Monday 5 April 2010

A Warning Ignored

Just over a year ago, I attempted to impart some of the wisdom gained from over 5 years fighting the righteous. It was in response to this post on an e-cig forum.

Please could you make suggestions about organisations we would like to associate ourselves with. Some might be controversial, bear in mind that this isn't about you or your allegiances, it must reflect what is best for our community and the future of vaping.

Anti smoking organisations -
Action on Smoking and Health - ASH.
The proposal was countered by another member, but was vehemently, and repeatedly, rebuffed. So I registered and politely offered my experience-based opinion.

[...] if you are considering consorting with ASH, you will be killing your industry stone dead.

If your product isn't provided by their paymasters, you will be hounded out of business by whatever means. In the UK, they are already pushing for bans on e-cigs. If they are not made by pharma, they will kill them.

They will bankrupt you without losing sleep, believe me.
The reply was surprising, to say the least.

Hi Dick, thanks for your concern but you are presenting false information.

I'm finding myself arguing, not because I like ASH or have any loyalty for them but because of the misinformation that has been presented to stop Right to Vape considering potentially useful allies.
OK, I tried, but it really isn't worth it when someone refuses to have a clue.

Fair enough Kate. You believe your nonsense, I'll carry on with what I know.

I'm not wasting any more time on you.

You were warned. Best of luck.
And that was about it.

Take it to the police Dick.

I don't believe you about anything.
So, I wonder if she will believe this gleeful press release from ASH.

The importation of e-cigarettes will be banned indefinitely as the result of a unanimous ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals [...] reports public interest law professor John Banzhaf of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), who participated in the legal proceeding.

The FDA had warned that e-cig use poses "acute health risks," that "the dangers posed by their toxic chemicals . . . cannot seriously be questioned," and that they have caused a wide variety of potentially serious symptoms "including racing pulse, dizziness, slurred speech, mouth ulcers, heartburn, coughing, diarrhea, and sore throat."

The FDA had found that samples it tested contained detectable levels of known carcinogens and toxic chemicals to which users could be exposed. The FDA said the toxic chemicals included diethylene glycol, “an ingredient used in antifreeze, [which] is toxic to humans”; “certain tobacco-specific nitrosamines which are human carcinogens”; and that “tobacco-specific impurities suspected of being harmful to humans -- anabasine, myosmine, and B-nicotyrine -- were detected in a majority of the samples tested.” The FDA does not currently monitor or license e-cigs, and indeed considers them "illegal."
Consider yourself 'indefinitely' denormalised, love.

If e-cigs are ever sold without opposition in this country, or the USA, it will be the pharmaceutical industry who will control the entire market, not some daft woman who thinks ASH is somehow anything else but a marketing department for big pharma.

None so blind etc.


JuliaM said...

You can lead a cow to water, but you can't make it think... ;)

DaveA said...

Bill Godshall runs SmokeFree Pennsylvania and here is his take on why ASH are against includes "they are happy to see smoers die.."

"While drug company funding is one reason why some organizations have been advocating a ban on e-cigarettes, there also are other reasons including:

- some are tobacco/nicotine prohibition ideologues,
- some don't want to be reminded of cigarettes (which occurs when they see an e-cigarette),
- most haven't actually read the research and empirical evidence on e-cigarettes,
- some truly believe the inaccurate and misleading claims by FDA and others, - some prefer letting all smokers die if doing so prevents even one youth from using tobacco/nicotine, and
- some would be fired by Campaign For Tobacco Free Kids (CTFK), ALF, American Cancer Society (ACS), American Heart Association (AHA), American Lung Association (ALA), etc. if they told the truth about e-cigarettes.

So what the anti smoking faction is includes Puritanical zealots, illiterates, the naive and a section “happy to see smokers die."


Unknown said...

Bunch of tossers, let them dance with the devil if they wish, they deserve all they get.

Anonymous said...

Interesting how the prohibition lobby lost in 1933.
link ..

Very factually written piece.
I believe there to be other reasons.
Politicians themselves felt that their own personal liberty was at stake.
The Prohibition lobby grew too powerfull ,the establishment started to feel threatened by the monster they themselves had created.
They could not fully enforce the law.

Anonymous said...

Do me a flavour and stuff em as far
up as the rear molars. My mate Symsey who has just been let out of
Rampton after three years for head butting plolice horses asked if the E-Cig Co do them in Roll -your-own flavours ,bless him.

Old Smokey

Anonymous said...

I hope that the e-cig does get banned and then normal smokers can refuse to help their users.
These 'vapers' are smokers in denial and think that by sucking a plastic tube they will not be classed as dirty smokers.
Well, they are held in as much contempt by the anti smoking brigade as smokers.
Plus they are not too popular with smokers as they see them as traitors

Dick Puddlecote said...

