Noson accessory informacion sinota informacion Panama bengwaki quatro manosco tempo chisimo importante participants incentivate the participation. They motivate people to participate throughout their countries to express their desires to move, to participate in society, in topics surrounding how to claim the rights that they have as the most important stakeholder, with them being the consumers. Especially, there's a huge problem regarding tobacco throughout the world. We know that in countries with low and mid income low and mid income countries, 80% of people consume tobacco. So they have to participate in the decision making process. The Cop Ten will be carried out on the 25th and 26 November in Panama. And currently and historically, we know that access to this conference has been denied and we've been avoided permission to talk about these topics. Inco has been the only stakeholder that has participated, but the rest of the participants then voted to kick them out. We're not allowed to express ourselves, our thoughts and we're not allowed to access reduction damage reduction processes which would be very important. The countries that have agreed to this convention are participating in this Cop Ten and we should be allowed to claim our rights to damage reduction processes. So firstly, I'll present Juanjito, my dear Juanjito, a professor and legal advisor. And I'll ask you, what are we defending? What rights do we have regarding damage reduction in tobacco? Well, thank you. When we think that we have to defend something, we sometimes simply mention ideas such as rights to personality, rights of health, rights to make decisions. In this case, if you can show the presentation, I'm trying to propose a key word which is access. Which what are we trying to defend when talking about human rights with this word access? What do we have access to? What do we have rights to access? First of all, access to technique, accessible information, access to information, access to make decisions, access to products, access to variety. Simply since Rodom of developing your own personality is not enough, once we have that freedom, there should be certain factors that at the same time allow us to make these decisions by ourselves. First of all, let's talk about access to technology. The first thing we need is for technology to exist. Does it have the rights or that own that technology, make it available and sell it? How many times are there technologies are hidden or they're kept away from all of us at the same time, that technology should be publicized and it should be readily available. Likewise, and this is something we see in Latin American countries mainly and lower income countries throughout the world is that manufacturers create good products that are fit to the standards set throughout the world. As this will be something that people will be consuming, it should be executed properly. And at the same time, technological developments should be motivated and incentivated so that we keep on improving and companies keep on creating more technology. So technology must exist, first of all, and we should be able to access it. Secondly, we talk the forums not only in Spanish ones, but in English ones as well is access to information. What a problem this has been throughout the world, right? It's a human right that we should be able to access information especially from governments, especially based on scientific evidence but how many times have we received information that is simply political propaganda? So we should first of all be able to trust the government's information that is correct information and this will be the basis of what's to come in the future and the second thing that's important is how can we see that data obtained through science is correct? Because if we cannot assure that, how will a consumer be sure about what we're told? So people won't be able to make the correct decisions based on the information that they should have at their hands. We should be able to check this data, compare it, and we often talk about rubbish science that is created to just promote other products. So we should be able to compare the data so it's actually real. Just like we sit down to debate scientific evidence should be compared to see what the truth is, compare their methods. Tambien this way of comparing data should also enable campaigns to exist to compare these results and demotivate people from using certain substances. Likewise, we have access to decisions to decision making. Apart from knowing how the product works, I should be completely free to make decision of consuming of using a product or not. Once a product exists, customers should be free to decide whether they want to use the products or not. It's about freedom, it's about conscience, and it's about using the information that derives from science. With everyone's capacity, they should be able to make this decision on using certain devices or products or not. It's a right we should have. And finally, using damage reducing devices to substitute the consumption of combustible cigarettes should also be readily available to consumers. And finally, we'll talk about access to products. How useful is it for me to be able to vape as you're allowed in Mexico, where you're allowed to consume it, but selling it is illegal. How logical is this? When developing our own. We should be able to have whatever product we want at our disposition. We should be able to consume it. If I have the right of using something, if I have the information, if I want to use it, but I can't buy it, other rights are useless. Regulation is important. Yes, to keep products away from minors. But those people that are quitting smoking through these technologies should be able to access these products while keeping them away from younger people. Finally, and this is something that activists always agree on is that the success of these products adapts to whatever consumers like so there should variety should exist this will enable people to easily change from the usual cigarettes to whatever they want. Different tastes and different smells are important here. This will help people to leave conventional cigarettes and use this type of technologies. This ends my presentation. We always think about human rights. We