The unpalatable reason why drugs are illegal
Tobacco control: n. The nurturing and encouragement of hatred for financial gain https://t.co/asv3zztkGo
— Dick Puddlecote (@Dick_Puddlecote) October 28, 2015
This lunacy needs to be nipped in the bud before it takes over Britain. Last week, the Manifesto Club launched a report in association with FOREST to catalogue the spread of outdoor smoking bans - and their extraordinary cost to the taxpayer - in the UK. It's written by Dolan Cummings and is called Smoked Out. It is well worth reading.Agree entirely, so do click here if you haven't already had a gander at it.
Sharing a public space requires tolerance, a quality that is absent in the soul of the health fascist. These bigots have taken every indoor public place in Britain. We should not concede an inch of ground to them outdoors. Let's not see any more scenes like the one in the video above.All of which reminded me of a little piece of London which is a mirror of Martin Place in Australia where that disgusting bully was endorsed by state fascists to spew his bile in public, except for one small detail. Here is a picture I took in Canary Wharf a little while ago.
This paper examines the causal impact of e-cigarette access on conventional cigarette use by adolescents. Regression analyses consider how state bans on e-cigarette sales to minors influence smoking rates among 12 to 17 year olds. Such bans yield a statistically significant 0.9 percentage point increase in recent smoking in this age group, relative to states without such bans. Results are robust to multiple specifications as well as several falsification and placebo checks. This effect is both consistent with e-cigarette access reducing smoking among minors, and large: banning electronic cigarette sales to minors counteracts 70 percent of the downward pre-trend in teen cigarette smoking in the states that implemented such bans.Yes, that's right. The ridiculous stance of blinkered, reactionary, screw-health-let's-just-bash-tobacco-companies 'public health' rent-seekers towards e-cigs in the US is actually leading to more kids smoking than would otherwise be the case (see also, plain packs in Australia).
So, it would appear that 'public health' has set its sights on convincing governments to ban e-cig use in public not by proving harm actually exists, but by "continued monitoring of public perception" to "guide clean air policy decisions" in favour of prohibition.... it's worth highlighting this from the mad mechanic's blog too (emphases mine).
Recently I received the following email from a colleague working for a state health department:Erm, what harms? There have, as yet, been no proven harms from e-cigs at all and we are well past the first full decade of their use by millions of people worldwide.
Throughout the last six months my colleges and I have been hearing professionals refer to e-cigarettes as harm reduction. A few months ago I was attending a Youth Engagement Alliance webinar where Dr. Terry Pechacek was presenting. During his presentation made it sound like e-cigarettes are harm reduction and mentioned moving all current cigarette smokers to exclusive use of e-cigarettes. Then a few weeks ago after meeting with an individual who works at our state health department he stated that he had heard something similar at a conference he attended a few weeks ago by Dr. Brian King. Now we are seeing more and more information come out to the public referring to e-cigarettes as less harmful than cigarettes. How should public health advocates respond to statements like this from well-known individuals when a large amount of our work has been focused on educating on the harms of e-cigarettes?
 |
| Click to enlarge |
There is ongoing debate over banning electronic cigarette use (vaping) in public places. Many people perceive secondhand e-cigarette vapors (SHV) to be relatively harmless, which may affect their support for policies to restrict vaping in public places.Well, secondhand vapour is harmless, there are no two ways about it. And, since it's harmless, only a hideous, totalitarian, anti-social crackpot could possibly support a ban on e-cig use in public. End of story, nothing to see here, flogging a dead horse, let's go spend taxpayers' money on something which actually matters, says cash-strapped, David to industry's Goliath, shoestring budget 'public health', obviously.
