Smoking In The Face Of The Law
13 August, 2008
Law and More sent out Ralph Sellar, a trainee lawyer, around the 'legal hub' that is Chancery Lane to review the Supersmoker- a cigarette than can be legally smoked indoors. Would he be ousted? Jeered at? Arrested? We find out...
The introduction of the smoking ban saw those who covert the cigarette suddenly transformed from valuable members of society into social aliens, cast out from civilisation. Forced to puff away in rain drenched alleyways, isolated from the sterile interiors of office and pub interiors; smokers have become the nomads of modern Britain.
Ok, maybe it’s not quite that bad, but the prohibition on smoking indoors can be extremely bothersome. Quitting is the obvious answer, but some people aren’t ready for that, while others just enjoy it too much. For those in the latter category, their saviour has come in the unlikely form of a Dutch company which has recently started selling something called the Supersmoker in Britain.
The Supersmoker is marketed as a “cigarette alternative.” It looks like a normal cigarette, but unlike conventional cigarettes there is no burning of tobacco and no ashes are produced. Instead, a liquid in a cartridge is magically vaporised and what is inhaled and exhaled consists mainly of water vapour. The taste of a cigarette is synthesised by tobacco essence. Clever stuff.
The Supersmoker is a convincing visual replica of the real thing. This should be a good thing as sucking at anything in public that didn't look like a cigarette might be wrongly interpreted. Unfortunately, however, the opposite is true. Because the Supersmoker is so realistic and appears to produce smoke, it easily confuses people into thinking that the user is blatantly ousting the smoking ban.
This gadget is therefore ideal for someone who craves what most people would consider, unwanted attention. They just can't wait for someone to mistakenly confuse the device with a real cigarette and ask them to put it out. 'No,' they'll smugly point out, 'the smoke is actually non-toxic and thus not subject to the Health Act 2006, which allows me to use it indoors and blow it in your face!’.
The cartridges come in four different strengths, the most potent being about as strong as a Marlboro Light, the weakest containing no nicotine at all. In theory, this is clearly beneficial for someone who wants to kick the habit. There is, however, a serious flaw. Each cartridge lasts up to 16 times the length of a normal cigarette meaning that there is little to stop the hard-core nicotine addict gunning the whole lot. To counter this there is an in-built electronic mechanism which shuts the device down for 30 seconds after 15 inhalations. But what's to stop the smoker waiting 30 seconds, or inadvertently failing to notice the brief intervention? The makers of the Supersmoker will counter-argue this by pointing out that there is nothing to stop the smoker from lighting up another cigarette. But surely the action of lighting a new cigarette is a bigger psychological barrier than the inaction of pausing for 30 seconds?
The Supersmoker's website gleefully boasts that the Supersmoker is 'healthier' than normal cigarettes. Whilst it doesn't contain tar and therefore doesn't produce toxic fumes, it still delivers an addictive substance in the form of nicotine. This is still unhealthy. Calling it healthier is like comparing 'Sir' Robert Mugabe with Kim Jong-il and calling Mugabe the fairer leader. It’s misleading and cynical.
This cynicism is demonstrated further by the product's name. As we know smoking is bad for you: it will reduce your health; your lung capacity; and your athletic ability. This is all negative, but using the wholly positive 'Super' suggests that there is some sort of upside. By means of word association, the product suggests that it shares similar qualities to a supercar or to Superman. It fraudulently implies that its usage might improve your wellbeing, and heighten your powers. Frankly, this product is more Weston-Super-Mare than Superman. This dodgy marketing tactic had led the Dutch ministry of health to consider banning the Supersmoker altogether.
The packaging is equally questionable. The manufacturer would like you to believe that the Supersmoker is as futuristic as the Jetsons, but the box and text look as dated as lace doilies. Curiously, there is a peculiar little man in the bottom left corner with rings over his head, which look suspiciously like halos. Again this wrongly implies that there is something virtuous in smoking. More oddly, however, the man is almost identical to the logo from the TV series The Saint, starring Roger Moore. As Manuel from Fawltey Towers says when he's confused, ‘Que?’
The Supersmoker packaging? The poster for The Saint?