always say we have freedom of personality, access to health, access to make our own decisions. But this should be more precise about where these rights become real. I've written a book called The Concept of Damage Reduction and Human Rights. This book explains what these rights are related to. This is more conceptual, but I will pass the microphone to Ignacio Leva who will talk about the actual things that are happening, who's trying to make these rights actually exist, what has worked from his point of view in Chile and how these actions have certain make sense and have success with regards to human rights. Thank you. Thank you, Juanquito. First of all, I'm extremely grateful to be participating in the first chat in GFN Spanish. It's an honor and I'm very thankful for this. Just as Juanquito said, users should be able to say a lot and we have to say everything that we want. Nothing will exist about us without us. But it isn't easy. The Chile experience in which I've participated for 13 years as a pro vaping activist we currently have ecigarettes in we don't have any other products and this has changed. This is evolution throughout time because consumers don't have a right to speak were vetoed. The first time I participated in Chile Senate, I wasn't even allowed to talk. And throughout consumers, the pressure through our different campaigns we eventually managed to be able to speak in the Senate we had a right to speak, but we didn't have any actual success. But throughout time, consumers became more relevant, we became more important, having being better positioned, which was something that seemed impossible at the beginning. The discussion at the beginning was very prohibition like and nowadays damage reduction is talked about at least, which is hugely important. Due to this, I've been invited to talk a bit about what has happened in Chile to see if it'll be an example for people to be able to apply these same issues in their own country, to have a positive influence and participate in legislative processes. To do this we have so how do we have to activate consumers in other countries? In 2019 we started a campaign which had this objective and it's important not to forget objectives. Our objective was to inform consumers, fight against the lack of information and through this information, motivate them and integrate them. Consumers must feel a part of the movement, not just feel as a consumer. They must know that there's a huge risk in e cigarettes disappearing. So we started a web campaign first, which was specifically in Chile, but then throughout connections and throughout social networks and other associations, it became bigger and there's something important in this campaigns must group people. Not just because of a campaign itself, but when I invite Argentina to participate in this campaign, my campaign grows, because Argentina has those same issues, for example, same thing for Brazil. And that's how we opening our spaces and working together as a team. All of the campaigns must know that it's their own campaign, but it's an open campaign. We're all in this together and we all have the same objective. One of the toughest things when starting a campaign like this one is losing our fear. Our fear to what? Our fear to failure. We're afraid of that's our worst enemy. When starting our campaigns, we were the first public campaign. There'd only been one in the world, which was the one in Germany. And our biggest fear was losing our fear. But still it happened and it works. So the limit was whatever we set it to be, and we see how much it's progressed. Now we've just tattooed someone here and this movement keeps growing. And a campaign like the one we did taking a vapor to run the Santiago Marathon and him going through the Fennis while vaping, it's huge. We have to think outside the box. And that's part of the invitation that we're going to make in this panel, for people to think, to imagine how we can keep growing and how to keep participating for this topic, to keep growing and growing. Another thing, and I'll keep it short because Jeff isn't looking at me with a very friendly look, is that it's hugely important to understand that this is a very long fight. We have to persevere and be very patient. We didn't see any results from 2010 until 2020. It's ten years of work with no results. And in the last few years, from 2020 to now, and these three years, we've seen and picked up all of our hard work, the images we've seen, photos of the street. We had to do things to keep this movement growing. And that's where I'm going to leave, because if not, I'm going to go for too long. Thanks a lot for your time. Thanks a lot, Ignacio. And from Chile we go to Spain. I think everyone recognizes Julio. He's a big personality regarding information and concentration regarding damage reduction process. Harm reduction processes. Sorry. So what's worked in Spain? What hasn't worked in Spain? What can you say about this? Good evening, everyone. It's an honor. It's an honor to be here in this first panel after so many years coming here. It's truly an honor. So let's move to Spain. Spain is a country where if we win a football World Cup, everyone takes to the streets. But if our human rights are taken away, or if we're attacked or anything, it's very hard for people to participate and move and fight for something, which in this case is vaping, which has, in some cases, saved people's lives. Like Ignacio said, it's hard to motivate them and it's hard to keep them with us. Someone might be motivated for one or two days after certain news comes up. They wake up after that. But sometimes it doesn't last longer than one or two days in Spain, and it might be common in many other countries. There's been two pillars to trial this so social media and secondly, shops. I'll talk about social media later, but shops have huge importance, at least in Spain, and I'm sure it's very common in other countries. There's a huge number of vapors that aren't on social media. So you have access to these products thanks to these shops and thanks to the advice they receive in the shops. So it's very hard to reach them as they don't have social media. So those are the two weapons we have, basically, on social media, we've tried a lot of things. Some have been