Gripes over cannabis have all been seen beforeThe health arm of the United Nations does not want companies advertising cake, ice cream, or ice pops to children.
The World Health Organization (WHO) developed a “European nutrient profile” to be used by countries in order to ban the marketing of desserts.Erm, but children like cake, ice cream and desserts. It's what children do.
Banned without exception are pastries, croissants, cookies, sponge cakes, wafers, fruit pies, sweet buns, chocolate covered biscuits, cake mixes, and batters.
The list goes on: “Chocolate and other products containing cocoa; white chocolate; jelly, sweets and boiled sweets; chewing gum and bubble gum; caramels; liquorice sweets; spreadable chocolate and other sweet sandwich toppings; nut spreads, including peanut butter; cereal, granola and muesli bars; marzipan.”
Advertising for ice cream, frozen yogurt, ice pops, sorbets, and energy drinks would also be banned.Well, that's ITV bankrupt in a week then.
“The list is not exhaustive and may be added to when used nationally,” the report said.Not exhaustive? There's not a lot left! Besides, shouldn't it be parents who decide what kids eat and, indeed, watch on TV? It's a radical idea, I know, but just thought I'd put it out there..
Don't work for tobacco firms, lawyers urged
CHILDREN'S Minister James Reilly has said it is not appropriate for legal firm Arthur Cox to represent tobacco firms and state agencies.
Dr Reilly is currently reviewing the relationship between the State's child and family agency Tulsa and the firm of solicitors representing Japan Tobacco International (JTI), which is threatening legal action against the Government if it introduces plain packaging for cigarettes.
"I fail to see how we send the right message by employing legal firms that are prepared to represent the tobacco industry, whose history in this area is quite appalling, to be quite frank.
"Their inability to come out and tell the truth time after time has been quite shocking ..."Unlike Dr Reilly the eejit liar, of course.
Dr Reilly called on all legal firms to come out and say they would not represent tobacco interests.This is an astounding thing for any politician to say, it's like lessons of history have completely passed him by.
Many of us doubted that the evidence [behind smoking bans] really mattered. As I wrote in The Oregonian/OregonLive at the time, "Protecting workers is simply the polite fiction by which nonsmokers have imposed their will on an increasingly unpopular minority."
We suspected this, but how could we prove it? What if there were a device that looked like a cigarette and mimicked the effects of smoking, yet emitted a mostly harmless vapor instead of tobacco smoke? If authorities tried to ban that too, without bothering to establish that it endangered anyone, then our suspicions would be vindicated.
That device exists. It's called an e-cigarette. And sure enough, the Multnomah Board of County Commissioners is voting on whether to ban its use indoors. The Legislature, too, may expand the state's smoking ban to cover vaping.
The evidence that e-cigarettes cause significant harm to users, much less to bystanders, is weak to non-existent. The county's case against them is that they sort of look like smoking. Vaping indoors, says the Board of Health for Multnomah County, "threatens to undermine compliance with smoking regulations and reverse the progress that has been made in establishing a social norm that smoking is not permitted in public places and places of employment."
Never mind whether any real person has ever been confused by this. Ask instead why merely keeping up appearances is a matter for the law. If simulated smoking must be banned in bars just to send a healthy message, then my God, think of all the actual drinking going on!Yep, it's never been about health.
For those of us old enough to remember when smoking ban advocates cited real evidence, the current movement to ban vaping confirms what we suspected all along: That this isn't about protecting people, it's about controlling them, and that empirical research is relevant only to the extent that it helps the political cause.
The state and county should proceed with sensible plans to restrict sales of e-cigarettes to minors. But we should treat adults as adults, upholding the liberal principle that how they live is up to them, so long as they are not credibly harming others. If the worst that health officials can say about e-cigarettes is that they don't like the way they look, then they ought to learn the public virtue of minding their own business.And politicians should start ignoring the transparently policy-led bullshit the public health industry increasingly pretends is 'science' or 'evidence'.
(a) Do you experience problems in your Member State because E-cigarettes and other (new) nicotine containing products are currently not excisable products?
