As I surfaced the other day, there was a discussion on Today about the marketing of e-cigarattes between Deborah Arnott, chief executive of ASH, and Lorien Jollye of the New Nicotine Alliance (now there‘s an organisation that wears its heart on its sleeve!). It’s available from about the 1:22 mark here. Having re-listened, it appears to me that they’re talking past each other for a significant amount of time; but the points around which they’re at least orbiting has to do with the safety of e-cigarettes and the permissibility of advertising for them. Arnott’s concern is not so much about whether using e-cigs – which I believe the well-informed call “vaping” – can be shown in adverts, but how. Jollye’s claim is that all that matters is whether and that the devices reduce levels of smoking across the board. The subtext here is that the tone of the advertising possibly doesn’t matter – but if it does matter, and making the devices more attractive gets smokers to make the switch, then so much the better.
Arnott’s response here is that if e-cigs can lure smokers, they can presumably lure non-smokers, too. And it does seem initially plausible that if the point is to coax smokers rather than non-smokers, it could be done in a non-glamorous way. emphasising the grimness of smoking-related illness and the relative benefits of vaping. Glamour seems to be an attempt to be appealing to non-smokers as well.
Does that matter, though?
Let’s take it as read that, if e-cigs are harmful, they are pretty minimally harmful, and not significantly more harmful than a good number of other things that we take as part of everyday life.
The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.