successful, some haven't been so successful. Things such as Tweet bombse, but pedigree. You can sometimes ask people to sign a petition through a raffle, which might seem slightly unethical sometimes, but at the end of the day, it's complicated to reach to reach everyone. It's hard to motivate them. So we have to try everything. So whatever we do has to be based on our end goal. These are the things that worked the most in the end. As Ignacio mentioned before, with the march in Chile, we also did one in Spain. It was one of the biggest in the world. I think it's one of the initiatives that I'm most proud of, because we moved buses from the whole of Spain for this march. We went to scream our truths to the ministry and we managed this through social media and through the information given in the different shops and the shop owners. Sometimes we're seen with a bit of hatred, I think, from when business enter activism, so we have to get rid of them. I think we can't forget that most of the people from that sector have arrived to these products as consumers. So we have to expand all of our information, we have to communicate it to more people. I'll repeat what Ignati said. We have to keep working together. That's our main pillar. And we have to work a little bit more. And Franciscordonias will continue talking about the same topic, if I'm not wrong. So we'll see. What he says about Colombia. Something very interesting that's rarely mentioned is that remembering the analysis done in 2021, 89% of the market is from emerging businesses, and there's still that stigma of not involving businesses due to what happened of tobacco companies in the past. So when we see what happened in Spain, we'll then go to Colombia, where there's been some very interesting initiatives. So let's see what has worked and what hasn't worked in Colombia. I'll also thank GFN for allowing me to participate here in this first Spanish day. Don't know who we are we're the first consumer based company in Colombia? Group, sorry, not company. Spain has been our mentor in Colombia, and what we have created here in Colombia has helped consumers from other countries who want to create consumer organizations in their own countries. That's why many groups are called as of Ape throughout the different countries. That support is very important for us and allows us to have this present in Latin America sorry, in Chile, Ecuador, Costa Rica, Paraguay, Uruguay, Argentina, and other countries where the name wasn't registered due to a legal problem, such as such. Panama and Brazil had that issue, but they're still here. This allowed us and along with Jeff, we started creating a shadow company, which would then end up being Art, which would group all the users from Latin America. Working together is one of the key components of this. And we're always collaborating with each other. This is teamwork, and we have to learn from teamwork throughout this process. Isn't an individual battle. Many people are working together. Maybe this is our name, but work has always existed. We've always found support from each other whenever we need it, and we keep doing it, and we'll keep doing it in the future. Other organizations have joined axion Technical Social in Colombia has joined us three or four years ago, and they work with harm reduction, and they've now started working on harm reduction with tobacco too. So we have to look for the experience that other organizations have had, and especially organizations that have worked with other substances as they've been here for longer, so they'll know more about all this. And this is what's happened with Of Ape. It's to avoid repeating the same mistake and avoid the potential problems. As I mentioned, Jeff, maybe three, four, five years ago, I don't remember, in Bolivar we had with Julie visiting us for a convention, and different people joined us to complain to the Congresso de la Republica. It moved people, it moved users. It was a significant manifestation and it was very interesting. It shows this isn't an individual battle. There's a lot of people behind this. Obviously, the scenario changed, and my colleagues will agree with this. The community has changed regarding this. Not everyone's on social media, as Julio said, not everyone participates. Some people have become slightly demotivated. The Pandemic had an influence on this too. But we have to keep being persevering, to keep persevering. We'll win some battles, we'll lose some battles, surely, but the war keeps going. So what has Colombia done? Acevate exists because of all this, due to the first attempt at regulating these products. So users and some small shops ended up creating as of Ape. After contacting the Spanish company that we mentioned before, it moved our contacts and allowed us to halt these attempts to stop five projects at banning at regulating, to ban flavors and other scenarios. In this moment, there are five vaping regulating products in Colombia. What will you manage for these five products to only be one? So in Congress, they're debating all these products in just one. We support a project that we that's come from past, from Mauricio Toro. Senator E Moreno is now leading it, and we're supporting a differentiated regulation. That's what we're fighting for. And I know other countries have fought for this in the past too, because they're different products than tobacco. So it should be regulated differently in this moment. We also have there's also a project to put huge taxes on vaping products. And we're fighting this. Michael Bloomberg is financing this through union, through Tobacco for Kids. So we're fighting this. We're starting to fight this. It's our moment to fight these organizations, especially showing that they say that we damage people and they attack us, saying that we're lobbyists for tobacco companies. They're the lobby makers. They are organizations that don't allow us to talk. We tried to work with one of them, apparently tried to protect kids from accessing alcohol, accessing tobacco accident, vaping. They very quickly said no. They never allowed us to meet them. Clearly, they're following orders and they're lobbying. It's evident. We have to show this. We have to expose them. As I mentioned before, it's like a snake. You have to take their heads off. The