Vapers Must Unite To Bury W.H.O Tax Plan
IT IS said there are two things certain in life – death and taxes.
It would now seem the World Health Organisation (WHO) is determined to play a part in both.
This is because – come November – it will encourage its 194 member states to increase the tax on vapes to the same level as cigarettes.
Along with a string of other aggressive attacks on harm reduction, so-called ‘policy advisors’ will make this recommendation during WHO’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) Tenth Conference of the Parties (COP10), in Panama.
The reason, WHO believes, is that by making vapes more expensive, children will stop buying them. The problem is, they won’t. The bigger problem is, WHO won’t listen.
The organisation’s clear anti-vaping stance can be garnered from its own controversial reports, and documents made to state its position after previous conventions.
In a Director-General summary report from May (Page 7 33 b – of this report), WHO suggests any product that dispenses nicotine should be treated the same as cigarettes and fall under the same regulations, which include tax.
It recommends countries ‘ensure that regulations of tobacco products are extended and applied to all forms of nicotine and tobacco products and not restricted to conventional cigarettes’.
This is why, as regular readers will know, We Vape has launched a campaign to make sure our community is heard at COP10.
So what is wrong with super-taxing vapes?
One of the reasons why…
How might such a move affect vapers? Let’s look at the numbers, if were we to use the UK as an example:
As of March this year, government tobacco duty sits at £294.72 per 1,000 cigarettes, plus 16.5% of the retail price. This is in addition to the standard 20% VAT. A pack of 20 currently costs around £15.
Vaping products are subject to the same VAT. Excise duty is calculated by volume of liquid and nicotine content, but remains significantly cheaper than that of tobacco.
Disposable pens currently cost as little as £3. A starter pack with rechargeable pen and cartridge sits between £10-20.
The WHO’s strategy for how different types of e-cigs might be taxed is typically unclear. But adding 16.5% to a £15 vape starter kit would up the cost to nearly £17.50.
It would also appear to be a strategic, insidious move because taxing vapes in the same way as cigarettes implies both carry an equal risk, when it is known they do not.
To be clear, cigarettes are the biggest cause of preventable deaths in the world.
Not one person is known to have died from vaping nicotine.
So to suggest a comparable threat to health between the two is not disingenuous, it is a lie.
With ideas like this, it is no wonder four in ten people wrongly think vaping is as dangerous as smoking.
While raising the tax on vapes would create a short-term bump in revenue, it would be counterproductive for long-term public health and wealth.
As well as driving people away from a proven harm reduction tool, it will also encourage black market, cross-border criminals to profit from a law that attacks the consumer, not the demand.
In addition, with sales of regulated, highly-taxed merchandise on the decline as illicit products surge, investors would be less likely to fund research, impacting job creation and economic growth.
Tax, of course, isn’t the only issue under fire at COP10.
Open (refillable) systems, flavours and nicotine salts are all in the sights of WHO.
Such is their opposition, even the successful use of vaping as part of smoking reduction initiatives by countries within WHO’s own FCTC membership have been all but ignored.
Both Sweden and the UK have a track record of slashing smoking rates using harm reduction measures, with the former close to becoming the first ‘smoke-free’ country in the EU, with less than 5% of the populace lighting up.
England meanwhile, recently launched a world-first Swap-to-Stop campaign, giving a million smokers a vape starter kit.
But these successes will not be discussed in the COP10 agenda.
Rather, it and other documents from previous COPs affirm the organisation’s position that vaping is bad, and appear to set the tone for November’s event.
What Is The Risk?
While WHO cannot set health policy, it can affect billions of people because its recommendations – which are not voted upon – often become a reference point for countries developing domestic healthcare policies and regulation.
For this reason, our representatives in Panama must make clear the UK is a model for how vaping can reduce smoking and improve public health, not an example of a failed approach, a part of which should be taxed as though it was causing the problem in the first place.
Let our delegation know the eyes of the vaping community are upon them, as they represent our interests and right to choose.
Because if WHO is duty bound to reduce the global consumption of cigarettes, vaping should be acknowledged for its significant contribution so far.
Please support our campaign to be heard at COP10 here https://backvaping.co.uk.