Given that awareness of secondhand cigarette smoke risks predicts public support for clean air policies, we hypothesized that greater perceived harm of SHV to personal health would be associated with stronger support for vaping restrictions.Not actual harm, you notice, merely perceived harm. As in, what brickie Joe and Tesco cashier Jane might believe, even if it is wildly wrong. It doesn't seem to matter to the study's author if any harm actually exists, they're just interested in the support for banning stuff.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that continued monitoring of public perception of SHV harm and the accuracy of e-cigarette marketing claims about reduced harm would be needed to guide clean air policy decisions.Again, a "clean air policy decision" should surely be solely down to whether there is "clean air" or not. What the public thinks as they natter in the fish and chip queue shouldn't come into it, should it? Well, not for a proper scientist, no, but junk scientists like this one are a different beast.
The degree of danger caused by “third-hand smoke” was not assessed in this study.Not that it stopped the Telegraph from spreading the falsehood anyway.
Parents who limit their smoking to the garden could still be harming their children because of the dangers of 'third-hand smoke', doctors have warned.Winickoff was very pleased with this, of course.
"When you come into contact with your baby, even if you're not smoking at the time, she comes in contact with those toxins. And if you breastfeed, the toxins will transfer to your baby in your breastmilk."
"Everyone knows that second-hand smoke is bad, but they don't know about this," he added.That's because the danger quite simply doesn't exist, and he knew that. You see, with tobacco control industry extremists it's all about getting a headline printed, and nothing whatsoever to do with health.
 |
| This is the best I managed all day |
 |
| "I am representing the nanny state" |
"Vapers have done what they were told, quit smoking, and won't put up with being shoved around anymore" says @cjsnowdon at #battleofideas
— Dick Puddlecote (@Dick_Puddlecote) October 17, 2015
I learnt yesterday @BattleofIdeas how public health people promote harm from tobacco by failing to recognise benefits from e-cigarettes.
— Richard Smith (@Richard56) October 18, 2015
 |
| Lenore Skenazy |
There was a good deal of consensus that it had - it is hard to argue with the statisticsQuite. Considering there has been nothing but continual decline in consumption for over a decade now for adults and also youths, anyone who claims otherwise is either misinformed or - in the case of state-funded anti-alcohol organisations - just desperate to protect their income stream.
.@Dick_Puddlecote alcohol consumed in England, combined home and outside home > 10 year decline. #NoMoralPanic pic.twitter.com/men7aKQtX2
— Clive Bates (@Clive_Bates) October 17, 2015
I was interested to hear from Clare Gerada (head of the Royal Society of General Practitioners) that she thinks that the current drinking guidelines are based on no evidence and that the advice that pregnant women should drink no alcohol is also based on no evidence. This is undoubtedly true, but it was good to see her say so in public.Indeed, and it's important to note exactly how that scepticism was described.
.@clarercgp agrees alcohol limits should be scrapped, "back of a fag packet, they are not based in science or evidence" #battleofideas
— Dick Puddlecote (@Dick_Puddlecote) October 17, 2015
"If DoH drops alcohol limits it'll be a laughing stock, no-one will believe them ... so I hope they do that" @cjsnowdon at #battleofideas
— Dick Puddlecote (@Dick_Puddlecote) October 17, 2015
We've just been told City of London has banned #ecigs use indoors, so been asked to stop, fortunately the council is shut so #ignore
— Dick Puddlecote (@Dick_Puddlecote) October 17, 2015
I’m delighted to say that, in response to the growing attempts to tell people what they can and cannot smoke, vape, drink and eat, that Conservatives for Liberty will be holding a lobby evening of parliament called Forgive us our Trespasses: The moral case for choice and responsibility. It takes place on Wednesday, November 25, from6.30pm6:15pm to 8.30pm, and for those who attend, you will have the chance to hear from seven MPs and peers, outlining their belief in individual choice.
The lobby will firmly defend the principle of freedom of choice which, as a Conservative who believes very strongly in liberty, I believe leads to the greatest prosperity for all. The lobby will defend freedom of choice by arguing that adults should be free to weigh pleasure and risk and decide for themselves when it comes to products such as cigarettes, e-cigarettes, alcohol, and fatty or sugary foods.Looks right up our street, does it not?