only way of killing it. We've been very diplomatic in the past. Now we have to pick up our shields and dress up to fight because we've tried to be as political correct as possible, and unfortunately, it hasn't worked. So we have to change our strategy, obviously, and Jeff mentioned it before, the Cop will become to Panama, and Thomas is a representative in Panama. And I think it's important, and we talked about this in a meeting we had in Colombia with some friends is that we have to request that countries allow us to talk, right. That we should have, at least in Colombia, it's a right as citizens. And I'm sure the same thing happens in other countries. We have to request this even through existing conventions. Delegations should invite us, invite other actors, in this case, citizens. Let's not talk about consumers. Let's talk about citizens with rights to participate in the commission. We told no, but we have to try it. I think that it's also important, at least in Colombia, to say that two years ago we participated in a conversation with the Chancellor of Colombia who represented us in Cop Nine. And we exposed our opinions regarding harm reduction, the opinions of users commercialization the importance of underage people not accessing our products. But now it's important that once our delegations are there, that they request that Switzerland explain how they reached that 5% reduction in tobacco and how England has implemented regulations in their own country. Countries are allowed to share their experiences and share successful experiences regarding tobaccoism. People mentioned intervention by tobacco companies has been dangerous. Well, we're not a company. We're just representing users. We're an organization that helps users and citizens. That's how I'll close my speech. And we should look at the Cop poll. Ready? The ball is in our court this year in Latin America. Hopefully you have the support from everyone. And this is one of the many actions that we'll have. There should be a pre Cop and a post Cop where we should make ourselves felt. Well, Francis mentioned the practicality of Article 1416 that mentions that countries have the right of seeing examples done in other countries, which would be very important. And as you mentioned, the examples of Switzerland, France, New Zealand, England, where we can see that tobacco consumption is being reduced very quickly. So we should be able to see and request that these countries explain their success in the reduction of tobacco consumption to see why it's been so efficient. I just wanted to make a comment regarding Cop Ten. Most people know, but everyone should know that this Cop is a very risky one. It's not a normal cop. Ten cop. There are three points that are very risky from this Cop. The first one is they pretend to restrict flavors. One that's not very known and a very important one, a very dirty move is that they will try to redefine the word smoke if they manage this if they manage this change. And they're always attacking the same points. And this is what we expect from this Cop. And that's why we call everyone to try and be there, to be seen, to talk to their delegates. And we have to be aware of this. The risk is real. And if I'm allowed to add this when we can, seeing Article 5.3 of the Marco Convention, we have to see the reality of what this means. Nowhere does it say that we're not allowed to conversate to have dialogue with the different actors, even with tobacco companies. Are that anti consumers say that? Say this? They're the only ones allowed to talk, apparently. But no, we should all be able to participate, especially people that represent consumers and represent citizens. And I'll repeat so everyone's aware of this. This article does not ban participants. Even tobacco companies can participate. This is important, especially when talk about representation. Delegates are allowed to talk to us. And if we want to talk about harm reduction, we should be able to talk. This article cannot be used to deny this. Right. This is very interesting. And we should talk about a study that says that 53 organizations, 33 consumer organizations are not financed at all. So it shows that they simply work through love and passion. Yeah, and I'd like to say something else and something that Juan Jose mentioned before. Obviously, with the support of the organizations and our lawyers who have huge experiences, that we want to write a letter aimed at the United Nations human rights sector regarding the Cop. This is necessary. We're already writing it. It'll be technically revised and technically seen by our lawyers for it, to be precise. But it's necessary. Participating in decision making is very important. It's a fundamental human right. So this is hugely important and we had to find other routes to enable us to participate in the decision making process. Now, what we're trying to do with this panel is to try and see what we can add what we can add to this project, to this movement. What do you feel that with a number of people from South American activists in general? I'll explain that the questions from the Chat arrived through his tablet. That's why I halted it. Tobacco kills 50% of people. 50% of consumers will 1.3 billion. So why in the UK is it taken as dangerous and not in Latin America? Well, we talked about this yesterday. Does a person's life in countries such as the United Kingdom is it more valuable than the life of people in South America or Latin America? I'll move away slightly from the question itself and I'll talk about it in another way. We've talked about the philanthropists and colonialist Bloomberg. He's got movements in the most developed countries of Europe and North America, and he considers that these products have to be reduced in these European countries. But he blinks as us, as monkeys in South America, don't deserve these rights and they have to ban these products here. I know what I'm saying is tough, but it's what these people believe. And they believe that Latin Americans, and I'm one of them, are inferior. It's terrible. We're barely lifting. They look at us. We have a lack of capacity to choose for ourselves. And it's what we mentioned before. We're all overage. So the state shouldn't be able to decide what we can or cannot do or how to