A headline in today’s online BBC news (so it must be true) announces ‘E-cigarettes: cross-party group of MPs launches inquiry.’

The main point of this exercise is to try and fill the ‘significant gaps’ in what is known about e-cigarettes including how effective they are as a stop smoking tool and how they are (or should be) regulated. But it’s curious that these ideas are put forward as a reason for an inquiry – because what is already known about e-cigarettes together with what can be reasonably surmised is enough to make such an inquiry unnecessary.

E-cigarettes should first of all be seen, not as a stop smoking tool, but for what they are: a supposedly safer way for smokers to continue their nicotine addiction.

There are almost three million vapers in the UK and about half of them smoke as well. In other words, for these people vaping is an alternative or additional means of taking nicotine into their bodies. But why is it assumed, for smokers concerned about the dangers of smoking, that an alternative is needed at all? Recommending e-cigarettes is becoming almost a knee-jerk response for those seeking help to stop smoking.

The enquiry might better look into these questions: Why do people smoke? Why does it seem so hard to stop? Do smokers really want to stop anyway, and if not, why not? Is it or should it be public policy that millions of vapers in the UK are in the thrall of long-term nicotine addiction?

E-cigarettes are supposed to be safer than smoking, but it’s patronising and almost insulting to encourage smokers to use them. It amounts to saying, ‘There, there, you poor smokers, it’s so hard for you to quit. But never mind, you can carry on being addicted to nicotine in a way that we hope will be less damaging to your health.’

Now, suppose we could anticipate the result of our cross-party group of MPs’ inquiry over the next few years or decades (because this is how long it will take for a definitive answer into the health effects of e-cigarettes) and that this will be that vaping is completely harmless! That is to say, it will be found that e-cigarette vapour, which consists of nicotine, water, flavourings, propylene glycol and glycerin, as well as trace amounts of cancer-causing chemicals and heavy metals, even when inhaled into the lungs many times daily for years on end, poses no danger whatsoever to the vaper or those around him or her including babies, children, and pets.

Further, let’s anticipate that the originators of the slogan ‘E-cigarettes are 95 per cent safer that smoking’ were over-cautious in arriving at this figure and now it can be said with complete certainty that e-cigarettes are 100 per cent safer than smoking.

Such statements, of course, are fantasies. But let’s assume for the sake of argument that these conclusions are true. Therefore, if e-cigarettes are to be promoted as a stop-smoking tool, putting aside the question of whether they should be allowed at all, then it follows that since ordinary cigarettes are certainly not safe (they kill around half of all smokers) the action that needs to be taken on public health grounds is obviously to ban ordinary cigarettes at once. And if we further suppose that the results of future research will show that e-cigarettes are, say, only 50 per cemt safer, then the argument to abolish ordinary cigarettes forthwith would still apply.

Now let’s consider the second reason why our parliamentary representatives feel the need for an inquiry into e-cigarettes: how they are regulated.

Current regulations limit the concentration of nicotine in the e-liquid, the size of the refills, and the requirement that a label must be affixed to the product warning purchasers that it contains nicotine which is highly addictive. So far so good, or rather, bad, but in addition, in the UK only people over 18 years of age are permitted to buy e-cigarettes. However, just as with ordinary cigarettes, that won’t stop any enterprising youngster who wants to vape from doing so. Indeed, it’s already a serious problem in that many children vape and smoke and thereby become addicted at a vulnerable age and go on to become regular users of nicotine. Thus, regulation with the intention of preventing people under 18 from vaping or smoking, or both, is largely ineffective. With this in mind, it’s relevant to ask how does our group of parliamentarians anticipate changing or tightening the regulations?

There’s a much more effective way of stopping smoking than turning to other nicotine products. It needs to be remembered that smoking is largely a psychological problem. This was recognised in the US as long ago as 1964 in the seminal Report of the Surgeon General on ‘The Health Consequences of Smoking’:

The overwhelming evidence points to the conclusion that smoking – its beginning, habituation, and occasional discontinuation – is to a large extent psychologically and socially determined.

How to use this knowledge to achieve simple smoking cessation has been set out in my books.

Text © Gabriel Symonds