The device is unnecessarily complicated. It has more components and moving parts than the latest Lexus, and comes with an instruction booklet to match. In total, the Supersmoker comprises a battery, cartridge, vaporising chamber, filter, cartridge, cartridge cap and a two part battery lead. This makes the product very fiddly and there is a high chance of losing a component (irritating if you've just forked out £75 for it). Assembling and disassembling the Supersmoker every time you need to charge the battery or change the cartridge is a bore and doesn't exactly look very smooth. I can't imagine that James Dean would be the icon of cool that he still is if he had had to consult an instruction manual every time he wanted to spark up.
In spite of these weaknesses, the Supersmoker has a place in the market. The fact of the matter is that you can't smoke indoors, and although your friends will probably hate you, this is the only way of getting a nicotine hit when it is impossible to duck outside. The Supersmoker has the market cornered. In the Netherlands alone over 200,000 units have been sold. Are we forced, therefore, to take this product seriously? To find out we decided to try and test it in London’s legal heartland in the hope that we might be able to tap some of local wisdom and find some lawyers who would be able to opine on the matter. We thought a good place to find a few legal eagles might be The White Swan in Fetter Lane.
The first problem, of many, arises. The management of the White Swan didn't want us trying it indoors as it might confuse diners. This sort of objection suggests that the Supersmoker hasn't resolved the hassle of having to go outside to smoke. In fact, the user is faced with the greater challenge of having to consult with confused barmen every time they want to have a puff. To aid you with this quandary, the Supersmoker comes with an Authenticity Card which proves the legality of the using it indoors. However, the idea of whipping this out of your wallet, as if you're a copper from CSI Miami, is unlikely to catch on.
Undeterred be our rejection, we adventured into some of the area’s more accepting watering holes. The first chap we invited to trial the Supersmoker was named James, a trainee intending to qualify as a Competition solicitor. I thought I should try and impress him with some testing legal questions. After explaining a bit about the Supersmoker, I asked knowledgably, 'Do you think that this could be an example of abuse of a dominant position within the Common Market?'
'Why?' he inquired in a doubtful manner.
'I don't know' I sheepishly responded; my knowledge on the matter already exhausted.
'No then.' he concluded.
Ok, what about the Supersmoker itself? He took a long draw and then spluttered. He paused. I could see that he was carefully selecting his words... 'It tastes like a deep fat fryer.' - A brief but devastating verdict.
This aversion to the taste of the Supersmoker seemed to be the prevailing opinion among those who tried it. The manufacturer would have you believe that the Supersmoker’s tobacco essence tastes like a normal cigarette because both products derive from tobacco. This is like saying that cornbeef hash and fillet steak taste the same because they both derive from cow.
Critically, however, despite the taste being an affront to the palate, most users conceded that a hit of nicotine could be detected. The question therefore remains, would people be prepared to use the Supersmoker to take advantage of this legal 'loophole'? Out of those who tried it, the answers were mixed. Some were put off by the price (£79.00), particularly if they thought they might lose it. Others just thought it was a bit ridiculous. Conversely, however, a number people did say that they could imagine using it in a situations where going outside was unfeasible. An example of such circumstances might be when you’re trapped on a long haul flight- and gagging.
So, is the Supersmoker the answer to the smoking ban? Based purely on a taste comparison, I believe not. In the same way that dry ski slopes will never be as good as snow and Quorn will never have the texture or taste of real meat, the Supersmoker, in its current form at least, is not an alternative to a cigarette.
Most importantly, most people who smoke don't want to draw attention to their habit. Smoking is supposed to be a relaxing experience in which the nerves are calmed and thoughts are gathered. The Supersmoker provides the opposite experience. If used indoors, its user is guaranteed to create a fanfare of confused commotion and will attract unwanted stares. It seems, therefore, that using the Supersmoker will not make you more tolerated by your peers, instead it will only agitate them further. But if you're willing to forgo friendship and subject yourself to ritual humiliation then you can find the Supersmoker on sale now. If that doesn't appeal, then perhaps you’ll just have to become better adapted to surviving the British weather.
Ralph Sellar