administer nicotine to us. I think we're just the same as them, almost. But there's two different perspectives. One that looks at them and one that looks us. A question here from Diego, our representative from Argentina. I want to appeal to people that are there, that are up here, because your reference for this fight, maybe it's quite an intimate product for all of you, but how do you overcome failure? How do you overcome adversities? Because it's a very uneven fight. So what do you look at in these tough moments to keep going and keep fighting? I base myself on the people that are part of the movements, consumer movements, for example, probating, Mexico, all these different organizations, asavap in Peru, Asavap in Argentina. We base our fight on all of us. We support each other harm reduction as a place, and it'll help a lot of people throughout Latin America. And we keep each other motivated to keep this desire to fight going. At the end of the day, it's tough, yeah, but we keep fighting. I completely agree with Jeff. Sometimes there's something bit more internal or more personal, but we're completely convinced, and science shows us that we're on the right side. This saves lives. It's clear that we fight to save millions of lives. And in my personal case, due to my experiences, I fight for those people's families. I multiply this. It's not only the user tobacco product. Tobacco addicts are demonized. There's nothing else. When someone says, oh, this person has cancer, other people say, well, he smokes. We're demonized people that smoke are demonized. Or Saturnized. It happened to me in the Chilean Congress not long ago. Someone said that smokers shouldn't be allowed to vote. What planet do they live on? So I look at the family as well. They're being damaged too. We fight to improve lives of people, to save millions of lives. And as well as what Jeff said, which is to look for support from people that are in this movement too. Bloomberg Company and the idea of beating Bloomberg's information people are stigmatized, and they think it's an adequate thing to do to prohibit them. I think something that's not about this in Peru last night and it's the fact that many of us that are involved in this have been here for a very long time. It's not new. We didn't join this movement yesterday. And receiving new people, new blood, which, yeah, sometimes it's hard, but it's fundamental, because sometimes those of us that have been here for so long, we crash against the same wall and we have so many defeats, despite knowing that we're on the right side of history. It's tiring. So many impacts. It's tiring over and over again. It's tough. So receiving new people that generally participate, not just with signature activism, people are activists. They're hugely important. We see them with open arms. If I'm allowed, I like to talk about the idea of what's happened in Mexico or what's happening in Mexico, because PEXA is clearly somewhere where you can see that Bloomberg's finest thing impacts regulations. Our partners there in Argentina, Chile, can sometimes see certain products that are added to food to make them more. That comes from Bloomberg. Just like the banning of vaping products comes from Bloomberg. In Mexico, they tried to ban motorbikes that had less than 600 CC for motorways. Surprise, surprise. This also comes from Bloomberg. This initiative even mentions that it comes from Bloomberg. This idea of him being a philanthropist is clear. All this doesn't happen in European countries. They don't need his money. But in countries of mid and low income, it's comfortable to receive huge amounts of money to impose ideologies. If he doesn't like vaping, we have to ban vaping. If he doesn't like motorbikes, we have to ban motorbikes. If he doesn't like junk food, we have to ban junk food. And in Mexico, with our beautiful governors and presidents, we do this. And they say that they do this. That's the worst thing of all. If you look at public information, such as public Minister of. Health, who apparently makes studies which aren't even based on anything. You can see that all comes from Bloomberg. They try and ban motorbacks from certain places thanks to the Bloomberg Initiative. They even say this proudly a president talks about sovereignty and criticizes America and etc. Has governing entities who receive money in exchange for imposing ideologies. And what we fought against throughout these years is fighting these ideologies, fighting propaganda. And when we talk about propaganda, it's about the position of ideas. It's not about publicity. The government cannot impose ideas. What can consumers actually think about? Banning is banned. He loves banning. That's what you fight against in Mexico. Well, thankfully, harm reduction always wins in the end. Roberto, do you have a question? You've talked about other things so far, but I'd like to mention two things quickly. First of all, it's a prescription of banning in middle income countries exists, but it doesn't exist in high income countries. The strategy from Bloomberg in those countries where you can't ban vaping is to degrade it and undermine it. And that's when talks about flavor comes flavors. Yeah, that's another issue. Mid and low income countries have weaker institutions who haven't correctly applied protocols. So they mentioned that vaping is a distraction which would take resources that would be useful in tobacco reduction. And that's a big issue. So we look at Mexican government, Colombian governments, all of our governments, saying that it will ban vaping. And we have this cash to do this. So where will this cash go? Will go to health? No, it will go to a Pharaoh project from the government. Or another thing which are fallacies. And another thing I'd say is, especially in these countries where institutions are weak and law isn't properly looked at consumer, where projects could actually could actually work well, it doesn't really happen. If you look at America, Canada, the projects work because institutions are tough, they're hard. Smoke free zones, for example, have worked the stigmatization of smokers. But it doesn't work if people don't believe in it. If I light a cigarette, people look at me ugly. There's popular support for this, for these movements. It's only possible in