightly as all the fuming passengers disembarked.  There was even a case of one lorry driver who, thanks to his unwavering faith in his digital direction dictator, found himself driving directly onto a beach!

ONTO A BEACH!

So, I was stuck behind a hapless fellow on the road to Bude (which is a 60mph road) who was pootling along at 40 mph whilst mesmerised by the little screen attached to his dashboard, and it struck me! Sat-navs! Actually that is not fair, it is not the sat-nav's fault - it is the drivers fault, they are entirely reliant on their sat-navs. SO reliant that they miss all the obvious signs around them that give them actual clues as to what is really going on. So distracted that they don't notice cyclists or bikers, where they are on the road, what the car in front is doing or even the fact that that sign says NO CARAVANS DOWN THIS ROAD!

What struck me is this; I was stuck behind Public Health!

Public Health and Tobacco Control are so completely and totally ignorant to what is going on around them because they cannot raise their eyes and just look! They are exactly like every single driver I have sat behind who is gripping the wheel, white knuckled, glancing nervously at the sat-nav whilst the beautiful Cornish countryside sweeps past unnoticed. They bicker with the person in the passenger seat who points out 'Uh...I think we just drove past the turning....oh, sorry, yes darling I know....we must have lost the GPS signal for a minute...' as somehow it is their fault for looking out of the window and seeing with their own eyes what is going on. They doubted the Sat-nav! How dare they!

Every single I time I see the same tired and boring arguments about nicotine being as 'addictive as heroin', that nicotine use is going to create cocaine addled monsters out of our children, that this is all 'straight out of the tobacco playbook', oh and 'flavours are only there to ensnare The Children' I am seeing people who cannot think for themselves. Indoctrinated and utterly lacking in the ability to function without someone else telling them what to think.

I do not have any sympathy for the drivers on these roads that make me late, double my journey times, cause tirades of expletives that make my children say 'Mum! You shouldn't swear' and worst of all, cause accidents every single year without fail. Blind people causing harm cos they are not looking where they are going!

That is every single Dr, Researcher, Scientist, Sociologist, whatever, who point blank refuses to see that the real world, real living people around them are doing something that their studies are not and cannot and will not show. In ignoring us, You Are Causing Harm.

And much like our white knuckled drivers, at some point that tractor IS going to drive right over your car...and we vapers will wave back at the crumpled remains of everything you thought you knew as we carry on our merry way. You know what else? There will be some of yours on board with us!

#notblowingsmoke

A Lesson In Manners.

Come in and sit down please.  Mister Furlow this is not the place for chewing gum; in my bin please then sit! Settle down at the back there, I know we are not long back from the holidays but it is straight into work mode. Now, I thought today we could talk about internet safety. There has been a lot in the news lately about how people behave online. Can anyone give me an example please? No shouting out, Fergus, and I do not expect to hear that kind of language! Yes, thank you Stefan, trolling. That is exactly what I wanted to look at today.

Let us start with the definition of an Internet Troll; I'll just pop it on the overhead projector here. Can you all see? Please do not make shadow rabbits with your hands Beki, thank you very much.

And we shall begin.

troll²

trəʊl,trɒl

verb

1. 1.

   make a deliberately offensive or provocative online posting with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them.

   "if people are obviously trolling then I'll delete your posts and do my best to ban you"
2. 2.

   carefully and systematically search an area for something.

   "a group of companies trolling for partnership opportunities"

   • fish by trailing a baited line along behind a boat.

     verb: troll; 3rd person present: trolls; past tense: trolled; past participle:trolled; gerund or present participle: trolling

     "we trolled for mackerel"
3. noun

noun: troll; plural noun: trolls

1. 1.

   a person who makes a deliberately offensive or provocative online posting.

   "one solution is to make a troll's postings invisible to the rest of community once they've been recognized"

   • a deliberately offensive or provocative online posting.
2. 2.

   a line or bait used in trolling for fish.

This is what we shall be talking about today; not those cute fluffy things from the 70's, Neil.

Are we all clear? On we go then.

As you can see, when we talk about internet trolls, we are talking about people who set out to deliberately upset and offend others. Provocative,  as is stated on the whiteboard. I shall tell you a story about a well known sports commentator who particularly liked rugby, but hated football. One day, he tweeted 'Football supporters are all morons and thugs #footy'. This is was not very nice and seemed quite out of the blue. The football supporters were happily ignoring said commentator until one happened to notice the tweet whilst searching the #footy hashtag. So what happened next?

No Joanne, they did NOT do that. Good grief girl, where do you get these things from?

Well, one football supporter told another football supporter. 'What?!' says supporter #2, 'That is ridiculous, I am going to tweet him and ask him why he said that.'

'Good idea' says supporter #1, 'I will too. I have never even spoken to him before and I'm a bit confused.'

So off they went, and tweeted their questions at the offending commentator. Now, this does not go down very well.The commentator (herein known as C) is very cross at being questioned. He says that football has a long history of hooliganism and violence.

