Public Health England: Vaping in the home: advice for parents - by Jo Locker https://t.co/oaxtcEvCnC— ASH (@ASH_LDN) October 5, 2016
Here are a couple of interesting snippets.
In contrast to the known harm (yeah, right - DP) from secondhand smoke, there’s no evidence so far of harm to bystanders from exposure to e-cigarette vapour and experts have assessed the risks to be extremely low.So therefore, an article entitled "Vaping in the home: advice for parents - by Jo Locker" should consist of a few lines after that saying it's none of their business, doncha think?
Course not, because this article was written by the £500m per year tax-draining Public Health England, and they have to be seen to be doing something with the money. So what does this guidance entail?
A parent who quits smoking in favour of vaping is one fewer smoking role model. However while they will no longer be modelling smoking, they will be modelling vaping.Erm. And?
For those who find that allowing vaping indoors helps maintain a smokefree home, they might find it helpful to permit it. But those who don’t have a problem in keeping their home smokefree might want to consider what can be gained from permitting vaping indoors.How about the fact that it is polite to allow people to do things they enjoy, and if - as the previous assertions imply - there is no harm, where's the problem?
They may as well be saying "be utterly selfish, do what you think is best for you and you only in your house, fuck visitors and anyone else who vapes". But then, as I've said many times before, tobacco control is built on selfish prejudice and greed and preys on the opinions of anti-social bigots, so it's hardly surprising.
More to the point though, is why PHE even thought this was a good way to spend our money. Why the blithering fuck is it any concern of theirs to tell others what they should be doing in their own homes? If householders are worried about vaping it's up to them to research it themselves. It might result in perverse outcomes from those sad enough to seek out the scaremongering stories just to suit their own prejudices, but how on Earth do PHE (and ASH) think that advice is going to counteract such attitudes?
They have just supplied two fantastic excuses for bigoted individuals to cite in banning vaping in private homes, and they can now say it is sanctioned by an authority such as Public Health England. This is how ASH's 'support' of vaping generally goes. It is half-hearted at best, mostly insipid, and always offers a nice option or two for those of a prohibitionist mentality to seize upon. PHE's is generally a load of over-cautious and unhelpful horse-cock too.
In other news today, ASH Scotland were asked to object publicly to a hideous policy from Aberdeen Council which bans smoking and vaping outdoors and has no other goal except to bully smokers and vapers.
@ASHScotland @NHSGGC Will you please speak out against the inclusion of vaping in this? Goes agnst good work done.. https://t.co/6p6E6R1lFe— Andy Morrison (@GMFCfantasy) October 5, 2016
Here is the 'vape-friendly' organisation's robust and outspoken response.
So, having subtlely changed their mission statements in 2010 to include nicotine in their definition of smoking and stay clinging to the gravy train, the Action on Smoking and Health collective have morphed into Inaction on Vaping Bans (and if you want to install one we won't get in your way, in fact we'll quietly hand you the tools and even "fully welcome" them).
I despise these so-called 'friends' of vaping, but even I didn't expect they'd eagerly tweet advice which advocated occasions where vaping bans are appropriate in private homes so soon. The plan must be coming along nicely if they're all that comfortable.
Remember, we're the angels; they're bound for hell.