(b) What are your impressions of the development and size of the market of E-cigarettes and other (new) nicotine containing products? Are there any signs of substitution of the regular tobacco products?
(c) What do you think of the option to adjust the scope of excisable products by including a nicotine-based category?In other words, so many people are switching from tobacco to vaping, member states are suffering a drop in income. This, apparently, is deemed to be causing "problems".
From April, all Scottish health boards (bar one, NHS Lothian) will ban the use of e-cigarettes on NHS premises. The move makes perfect senseOnly to an imbecile.
Lobbyists have been queuing up for a few years now to push the idea that e-cigs are somehow safer than normal cigarettes. One of the most dangerous aspects of your typical, run-of-the-mill cigarette is the tar-filled smoke you're inhaling with each puff. That tar may contain up to 7,000 different toxins, which are otherwise found in everything from rat poison to nail polish. E-cigs, on the other hand, produce a light, tar-free vapour. But this doesn't necessarily make them any safer.E-cigs are just as dangerous as smoking? Nurse, bring the meds!
Doctors say a tablespoon of some e-liquids on the market would be enough to kill an adult; half a teaspoon could kill a child. And the worst part is, you don't even need to ingest these liquids to end up in hospital. Mere skin contact with concentrated liquid nicotine is enough to cause symptoms of poisoning, such as dizziness, elevated blood pressure and seizures.Really? A bottle top popped out when I was refilling my V-Scope last week and 20ml squirted up my arm, the only remotely worrying aspect of the incident was smelling like sherbert lemon for the next hour.
That should scare even the most devout e-cig userNo, Nash, it will just make them laugh.
Every puff you take on an e-cig is a roll of the diceOh get over yourself, you dribbling fool.
Safety concerns were addressed recently. Two analyses reviewed toxicological, laboratory and clinical research on the potential risks. They concluded that e-cigs are by far less harmful than smoking, and that ‘significant health benefits are expected in smokers who switch from tobacco to e-cigs’.
[...]
We need clear, unambiguous messages to smokers about the safety and benefits of e-cigs. An example is the March 2014 statement on the Royal College of Physicians website that ‘the main benefit of e-cigarettes is that they provide inhalable nicotine in a formulation that mimics the behavioural components of smoking but has relatively little risk… Switching completely from tobacco to e-cigarettes achieves much the same in health terms as does quitting smoking and all nicotine use completely. Furthermore… risks associated with passive exposure to e-cigarette vapour are far less than those associated with passive exposure to tobacco smoke.’ (which are non-existent anyway - DP)The author of the fact-free car crash Guardian piece is some American guy living in Scotland, while the author of the Spectator endorsement of e-cigs is Derek Yach, former head of tobacco control at the WHO.
Derek Yach piece on e-cigarettes can't but shift the debate one would have thought, very significant intervention
— Shane MacGuill (@ShaneMacGuill) February 19, 2015
"We should retaliate ... the Government should consider some kind of measured response, that if this goes to court they should consider truly punitive taxes on tobacco company profits," he said.
"Perhaps something like a 99% tax on the profits of tobacco companies, or perhaps something like putting a €1,000 a pack tax on a pack of cigarettes – if the industry tries these kind of antics with us."A 'measured' response (wtf?) like this would be hilarious.
All the evidence suggests standardised cigarette packs would save lives by reducing the number of people who start smoking, the journal Addiction reports.
Its summary of the scientific evidence suggests stopping one in 20 people from taking up the habit would save 2,000 lives in the UK each year."All the evidence"? Well not really, no. And to say this is 'scientific' evidence is a bit of an overstatement considering none of it has been produced by anyone who could remotely be called a scientist.
@Dick_Puddlecote @cjsnowdon This is the 'upmarket' version of 'someone told me in the pub' ... the pubs that are still open of course :)
— Smoking Hot (@N2Declare) February 17, 2015
This is a shocking piece of deception from @WHO. Someone at the top in the org needs to get a grip on this. http://t.co/XlMFtHH2it
— Robert West (@robertjwest) February 11, 2015
Arguably, for an addictive product that kills so many of its users, the tobacco industry should consider itself fortunate that, purely through historical precedent, it is allowed to sell its toxic products at all, let alone try to make them attractive through the packaging.No, it's not arguable at all. If tobacco was banned, government tax receipts would plummet, the FTSE100 would nosedive, pension funds would be decimated, tens of thousands of jobs would be lost, criminal enterprises would blossom and 'arguably' more kids would smoke because control on who buys tobacco would cease to exist. Anyone who seriously believes differently should probably go and live with these guys.