dictatorships such as North Korea, or in countries where laws aren't enforced. And well, we're not North Korea, nor are we Switzerland, Denmark, et cetera. So these kind of politics don't work here. And we see it through the prevalence of tobacco. It doesn't even work in Spain, doesn't even work in Italy, et cetera. So in these countries of weak institutions who won't be able to fight tobaccoism, there's probably an easier solution for it to come from consumers, from the consumption of alternative products. So it doesn't need regulation. All of the arguments from union are rubbish, absolutely rubbish. They're fantasies. Your from a person in New York, a man in New York, and we see it one day. Thomas and I went to a meeting in Mexico when tobacco regulators talked about banging their chest, saying they were saving humanity, saving kids, criticizing tobacco companies, maybe. And I I went out while I was tired and I saw they were selling illegal cigarettes. Just 20 minutes away from this meeting. They're selling illegal cigarettes. It's just for show. There's a prohibition spade in Mexico, yet the market still exists. It keeps moving. So to answer what I said before, it has to be based. The solution is in consumption. If a product is robust, it would have been destroyed already. But no, it keeps going and people keep using it. People notice how their body reacts, and that's what keeps me going. If I'm not allowed to talk, just like it happened in a forum in a Senate where I was on the blacklist, I wasn't. Let's talk as if I had a lamborghini. Like tobacco companies have. Yeah, there's failures. Even in my own university, I'm denied the right to write an article with scientific data. They don't even receive me. It's people influenced by New York Times and all that show that's a failure. But what keeps me moving is consumption. When I go to the shop where I buy my Vapes is a number of people I see there. They present me. They're not interested in me or my speech or interested in the product that it works. That is nice, that it's pleasing, and that's what will beat Bloomberg. This is growing, growing and growing. And also the industry itself. It's a giant that will pop up. I don't just mean Occidental and Occidental companies, but also those from China. There's business here. Let's imagine a future where control of tobacco is a nightmare. 50 years ago, 50% of people smoked. This has been reduced hugely, especially in developed countries. Now let's imagine a future where 50% of population consumes consumes nicotine, but with only 1% risk due to them doing it through vapings. There's nothing wrong with looking for profit. There's nothing wrong with people making money out of this, selling a product that satisfies the consumers with a very small risk because everything has risks. There's nothing wrong with this. That sleeping giant will wake up soon and consumption will keep us going. Adriana, thank you. Just a second. I wanted to make a comment that I forgot about before when we talked about integrating new organizations that weren't necessarily involved privacy. It's important to highlight that social action has been extremely relevant in the fight in Latin America. And I'd like to publicly thank through you, through your organization, that you've given us a huge hand in learning how things work through your experiences in the past. As this has taken you a long time. You're very welcome and I'm thankful for what you've given to us in the last few years. Well, thank you. And relate to these battles regarding harm reduction and public health access information and among other rights, I'd like to talk about Roberto's intervention before our institutions are weak and the Cop comes as a huge risk too in the future, as you mentioned before. So I'm surprised how different states ignore the lack of respect for their own country's sovereignty in different treaties. So I'd like to give examples where treaties should be voted on and they should be ratified in their own countries. And this is something some that should be talked about when talking about the Cop, how suddenly new markets pop up, different products pop up, and they become a part of this treaty without the sovereign state making a decision. For example, marijuana. When marijuana moved from one list as being the riskiest thing in the world to it moving to a controlled substance, states had to sit down and vote international in an international space. That decision they talk about climate change in the Paris Treaty, or contamination through plastic and banning single use plastic. Or to give another example, the Rotterdam Convention declares what substances and what chemical substances are banned. But to do this, countries sit down and vote and make decisions on treaties. And in this sense, I'm very worried that Cop will advance with this and make decisions which will then be used as an argument to ban products in our own countries, because there will be an international treaty that tells us to either ban or electronic in the cigarettes. How do we anticipate ourselves to all of this is what they want to do. They want to define smoke, for example, define flavors. Going back after an international treaty exists would be very hard, as seen through cannabis. So that's my question. How do we make this a bigger issue? How do we anticipate that countries will actually modify and vote on something that will that will affect Vaping and Ecigarettes recommendation? What's argued that a copper recommendations given to given to different countries and they'll affect in a non compulsory way all of the countries that you mentioned. But yes, this is very relevant. What's actually very risky is that they modify the Madaco Convention. They haven't done this this year because to do it, they had to send it very a lot of months before, I think six months before it should have been sent in May to all of the different countries and to all of the different representatives for it to be studied. So, yeah, what do we expect from this year? Well, we're calm to know that the Marco Convention won't be changed, but we'll actually be talking about a recommendation. What's the problem is that if the Maraca Convention changed, this will be imposed in all the countries. For example, if it bans different flavors, all