World Health Organisation: Time To Ban E-Cigs

It would appear that 'nudging' isn't just the preserve of craven health department MPs who don't understand the original concept. Oh no. That august organisation, the WHO, are kicking off about nicotine being delivered by anyone other than the pharmaceutical industry. I wonder who may have elbowed them into such an action? [pdf]

Regulators of medical and tobacco products should collaborate in assessing the regulatory framework within their own countries to determine the most effective means of regulating (or possibly banning) Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems (that's e-cigs to you and me) to protect public health.

They admit there is no evidence of any harm yet, but are desperately scrambling to find some.

There is [...] insufficient evidence currently to assess whether Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems may be used to aid cessation, whether they create or sustain addiction, and whether they deliver constituents other than nicotine to smokers.

The Study Group recommended that clinical trials, behavioural and psychological studies, and post-marketing studies at individual and population levels are needed to answer these questions.

I reckon there will be more than a few profitable organisations (who also chip in to WHO coffers, funny enough) queueing up to provide such evidence, don't you?

The interesting part is an emphasis on aiding 'cessation'. The implication being that if e-cigs don't do so, they shouldn't exist. It's precisely the approach taken by the UK's MHRA earlier this year.

Whether products containing nicotine should be considered by the Agency to be medicinal products by function [...]

Because, you see, government cannot - and will not - accept that any product can be enjoyed purely for the enjoyment itself. It's either harmful and should be banned, or it is medicinal and should be regulated.

The state insists that you shall never choose to subject yourself to any kind of risk, however miniscule, even if you bloody love it. Enjoyment doesn't pay WHO mortgages, you see.

The state as father, the state as mother, the pharmaceutical industry as generously-donating Godparent.

In the same document, they talk of the billions of people enjoying smokeless tobacco (which pharma also don't control), and the need to stop them doing so. The problem is that they've spent so much time fabricating science on second, third, fourth, and extra-terrestrial smoke, that the tobacco product which doesn't make their hair and clothes smell has gotten away with it.

Pfizer's nicotine patch sales figures were being neglected, so something had to be done. In short, although ...

Nicotine is a highly toxic and addictive substance that poses a serious risk to health.

... it should be purely the preserve of big pharma to supply it, because ...

Nicotine and nicotine products for human use should be regulated.

... except if they are manufactured by tobacco companies and already heavily regulated. In which case, they should be banned.

Expect much junk science towards snuff, snus and e-cigs in the near future. It's been ordered by pharma nicotine suppliers in suits.

Just a reminder. No-one in the world has ever voted for anyone working for the WHO.

UPDATE: This E-blogs article from Spain asks "Can we still believe the WHO?", and comes to the conclusion that:

I will begin to trust the WHO when the management changes and can ensure that they have no links with laboratories. Until then I won’t believe anything from there.

I make him very correct. If you do too, why not click on his Spanish blog just to alert him that there are Brits who think the same way?