As a population level intervention, it is clearly not possible, nor ethical, to mount large scale experiments to assess effect on smoking prevalence.Of course it's possible and ethical to mount a large scale experiment on the effect of plain packaging on smoking prevalence. It's called Australia.
However, he admitted that it was not possible to know if plain packaging had reduced the number of young smokers in Australia.Which is kinda - no, actually, it is the entire - point.
 |
| "Today, as always, I shall mostly be talking bollocks" |
You see, the price of a company's shares is entirely separate to the profitability or true worth of the business. Unless the company concerned is thinking of announcing a rights issue to raise funds - something tobacco companies don't have to do because they are highly profitable - the share price is irrelevant to them as far as income is concerned.
Profitability and worth are real things, share price is just a measure for those who wish to make money on the back of that profitability and worth by way of yield and dividends.
Righteous types can sell billions of shares on principle but it doesn't matter one iota to 'Big Tobacco'. The share price may wane but nobody will stop smoking because of it, but whoever buys the shares after that makes a lot more money.
Tobacco company shares have always been under-valued relative to dividend yield or profits - when compared to other industries - simply because of perceived dangers of the global war against tobacco, so whoever has been clever enough to ignore all that guff has earned very well for a long time now. This is why tobacco shares are almost a constant in being flagged up by proper investment analysts as some of the best that any investor or pension fund can own.
The only possible result of Dr King's campaign will be that the stocks might be even more under-priced, even more attractive to investors, and therefore offer even more super profits than they already do for people who aren't financially stupid on the back of ignorant teen-like ideology.But you don't have to take my word for it, because yesterday a proper expert in investments made the same point writing for the Telegraph.
[T]he tendency for some investors to shun these businesses on ethical grounds can result in them trading below their intrinsic value. An unpopular investment will tend to offer investors a higher yield – and because income is the principal component of total return over time this can lead to investment success. Even if the stocks remain at a valuation discount, they will benefit from the compounding of their high dividends.
A fund that played to this theme, the Vice Fund, turned $1 into $3.37 between 2002 and 2015, according to the LBS report. That compared with the Vanguard FTSE Social Index Fund, an ethical fund, which turned $1 into $2.68 over the same period.
Tobacco illustrates the potential of investing in sin. Prior to the mid-1960s, before smoking became a sin, tobacco stocks underperformed the market. Once the health issues became well-known, cigarette companies started to outperform and they have been key components in the portfolios of some of the most successful investors
That was the painful experience of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (Calpers), which had a policy of country-level exclusions between 2002 and 2006 that backfired badly. Steering clear of “bad” countries cost its pensioners $400m (£260m)Which kinda resonates with what I said last summer.
Of course, the superannuation funds which now don't count tobacco stocks amongst their portfolio will be deprived of these super profits, meaning that eventual payouts will be inevitably lower than they could have been if Dr King hadn't embarked on her funny campaign. The only 'blow' here is to the people who will now have to suffer a smaller pension when they retire.So there you have it. Pascal Diethelm - a tobacco controller whom Martin McKee considers a 'genius' - is as ignorant of science as he is of financial matters. Trusting what he says will render you slightly more stupid and harm your wealth, so perhaps his comical utterances should come with a warning.
The 20-year feminist-led war on masculinity
"We are no longer talking about a medical model of the national health service. His own Secretary of State is talking about doing more preventive work and more on public health to prevent people from getting ill in the first place."Preventive work to prevent people getting ill in the first place is, quite obviously, telling us what we can and cannot choose to consume. This will be news to the vast majority of the public who still believe the NHS should, indeed, be run on a 'medical model', not some ideological dictatorial one.