'Yes, but that is nothing to do with me' says #1

'Quite,' retorts #2 'and football is changing; don't be so judgemental!'

'NO' says C 'Look at you, wearing your footy shirts, You look just like those who rioted throughout the 80's.'

C was starting to feel irked now.

'Hang on a minute mate, I think we have our wires crossed here. I like football, alright? But I'm not dangerous or violent,' a calm #1 replies.

'Yeah, how about we chat about this like adults?' says an increasingly irritated #2.

'No no NO! Look, a picture of a man in the street kicking another man. Wearing football shirts. It is quite clear!' C then blocked both supporters, before sending out another tweet about how vile and offensive Football supporters are and they are all ganging up on him. Poor him.

As you can imagine, #1 and #2 are more than a little put out at what just transpired, not to mention shocked. Football supporters have been making a real effort to change the image of the sport,  but guys like this were obviously hung up on the old days. Whilst #1 and #2 discuss the situation, supporter #3 notices C's last tweet; shocked, he retweets it so that his followers can see. Now, most of #3's followers are football fans. They are not very happy about this, so like #1 and #2, they try to address the situation. A few minutes later, C, after being the recipient of a number of tweets ranging from questioning and reasonable to outright anger and offence, blocks everyone that has said anything about football supporters being 'OK actually'. Not content with this, C then trawls through their feeds to find other people that need blocking.

To make sure that all his followers understand how positively horrible football supporters are, C sends out a tweet along the lines of 'My god! These footy fans are aggressive. I hope Blatter is paying them well! #AstroTurf' .

Things start to get a bit heated in the Supporters group. They've all been blocked, but don't really understand why. It was C that tweeted something unpleasant, they reacted. Yes it might not all have been perfect but yeesh, what is that guys problem? Then some of them notice other commentators retweeting and favouriting C's last tweet. #1 and #2 are furious! They have no idea who these ppl are and think it highly unlikely any of them have ever SPOKEN to a footy fan, yet now they are showering C with sympathy and support. And what the hell has Blatter to do with it? None of them particularly like him ANYway. They just want to watch football!

The supporters decided to keep an eye on C to see if they can figure out what the problem is. As time goes on, there are more and more tweets about them. Calling them all sorts of names. Screenshots of things they have said in conversation with one another. It is a bit frustrating, as the supporters cannot even contact C now, and hadn't been able to for ages. Then articles in the sports sections of news papers start to appear saying how awful supporters are - how vile and obviously paid for by Big Football.

'But we are not! We have nothing to do with  how football is run, we just love the sport! Why are you saying these things?'

But it is all falling on deaf ears I am afraid,  children. Well, kind of, C is still rooting through the supporters tweets; he then uses them to write more articles in papers, and then in secret sports magazines that  only commentators can access and respond to.

Oliver! Are you listening or are you passing notes to Neil? Face front!

I'm sorry to say that it just goes on and on like this. C continues to tweets inflammatory and dishonest things about football and it's supporters, calling them all sorts of names. Then C writes another article about how unreasonable football supporters (FS) are. The thing is, C is one of the old commentators; he has been around a long time and other commentators think he is just simply wonderful and is the reason they got into commentary themselves. Some of them ask who they need to block in case these football lunatics try to talk to them. Others start to tweet unpleasant things about FS and then are really really surprised when FS get rather cross with them. So they block them too. Even the ones that have never spoken a word about any of it. Well, you can't be too careful you see.

'How are they doing it? Why am I blocked by this person, I have never even heard of them before?' Say FS.
'There has to be a block list they are sharing!'
'Sounds a bit paranoid though. Doesn't it?'

It transpires that C had once been insulted by a footballer and had never quite gotten over it. Sorry what was that Sarah? What did he say? Well I am not sure it is important now as it wasn't a football supporter anyway. Speak up please Sarah...did he apologise for his mistake? Sadly no, no he didn't.

So we come to the end of the story to find that C and his friends are spending time and money on researching football supporters while FS point out that this money needs to be put into finding ways of making football an even better and fairer game. And worse, because of all the terrible things C and his friends have said, some commentators who ARE trying to improve The Beautiful Game, are being refused time and money to do so, and are coming under investigation themselves as they chose to speak with the supporters. C and his friends, though, are getting lots and lots of money to research just how awfully awful a game football actually is.

Unfortunately, in all of this, it was the modern football supporter than got labelled a troll. That really upset them, as I think it is clear to all of us who the troll was. Are you not sure? OK, one sec...

....here we go, I've underlined the important bit...

 1. make a deliberately offensive or provocative online posting with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them.

So, DAVID PUT THAT AWAY, who do we think the title of troll actually belongs to?

Before you decide, I have a confession to make. That commentator did not really exist, of course he didn't. He would not have his job for very long if he did, and with good reason too.