If you want to attend, you will need to RSVP by emailing stephen@con4lib.com. This event will be held in parliament, and the details of the Committee Room will be sent to people who sign up. We have a limited capacity, so you are encouraged to RSVP soon.
In the spirit of freedom of choice, and in true Conservatives for Liberty style, there will be drinks after the event in a nearby pub.What's not to like?
 |
| Yes, in there! |
A short history of libertarianism (or how free will lost its way)
This house believes that smoking should be banned in psychiatric hospitals.
For
Professor Sir Simon Wessely, president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists
Ms Deborah Arnott, CEO of ASH (Action on Smoking and Health)
Against
Mr Christopher Snowdon, author and freelance journalistYes, this is your chance to come and watch ASH's Deborah 'not anti-smoker' Arnott speak in favour of torturing mental health patients! It'll be a revolting sight but surely unmissable.
@Sectioned_, service user and (micro)blogger
@twtrrr smokers forced to quit? Not sure even North Korea does that ...
— Simon Chapman AO (@SimonChapman6) October 12, 2015
@twtrrr So you'd like to lower cost of smokes to "help" those on low incomes. What a perverse way to be helpful. Job for you @BATA_Media
— Simon Chapman AO (@SimonChapman6) October 12, 2015
“Every increase of cost is a prohibition, to those whose means do not come up to the augmented price.”By this he means that every marginal increase in sin taxes ensures that someone, somewhere, is forced to quit because they can't afford it anymore, which is de facto prohibition. This is self-evident and entirely the point of Australia's huge tobacco tax hikes; they want smokers to be unable to afford to smoke and therefore be prohibited by price.
ASH up nice and early on a Sunday eager to bully and impoverish smokers #Vile https://t.co/hlnS1oMDMU
— Dick Puddlecote (@Dick_Puddlecote) October 11, 2015
Tobacco tax increase urged by parliamentary group
Tax on tobacco should be raised to persuade more smokers to quit, a parliamentary group has said.
The tax rate currently goes up by 2% above inflation each year, but the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Smoking and Health wants that increased to 5%.
It says an extra £100m per year would be generated to spend on anti-smoking projectsWould this be the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Smoking and Health which is secretaried by ASH and is just a mouthpiece for whatever their latest piece of anti-smoker gobshitery happens to be? Indeed it is.
What this means is that, over the past eight budgets and two governments, much-vaunted tax increases on tobacco have, in reality, left Ireland with a budget gap of €367 million.Is that so?
As the price of a pack of cigarettes has risen over the past decade or so, tobacco smuggling and non-Irish duty paid cigarettes – sometimes sold at half the retail price – have undergone something of an explosion.
In 2007, the percentage of cigarettes coming from untaxed trade was 6.7%, according to market research company Euromonitor International.
Over the next two years, successive tax hikes increased the price of a pack by 50 cents, 30 cents, and 75 cents.
And the untaxed share of the market rocketed to 19.8% by 2009. In 2014, it was just over 23%.
Revealed: how ‘big tobacco’ used EU rules to win health delay
Analysis carried out by the University of Bath’s Tobacco Control Research Group (TCRG) ...So perfectly objective and not biased at all, of course.
... has found that the companies played a key role in pushing the European commission’s Better Regulation agenda, which places business interests at the heart of policy drafting. They then used the new laws to block and delay a series of major health reforms, including UK introduction of plain packs.A key role eh? Sounds terrible.
Under the terms of the Better Regulation agenda, which internal tobacco industry documents reveal was enthusiastically supported by British American Tobacco, European governments, including the UK, must conduct public consultations and impact assessments when introducing laws that affect business.Erm, I think you'll find that just about every company in Europe, large or small, would have "enthusiastically supported" a rule which says they should be consulted on laws which will affect business and that the impacts should be properly studied. Businesses, and I mean every one, have to conduct cost/benefit analyses or they die from making bad decisions, who except a gurning muppet would believe that governments should not do the same?