the countries are obliged to follow this. This is for countries that follow the convention itself. Chile have to follow it, argentina don't have to do it, for example. They look at another way and avoid this. Hopefully this won't happen when we know what's trying to be imposed, such as flavoring, the use of external batteries to avoid consumers manipulating products, the changing of voltage, which would allow people to change how much vapor they inhale. So ideas for consumers to not have an autonomy on the product itself. Yes, and I'll add something that we sometimes ignore, but it's ridiculous. From the anti tobacco groups. They always talk about tobacco companies that were associated to them. But for example, the issue about restricting the fact that products be refilled or their voltages change, or have an external battery, et cetera, guess which one is the only industry that helps it's? Tobacco companies. I'm not talking badly about tobacco companies, but this is the truth. It helps them. I'm getting mixed up. It might happen, but at the end of the day, everyone that criticizes tobacco companies, or many of them, positions they want to impose on vaping to worsen the experience of vaping. Well, they're only favoring tobacco companies. Issues such as devices being closed or deciding how many flavors can exist. The only sector that we favored is tobacco companies, which shows that our speech is just false. They only want to bother the consumer without seeing who they will actually benefit. They say they want to do you want to reduce the consumption from underage people? Well, do they have any projects to have the law go against people that sell products to underage people? No, they don't. We proposed that in Chile. They didn't. They're only fighting for their own pocket. They're a Mafia in Chile. I wanted to talk about what happens in Mexico with us. While our government says they banned, they don't allow it. Well, what's currently being talked about is seeing if human rights are being harmed. What's happening in Mexico is that prohibitions come out and tobacco companies suddenly well, these regulations don't apply to them suddenly. Once they say that prohibition exists, well, it's a lie. Philip Morris, as well as other distributors such as OXCO, they can all sell vaping products legally. So who are they affecting? Small consumers, small businessmen who have devices that have different flavors, variable voltages. So clearly the speech doesn't just reduce flavors, but actually is only benefiting tobacco companies. I'd like to add something to this, and I'd like to say it's important to discuss the right to pleasure. Roberto mentioned it before. Burins people are being denied the rights. I've been vaping for, I think, eleven years. If I wanted to quit, I would do it. I received pleasure from it. Why would they take that pleasure away from me? It's like when someone wakes up and has a cup of coffee and enjoys it. Why will this pleasure be taken away from us? Society isn't perfect. Laws aren't perfect. We're human people, and we all enjoy in different manners. So we have to fight for this right? The right to enjoy. I enjoy vaping. I enjoy nicotine. Nicotine helps me to focus, to concentrate. Why would they take that away from me? We all have that right. And something important that I didn't mention before when I saw England and Sweden, they say that Sweden isn't the first countries, isn't the first country. They mentioned Turkmenistan, the first one where rights are ignored. Women don't have rights. They're extremely orthodox with their culture and all that. So do we end with consumers? Do we end tobacco companies? No, that's not the solution. And that's what the World Health Organization is saying. They say it's not Sweden, it's Turkmenistan. They prefer choosing a country where human rights are brutally massacred rather than say the truth. As time goes along, we have more tools to show that this is an actual alternative. An alternative helps you quit, but also allows people to enjoy the pleasure, to help them concentrate, to reduce anxiety. I know many people saw Aaron's documentary on nicotine talking about Parkinson's. Nicotine has medical capacities that should be explored more. There's scientific evidence around it. I know we've all done it. We're not all doctors, but we're informed consumers and we make informed decisions. And we want consumers to make informed decisions. I think this is a very important thing and we all have to keep going. It's important to see issues such as bipolar people. It helps them significantly. So at what moment does access to a productivity which has which has positive effects on different people in society, how is this right ignored? Well, it shouldn't be. And what we talked about access before, this is where it becomes important. Information should end up with practical applications. It shouldn't just be banned because I don't want people to smoke. Francisco mentioned pleasure. Not just pleasure, but decision making, the right to make decisions. I remember when I used to smoke at the end, I didn't even like it, but I just did it because I wanted to, because I'm allowed to do I have the right to do whatever I want to do. It's a freedom of development, of personality. I'm allowed to do what I want. We've seen absurd prohibitions in America. There's prohibitions on sexual relationships. They make so many prohibitions, they go into people's beds. How do we allow this? How do we allow them to get involved in my decision making? If I want to vape, I should be able to vape. Or I'm allowed to smoke, or I'm allowed to do whatever I want. We should focus on this. When the Cop wants to make decisions that affects consumers, we have to request that this is not done in this way. They bring activists out, they bring out to the press and they go against us. The vapors. We have to do what someone else decides, who probably doesn't vape. It's incredible. All this information, just as Jeffrey talks about before, has to be brought to the table and has to be part of a decision making process. If you talk about Mexico, I'll repeat, because we have certain figures that are useful for this, such as a right to petition, which I think allows in every country. We should request this. It'll be denied. We won't