Oh but what....what is this? A man in Australia has written a whole article about internet trolls. It was an article about another article about internet trolls also written by himself. These are written by a man called Simon Chapman TTT CD BBM JVC. Uh, well no Andy, they are not real qualifications, I am afraid I can't recall the real ones.

Now, can someone tell me anything that they spot in the comments? OK ok, not all at once but yes, a lot have been deleted haven't they. What else do you notice? Yes, Mr Chapman does indeed mention a block list, just like our football supporters thought their commentator had.

He is very upset isn't he boys and girls. Yes Meg, In fact it is quite like my story, isn't it. Shall we have a look at some tweets and see how MUCH it is like my story? 

This tweet you see here was in response to Ms Jollye asking that Mr Chapman talk to the people he was being unpleasant about. That video you see there? That is of a news report that has a lady in the background and this is who he calling a 'winner'. No, it is not very nice is it, I agree.

Do you think that Mr Chapman had already blocked these Vaper people? Yes, he had. For a long time before this. So just like our football supporters, these Vapers were unable to respond or discuss these tweets with Mr Chapman.

Now this is a particularly interesting one. What do you notice here in the tweet he is talking about? Yes, Sarah, his name is not in that tweet, so what does that mean? It means the only way he could have seen it was by watching these vapers whilst he had them blocked. I agree Joanne, it is very creepy. He did something very naughty here too. He took this tweet out of context, which if you remember, means he was deliberately trying to make it look like something else. In fact, @CaeruleanSea and @FergusMason1 were having a joke and Mr Mason was challenged to swear his anger out of his system. It was not directed at anyone in particular. In doing this, Mr Chapman was trying to discredit Ms Jollye so that people would not take the letter she had written seriously.

I would like it if you did not tell your parents about the language in this tweet, but I feel it is part of an important lesson for you.

Is Mr Chapman taking the micky out of ppl with mental health issues? Unfortunately I think he is and again he is trying to insult these vapers. I think this is a particularly nasty one and I feel it is best to move on to the next.

I think this is fairly self explanatory, here is trying to pretend that these Vapers are not real people so all their feelings are just pretend. Do you see how somebody responds to say something negative about vaping? Indeed, David, just like the commentators friends did.

These are some examples of other people insulting the Vapers, even though they have, too, blocked them with little to no interaction. You can see in the last tweet, they even start to attack their own, trying to shame them into not supporting vapers by calling them Astroturf, ie they are not real. A quick question; do you any of you think they have any evidence of these Vapers being fake? No? Ok, lets move on.

Here is a funny one, you see Mr Collard there says something mean to Mr Chapman? Well, Mr Chapman is trying to use this to justify how he has treated Vapers. Unfortunately, Mr Chapman failed to realise that Mr Collard was, and still is, a smoker, not a vaper at all. Vapers did try to tell him this, but of course, they have no way of doing so.

I have left this next tweet until last as I think it shows just how unpleasant Mr Chapman has become.

Can anyone tell me what a quisling is? I will give you a hint, but this is your homework. It is to do with Hitler.

So,what have we learned from all this? If this happened in this classroom, what would we call it? Bullying, yes. And if the bully refused to learn his behaviour was naughty? He would probably be taken out of school, yes Beki. No, Mr Chapman did not get told off. In fact, just like in our story, all his friends are joining in now. On second thoughts, I will let you see two more; these are very recent and they show perfectly that Mr Chapman has no intention of stopping his behaviour. Some might even say he is emboldened.

Who wants to tell me who the troll is here then? OK OK not all at once, but I get the message. Mr Chapman is the troll as per the definition.

So what should we do with Mr Chapman, David? Very wise, we should ignore him. Lorien, he might be a silly little man but I'd like you not to shout out. When we go onto the internet, we must behave as we would in this classroom, or in a job. It is sad that some adults do not understand this but then maybe they are just as mean and unpleasant in real life? I agree with you Peter, I would not like to be friends with them either. We all know about bullies and how easy it is for weak people to try and be their friend. Bullies want attention, it makes them feel special.

OK, well done class. Thank you for listening so well. Just remember these tweets as they might come in handy in the future. There is the bell, off to the playground with you all. CHRISTIE AND PUDDLECOTE! I can see what you have got there and we talked about the hamster and the slide last year didn't we. Oh I am sure he just loves it but back in the cage please. Out out out, all of you!

Voices From The Street.

So, I spent some time wondering how best to deal with what has happened this week. What is the best thing to do? How should I react? Should I write a letter? Should I throw all my toys out of the pram? Should I scream and scream and scream until I get what I want (it didn't work for the Gin Advent Calendar!)?

What am I talking about? Well, a little while ago I wrote to the Lancet after reading yet another defence of John Ashton. My letter was abridged (with consultation) and then published. "YAY" we all said, "haven't we done well". Well, no, it seems.

This week we saw a response to my letter. I admit to being surprised, especially as to the people that chose to respond. Profs Martin McKee, Simon Chapman, Stanton Glantz and Mike Daube. I was even more surprised at the content of their response.

