Introduction


May 31 is World No Tobacco Day. This event, created in 1987 by the WHO, celebrates a different theme each year. So far, topics such as "Tobacco and poverty", "Tobacco-free sport", "Tobacco and gender" and many others have been covered. 2020’s theme is childhood. A golden opportunity for the WHO to advocate against vaping once again.

This is not the organization’s first attempt. You’ll find a short recap of the facts below.
This year, the organization has made a big impact by putting downloadable visuals online on its website so that they can be relayed as much as possible on social medias.
We’ve selected a few : watch out, they’re quite shocking !

Amalgam between tobacco and vape


Once again, we have here a great amalgam between tobacco and vape. Reminder : what do they have in common ? Nicotine (which is not harmful in the quantity used by vapers, and not even necessarily present in all products). Their main difference ? The harmfulness induced by the combustion of a plant in the traditional cigarette that emits, among other things, tar and carbon monoxide !

Vaping is now scientifically recognized as being 95% less harmful than cigarettes and twice as effective as nicotine substitutes for quitting smoking. Why ? Because it allows to keep the gestures and habits of smoking and ensure a sufficient intake of nicotine, without having to suffer the effects of combustion. We can never say it enough, there is no tobacco in vaping products. So why continue to assimilate vaping with tobacco and the #TobaccoExposed ?

How is it possible to put a product that is far less harmful, that allows you to get rid of your addiction to a highly toxic product, in the same basket as the latter ?

oms vape ecigarette

Why this relentlessness ?


Anti-vape activists see vaping as a tobacco industry strategy to acquire younger consumers.
In fact, the visuals created for the occasion by the WHO speak for themselves :


An 8-year-old kid, maybe 9, with a box in her hand, seriously ????

There are two things to remember here :

  • What does the WHO do about the independent vape industry ? Globally, the link between the tobacco industry and vaping is made very frequently. However, let’s remember that the pioneers in vaping were in no way linked to the tobacco industry. Quite the opposite ! Their objective was to fight it !
    And even today, the vast majority of vape manufacturers and retailers are specialized vapeshops that are not associated with it at all. Yes, the major tobacco companies have launched their vape product lines. Logically, they’ve seen their tobacco sales drop with the growing success of vaping. The only solution to avoid losing their customers was of course to penetrate this market. But let's keep in mind that they represent an overwhelming minority of the vaping products available on the market.
  • Once again the WHO is using the famous "gateway effect". This theory according to which vaping would be a gateway to smoking.
    To date, more and more studies tend to prove the opposite. Not only would vaping not lead to smoking, but also countries that have seen an increase in the number of vapers have seen a significant drop in smoking rates. And this is especially true in younger populations. (You’ll find more information in this article).



How the WHO has been trying to stifle vaping for a long time


Over the past year, the WHO has been particularly virulent in its fight.

Indeed, July 26, 2019 a damning report hammered that "the electronic cigarette is undeniably harmful". Let’s take this opportunity to remind you that the WHO is heavily funded (including this report) by Bloomberg Philantropies, a foundation created by U.S. billionaire Michael R. Bloomberg, a former candidate for the Democratic nomination for the American elections and known for his anti-vape positions.
The WHO went as far as to welcome the fact that India has banned electronic cigarettes on its advice. A country home to 275 million smokers over 15, representing 35% of the population, and whose tobacco leaf plantations are, of course, partly state-owned. What could be wrong with this picture ?

Luck or bad coincidence ? A few days later, a wave hit the world of vaping accusing it of having caused the death of several people in the United States. These facts were later denied by the authorities themselves, the real culprits being adulterated liquids, bought on the black market, containing THC and vitamin e acetate. (For more information, you’ll find our article on the subject here).

Fancy a little more ?
In January 2020, the WHO published a Q&A. Many topics were addressed, with many aberrations, such as the confusion between propylene glycol and ethylene glycol implying that vapers were inhaling antifreeze.
We’d like to remind you that even as we were writing an article on the subject, we noticed that several answers had suddenly disappeared or had been discreetly changed. What a great example of the seriousness and transparency of this organization… publishing, alerting the press, but never refuting anything !

These two events weighed heavily on the vape industry. And unfortunately, the mass media hysteria around the world had a far greater impact on the public than the advocates of the industry. The image of this harm reduction product has taken a nasty hit with the public. As a result, many vapers have taken up smoking again, which we very much regret.

What the WHO tends to forget in this relentless fight is that a ban or over-regulation of vape products will inevitably lead to an increase in the number of smokers and would not only support the tobacco industry, but would also go against its fight against smoking.

Chronology of a WHO-led anti-vaping battle


2012 : First WHO report suggesting a ban on vaping, as it would be a gateway to smoking.

2013 : New report advising against vaping

2014 : The organization continues to study the electronic cigarette, pointing out that its emissions contain "chemicals that may be considered toxic".

2015 : In its report "The Global Tobacco Epidemic 2015", the organisation continues to encourage governments to "consider regulating or even banning flavoured liquids" and recommends that they limit or ban the promotion of these devices.

2016 : A new WHO report was published for the COP7. Once again, the gateway effect theory, pulmonary risks and other fantasies were put forward. During the event, the WHO also called on the parties present "who have not yet banned the importation, sale and distribution of vaping devises (...) to consider either their prohibition or their regulation".

2018 : Holding the eighth edition of the COP8, described by the WHO as a gathering during which "tobacco control takes centre stage". The words "electronic cigarettes" or "vaping" were not mentioned once.

2019 : Publication of a new WHO report in which the organization explains that despite "a thorough review of the available data on electronic cigarettes," there is not enough "evidence" to confirm that vaping is less harmful than smoking.
The same year, the World Health Organization welcomed India's ban on vaping, a country that has more than a million people dying each year from tobacco use.

2020 : Publication of a Q&A in which the WHO insinuates that vaping can be more dangerous than smoking. Gateway effect, passive vaping, antifreeze, adolescent addiction and prohibition of vaping are also on the agenda.

So, yes, vaping has only been around for 15 years and there are only 10 years of scientific studies. But still 10 years and the results keep on being more and more positive. Perhaps the WHO should have a study about the 40 million vapers in the world that have managed to reduce or stop smoking. We’ll let you be the judge of that...

Conclusion


The WHO has been actively campaigning against vaping for several years. This year, on World No Tobacco Day, the WHO has decided to take an increasingly virulent approach of insinuating that the vape industry is targeting young people as future consumers of traditional cigarettes. They are putting smoking and vaping in the same basket. They also refer to the gateway effect, even though more and more studies tend to prove the opposite effect.

Thank you for reading.

The Sweetch team