Leaked documents show that Philip Morris identified the Better Regulation laws as a key weapon in its battle to derail the 2014 EU tobacco products directive which introduced large-scale health warnings on cigarette packets and a ban on flavoured cigarettes and packs of 10 - both popular marketing initiatives with young smokers (only tobacco control fruitcakes say this - DP). The tobacco giant employed more than 160 lobbyists and spent £1.25bn opposing the directive’s introduction. The European commission department responsible for drawing up the directive was swamped with 85,000 submissions.This is called democracy by anyone else, and is the same process used by developed nations all over the world. Only banana republics and dictatorships believe it is acceptable that laws can be passed by government without scrutiny, but that is exactly what Bath Uni are suggesting the EU should do. Maybe they'd be happy if the EU passed an enabling act or something like that, I dunno.
Many of the claims that they made were based on dubious evidence. According to the TCRG analysis of the submissions, “the research was of significantly lower quality than research supporting the measure. For example, the tobacco companies’ arguments were not supported by any peer-reviewed journal articles about standardised packaging.”Politicians didn't think so. Tobacco control has so perverted the term "peer review" that proper scientists must despise them for weakening any case a scientist has these days. It's a sham and has been admitted as such by the British Medical Journal, no less. Mostly because the tobacco industry has been excluded from "peer-reviewed journals" but I think Gilmore knew that when she wrote this deliberately mendacious bilge.
"The tobacco companies played a key role in implementing Better Regulation, anticipating that it would help them delay, block or weaken public health legislation,” Gilmore said.No they didn't, this is right up there with the most hilarious of conspiracy theories. I've heard more believable guff from anti-vaxers and people who believe airplane wind shear is the New World Order doping us all. Tobacco companies were just a tiny proportion of the entire cohort of European business which supported better regulation in order to make sure corruption in government is accountable and bad laws are open to challenge. Only a moron would believe otherwise, and only an idiot would read this Observer rubbish and accept it as serious analysis.
“They have now gone on to exploit it to prevent life-saving regulations. They are flooding consultations with massive numbers of responses to give a totally misleading impression of opposition to public health policies."Yes, because apparently tobacco companies - which we all know are part of the most trustworthy and revered of all industries in the eyes of the public Europe-wide - were able to play on their enviable popularity to mobilise tens of thousands of people to oppose something they actually believed was fantastic.
Why not assemble a loose network of potential vaping sponsors? True, some vapers communicate informally with smokers already, but if we can build a vaper-smoker buddy system into the public health landscape, we can further arm the fight against smoking.
The local health department or area hospitals could run public service ads on TV or radio and post billboards advertising the availability of vaping buddies (or sponsors, navigators, etc). A website would contain the name of local vapers who volunteer to serve as sponsors or direct smokers to local vape shops where those names would be listed, too.
Civic-minded vapers could sign up to be sponsors through the local vape shop or health department.
It need not be a long-term relationship, but it would be a great way to introduce a patient to vaping if his or her physician determines that the patient intends to keep smoking for the foreseeable future or has had little to no success in quitting with the help of conventional anti-smoking aids.Former smokers talking to current smokers and giving them the benefit of their advice. An informal way of quitting smoking for those who choose to, and without it costing the taxpayer more than a few pennies in leaflets. What is there not to like if you're a professional committed to reducing smoking prevalence, eh?
Unlike many abusers of intoxicants, nicotine-dependent people don’t need to learn to live without a drug, they need to learn to use it in a safer form. They need practical advice (best local vape shop, how to maintain equipment, how to find high quality e-liquid); they need to know what they can expect (e.g. that dual use – vaping while continuing to smoke, at the beginning is very common) and which puff techniques lead to maximal satisfaction. They need a fair assessment of the known and unknown risks associated with alternatives to cigarettes and some need general motivational support if they are ambivalent about relinquishing cigarettes.This all relies on the 'public health' cabal ditching the idea that nicotine is some evil that must be eradicated at all costs. Do you see that happening anytime soon? No, neither do I.