But first, I feel it is important I set out my conflicts of interest, being as these seem to be under question for all of us, all of the time.

COI -

My name is Lorien Faenor (stfu) Jollye. I am 36 years old, being born on the 30th day of the 6th month in the year 1978.

That's me *waves*

Between Easter and the end of October I am a waitress in a restaurant in a North Cornwall fishing village. The rest of the year I am just skint. All the time, I am a mother of three boys aged 13, 7 and 5. I have a (vaping, ex-smoker) husband, ancient and smelly border collie called Ash, and even more ancienter and smellier, one eyed cat called Raistlin.

Black cats really are crap in photos

To my knowledge, none of these are involved with the tobacco, e-cig or pharmaceutical industry. (Although I will say, my 7yo is seriously smart and sometimes I would not put anything past him!) I have been to various conferences, to which my travel and hotel (if needed) has been paid for by the organising body or by ECCA/NNA. None of this has been tobacco money. I have never benefited financially, in fact, these things ALWAYS cost me personally, because that gin on the sleeper train does not come for free (sadly) and neither does any food outside of the conference itself. There is a word for those expenses but I don't even know what it is, as I have never claimed it.

Incredibly, although that particular COI might be lengthy and unnecessary, the authors of the response letter were able to claim no conflicts whatsoever. Amazing.

I digress.

There are important points raised in this letter and I would like any reader of this to click this link, and familiarise yourself with it's content.

All done? Excellent.

So why am I not responding to the article via the Lancet? A few reasons actually, A) I would be restricted to 300 words and that is nigh on impossible, B) I don't actually think the editor of the Lancet would allow me the space again and C) this needs to come off of social media and journals and into the real world. So I am going to try and make that happen instead.

Dear Professors Mckee, Chapman, Glantz and Daube,

Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedules to respond to my letter in the Lancet. I am almost flattered that you felt moved enough to write a reply. There are a few things I would like to address. Firstly, it is important to understand that I refer only to 'a part' of public health and tobacco control. I have learnt, in the past two years, that it makes no sense to write people off from the start. Whatever it is that they start by saying, is not enough to say 'well that's THAT then, shan't bother with THEM anymore'. As such, there are a good many in your fields of expertise who we are comfortable talking with and they with us. Even more important to note, is that we do not always see eye to eye with these people, but we do respect the ability to think outside of the well constructed box they have been existing in for most of their working lives.

Social media. Oh it is a funny thing isn't it. I admit to being relatively new to it myself, having only got involved in it again because of my advocacy. It allows instant reactions and responses. Sometimes, those responses are raw and unedited. It has certainly allowed us to talk to one another freely and openly. You could say that many of us wear our hearts on our sleeves when it comes to Twitter. As a result of this, I understand that you have been the recipients of many unadulterated reactions to things you might have said or written. In relation to this, I would like to tell you about something that happened to me in my old job, working behind a bar.

I have worked behind bars or as a waitress since I was about 15, so I am well versed with how people can behave when they are drunk or in groups. I am quite hardened to it in fact. However, on one occasion a few years ago, I was behind the bar by myself, on a friday afternoon as the 'just finished work, not going home yet' brigade came in. Three delightful fellows were sat at the bar, quite merry from their consumption of lager, when they started to make crude comments at me. Now, I am used to this, it comes with the territory of bar work. I deal with it, I move on. Except this time it was aggressive and threatening. They were making demands of me and were leaning over the bar to grab at my breasts. I genuinely felt threatened. In the end, I walked out from the bar into the adjoining corridor beside the hotel reception area (leaving the bar unmanned) and very loudly stated that in no uncertain terms was I serving those 'f*cking C*nts' and that I'd had enough. (Little did I know that a well to-do, diminutive old lady in reception, heard every word of my tirade at the bar manager and very sweetly said 'no dear and you shouldn't have to!'). However, to this date, I have managed to make and maintain many relationships with men, without tarring and feathering them based on the behaviour of these morons.

Now, I have just written that out and realised it does not work as an analogy as THOSE 'men' were out of order, in any world. Although you might not like a lot of what is said to you on social media, these are just the raw reactions of human beings. People who genuinely believe in what they are talking about and are very frustrated. I cannot control how people react, nor what they say or do. Even what pictures they send to you, (I should say at this point I have NO idea about any 'noose' picture). I understand if you might object to an individual or two, but however uncomfortable it makes you, we are the public. It is as simple as that. If we are speaking to you, then it would probably be wise to listen. Certainly you would call me churlish if my extreme example above caused me to ignore all men, forever. You would be right too. I know it is hard to get over being insulted sometimes, but I would ask you to work on it, as there are dividends to be paid. Paid, being something none of the people who are tweeting you are.