Anon @ 00:13: I don't see them as traitors at all. They are equally oppressed and should be defended.

That's why I bothered signing up to their site.

The fact that my friendly advice was thrown back in my face by an idiot shouldn't be indicative of vapers as a whole.

Mr A said...

I'll defend ther right to "vape" as well, but they're kidding themselves if they're not seen as worse than smokers by the likes of ASH.

At least smokers can claim to enjoy the taste of tobacco, the ritual of it, the centuries of heritage, the air of rebelliousness....

Vapers on the other hand are just admitting that they are addicts - addicts using a plastic nicotene delivery vehicle to give them their "drug hit."

The fact that it doesn't smell, it doesn't stain fingers, create ash or inconvenience others and is perfectly harmless is irrelevant. They're puffing away on their little plastic tubes like a heroin addict jabbing their non-smelling, non-ash producing syringe into their arms, and so are living proof to the Righteous that they are just addicts.

So ASH-ites hate them and by trying to align themselves with ASH by smearing smokers, smokers hate them, too.

They'll be illegal in two years.

Then available from Glaxo or Merck in three.

Antipholus Papps said...

some don't want to be reminded of cigarettes

So are we now to be held responsible for non-smokers thought processes and lack of mental discipline? This is whole new area of holistic totalitarianism!

westcoast2 said...

Yes DP Kate wanted to align e-cig users with ASH. Your comments were ignored at the time. Things have moved on a lot since then.

Since the MHRA 'consultation' it seems there are two groups. A smaller NRT type group and a larger Choice group.

MrA said 'Vapers on the other hand are just admitting that they are addicts - addicts using a plastic nicotene delivery vehicle to give them their "drug hit."'

The problem with generalisations is that they are just that. Some do have that view. This has stemmed from the propoganda and a misunderstanding of the the nature of 'addiction'.

I agree they are heading to ban them though why people who smoke should gain any comfort from that, I do not know.

DaveA, Bill Godshall is a real heavy duty anti, yet even he can see the the Anti-smoking groups are talking non-sense.

DP I am glad you wrote the subsequent article 'selective libertarians' as this is just such an issue.

The press release by Banzoff overstates the position. The appeal court has continued a Stay (stopping imports) until the appeal is heard. This stay was originaly an Administrative stay while consideration of Judge Leons decision was reviewed.

This case (SE/NJOY) has been going on for a while now and there are all sorts of twists and turns.

The Vaping community are evolving and changing. Yes they were naive and thought they knew it all. That didn't go down well with others.

As I say things have moved on.

Dick Puddlecote said...

Westycoast2: Thanks for the update.

Just to make my position clear, I've nothing against vapers, or e-cigs, nor have I ever done. That's why I offered a view at the time, which I thought might be helpful. For that info to be refused out of hand, and with such dismissive (and rather insulting tbh) language, was a surprise considering I have quite a lot of experience with the righteous.

Despite that, I'll still defend the rights of vapers just as I still defend those who enjoy alcohol despite the opprobrium they heaped on smokers at the time of the smoking ban.

As you say, we who are being attacked should be sticking together. CAMRA etc didn't realise that and are now in the cross hair, vapers didn't realise that and the same is true for them. I warned both and was ignored.

It's well past time that they all woke up and so I'm glad vapers are now doing so ... though perhaps too late.

Divide and conquer only works if you allow yourself to be divided in the first place.

Gendeau said...

I was hoping that vaping would be a viable middle-ground, as a non-fan of smoking, I couldn't give a rat's arse if somebody 'smoked' one in a pub next to me. Not sure about banana flavour, but hey if that's your bag...

Unfortunately, a lot of people from both sides of the debate seem to find them inexplicably (to me) unacceptable.

I know that ASH is full of shit, but smokers being anti-vapers is a little harder to understand.

What's wrong with a blatant drug delivery system? I prefer beer and lager, but don't mind people hitting the vodka...

Just saying...

Unknown said...

Off Topic here DP. I see you are storming up the Wikio rankings...well deserved and well done.

Kate said...

Here's my opinion for what it's worth.

ASH UK are bound by The Charities Act 2006 which requires all charities to

"have aims which are, demonstrably, for the public benefit. Two principles (with a number of sub-principles) must be met to show that an organisation’s aims are for the public benefit:

1. There must be an identifiable benefit or benefits
2. Benefit must be to the public or a section of the public ..."

If you can prove they are not acting to promote public benefit (possibly with the example of FSC then they will have their charitable status removed = no more funding.

If you can prove corruption or misappropriation of public funds then the Charity Commission is your best bet.

If you think I won't talk to ASH UK because you hate Banzshit then you're possibly, maybe, probably wrong. I'll talk to anybody if I can be bothered.