Take public vaping. Vaping has already been banned from offices, public parks, restaurants and airports. But at the very least, it should be allowed in non-smoking adult establishments with well-marked vaping areas. While not emission-free, any “second-hand” vapor that wafts several feet, unlike smoke from a cigarette, will be virtually undetectable as the subtly “flavored” odors dissipate rapidly. Studies show that emissions, such as propylene glycol, formaldehyde, and acrolein, are at negligible levels, thus below clinically meaningful thresholds for otherwise healthy bystanders.
The idea is for people who smoke to be exposed to vapers as often and as visibly as possible. The infiltration of vapers into non-smoking environments where there are temporarily abstaining smokers (that is, smokers who are, at the moment, banned from lighting up) is a great way to spur curiosity and conversation about vaping.I can almost hear you giggling from here.
[W]hen the national smoking ban was introduced several years ago, and smoking was restricted to cells in prison, procedures were put in place to address this concern. Staff were meant to give a heads-up shout to prisoners as staff were conducting daily cell-checks, so that prisoners could air out the cells. Just to be very clear on this point: procedures were put in place to address staff safety, but staff have never used these procedures. There is no need for any member of staff to enter a smoky cell – unless they allow it to happen. And they do. And in the face of this lazy whine, a total ban on smoking in prisons is planned.So the ban is a solution to something which has already been solved. You can also bet a hefty amount that tobacco controllers were consulted on the measures above in the first place, so are fully aware that there is no risk of danger - even the mythical one they promote - to prison staff if they wish to avoid it.
Unlike tobacco in the wider society, tobacco in prison plays a huge role in prisoners’ lives. Tobacco isn't merely a diversion. It is the default prisoner currency, the standard unit of trade that all other commodities are valued against. As such, banning it would have the same social effects as if Government suddenly banned the cash in your wallet or purse. Sans tobacco, some other substance will become the default currency and the only candidate is heroin.Considering a prime justification for the ban is "the need to improve prisoner health", that's a huge step forward, quite obviously. Slow handclap for ASH and their chums at Public Health England, jolly well done!
With the current medium of exchange prohibited, waves of disruption will flow through the social structure. Those who "baroned" tobacco – burn, snout – will be worthless, their ability to calm a stressed prison gone. In their place will rise, to a more embedded level than currently, those who deal in the "powders". But tobacco barons have always been a stabiliser, a bank, a bureaux de change, with the flow of tobacco being largely consistent. Heroin, in contrast, leads to some prisoners wielding undue influence – "powder power" – but inconsistently. Supplies of drugs are far more uncertain and temporary, leaving the suppliers in a shaky socioeconomic position and as such as likely to prompt instability as anything else.Instability, eh? Just what a prison environment needs. But it'll be a 'smokefree' instability, so that's all right then.
50,000 smokers deprived of their fix will be a fearsome thing.In a prison? What could possibly go wrong?
Tobacco is also used by the Prison Service as an intelligence tool. Every Wing Manager has traditionally had a few packets of tobacco to hand, to dish out to the passing casual informers. This will now end. On a wider scale, by tracking tobacco purchases from the prison shop – the "canteen" – managers have been able to discern economic activity. This activity is often tied to broader prisoner activities and can highlight the wheelers and dealers. A non-smoker buying lots of tobacco is obviously "up to something"! Whether this oversight of prisoners’ economic activity has ever led to more substantial intelligence is unknown; what is known is that this source of intelligence will now cease.Well done tobacco control industry. You've 'helped' the prisoners in a very meaningful way.
Banning tobacco, then, will have the key consequences of instantly dismantling economic structures which have stood for decades; will destabilise the social structure; reduce intelligence; tempt staff to smuggle; and throw social power into the corrosive and unstable hands of heroin dealers.