Indeed there was an event held on the Tobacco Endgame at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, hosted by one of yourselves. Indeed I did not attend, largely as it was not about e-cigs, after all, I am not fighting the tobacco companies (frankly I couldn't care less about them other than feel contempt for their behaviour in trying to restrict the market to the e-cigs they sell). However, three friends of mine did. I am confused by the accusations of  nasty tweets from the event, and I would point you to this blog which, handily, has the tweets from the two people whose phones were working. Now, I am not a member of Public Health or Tobacco control, but my assumption would be that you have rather thicker skins than I do, what with having more criticisms leveled at you than I am ever likely to experience. I'm not wholly sure that these tweets fit in with what you imply. Maybe there are some I missed? I shall say though, that anyone involved in advocacy of any description, is reasonable enough to know that hijacking a talk that ISN'T about their subject matter would be a little childish, silly and impolite. However, the E-cigarette summit has been held for the past two years at the Royal Society and I admit to having seen none of you there. Nor did I see you at the Global Forum on Nicotine in Warsaw. For that matter, I don't think you were at UKNSCC in June. I did see one of your number at the PHE e-cig event earlier in the year, but the attendee seemed distracted by attacking Anne McNeill than interacting with us. An informative day nonetheless.

More and more there are vapers attending many PH and TC events and we would dearly like to see you there, your presence has been sadly lacking until now. In fact, there will be a second Global Forum on Nicotine in June next year, it would be a great opportunity to engage with both sides of the argument and have a natter with those whose opinions differ from yours. As many others in PH and TC (even politics) will tell you, there is nothing to fear and everything to gain. Most importantly, we do not bite :)

If I may be so bold, there are many of us who would like to sit with you in a given place and talk this situation through. I know this offer has been made before, but I understand that it might have been lost in all the other requests from other groups involved in harm reduction. So let me take a moment to ask you again; Would you make time to sit with any of us and chew over the cud before it loses its flavour and this opportunity is lost to all?

My penultimate point is that I must thank you for your recognition of the impact of our 'campaign', though I fear it is far less organised than you think it is. Unfortunately, I think the situation for the average smoker is now less clear than it has ever been. Indeed, it would appear that many now perceive vaping to be as, if not more (10x more!) dangerous than smoking. I feel sure that if nothing else, we can agree that this is a tragedy for smokers and their friends and family, if people who were interested in switching have now decided against it and are continuing to smoke instead. Please forgive me for assuming on your part, but I am certain that this is not something you are happy to see happening. I understand that the health of the public is paramount to you, and the chance for so many to improve it with such a small change can only be something you have dreamed of your entire professional lives.

Finally, yes the debate has moved on and this is something that should be celebrated. It is widely acknowledged that the current measures are not reaching smokers as frankly, they are not interested. How wonderful indeed then, that something has appeared that smokers ARE interested in and is not costing the state a single penny. How best to proceed? Who knows, but certainly engaging with those who understand, as smokers, what this means would be the very best place to start.

Thank you again for your reply, and I look forward to hearing from you with details on how this discussion can be continued in a constructive and adult manner.

Sincerely,
Lorien Jollye.


Thus ends my response, I shall email a link directly  to Messrs McKee, Chapman, Glantz and Daube, thanks to their emails being available here.

Now, let's wait and see what happens next.

UPDATE 23/12/14: 

You will all be surprised to learn I have heard nothing & no invitation to meet has been forthcoming. 

UPDATE 1/1/15

Starting as I assume they will continue throughout 2015, there has been no reply. 

The Trouble With Bubbles

Something has been bugging me for a while and I have been meaning to sit and write about it for as long. What do I want from all of this? What do I hope the outcome will be? What do I hope to achieve?

I say "I" in those questions because I can only speak for myself with absolute certainty, but I know there are others who think the same way. I hope this blog makes you ask yourself the same question. It is amazing how you assume you know your own answers, but sometimes it is worth thinking things through just to make sure. It also helps to keep you on track with your message and the things you say. All shall become clear...

Firstly, my questions do not have anything to do with "what legislation do we want?" or "what do we want vaping to look like in  5 years?", although they are very valid questions, it is not what this is about. I wanted to know what effect I want our movement to have on society, namely Public Health and Tobacco Control, and it's attitude towards smokers.Whether you like it or not, or even realise it, what we are trying to do has far wider implications than just whether or not we can vape in the pub. It is more than whether we are taxed for our habit or whether teens are taking up e-cigs in huge numbers (one day I WILL get round to writing my thoughts on teens and e-cigs!).

Put all those things aside for a second and think of it like this - if we get PH and TC to acknowledge e-cigs and vaping, what does this mean?

It is no secret that I have a big issue with the way smokers are treated by these two groups at the moment. Not all of it, but certainly a large part of it. I resent and reject the bullying and the attacks. I despise the social engineering that has turned the non-smoker and ex-smoker against those that still smoke. I hate it with every fibre of my being. However, does that mean I wish to see the abolition of tax funded support for smokers who want guidance and advice? No, actually it doesn't. I know this might come as a surprise to some, so let me explain why.

