Tuesday 8 October 2013

Amazing Vapers, How Sweet The Sound

Back in 2010, I reported on a petition e-cig users presented to 10 Downing Street.
You see, e-cigs are a great tool for many who wish to quit smoking. It is also unarguable that they are safer than cigarettes so offer harm reduction potential. Unfortunately, though, they are not - tut, tut -manufactured by public health's chums in the pharmaceutical industry, plus e-cig users look like they're smoking. And that is just too offensive a sight for the righteous. 
Still, e-cig users continue to fight for their right to 'vape' and, on Wednesday, delivered a hefty petition to Downing Street as a reminder that there are many who are quite happy to risk the non-existent dangers. 
I wish them the very best of luck. 
It will be interesting, in this new 'enlightened' era of the coalition, to see if the government are serious about personal liberties and decide to kick this ban proposal into the long grass, or whether they will continue with serially-proven public health policy failures like Labour.
In March 2011, after they bombarded the MHRA consultation into submission, I said that this steamroller would take some stopping.
As user numbers swell, government's enforcers in Whitehall are going to find it increasingly difficult to cut off vapers from an alternative to tobacco which offers massive harm reduction potential, without showing themselves up as vested interest stooges (if they haven't already, natch).
In October the same year, I predicted the e-cig user revolution.
Just as Tom Robinson famously derided gay detractors with the line "the buggers are legal now" when it was clear that the more unbalanced arguments against homosexuality had all but been defeated. For vapers, a tipping point is fast approaching, and it won't be long before they'll be able to give a similarly proud V sign to the intolerant animals who insist on a quit or die approach to the practice of recreational - as opposed to pharmaceutical - nicotine use.
The UK couldn't contain them, so deferred to the greater power of the EU, complete with the most dangerous living European and her desperately flawed pharma salesmanship..

Today, they embarrassed the massed ranks of state-funded prohibitionists in a decision which will send shock waves around the world.
STRASBOURG, France — In a decision likely to resonate in the United States and other countries struggling to get a grip on a galloping market for e-cigarettes, the European Parliament on Tuesday scrapped health officials’ proposals that the nicotine-delivery devices be tightly regulated as medical devices. 
Instead, lawmakers endorsed a more permissive approach to their sale and use, although the products could not be sold to anyone younger than 18.
You simply don't mess with these guys and gals. They are a lobby which no amount of idiot politicians and junk science-touting tobacco control dinosaurs are equipped to handle.

There is much devil in the detail (for example see here for advertising restrictions, plus vapers being described as tobacco lobyists) but e-cigs are here to stay. And Linda McAvan's sad, tired, and desperately defeated face is a joy to behold.

The massively-funded European anti-smoking cartel fought against something which has been proven to reduce smoking ... and lost. We are truly living in historically interesting times.

Bravo vapers, bloody noses don't get better than this.


Dick_Puddlecote said...

Not that I saw. Their one 'expert' on Radio 5 Drive this afternoon was a Swedish Green MEP who said he was "disappointed about e-cigs" and proceeded to lie unchallenged about menthol. It gets drawn deeper into the lungs apparently and was specifically designed to attract kids. So that's now what British bovines believe.

He didn't mention snus, obviously. He's a Green.

Dick_Puddlecote said...

That's appalling. Anti-smokers demand 100% openness normally! https://twitter.com/SimonChapman6/status/387478701908062208

SteveW said...

Aye, they're normally such honest and open types...

I did, following the voting, try to buy some Snus online as an act of solidarity, but couldn't find anyone prepared to post it to the UK.

Nice to know these good folks are looking out for my health.

Ivan D said...

According to the BBC, Carl Schytler health spokesman for the Greens, called it "a shameful day for the European Parliament". That of course is because "Green" in reality means deepest red and Carl like the majority of "Greens" is a Marxist authoritarian. It would be wrong of me to criticize the BBC for its reasonably balanced coverage in this case but the Independent, a healthist rag is fair game and it produced this headline:

"EU’s ‘shame’ as it caves in to lobbying by tobacco giants over the sale and advertising of cigarettes"

This OP disguised as "news" is an insult to all those individuals who campaigned against the extremists supported by Oliver Wright and the excuse of a newspaper that he writes for. Once again, a mainstream journalist denies the majority a voice by claiming that the only opposition to public health extremism is that of industry lobbyists. Wright is out of touch and so is his newspaper. The headline is dishonest. That is not news when it comes to the Independent and public health.