be allowed to participate in the Cop. We should apply to it at least. I'm a lawyer, as you can see, and I like fighting people. But we have to look at ways to not allow them to impose things on us. We'll talk about pleasure shouldn't be only important for us vapors. It should be important for everyone. We'll talk about Bloomberg. First of all, it was sugar, now it's vaping. Tomorrow will be alcohol. What about the day after tomorrow? Chocolate, cookies, coffee, sex. How far will we allow them to go? And restrict us, restrict our freedom? We're conscious adults that should be allowed to make oppositions. I think we're reaching the end. So I'll only say that fight keeps going. Yeah, I think we're done. Who's yet to stop? Okay, Eileen, you go first. Or Fakundo. Okay, Bastian, you have the microphone. Thank you. Written down. One person shouting makes more noise than 100 people are quiet. So I'd like to thank the activists or at the front of the battle. This has allowed us to advance with regulations at different countries, just like Chile. Principal, going back to the main topic is how do we motivate the user, creating community, keeping them informed and creating a sense of belonging that it belonged to a site, that someone that will receive something back. Humans in general and people in general might have someone with our Latin culture. And maybe doctors from Argentina, Spain and other countries could say that people react. They don't go to doctors proactively. You go when you're two days away from dying. We go to the mechanic for a car when it's almost finished. So the biggest efforts regarding regarding vaping, which have got huge results, it's focusing on the benefits of vaping. Do you believe there's there's more success in communities when they think that benefits will be cut? Do you think it's more important when that threat seems to be taken away tomorrow? I'm asking this because if they think that this will happen very soon and this right will taken away from me, maybe our efforts could be focused on campaigns and clickbait regarding that tomorrow you'll lose your right or in Cop Ten Elacopier Elder right of acting different flavors. Do you not think that would be more effective taking campaigns from this perspective to create more participation from citizens because they're more reactive? Well, yes, this does happen. To the second thing you mentioned, I'd actually say no, and this is the reason. If we constantly repeat the same action, it loses effect. We've seen it in Spain a lot of times. We've had a sword on our backs a lot of times, but we've managed to stop it. But if we keep saying this, consumers will just notice that nothing actually happens. So effective effectiveness will be lost. Eileen Bang. Is Eileen your your question? Yes, I'd like to ask you something, all of you. What do you think about Vaping? If you think that they'll talk about lithium, they'll talk about damaging the environment, do you think they'll go at us from that point of view? Yes, they're already doing it. I'll talk about Colombia in particular. There's a popular action, a mechanism where they're attacking certain companies and they're going against the environment through lack of control. So, yes, the industry has to be responsible. In Colombia, we're working along with some companies and some stores, some shops and different organizations, to create a recycling and reusing process. Some products could be reused, such as lithium, and others that can be recycled. I think associations have this work, especially in educating, in negotiating, too, and managing different stores and different companies, because we think it's important. I think it's one of the tasks that we have to have to do. It's already being done in Colombia, but we can't let time go by very quickly, or we'll give them another reason to criticize. Okay, let's close with this one. I'll be brief because we've run over time, going back in time slightly. Argentina, Chile we talked about how to integrate sellers. I think in Argentina we're not afraid of integrating them into activism and into our fight. But in countries where it's banned under repress legally, even though users have a right of being socially disobedient, well, we're always supported by shops as users. They're small sellers and they support the use. They're not allowed to help us directly. What advice could we give them for the future and for future regulations? What should they prepare themselves for? Or what should they imagine from the future in countries where currently it's banned, maybe we didn't explain ourselves properly as to what we want from the industry. It should be our method of communicating with the consumer. Once shops are committed to a movement, we reach users much easier. Reading a post on social media isn't the same as actually preparing the sellers in stores to inform users once they reach the store, to talk about participation with consumers. Because if you don't participate, I won't be able to sell at some point. Or if we manage this to advance, we might manage to sell this to you, half the price. At the end of the day, it won't happen that quickly. But they have to be a part of the connection to reach consumers directly and for them for the consumers to become a part of our organizations. For example, I always say there's a thin line between users and sellers. Why? Because many users from small stores were at some point smokers or vapors. They've stopped smoking. They also saw a business opportunity and the chance of helping other people. So there's a thin line. I think consumer organizations should communicate frequently with small shops. In Colombia, we've always informed small shops, and we work very hard with this, and we work with not selling to underage consumers. There's a chat with most stores and they communicate with each other, saying that by products saying that he's got an illegal fake document. I think that's one of the things that could be done. There should be constant dialogue because they repeat the communication we get. There should be constant dialogue with them. And yes, that's important. Okay, just to close as, I thank everyone that's here to thank GFN and wish them a happy 10th anniversary and how nice it is to hear some Spanish at GFN. Thank you very much.