Many people reading this blog will be the smokers or vapers that did not really want help in a structured sense. Many of you will have tried it and ultimately "failed", for many reasons. Overall, only about 8% of smokers actually attend cessation services at all. Do I think they are value for money when our NHS is about to crumble into the ocean? No I do not. HOWEVER, smokers have paid more than enough into the system to have any damn service they want, fully funded. To my mind, if even only a tiny fraction of smokers WANT the support an SSS offers, then they should be able to have it. So do I LIKE the SSS? No. No I do not. Why? Ha, let's have a looksie shall we?

Bit of playground bully banter...

Just in case you hadn't heard this stuff, let us ram it down your throat some more.

Oh you grim, dirty smokers, we can see you with your discoloured digits. The badge of shame you must carry.

Oh look how ugly you all are. You stink too! Did we mention that already?

Well just in case we didn't. You stink.

And you're ugly.

Ok ok, so maybe I should have trawled other SSS twitter accounts to balance it out a bit, but a) why bother when these guys give so freely with their nastiness and b) I couldn't be bothered, we all know there are many that work in the same way. Oh oh oh wait, I forgot my personal favourite, sadly deleted, but preserved for all posterity by the wonder that is "screenshot",

I have nothing.

Before we move on, I follow a few of these accounts on twitter and there ARE exceptions, services that are (largely) respectful and non threatening. They avoid using the Q word and never resort to the above tactics. They come across as welcoming and inclusive. What I imagine the word "support" to mean. "We'd like to help" rather than "You are such a hopeless, foul mess that you NEED our help". Had I not spent time with and learned from Louise Ross, put aside some of my own prejudices and actually listened, I would not have noticed the difference. It has definitely forced me to look at the potential of SSS in a new light. Make no mistake though, at the moment, most of them are miserable bloody failures and a lot of these people have no idea what they have been a part of or what is happening to smokers on the ground.

Anyway, these examples got me thinking, would we tolerate this - 

No we wouldn't, of course we wouldn't. Neither would we if these were drug support services. Please don't think for a second that I think smoking, alcoholism or drug addiction are comparable, I don't, but these services put them in the same bracket from a PH point of view. So, I asked Twitter for some drug and alcohol accounts (UK based) that do offer these services so I could compare. I don't really want to add lots of pictures here because somehow it feels disrespectful, but none of them use the same tactics as most of the smoking cessation ones do. Why? I am guessing, that at some point, people realised that bullying is NOT how you reach out to your target audience. It is not how you create a safe environment for those who choose to come to you. It is NOT how you behave if you are building a service to genuinely help people, not use it as an excuse to spread more hate and distaste throughout the public. 

Winnie the Pooh and Piglet did not spend years teaching the friends and family of the Heffalump to despise him, till eventually his own children dragged him to the hole WtP and P had dug and pushed him in kicking and screaming because they decided he wanted honey! No, a hole was dug, the honey placed at the bottom and if the Heffalump wanted it, he could go in and get it; if not, he carried on his merry way to find honey in his own sweet time. If he wanted it at all.

Now, I know there are going to be quite a few who have got to this point and are positively bellowing at the screen "WE KNOW THIS!! We have been saying it for YEARS!!". Yes, yes I know. Just let me finish...

So where do e-cigs fit into all this? Well, they have proved one thing. One simple thing. The fact that so many are using them, without any pressure, without any bullying proves that bullying does not work. Again, yes, we know this, you can stop swearing at the screen now!

Until e-cigs really kicked off, Tobacco Control and Public Health lived in a little bubble. No one really questioned them, no one held them accountable. There wasn't a product that would force the situation like this has. Smokers did not have a genuine choice. You smoked, or you were medicated. If you tried to Q and didn't succeed, you were a failure. You would have to tell all your friends and family that you were a miserable bloody failure, again. Shamefaced and humiliated, full of promises of "next time". Never really being allowed to say "You know what, I like this thank you very much". There wasn't anything to replace it with. The Now is a very different place.

If TC and PH accept e-cigarettes, if SSS country-wide are allowed to sell the concept of vaping to smokers that walk through their doors, if the stigma is removed from nicotine and the stupid comparisons to drug addicts, what does that mean? It means that everything has to change. Everything. You cannot embrace e-cigs and harm reduction for smokers whilst continuing on the same path. We are going to get to a point where they are going to have to make it clear. Are they guided by the health of smokers? Or are they guided by pure, unadulterated, all consuming loathing of the tobacco industry? As more and more data comes in and we can compare countries that have and have not banned or restricted vaping, their position gets more and more difficult.

Am I being overly optimistic? Possibly. But as we watch bans and hysteria across the planet, in the UK we are doing alright! Glantz called us an experiment, and it is one of the few things he has been right about.

So here is the thing, the trouble with bubbles is that, eventually, they burst. It is my sincere hope that it is not a pin, but an e-cig that bursts this one. What a wonderful side effect to come from this battle we are fighting.