"nothing in this section shall be interpreted as entitling or requiring the Secretary of State to direct people in their personal conduct, nor provide unsolicited advice on diet or behaviour, nor to spend public funds on propaganda, nor to discriminate against specific foodstuffs, nor detrimentally to affect any lawful industry;"The fact that this will be challenged by MPs is a disgrace, quite frankly. But you just know it will.
"I am very suspicious of the Government telling me that I should not eat things such as bacon sandwiches, or whatever it is that Labour party members so much enjoy. I want to eat those things without interference from the Government. I have tabled other amendments to make it absolutely clear that I think that the health service is about curing people who are ill, rather than telling us how to live our lives."Again, this should be uncontested. It shows how awful our government has become that it needs to be explained. Rees-Mogg understands the rancid drive of the modern puritan MP and also notices why it is happening.
"We do not want this rather condescending model of the health service telling people how to lead their lives—how they should eat, exercise and so forth—in this deeply paternalistic way. We want a health service that allows people the maximum amount of freedom in their lives, with liberty to do as they choose rather than saying, “Because the state pays for it, we must determine.”"When asked about state advice on recognising strokes, and asking if he thinks health education should not be offered at all, he makes an astute distinction between the two. Of course education on strokes is what the NHS should be doing, but ....
"I am less keen ... on the Government spending a lot of money telling people not to smoke if they want to. If people have not worked out the dangers of that by now, they never will. I happen to speak as a non-smoker and, though his predilections may lie in the other direction, he is entitled to do so without being nagged by these paternalistic social assistance types who we have established are really rather disagreeable."Oh, aren't they just! The honorable gentleman is a fine judge of character too.
"We used to legislate for moral values. We used to legislate that people had to go to church on Sundays and that they would be fined if they did not go. We had legislation on conformity, and legislation on people’s private behaviour behind closed doors. Historically, all sorts of matters were covered by legislation, but we have tended to move away from that approach to a feeling that it is not the duty of the state to tell people how to lead their lives, and that it is the duty of the state to legislate for basic security of the state and for the institutions that the state has determined to run. That point - that it is a moral value that we are considering - means that putting that moral value in legislation is a rather backwards step."Describing the absurd statist reasoning behind lifestyle bans, he is also very observant.
"We can see the slippery slope argument advancing: the Government pay for the service; therefore, if someone does x, they may be at risk of y; y will have a cost of z; the Government do not want to pay for z; and therefore one must not do whatever letter it was that I started with—I think it was x. Therefore, if someone does that, they are either to pay or they ought to be penalised for doing it; it ought to be made illegal and there ought to be some punishment."He then goes to explain why it is necessary (why should MPs not know this already) that the clause describing the obligations of the Secretary of State for Health should include the limiting suffix “as far as is compatible with the liberties of the people of England and without any additional regulatory burden”.
"We know only too well that politicians, once in office, are very keen to tell other people what to do. We get very good at it. It is an unfortunate habit of public life that a trend of bossiness comes in."Tell us about it!
"Surely it is a freedom of a subject of Her Majesty, if he or she so wishes, to go out on a Saturday or a Friday evening and drink more than is good for them, without my hon. Friend the Minister or the Secretary of State telling them that they must not and wagging a governmental finger at them."Well you'd think, wouldn't you?
"Do we really want the Secretary of State for Health saying to our great figures - people like Winston Churchill - “Cut it out. No more of that. The Secretary of State doesn’t approve. It’ll improve your health. You’ll live to 90 anyway, but you’d better stop drinking”?"In the surreal days we are currently damned to live, it seems our state really does want that.
"I like a bit of sugar and have a sweet tooth; I particularly like Cadbury’s creme eggs, even with the change in the chocolate—the change is broadly disagreeable but they are still not at all bad. I am not in favour of the anti-sugar brigade. We should allow people to enjoy a bit of sugar - it sweetens them up and makes them better tempered and more good-natured. Sweetness and light spreads across the nation when people have a bit of sugar."Uh-huh.
"There are many pressure groups that bang the drum, make a lot of noise and say that it is important that a regulation should be introduced and that a little bit of freedom should be taken away. The pressure is always for increased regulation to be imposed on the British people.
