The Greens policy document states they plan to 'regulate vaping products as a harm-reduction measure for established tobacco users, while minimising uptake by new users, including by banning shopfront advertising, and banning disposable vapes'.
It sounds good. However it is important to see what else specifically is intended.
A letter received today from the office of the Greens spokesperson on vaping said the same, that they want to find the right balance of limiting uptake in new users and using vaping as a harm-reduction measure for established tobacco users. This again sounds good but a bit vague, and indeed unless supported by clear sound proposals addressing the problem it largely resembles the mantra of the vape industry (balancing one toxic nicotine product with another, both of which make 'big tobacco' like Phillip Morris huge profits and provide the government with profits from every purchase. The vape industry also includes some vague mention that children shouldn't vape, not so much that adults shouldn't take it up, which the Greens policy does state.)
There is of course an accepted role of vapes in facilitating a switch from tobacco for those addicted to tobacco cigarettes, but this should not require vapes to be highly visible, on clear display in dairies, petrol stations etc as is legal in the Amendment Bill*, or all NZ communities to be riddled with retailers. Along with lack of clear statement of primary health risks and lack of addiction support for vaping and nicotine this becomes a betrayal of New Zealanders, catering to the vaping industry.
So what is the Greens party intention re vaping, more specifically?
From the material I received today:
• The Greens appear to be waiting for 'evidence' to create more rigorous regulations.
It's hard to know what that means, given the most reputable clinical science groups in respiratory, cancer and other branches of medicine already state vapes put users at serious health risk, some stating they should not be used even to quit the highly carcinogenic tobacco, and they provide supporting arguments and research, plus the stats of vape use in NZ vs Australia where protocols differ are available, etc
• The Greens do not specify that the public should be advised clearly of the health risks, even while the NZ government is criminally understating these in their main messaging eg in just describing vapes baldly and simply as 'not containing the toxins of tobacco'.
• The Greens do not include recommendation of any means of quitting vapes or nicotine, even though the government does not provide these.
• The Greens appear, from a statement from their main spokesperson and as forwarded today, to consider the weak amendments of the Labour government on SVRs and flavours as major and highly praise worthy, manifesting "solid evidence-based harm reduction". These amendments in fact allow 600 of the SVRs, and infinite numbers of non-specialist vape retailers with vape products colourful highly visible and with 3 flavours and anywhere, ie close to schools.
In short, the Greens policy as stated currently does not reflect any understanding of the urgency of the current problem or propose clear strategies to address it.
There is nothing suggesting real change is intended.
The weak amendments merely support the vaping remaining embedded and creating massive costly problems in our communities.
If serious with their stated 'plan' they need to have a look at decent advice, such as that of the Cleveland Clinic, on vaping and quitting vaping and nicotine, and reliable resources regarding respiratory, cardiovascular, neural, cancer risks of vaping etc, the stats Australia has with vaping now, and develop some proper strategies to implement it.
*https://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2020/0222/21.0/d1393751e2.html
(The photo image above is from the Guardian.)