Clipped, but published.

The reason I am blogging this is not for the same reason as the BMJ letter entry. This time, my letter has been published in the Lancet, albeit abridged. That is why I wanted to put up the complete text that I sent. The shorter, published, version can be found here.

I should say that the editing was not done without my input and they were very patient and helpful.

----

What a peculiar situation I find myself in. At the end of 2012, not long after starting vaping after 23yrs of smoking, I realised that things were being grossly misunderstood about what ecigs could offer to smokers. Very naively I, and others, thought we could explain to politicians & Public Health where they were going wrong with what the TPD was trying to achieve. Within months, we learnt what 'AstroTurf' meant, as an Irish MEP informed the press that this is what we were. Why? Because we knew too much.

I was shocked! It seemed so obvious that we were normal people trying to dispel fears & misconceptions with experience & knowledge. Things have gotten significantly worse since then. We have struggled to get the ear of the very people who are advising Government, WHO & the public. We have been insulted or ignored, often both, and in a shockingly aggressive way. And why? I genuinely could not say. We are not an organised group, we are not funded, we act as individuals but have the same cause. The sense of frustration is palpable among us & I for one am horrified by the accusations of being shills & stooges. We are told our accounts are not real, our stories are fake. No matter how polite or constructive we are, some of the most influential & media savvy in PH will instantly bemoan the 'trolling' they are having to endure, which closes doors to people we have never even spoken to. 

When finally we had enough of the bullying & untruths from articles written behind paywalls, public comments about us & at us on social media, we complain to an authority about the extreme behaviour we experienced on Twitter. We are informed of the complaints procedure & told to wait 30 days for a resolution. Then we watch while elements of Public Health stepped up what feels like a campaign to humiliate us further in blaming us for the behaviour of their peers. More articles, more opinion pieces appear. Somehow, we deserved the insults, we bought it upon ourselves. We are unreasonable & silly for expecting to have a say in what's happening with our lives. Decisions are being made about us, but definitely without us.

To finally see the Faculty of Public Health support their president John Ashton, before conclusion of the investigation, without even being asked to further explain our experience is disgusting. It would appear most of you are not even aware of what happened. I ask you all to reflect deeply on who it is you represent, who you are charged with protecting.  Well it's me, and millions of others like me, yet you insulted & ignored me, then when I complained you blamed me.

UPDATE - Thanks to four particularly vocal Anti E-cig Activists responding to my letter, I have written a second letter, here. 

The Right To Reply: or not, as it happens.

Below are responses written to the tenacious, indefatigable even, Martin McKee who has penned yet another scathing, sneering and downright offensive attack on those that have the bare faced cheek to disagree with him. How irritating it must be to know that there are folk that keep pointing out that what you spout to the media is complete and utter nonsense. Seemingly he has nothing better to d....what was that? Ebola you say?

I fail to understand why journals like the BMJ are giving space to unsubstantiated accusations on members of the public. It is also infuriating beyond WORDS to see the sycophants on Twitter, blindly retweeting McKee's article without question of its validity.  

Anyway, these have been submitted to the BMJ in the correct manner, and only appear here as the journal in question has seen fit to disallow these comments about not being allowed to.. Uh.. Comment...so.. yeah.. 

Submitted by me on 9/10/14

Almost a year to the day[1], here I am writing to defend myself and other honest vapers from the same inflammatory outpourings from the same people. What has been learned in that time by those in the very elite of Public Health? Sadly, it appears to be nothing. For the second day in a row, we are subjected to yet another unsubstantiated and unwarranted attack. These continuous and relentless accusations emanating from the upper echelons of those charged with the protection of our health, ceased to be a curiosity a long time ago. We have tried, relentlessly yes, to talk to and deal with the very people who proclaim to all that will listen that we are either Trolls (the definition[2] of which does not actually apply here) or paid industry stooges (be that Tobacco or E-cig). Now we have the added definitions of ‘extreme libertarians’ or ‘deeply troubled individuals’.

Let me be clear. I am not a paid stooge for ANY industry nor am I a Troll. I say this also for the people that I speak to on a daily basis. I would not even call myself a libertarian let alone an extreme one, though I fail to see why that would be an issue; indeed Mckee rather eloquently made the case for them himself.  Am I a troubled individual? Well, yes actually, but certainly not in the ‘unhinged’ manner which Martin implies. I am troubled by the fact that no matter what we do, what we say, we are totally unable to defend against these accusations and still they persist. In fact, given how often we have tried to refute them, I consider them now to be nothing more than lies, constructed in order to make e-cig advocates so very toxic that we are as likely to be spoken to as a tobacco industry member. I am troubled because far from this idea that the use of the ‘block’ button being as a RESULT of contact we have made, it has often been used BEFORE we have been able to say a word. In fact, the author of this smear piece has been un-contactable for more than a year.  As have some of the people I expect to see respond to this article. Yet somehow we are deemed to still be attacking them (challenging their opinion or asking questions), to such a degree that it warrants repeated opinion pieces being published, often behind paywalls so that we are unable to see.