Frank J said...

Whilst the e-cigs decision in Brussels is welcome, have not NICE already decided in this country that they will be controlled as medicines?

I bet this is one area of policy that the Govt. will stand firm on, y'know, just to show our independence.

P T Barnum said...

Don't forget that Soubry has just been reshuffled from Health to Defence. That's her 'punishment' for lying to the committee and all her other shenanigans.

SteveW said...

As and when the video becomes available it was between 9.30 and 9.36 our time (I posted it on FB at 9.36, so it must have happened by then).
If I can dig it out I'll send a link.

JonathanBagley said...

I'm concerned about the 30mg limit. It makes vaping vastly more costly. I've been mixing liquid with 54% concentrate at £20 per 100ml. This means around £2.30 per 20ml of 24mg liquid including pg and flavours. Hunting about a bit makes it even cheaper. 20ml pre-mixed is around £8 a bottle. This makes a difference of several hundred pounds a year. If 30mg unflavoured is available in large, eg 500ml quantities, and more widespread use forces prices down, then maybe not so bad. But it is possible regulations will include container size, eg 20ml.

JonathanBagley said...

Yes, that worries me.

Bright Eyes Open Wide said...

Sorry Dick, but this post of yours saddens me - tobacco control have played a blinder on this one, and drawn you (and others) into their net. It is one thing to draw attention to the hypocrisy of the anti-smoker industry in their desire to outlaw something that could potentially save all those lives that they so adamantly claim are being lost because of cigarette smoke (their claims, not mine) - and quite another to agree with them on one one set of propaganda lies in order to highlight another set to defend e-cigs.

That they claim e-cigs cause harm and want, in effect, to ban them, should seriously undermine their claims that primary smoking, SHS and THS claims are just as mendacious, not provide support for them as this statement does;

"It is also unarguable that they are safer than cigarettes so offer harm 
reduction potential."

"unarguable"? Was this sourced from an anti-tobacco propaganda source? It is the 'everyone knows'- 'debate over' sort of thing we have come to expect from them - not you? It is only 'unarguable' IF you fully accept anti-smoker propaganda in relation to cigarette 'harm'. There are more people than me who do NOT believe their outlandish claims regarding THS, SHS or indeed primary smoking!! ie. the debate is NOT over on ANY of it!

'Bloody nose'? They may well have splashed a bit of tomato ketchup around to create the perception - but there is little sign of any blood! I suspect they will be viewing your statement with some degree of satisfaction and triumphalism by diluting their opposition and creating division. Divide and conquer?

"Unfortunately, though, they are not - tut, tut - manufactured by public health's chums in the pharmaceutical industry" 

A valid point highlighting one of the reasons why there is opposition to e-cigs and delaying their roll-out, but let’s be realistic here! How long will it take for the corporate pharmaceutical industry, with their bulging bank accounts and access to the best resources, advertising agencies, propaganda workshops etc that money can buy, to take over when they decide to do so? Do you really think that small independent producers will have any chance whatsoever when pharma decide to make their move to take on the e-cig market? In the mean time their opposition is naively providing positive confirmation of anti-smoker propaganda and building up the potential customer base for THEIR e-cigs sales campaign when it is deemed an opportune time to launch it.

This is a wake-up call - NOT a criticism - we are in this together, so please don’t take umbrage! I have no intention of making any further comment on this subject - my enemy is tobacco CONTROL, in all its forms. Do not allow them to ‘Divide and conquer’.

Ivan D said...


Apologies for being nice about the BBC earlier. I had merely skimmed the news item in question and had therefore been lulled into a false sense of security by some token attempts at impartiality.

The article you link to mentions lobbying by health campaigners and the tobacco industry whilst completely ignoring grass roots opposition groups and consumers who also campaigned. This is insulting to tens of thousands of people and panders to the left wing agenda of public health activists who like to disingenuously portray themselves as heroic warriors whose only opponents are "evil" big business.

Their agenda is further served by a link to Martin McKee.s blog post on e-cigs in which this pampered political activist portrays himself as the victim of some sort of conspiracy by big tobacco, big e- or whatever.

Why the BBC think the political rantings of a Marxist "academic" should be featured in this article is beyond me. Why not link to this blog instead? What exactly has McKee ever produced that makes his blog worthy of a plug by a state broadcaster? I think that we all know the answer.

I can only apologize for my lapse. I will try not to let it happen again

JonathanBagley said...