I can't think of a more damaging policy.Who cares? Tobacco control and Public Health England - who collectively sponge close to £1 billion per annum in taxpayer funding - have ticked a box and been paid for it. Why should they give a shit what happens once their lobbying bandwagon moves onto the 'next logical step' in justifying their hefty salaries at the public's teat?
An international expert on tobacco control is calling for Scotland to lead the way in a global ‘war’ to tackle alcohol problems, similar to the efforts which have been made to reduce smoking across the western world.A "war", no less! So who is this caped crusader against a consumer product enjoyed harmlessly by the vast majority of the population?
Professor Gerard Hastings, who founded the Centre for Tobacco Control Research at Stirling University, and has advised governments and the World Health Organisation (WHO), said tobacco and alcohol were examples of an “industrial epidemic”, where health issues are being driven by commercial interests.
He wants Scotland to take a leading role in urging the WHO to introduce a framework which will outline how countries can take action to address alcohol problems by introducing measures around advertising, packaging and the way it is sold.Oh I see, it's far left wing anti-business nutcase Hastings, a guy (along with others) who came to the attention of Peter Oborne of the Telegraph last August.
Linda Bauld and Gerard Hastings are academics from Stirling University, where they contribute to something which calls itself the UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies. Generally speaking this taxpayer funded group is in favour of heavy regulation and blanket bans.At the time, Frank Davis offered an accurate description of this lunatic.
But Prof Hastings also has a wider political and social agenda. Here is his latest anti-business rant:
But I watched the YouTube video of Professor Gerard Hastings embedded in the text. It was one long emotional rant (he seemed like he was about to burst into tears) against not just smoking and drinking and fatty food, but against marketing, big business, inequality, profit, everything. Here was someone who had looked at the world around him and did not like it one bit, and desperately wanted to make it into a better world. He wanted to completely reconstruct it. For him, public health was not just about smoking and drinking and fatty food: it was about absolutely everything, and he wanted Public Health to be running absolutely everything.
A century ago he would have been a bomb-throwing anarchist, like Gavrilo Princip. But now people like him are professors of public health, paid handsomely to interfere in everyone’s lives.Indeed they are. And, as Frank says, not just on behaviours which are harmful, but on ones which are more often than not beneficial to society in general and arguably healthy. Predictably, he hates e-cigs too.
Hastings said: “With tobacco, public health has eventually got its head round it and said if you are really going to tackle tobacco, you have to do something about the business side of this.
“Initially that focused in on advertising, as that is a very visible part of what they are doing.
"But it is actually having to look at the whole marketing environment - which is not just the advertising but the product development, the pricing strategies, the distribution, the point of sale, the packaging and also indeed all the stuff that big business does to curry favour with government as well as customers.
“To deal with that, the route that was taken was to produce the (WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.”
Hastings said a similar treaty should now been put place for alcoholOh dear, that very much contradicts what Debs said a while ago, doesn't it? (emphases mine)
[T]he “domino theory” i.e. that once a measure has been applied to tobacco it will be applied to other products is patently false. The same argument was used against the ban on tobacco advertising, but 9 years after the tobacco ban in the UK, alcohol advertising is still permitted with no sign of it being prohibited. Tobacco is a uniquely dangerous consumer product which is why there is a WHO health treaty (the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control) to regulate tobacco use.Which is precisely what Hastings' (and presumably Bauld's too) new "war" on alcohol intends to set up. I suppose it's too much for us to hope ASH will issue an apology for declaring this domino theory a myth when it has now been proven to be 100% true? Nah, thought not.
Simpson said he would support Hastings in terms of having an international campaign to limit the advertising of alcohol in a similar way to tobacco.
“The harms are not quite the same, but there needs to be further restrictions on advertising,” he said.
