Hello all, News24 recently published the results of a public poll that was conducted by Milward Brown on tobacco harm reduction. Original article here.
While the results of the poll are encouraging to vapers, the poll was funded by Philip Morris. And it shows in the poll findings. Let's take some examples.
Sure. But are heated tobacco products the best/most popular harm reduction product?
What is the support for reduced-risk product development by non-tobacco companies?
What is the response about non-tobacco companies' role in harm reduction?
One can understand that Philip Morris was more interested in public perceptions about their company and their products than vaping companies and products. They funded the study, they can structure it any way they like. But, in the public's mind, it does create the perception that vaping = big tobacco and that harm reduction is being driven by big tobacco. While that is partly true, it's not the whole truth and it doesn't mention the significant role that non-tobacco (i.e. vaping) companies are playing in harm reduction.
It's why I always say that it is pointless for the vaping community to try and distance itself from big tobacco, or persuade the public that vaping is completely different from big tobacco. The perception of the non-smoking public is shaped by articles and studies like this, so they are never going to appreciate the fine distinction between the vaping gear we use and the cigalikes or heated tobacco products sold by big tobacco. In their mind, e-cigarettes = big tobacco.
The vaping industry needs alternative studies to counter this perception. But where does the funding come from? It is largely a PR war and tobacco's bottomless coffers are allowing them to dictate terms. That, in turn, fuels skepticism about vaping. Big tobacco lied about the health implications of their products before. The assumption is that they will lie again and the whole of vaping gets tarnished by that. It also fuels the belief that vaping is just big tobacco's way of keeping the populace hooked on nicotine. Without a significant injection of PR funding, it's hard to see how vaping is going to counter this. For the foreseeable future, we are deemed to be in bed with big tobacco.
Still, let's look on the bright side: the vast majority of voters have rejected the "ban everything that contains nicotine" approach and understand that harm reduction has a key role to play. That is, of course, if the published results are true. I dunno but the attitudes in the poll seem suspiciously open-minded compared to what I have heard from the general public. 79% of people think vaping should be allowed in places where smoking is banned? Really?? So 4 out of 5 non-smoking open-plan office workers would have no objection if colleagues were allowed to vape in the office? I find that a bit hard to believe tbh. Anyway, it is what it is.
While the results of the poll are encouraging to vapers, the poll was funded by Philip Morris. And it shows in the poll findings. Let's take some examples.
Sure. But are heated tobacco products the best/most popular harm reduction product?
What is the support for reduced-risk product development by non-tobacco companies?
What is the response about non-tobacco companies' role in harm reduction?
One can understand that Philip Morris was more interested in public perceptions about their company and their products than vaping companies and products. They funded the study, they can structure it any way they like. But, in the public's mind, it does create the perception that vaping = big tobacco and that harm reduction is being driven by big tobacco. While that is partly true, it's not the whole truth and it doesn't mention the significant role that non-tobacco (i.e. vaping) companies are playing in harm reduction.
It's why I always say that it is pointless for the vaping community to try and distance itself from big tobacco, or persuade the public that vaping is completely different from big tobacco. The perception of the non-smoking public is shaped by articles and studies like this, so they are never going to appreciate the fine distinction between the vaping gear we use and the cigalikes or heated tobacco products sold by big tobacco. In their mind, e-cigarettes = big tobacco.
The vaping industry needs alternative studies to counter this perception. But where does the funding come from? It is largely a PR war and tobacco's bottomless coffers are allowing them to dictate terms. That, in turn, fuels skepticism about vaping. Big tobacco lied about the health implications of their products before. The assumption is that they will lie again and the whole of vaping gets tarnished by that. It also fuels the belief that vaping is just big tobacco's way of keeping the populace hooked on nicotine. Without a significant injection of PR funding, it's hard to see how vaping is going to counter this. For the foreseeable future, we are deemed to be in bed with big tobacco.
Still, let's look on the bright side: the vast majority of voters have rejected the "ban everything that contains nicotine" approach and understand that harm reduction has a key role to play. That is, of course, if the published results are true. I dunno but the attitudes in the poll seem suspiciously open-minded compared to what I have heard from the general public. 79% of people think vaping should be allowed in places where smoking is banned? Really?? So 4 out of 5 non-smoking open-plan office workers would have no objection if colleagues were allowed to vape in the office? I find that a bit hard to believe tbh. Anyway, it is what it is.
