Presentation to Global Forum on Nicotine 2017, in Warsaw, Poland.

1. Counterfactual
What would good regulation look like?
Global Forum on Nicotine
Warsaw
18 June 2016
www.clivebates.com
@clive_bates

2. What would good regulation look like?
1. Do nothing

3. Snus ban: worst policy ever

4. Pointless meddling

5. Ban flavours to make a successful alternative to smoking less attractive

6. What would good regulation look like?
1. Do nothing
2. Set product standards

7. Standards for devices
Mechanical risks
Thermal risks
Chemical risks
Information

8. Standards for liquids
Liquid standards
Containers
Information
Testing protocol

9. What would good regulation look like?
1. Do nothing
2. Set product standards
3. Quality assurance

10. What would good regulation look like?
1. Do nothing
2. Set product standards
3. Quality assurance
4. Owners decide vaping policy

11. Thousands of micro-decisions
1. A bar wants to have a vape night every Thursday
2. A bar wants to dedicate one room where vaping is permitted
3. In a town with three bars, one decides it will cater for vapers, two decide they
will not allow vaping
4. A bar manager decides on balance that his vaping customers prefer it and his
other clientele are not that bothered – he’d do better allowing it
5. A hotel wants to allow vaping in its rooms and in its bar, but not in its restaurant,
spa, and lobby
6. An office workplace decides to allow vaping breaks near the coffee machine to
save on wasted smoking break time and encourage smokers to quit by switching
7. A care home wants to allow an indoor vaping area to encourage its smoking
elderly residents to switch during the coming winter instead of going out in the
cold
8. A vape shop is trying to help people switch from smoking and wants to demo
products in the shop…
9. A shelter for homeless people allows it to make its clients welcome
10. A day centre for refugees allows it instead of smoking
The only purpose for which
power can be rightfully
exercised over any member of a
civilized community, against his
will, is to prevent harm to
others.

12. Thousands of micro-decisions
1. A bar wants to have a vape night every Thursday
2. A bar wants to dedicate one room where vaping is permitted
3. In a town with three bars, one decides it will cater for vapers, two decide they
will not allow vaping
4. A bar manager decides on balance that his vaping customers prefer it and his
other clientele are not that bothered – he’d do better allowing it
5. A hotel wants to allow vaping in its rooms and in its bar, but not in its restaurant,
spa, and lobby
6. An office workplace decides to allow vaping breaks near the coffee machine to
save on wasted smoking break time and encourage smokers to quit by switching
7. A care home wants to allow an indoor vaping area to encourage its smoking
elderly residents to switch during the coming winter instead of going out in the
cold
8. A vape shop is trying to help people switch from smoking and wants to demo
products in the shop…
9. A shelter for homeless people allows it to make its clients welcome
10. A day centre for refugees allows it instead of smoking

13. What would good regulation look like?
1. Do nothing
2. Set product standards
3. Quality assurance
4. Owners decide vaping policy
5. Allow advertising of adult product

14.  Ensure your ads are socially responsible
 Don’t target, feature or appeal to children
 Don’t confuse e-cigarettes with tobacco products
 Don’t make health or safety claims
 Don’t make smoking cessation claims
 Ensure you don’t mislead about product ingredients
 Don’t mislead about where products may be used

15. What would good regulation look like?
1. Do nothing
2. Set product standards
3. Quality assurance
4. Owners decide vaping policy
5. Allow advertising of adult product
6. Meaningful risk communication
This product contains
nicotine which is a highly
addictive substance. It is
not recommended for use
by non-smokers

16. Scare people away

17. Or encourage informed choice
This product is likely to
be at least 95% safer
than smoking cigarettes
No product is completely
safe, but use of this
product is much less
harmful than smoking

18. Tax
1. Do nothing
2. Set product standards
3. Quality assurance
4. Owners decide vaping policy
5. Allow advertising of adult product
6. Meaningful risk communication
7. Tax to reflect risk / no tax

19. Differentiate taxation according to risk

20. Adopt a risk based tax philosophy
Smoking
tobacco
Smoke
free
Appropriate rate for
e-cigarettes = zero
Tax rates for non-
combustible tobacco
and nicotine should
not spread too wide
Substantial difference to
reflect principle of
proportionality and
relative risk
Narrowed range
covering all
combustible products
Strong case for zero-rating
all smoke-free nicotine &
tobacco products

21. What would good regulation look like?
1. Do nothing
2. Set product standards
3. Quality assurance
4. Owners decide vaping policy
5. Allow advertising of adult product
6. Meaningful risk communication
7. Tax to reflect risk / no tax
8. Age restrictions

22. What would good regulation look like?
1. Do nothing
2. Set product standards
3. Quality assurance
4. Owners decide vaping policy
5. Allow advertising of adult product
6. Meaningful risk communication
7. Tax to reflect risk / no tax
8. Age restrictions

23. Innovation

24. What would good regulation look like
• “Do nothing” is superior to every regulatory scheme so far
• Regulation is there to benefit consumers not to please activists
• Regulators should be haunted by unintended consequences
• Regulation should focus on disease risk not ideological objectives
• Regulation should promote informed choice and innovation
• Proportionate and justifiable standards can help shape the market
• Regulators should mostly get out of the way – the market is working

25. www.clivebates.com
@clive_bates
Thank you…