I am calling for Her Majesty’s Government to lead by example and show what shining lights they are in the firmament of politicians who say that health may be improved by doing X or Y. I want the nation at large to believe them because they are such trustworthy and upstanding figures, and because they do it in a way that is embraced by a willing, joyful public who think, “How lucky we are to get such sensible advice”, rather than a downtrodden public who are ordered to do it."Bravo!
"Without any additional regulatory burden, the Secretary of State would not have the power to increase regulations on the hard-pressed British people. That is a general power being given in clause 1, and I wish to limit it. I wish to restrict it, and to some extent I wish to stop it. I want us to retain our ancient liberties, and I want regulation to be stopped. Government after Government say that they want to get rid of regulation. They want to roll back the regulation that comes out of Ministries and Europe. Government after Government do not do so."On the money, yet again.
"Under [my] amendment, the Secretary of State would not be entitled or required to provide advice to direct people in their personal conduct. He could still make speeches in the House of Commons saying that people might be better off if they had less sugar, or ate more butter, as we now discover that butter is so good for us, but it would prevent him from giving orders. It is orders that are important."Quite so.
"Tobacco is a legal industry, and there are regulations concerning many aspects of it. Tobacco may not be advertised on television, on radio or in newspapers, and tobacco may not sponsor cricket—I remember going to the John Player Special league in the old days when cricket was played on a Sunday. That has all stopped. I remember cigarettes being advertised on the back of parking meters in Westminster. We do not have parking meters any more, and parking meters certainly cannot be used to advertise cigarette manufacturers. I do not object to that because it is a habit that can cause serious diseases—that is very well established—and no one would argue to the contrary, but if the Government wish to make cigarettes illegal, they should simply introduce a Bill and pass a law to make them illegal. They should not cut at the edges; they should determine that smoking is a habit that is so dangerous and so deleterious to health that it should be banned. If the Government decided to do that, we could have the argument full throttle as to whether such a ban is an impingement on people’s liberties, or a reasonable thing to do."Well, it would be more honest, would it not?
"Doctors need to have the right to give advice to their patients, but the patients do not have to follow what their doctor says, and that also applies to the Secretary of State. He is a wise and good man, and I have the highest admiration for him, but I do not want him to be leading my life for me."Nor any other politician, quite frankly. Thank you, Jake, for representing us in the face of oleaginous politicians who would dictate by law how we scratch our arses given the chance.
As you can see, "introducing plain packaging for cigarettes" was the lowest of any of the variables tested with a net importance rating of just 3.51. The closest variable, "regulating the future of the fracking sector", scored 6.10.
More than half (52%) of the general public awarded "introducing plain packaging for cigarettes" a mean score of 0-3 in terms of importance. Conversely, only one in ten (12%) awarded the issue a score of 7-10.
Both men (3.14) and women (3.00) expressed low net importance ratings on the issue of plain packaging.
Likewise workers in both the public (3.04) and private (3.12) sectors attached little importance to the issue.
Those members of the public who have children awarded it a net importance rating of just 3.88.
The key messages of the poll appear to be:
The general public simply do not view a vote on the introduction of plain packaging as a priority.
Plain packaging legislation is all ill-judged sideshow and a distraction from the real challenges the government faces.If politicians want to know why voters are avoiding them in droves - and the uni-policied main three parties in particular - well there's a perfect example.
Here is hoping that voters will show Ellison and her ilk the same contempt that they have quite clearly shown the public come May 7th, and that some elected politicians will think twice before voting “aye” to this cynical and ill-conceived piece of politics.Quite. If your local MP votes in favour of plain packaging, they're a credulous fool who thinks our views matter less than the salary of a highly-paid, tax-funded professional bansturbator. They're also criminally negligent in opening the door to a nasty precedent which already has the out-of-control puritan bandwagon dreaming of uglifying everything from Sprite to e-cigarettes. So if your local MP votes for this, don't vote for them. And if they just happen to knock on your door in the upcoming self-interested frenzy to beg for your support, tell them the reason they won't get it is their crass elitist snobbery and contempt for each and every one of us.
