I'm hoping to publish a few pics and maybe even a bit of commentary on this post (and on Twitter), so do check back during the day for updates. The plans and schedule for the trip are detailed here if you're interested.
There'll be nothing quite as dramatic as the smoke bombs French farmers are fond of lobbing, but do feel free to pinch anything you see here and share wherever you wish if you're feeling saucy.
08:50 - Carriage 5 awaits for boarding.
09:15 - Vapers on the train, after a little chat with the train manager.
10:42 (11:42 Brussels time) - Crossed into Belgium. There have been a lot of curious fellow travellers asking about the range of devices, many smiles and good luck messages when told of the reason for the trip. Twitter hash tag is #BBJ (Brussels balloon journey).
Arrival 12:07 local time.
12:58 - Balloons being blown up in Place Luxembourg.
13:00 - Piles of balloons blown up, a quick speech on the foolishness of the EU, then a crackling which echoed round the Place as they are burst in a couple of minutes. How very cathartic.
13:35 - MEP Chris Davies comes out to meet vapers before being interviewed to camera. Said he is expecting a narrow loss in this afternoon's vote, sadly. However, it all depends on the EPP group and how they use their free votes.
17:02 - As Rursus notes in the comments, the ENVI committee has ignored e-cig potential and bowed to Pharma pressure. Those who attended witnessed hugs as prohibitionists celebrated defeat of a competitor.
20:30 - Back in England, 25 mins from London.
Home now after a long day - and a disappointing but predictably stupid decision - and we've learned yet another lesson in how the EU ignores anything but its own opinions. A decision decided in unelected 'Geneva' is passed in Brussels thanks to a liberal greasing of the wheels by companies competing with e-cigs for the harm reduction/cessation market, and a huge dollop of idiocy from politicians.
An incredible effort by many disappointed vapers who arrived back in London only to then embark on another long train journey to places like Sheffield, Barnsley and Durham. But they did their best and the issue moves onto plenary in September or October, so still more time to get their message across.
Or, as one vaper put it on the return journey this evening, "we'll all be back again, you can bank on that!".
Home now after a long day - and a disappointing but predictably stupid decision - and we've learned yet another lesson in how the EU ignores anything but its own opinions. A decision decided in unelected 'Geneva' is passed in Brussels thanks to a liberal greasing of the wheels by companies competing with e-cigs for the harm reduction/cessation market, and a huge dollop of idiocy from politicians.
An incredible effort by many disappointed vapers who arrived back in London only to then embark on another long train journey to places like Sheffield, Barnsley and Durham. But they did their best and the issue moves onto plenary in September or October, so still more time to get their message across.
Or, as one vaper put it on the return journey this evening, "we'll all be back again, you can bank on that!".
24 comments:
Good luck to you - & try not to get arrested this time! (or any other for that matter).
As far as I know:
Compromiise Amendment 57 -> Adopted by ENVI
Compromise Amendment 58 -> Rejected by ENVI.
A complete Win-Win for BigTobacco and BigPharma. :(
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/envi/dv/tobacco2_938108/tobacco2_938108en.pdf
and a complete Lose-Lose for EU citizens
Smokers as well as vapers should have come out more en-masse against this ruling - as once they ban ecigs, that opens the doorway further to them medicalizing and then demanding licenses for tobacco, before making it a major crime for possession - at the tail end of it. So a loss for ecigs, regardless of how some might feel about a handful of ecig users having to be snotty and pro-anti-smoking at times, is still a potential threat to tobacco users too - in the longer run of things. I would fear this ruling coming against ecigs, whether as ecig or tobacco user, either way, it's still a threat.
Did anyone really expect anything else?
And the persecution will go on until either there is outright rebellion or the corruption is eradicated and the fascists driven out.
I suggest you compromise with the EU power elite by offering them amnesty when the revolution comes.
I didn't. But nobody listens to me.
That said, I'll stand behind any vaper who doesn't use tobacco control propaganda or doesn't say "e-cigs save lives." The rest who do can get fucked.
Shame the pics are not enlargeable as I used an app for ease of posting (and even then the flaky Belgian 3G played havoc). If anyone wants the full size images, let me know.
I hope that my remark didn't appear to be sarcastic. I didn't intend it to be so. It's just that we are beginning to see how the EU works. It creates committees which are stacked with its own people who write massive documents which no one reads and then creates a policy which is supposedly backed up by data produced by these committees, and then ignores protests. In other words, it is unaccountable. It makes decisions and then produces evidence to support those decisions. But the evidence is not real evidence - it is personal opinions. Thus, the ENVI vote is a vote which is just an illustration of personal opinions. Who know how these personal opinions were arrived at?
But what annoys me most of all is the silence of our own government regarding the plans. Why are these far-reaching discussions not the subject of ongoing government consideration, stage by stage? The ENVI discussions were ostensibly public, but the reality is that all the ACTION took place secretly.
Another fascist trick.
Bad luck this time, Dick and a very noble effort. But remember, the EU doesn't win every time. You will recall TICAP's conference in Brussels in 2009, which you attended. They tried to stop that with a very dirty trick which contradicted their own parliamentary procedures, but they failed and miserably, thanks to the Freedom and Democracy Group, and the conference simply shifted to the Hotel Berlaymont - right under their noses.