The comment below is from Gluggler on UK Vapers. It perhaps explains the 30mg limit.

"I would have much preferred to see a 4.5% threshold - as this seems to have become the standard "top strength", indeed it is the strength that, I think, Intellicig (who have done blood plasma trials) believe to be the optimum strength for cigarette replacement.

If 4.5% was never going to get through, then the next most obvious choice would have been 3.6% - the first year of my vaping history was spent on 3.6% and I needed it, 1.8 just didn't quite do it for me.

I know several people that use 3.6% because anything less just doesn't quite work.

I suspect that the 3.0% limit is deliberately set to be not quite enough for some - in order to give companies that receive an MA something extra that is not available.
Intellicig will (most likely) eventually get their 4.5% eco-pure MA'd"

Dragonmum said...

As far as e-cigs are concerned the aim was to defeat the medicalisation farce - to be honest, right up until the vote I had grave doubts. We were up against bad people, we still are, make no mistake. The war isn't over but we've won a significant battle and the nic strength etc. can be tweaked. If it's not medicine at 29mg then it can't be medicine at 31mg.
These people, or the majority of them, do not live in the real world. In my smoking days they could have put a pickled embryo in the pack and I wouldn't have turned a hair. Smokers, Vapers, Anyone Daring to Enjoy Anything - that just cannot be allowed. They are the Borg!!!!

Dick_Puddlecote said...

What I can't understand is - with all the wealth of people in this country on the machinations of the TPD - why the BBC chose a Green MEP from Sweden as their 'expert'? They lost - where was the rebuttal from the side that won?

Dick_Puddlecote said...

Your second paragraph is spot on. Having said that, it's interesting that Cameron came out during PMQs today and said the ban on packs of 10 seems pretty stupid.

Dick_Puddlecote said...

I think MHRA will be forced to have a rethink after yesterday's vote. I reckon Jeremy Mean shat himself when he heard the result, he was hoping not to have to stand up to ASH. ;)

Dick_Puddlecote said...

She'll be fine there ... tanks don't come in 'glitzy' colours which make her want to buy one. ;)

Dick_Puddlecote said...

If I know you, Ivan, I expect a protest has already been fired off to the BBC?

Dick_Puddlecote said...

Indeed. The miserable dictating to those who celebrate life.

Dick_Puddlecote said...

Yes. It is 'unarguable' simply because the hyper-inflation of risk by tobacco control over the past few decades. That is, they have not been able to come up with a single argument to defeat the claim. It's impossible because they have snookered themselves. Also, public opinion is firmly against them. There is nothing inconsistent there in my highlighting it.

Instead, they have thrown the kitchen sink (paid for by pharma) to try and kill e-cigs, and lost publicly and embarrassingly. And in doing so, there are now another few million people who will never again trust a word they say.

You mention pharma getting into e-cigs, well I'd love to see them try. AS I said the other day, public health is a red flag waving beast which would turn their vitriol on big pharma in a heartbeat if they were betrayed in that way. More good news, then. The only divisions and conquering exposed in Strasbourg yesterday - and throughout the campaign - are those within the tobacco control industry.

Just briefly on the issue of arguing relative harm, a perfect example can be seen in this article by Martin McKee yesterday. The one thing he was incapable of arguing - and boy would he have done if it were possible - is that e-cigs are harmful. Instead, he focussed on canards he had created from his own conspiracy theories.

1) Regulated same as pharma 2) advertising ban 3) not to be made by tobacco companies or subsidiaries 4) not to look like a cigarette 5) not to be permitted where smoking is banned.

All those are back-sliding to defend positions which tobacco control have felt triumphant about before.

1) Pharma to take over nicotine market 2) people denied being presented with enjoyable products 3) a drive to impoverish tobacco companies 4) denormalisation of recreational nicotine 5) inconveniencing people who enjoy smoking and/or nicotine.

For once, tobacco control is riven with splits and divided through the middle, and have been halted in their miserable tracks by an enthusiastic lobby they will never beat. Enjoy it. :)

JonathanBagley said...

I hope you are right DM, and in ECITA we seem to have a very effective force, but they are able to fund an unlimited arsenal of fraudulent science. A slew "peer reviewed studies" showing that nicotine is more toxic, particularly to children, than was previously thought for the last few decades, for example. Or the danger from high nicotine elevating blood pressure and heart rate. All easy to cobble together.