Conservative peer Lord Blancathra asked a very pertinent question about the ban on e-cigs in the Lords.
To ask the Chairman of Committees whether the Administration and Works Committee will reconsider the ban on e-cigarettes in rooms in the House of Lords which formerly permitted smoking, in the light of the conclusions of a report by Public Health England that e-cigarettes are a good substitute for tobacco cigarettes and should be available on the NHS.Reconsider? Well, as the Lord points out, since the government's own advisory organisation has correctly stated that there is no threat whatsoever from 'passive vaping' and that e-cigs are a potential boon to the UK's health, I'd have thought the ban would simply be scrapped rather than 'reconsidered', don't you?
Lord Laming, Crossbench
The Administration and Works Committee agreed that the e-cigarette policy should ideally be a bicameral one; it presently is. This has ensured that the policy is simple and applied across the whole Estate. The decision to ban the use of e-cigarettes across the Estate (except in smoking shelters and a dedicated e-cigarette use area) was based on the advice available at the time about uncertainty over the impact of e-cigarettes, safety concerns and the practice of other organisations. I recognise that the position on e-cigarettes is changing and we will keep this matter under review.Erm, nothing has changed with e-cigs. They have never been dangerous and worthy of a ban, and they are still not dangerous or worthy of a ban. In fact, quite the oposite. There is, and has never been, a single recorded death or evidence of serious illness attributable to e-cig use or exposure to vapour anywhere in the world. The ban was solely a result of listening to horrendous and corrupt state-funded fucksticks.
Have the public been clamouring for a ban? No. Were Westminster staff screaming that they must be protected from a non-existent threat? No. Did the Administration and Works Committee investigate the false claims being made about e-cigs by blatant rent-seekers and incompetent compromised chimps? No. Did they consult with people who use them to get a proper understanding? No (forgive me for asking such a silly question!). And "practice of other organisations"? What the fuck has that got to do with anything? So Wetherspoons have an ignorant policy to ban e-cigs therefore Westminster must follow suit? Is that really what these drab pen-pushing simpletons are saying? Utterly ridiculous, I'm embarrassed on their behalf.
I mean, why bother with all that 'free country' stuff when it's just easier to sign off a "simple" ban and go back to flicking rubber bands around the office on taxpayers' time, eh?
"Keep the matter under review"? The matter has been reviewed in a 113 page report, and the conclusion is that the policy at Westminster is in direct contravention of the opinion of a 'public health' body the government pays £500 million per annum - I'll say that again, half a billion smackers a year - to produce! What further review is required? Just scrap the stupid rule immediately for Chrissakes.
I sometimes wonder what happened to my country to be bombarded by fascistic arsewipery on a daily basis. And when I do, it invariably comes back to the fact we are governed by a collection of screamingly lazy and moronic thundercunts who couldn't give a shit about the people they are paid to serve. This is just yet another depressing chapter. May God rot each and every one of them.