Plain tobacco packaging may reduce the likelihood of smokers seeking to obtain cigarettes by almost 10% compared to branded packs, according to research from the Universities of Exeter and Bristol.The authors I refer to are committed anti-smoking researchers Marcus Munafo and Olivia Maynard. Their day 'job' being to support anything that the tobacco control industry is lobbying for. The last para just about admits as much.
Co-author Dr Olivia Maynard won an Economic and Social Research Council Impact Prize for her PhD research into plain packaging. Dr Maynard explained: "The current laboratory study tested whether plain packaging might influence tobacco-seeking behaviour. Our previous research in this area has been used to inform tobacco control policies both in the UK and internationally. Our hope is that high quality experimental research of this kind can make a meaningful contribution to important policy debates."What they don't say is that they are both members of Bristol's Tobacco and Alcohol Research Group (TARG). This group's 'research' usually (in fact, always) tends to agree with whatever particular anti-smoking legislation is being promoted to politicians at any particular time.
In the experiments, smokers had to choose between pressing a key that might earn cigarettes or a key that might earn chocolate, and were uncertain about which key was most likely to pay off in each trial. Just before participants made each choice, they were presented with either a picture of a branded cigarette pack, a picture of a plain cigarette pack, or nothing. The results showed that whereas branded packs increased the probability of participants making the cigarette choice by 10% compared to when nothing was presented, the plain packs did not. The implication is that plain packs are less effective at prompting smokers to purchase cigarettes compared to branded packs.Brilliant!
"[T]he plain packs promoted no more tobacco choice than when nothing was presented. These findings provide experimental support for the idea that introducing plain packaging might reduce tobacco purchasing or consumption"No they don't. They just tell us that plain packs were not recognised as being tobacco packs at the moment. Quite understandably. When plain packs are introduced, they will be.
However, the researchers also advise caution when interpreting these results. As Professor Marcus Munafo, a co-author of the study from the University of Bristol, explained: "The experimental procedure only modelled the ability of pack stimuli to promote a cigarette-seeking choice. In the natural environment, smoking may be governed by a whole range of factors, including tobacco withdrawal, the presence of other people smoking, time of day, and so on. It is not clear to what extent plain packaging will reduce smoking when these other factors are at play."Of course. This is as near as you'll ever get to a tobacco controller admitting that they are producing junk science. But it's never been about the 'science', has it? It's just about getting a headline in the press, and you just know that some lazy journalists will fall for it and announce that plain packs will reduce smoking by 10%.
But plain packaging will not instantly cut smoking rates, he cautions. "We're not expecting plain packaging to have much impact on existing smokers. It's a policy about the next generation of kids who are coming through, so we would expect to slowly starve the industry of new customers by de-normalising and de-glamorising their products."Slowly? Err, but Munafo and Maynard's policy-led study - in a nutshell - implies that the effect will only last so long as plain packs are not associated with actual cigarettes. And if it ain't happened by now with kids in Australia - which it hasn't - it's not likely to in the future, now is it?
The Korean government is in the midst of revising a policy to ban “walking smoking,” or smoking on sidewalks across Seoul. The reasoning is that secondhand smoking is encountered most frequently on the streets, and many citizens have complained about walking behind smokers and inhaling the fumes of the cigarettes.Yes, that's right. On sidewalks. Next to streets. In an incredibly busy capital city. With cars. And buses. And lorries.
In response to smoker’s opposition, Congressman Nam said, “I think it’s obvious they will object.” “We need a law to guarantee their smoking rights too.”Now there's a thought. But I don't reckon Kim Jong Un will go for that. What's that? The wrong Korea, you say?
Colorado is making so much money from cannabis it's having to give some backE-cigarettes generated just 1% of the amount of free radicals in tobacco smoke, but this still posed a potential health risk, said the researchers.
“We were surprised by how high that number was, considering that e-cigarettes do not produce combustion products,” said Dr Sussan. “Granted, it’s 100 times lower than cigarette smoke, but it’s still a high number of free radicals that can potentially damage cells.”Well, that kinda agrees with the claim that vaping is 95%-99% safer than smoking which sends shudders down tobacco controller spines, doesn't it? But do please stay terrified, won't you? Tobacco control industry salaries depend on it.