Surely banning ecigs (and snus) is a crime? Those committee members who voted for a ban did so in the belief smoking hugely increases the chance of lung cancer; that Sweden has the lowest incidence of lung cancer in the EU and by far the lowest smoking prevalence: that tens of thousands of UK smokers have stopped or cut down by switching to ecigs. They must believe their actions will result in people getting lung cancer. As far as I can see, they have no defence. Is there any historical precedent for bringing such a prosecution?
I agree. And I wonder where the vapers were when we all went to Brussels in 2009 for The International Coalition Against Prohibition. (TICAP) conference. I didn't see a single one. It's time we united and became one strong group because there is power in numbers. United we win. Divided we hand ammo to antis. Jay (see comment below) is right though. Any vaper who either markets their product on the back of tobacco control stigma - or tries to use anti-smoker propaganda to further their cause - will only play into the antis' hands and create a lose-lose situation. You can't save yourselves by claiming that your product of choice is better than ours.
And this sort of comment is exactly what I'm talking about above. Non smokers and vapers can also get lung cancer. It isn't discriminatory to just those who like tobacco.
Those committee members who voted for a ban... are knowing the truth about snus!
They were informed from within the committee:
http://www.clivebates.com/?p=1036
They know... and they've banned it anyway....
Hmmm... what's the word I'm looking for to describe such a behavior???.... Hmmm... "Idiotically" or "Insane" might do it...
In regard to Sweden, for Japan, they have one of the largest number of smokers, well over 50% of the population, yet also have one, if not thee, longest average life-span, meaning a putting off of death, from any causes, including cancer, including among smokers - in the world. Cause and effect I suppose.
Course they can, but smokers all know that they take on extra risk from using tobacco. It's a tobacco control industry argument that we don't so we need bigger and bigger graphic warnings.
Jonathan has been arguing on our side for years and makes a good point. One I've made myself - in exactly the way ASH themselves did - funnily enough. ;)
http://dickpuddlecote.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/the-date-of-guilty-knowledge-is-past.html
Berteletti Kemp, the pharma lapdog who objected back then, was one of those celebrating wildly yesterday. She's apparently extremely glad they have effectively banned an alternative to tobacco.
It was never about health. ;)
The stark reality is that e-cig makers, sellers and many users aren't in the slightest bit interested in helping real smokers, especially to regain the freedom to smoke in public enclosed spaces.
You're missing the point. They don't need to as yesterday's vote just confirms what smokers have been saying for years. It's never been about health. The more that message gets out, the better.
Well yes, there was never any logical reason for them to do so. They are, after all, in competition with the traditional market. But the e-cig industry has been more than happy to exploit most anti smoking propaganda. Until recently, at any rate. And, without a shadow of a doubt, smoking bans have been good for the industry. But I agree, recent developments have certainly further exposed the hypocrisy and corruption that lies at the heart of the tobacco control industry. Or rather, the nicotine control industry.
As I've said before, i know exactly what I'm putting in my body with tobacco but I haven't got a clue with ecigs. The point is that there is so much in the atmosphere that can cause smokers, non smokers and vapers lung cancer that you have to question the extent the tobacco alone causes lung cancer - esp to lifelong smokers. The only study I've heard about suggests people like me would be more likely to get it if I quit. It does seem hypocritical to me to bang on about the fraudulent propaganda of prohibitionists and then use that same propaganda to argue the case for e-cigs over tobacco. We're either in it together or we're not. I suggest we're stronger together and therefore should sing from the same song sheet or go our separate ways. I know Jonathan is a good guy but he did demonstrate my point that smokers are getting pretty pissed off with the line from vapers that somehow they're likely to be more immortal than we are and think they can save themselves if they sing the line about tobacco from the anti's song sheet.
Ah yes, dear Florence. I don't know why exactly (perhaps prompted by you calling her a pharma lapdog) but for some reason I'm reminded of the type of terminology used in the 1967 Cultural Revolution in China where she would have been referred to as "a running dog of pharma capitalism".
Pat, sorry if I've upset you. I did purposely say "in the belief", ie. from their point of view, so their ban on ecigs is inconsistent with their own beliefs - no matter what the truth is. I still speak out about smoking bans and believe the harm from passive smoking is negligible - about 10 cigs equivalent a year and I still smoke tobacco occasionally. As snus use and the consequent low smoking rate in Sweden has demonstrated, it is highly likely that heavy smoking raises the risk of lung cancer. That's why I'm eager for ecigs not to be banned. I find it incredible that anyone wants to ban them. It doesn't fit into any scheme other than one designed to increase the number of lung cancer cases.
Thanks for reminding me Rursus. I made a similar comment to the one above under Clive Bates' article -
"Would it be possible to get the UK citizens involved in the TPD charged with manslaughter? The MEPs, the bureaucrats, Jean King of CRUK whom you mentioned in your post of March 21st. They can now be in no doubt that the availability of snus and ecigs under current regulation have resulted in huge numbers of people giving up or drastically cutting down their smoking. It was reported in the press today that a firm of lawyers is looking into the possibility of charging Sir David Nicholson (mid Staff NHS scandal) with manslaughter. Even if such an attempt were not successful, it would bring the issue to public attention and make adoption of the TPD very unlikely."
Post a Comment