“It is about trying to de-normalise alcohol as well – it may be used by over 80% of the population, but having almost ubiquitous advertising and spending vast amounts on advertising is not acceptable.”Admitting to being part of a tiny minority of 20% but declaring that it's "unacceptable" to abide by the choices of the 80% is astonishing from a politician. But then, hatred and bigotry does so cloud the faculties, doesn't it?
Egged on two years ago, I am sorry to say, by British ministers (incompetent ones, Matt - DP) and some MEPs (including compromised ones, Matt - DP), the EU has agreed a tobacco products directive, which has to be implemented into law by next spring. Its Article 20 concerns the regulation of devices for vaping nicotine. And it hits them much harder than it hits cigarettes.
For a start, it is bizarre to include vaping devices in a “tobacco products” directive at all. It’s like regulating coffee in a hard-drugs law. Remember the evidence is now overwhelmingly strong — and the British government has recently, but belatedly accepted this — that vaping is a really effective way to quit smoking and that, far from being a gateway into smoking, it is a highway out. By some estimates, approaching three million people now vape in this country, nearly all of whom are smoking less or no tobacco as a result.
Gobsmackingly, the directive specifically outlaws the very vaping devices that are most useful to heavy smokers trying to quit: the ones with more than 20 milligrams of nicotine per millilitre. Heavy smokers need high-strength nicotine vapour to quit smoking, so the people with the worst health are going to be denied help. And by insisting that refillable devices are leak free, the directive will effectively kill 90 per cent of the devices sold by independent firms and hand the market back to the struggling non-refillable “cig-alike” ones made mostly by the tobacco firms.
It gets worse. The directive outlaws most vaping advertisements, which will certainly slow vaping’s advance at the expense of smoking — ie, cost lives. It creates a six-month “standstill” period for new vaping products, following notification by the manufacture of an intention to sell a product. This will slow innovation and is asking for a black market to thrive: Chinese websites will be selling new devices into Europe while regulated manufacturers here twiddle their thumbs for 26 weeks.
But all of this pales into insignificance beside the truly shocking idiocy in the directive, which is this. From next spring a manufacturer of a vaping device will have to submit far more information about its emissions than a tobacco company will have to submit about emissions from smoking devices.
Under the new directive, e-cig makers are going to have to measure and list “all ingredients contained in, and emissions resulting from the use of, the product, by brand name and type” — including toxicological data — even though these emissions are far lower and far less toxic than tobacco smoke. Remember, the best evidence suggests that vaping is 20-100 times safer than smoking. But here we have regulation falling far more heavily on the safer product
The result will be a slowdown in the take-up of vaping and therefore more premature deaths from smokingNow, the Tobacco Products Directive (TPD) is a dire piece of legislation in its entirety, but Article 20 is quite simply a staggering disgrace.
Sir, Matt Ridley misses the point on proposed European regulation of electronic cigarettes. Under the new tobacco products directive, electronic cigarettes and their contents will be regulated to ensure they are safer and more effective.By safer, I can only assume because fewer people will use them and by effective, I presume she simply doesn't understand how they work.
The evidence is now overwhelming that vaping is safer than smoking and offers a good chance for many smokers to quit.Well yes, Cheeseyperson, they certainly used to, but that was when levels of nicotine over 20mg were allowed to wean smokers off of tobacco. It won't be the case after the TPD has been implemented because 20mg is simply not enough to hook smokers unless they are incredibly committed to quit. It's almost like ASH still want there to be a rump of hardcore tobacco users to justify their jobs, isn't it?
The EU has therefore rightly rejected the approach of other parts of the world where electronic cigarettes have been banned altogether. Instead, EU regulations will provide a safe framework through which electronic cigarettes can be sold, giving their users confidence in these products. This is likely to save many thousands of lives.
Smokers will benefit from having electronic cigarettes on sale that meet reasonable consumer standards.
Laws against 'extremism' risk criminalising us all
Copyright Dick Puddlecote 2010.
Wordpress Theme by the-cloisters .
Converted To Blogger Template by Anshul .