The study used a test protocol that anyone with half a grain of common sense would tell you was utter rubbish – they exposed mice to the same level of vaping as a person, according to their own assumptions. Now given that a person weighs in at about 70Kg, and a mouse at about 40g, that’s a comparable increase of 1750 times. Perhaps these retards watched Phil Busardo’s Legal Vape 4000 video, and assumed that was quite a normal way for people to vape? Or perhaps they knew that by overdosing mice they would get more negative effects. It’s a good job that nicotine isn’t as toxic as idiots like these think, or the whole experiment would have ended there.
Even then, they managed to screw it up – the estimates for number of puffs per days range from 120 to 350, but that clearly wasn’t enough for these animal abusers. They used 1080.Furthermore, actual scientist Leg Iron spotted a major flaw too.
As if this wasn’t bad enough, they used cigalike cartomisers, which they changed weekly. I don’t know what planet they inhabit, but only a complete fucking idiot would expect to be able to get 180 puffs per day out of a cartomiser for a week. Most of what these idiots exposed the mice too wasn’t vapour as we know it, but burning cartomiser fillings. Good job!
So some mice died from inhaling (undefined concentration) of (some chemical) that might be present in trace amounts in Electrofag steam. Mice have lungs that are smaller than humans and lab mice are bred to be susceptible to all sorts of things – so that those things can be quickly tested. What happens to a lab mouse will take a lot longer to happen to a real-life mouse and a hell of a lot longer to happen to a human. Perhaps longer than a human lifetime. Funny they never mention that.
Ah but wait, the mice didn’t die from inhaling Electrofag steam. They died of being deliberately infected with nasty things afterwards. The ones dosed with (undefined concentrations) of Electrofag steam chemicals died faster – but then, a mouse lung has a bit less capacity than a human lung.
To test the amounts human vapers inhale would involve scaling down and dosing the mice with barely detectable – practically homeopathic – concentrations and my money is on… they didn’t do that.Of course they didn't, it was all about the headline ... and they got it. They should be in jail instead of promoting junk science, but maybe that's something for the future.
"However, we would not wish to see children taking up vaping, as nicotine is a highly addictive substance"
"Equally, we need to be cautious as regards the long-term health effects of using e-cigarettes. That is why the Chief Medical Officer is currently not able to recommend their use."
"The Cochrane review concluded that the quality of the evidence overall is low because it is based on only a small number of studies."And my favourite ...
"There is a question mark over the electrical safety of some products. We cannot make a general statement about products that are currently on sale. Nevertheless, it is right that the European Union has taken this matter in hand."Because the European Union doesn't already compel us to observe their 2006 batteries directive along with the other 20-odd regulations and directives which already cover vaping paraphernalia.
The Challenge (and why we hope you will support us)
We may have launched this challenge, but it is a challenge we hope all vapers and all of industry can support. We want it to be our challenge – vapers and the electronic cigarette and e-liquid industry, for if the TPD is implemented in its current form we will all lose out.
We launched this legal challenge to the EU’s Tobacco Products Directive last year, on the grounds that Article 20 of the Directive breaches EU law.
Specifically, this challenge is based on the view that Article 20 of the TPD represents a disproportionate impediment to the free movement of goods and the free provisions of services, places electronic cigarettes at an unjustified competitive disadvantage to tobacco products, fails to comply with the general EU principle of equality, and breaches the fundamental rights of electronic cigarette manufacturers and users.I'd just add that this is not just for vapers, but anyone who believes in freedom of choice and who resents unwarranted interference and unnecessary regulations.
"The greatest problem in the world today is intolerance. Everyone is so intolerant of each other" - Princess Diana
You (Smokefree South West) go ahead and have your pretend ban, the people of Bristol can pretend to obey it, and we'll pretend you're not a parasitic, hateful, puritanical, freedom-hating arm of the government.
“We hope that it ... gives people confidence to ask others to stop if they are smoking.”
Copyright Dick Puddlecote 2010.
Wordpress Theme by the-cloisters .
Converted To Blogger Template by Anshul .