I am troubled as this feels like we are being bullied by people who are untouchable and unreachable yet have absolute authority and the assumed respect of their peers, the media and the public. What are we, unpaid volunteer advocates or lay vapers, supposed to do in the face of this adversity[3]? If there is indeed proof of astroturfing, then I strongly and passionately request that this be made public immediately as we would be as concerned and upset (if not more) as Martin McKee and his ilk are. As yet, despite repeated requests for this evidence, we have seen nothing.

This debacle is serving only to muddy the waters, delay sensible regulation and, worse, create fear and uncertainty in smokers who would otherwise have chosen harm reduction as their route out of tobacco. In truth, the last of these things is the one that should cause the most consternation in anyone who is genuinely interested in the health and wellbeing of smokers. The greatest irony being that the entire movement is in danger of being handed to the tobacco industry through the fear of their involvement in, what appears to be, the least effective part of the market. In the long run, the attention being paid to unjustified scrutiny of us e-cig users, unsupported theories of gateways and gross lack of understanding of the role of flavours, will make cannon fodder of smokers in your war against the tobacco industry. A war we want no part of. Whilst you gaze at your navels contemplating hypothetical fears, millions of smokers have made the decision themselves to choose harm reduction. 

The big question is; how many didn’t as a result of this relentless scaremongering?

---

[1] Full response to the first McKee BMJ article 27.9.13 http://oxle.com/topic.asp?tid=6459

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

[3] Further reading on why Vapers are angry http://www.theindefatigablefrog.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/the-indefatigable-frog-or-why-this-wont.html

Submitted by Sarah Jakes on the 8/10/14

This is the second article [1] I have read today in which McKee attempts to conflate the e-cigarette industry, libertarian bloggers and angry e-cigarette consumers (vapers) in an attempt to paint the latter group as an astroturf organisation in the pay of either big tobacco or big vapour, which of course to his mind are one and the same thing. Is it any wonder that people who do not have the luxury of being published in prestigious journals such as this get even more angry when being maligned in one?

Either McKee does not understand the public he purports to protect or his comments are disingenuous in the extreme. I know that McKee has read Clive Bates' blog article entitled 'Memo to public health grandees: vaping, vapers and you' [2] which attracted 111 positive comments from consumers and is the most read and shared article on the Counterfactual site. I personally asked McKee to read that article because Bates has absolutely nailed the thoughts and feelings of vapers on the head, as is evident from the comments. My request to McKee to read it was a genuine attempt to create some understanding between our two sides. He confirmed that he'd read it, but the message appears to have fallen on deaf ears. 

McKee is completely entrenched and out of touch. He is of course free to disagree with Bates' article, but cannot deny the fact that it has the widespread support of the very people who are its subject. McKee has himself researched a member of the public and indeed uncovered the shocking fact that one Twitter user (who uses his own name and very colourful language) is a freelance writer who sometimes gets paid to write positive articles about e-cigarettes. If he'd researched further he may also have found that this is common knowledge, as is the fact that the person is a British ex soldier with several tours of duty under his belt, which probably explains the liberal use of creative profanities. One, sometimes foul mouthed, squaddie with a genuinely held belief that public health will kill people doth not an astroturf lobby make.

There appears to be a concerted effort by some in public health to deliberately make false associations between a genuine grass roots consumer campaign and organisations with commercial interests, the more malign the better. This of course serves two purposes, firstly, it undermines the voice and views of the public by instilling  the false belief that their views are paid for rather than their own. Secondly, it allows those in public health who are apparently unable to control their own behaviour to keep their jobs due to "mitigating circumstances" - those circumstances presumably being that they were baited into calling members of the public "c**ts" and "onanists" by industry shills with agendas [3]. 

One thing is for sure - if McKee and others continue to provoke vapers with false accusations whilst failing to engage with them on the issues which are important to them, the relationship between the two sides is only going to get worse, and PH will only have themselves to blame. If your job is public health and you find that the public are angry with you then you really should be asking yourself a question - and here's a clue - it's not "who is paying them".

[1] Martin McKee - Peering through the Smokescreen http://pmj.bmj.com/content/early/2014/10/07/postgradmedj-2014-133029.extract

[2] Clive Bates - The Counterfactual - 'Memo to public health grandees: vaping, vapers and you' http://www.clivebates.com/?p=2391

[3] The Times - E-Cigarette debate Heats up in online War of Words http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/science/article4200758.ece

Statement from the Faculty of Public Health (now removed from the site):  "The Board has registered its strong disapproval of Professor Ashton’s comments, whilst noting the mitigating circumstances. The Board also agreed that Professor Ashton should continue in his role as President and has given clear direction on the necessary steps to support his return"