Let's Unleash More Public Sector Resources!

We are living in extraordinary times, as bad as I can ever remember. I thought that Diana dying in 1997 would be the biggest news story in my lifetime but then it was eclipsed by 9/11. There are some stories that literally take over the entire news agenda so that everything else is rendered irrelevant.

The Corinavirus story, though, has hijacked news outlets in every country around the globe, there is literally no other game in town.

But I have been massively encouraged that so many are turning their talents to assisting the cause. My own transport company has been assisting vulnerable people and our staff are classified as "critical workers". We have been put on notice that our vehicles and staff could be redirected at any time to provide other services. We are well prepared for that and our employees are champing at the bit to do so, many have already volunteered as a result of the government's call for people to help the NHS in their spare time.

It's also fantastic to see other private sector organisation stepping up to the plate. Dyson has responded to the government's call by making much-needed ventilators, along with MacLaren, JCB, Ford, Land Rover, BAE and others. Today we see that Mercedes has worked in conjunction with UCL to produce ventilators in a stunningly short space of time.

BrewDog and the Scotch Whisky Association have retooled and are producing hand sanitisers, as are AB inBev and others in the drinks industry.

Corinavirus testing centres are opening up with the BBC reporting that private sector theme park Chessington World of Adventures has given its huge car park up for the purpose, and employees of Boots have been retrained to administer swabs for invited key workers from the NHS and other key health trades. Virgin and EasyJet are also now providing workers for the new incredibly impressive Nightingale Hospital in East London.

This is absolutely magnificent, doesn't it make you proud to be British?

But we could do more.

As many have pointed out, the public sector is largely insulated from the national carnage and it would seem that they might be under-employed. The Police, shorn of anyone on the streets to arrest due to the lockdown, seem to be making the most of their new totalitarian powers and filling their time making up laws that don't exist.

They don't seem to have any pressure to furlough their staff like private businesses have to when demand is down, so have instead resorted to castigating people walking on remote hillsides, ticketing shop owners for chalking 2 metre guidelines on the the pavement to help customers social distance, and criticising shops for selling Easter Eggs.

With officers apparently having little to do, why not redirect their efforts to driving delivery vans for supermarkets instead?

Likewise state-funded nanny state activists. Many have grants which mean their salaries are protected for a considerable time. Nagging about fizzy drinks, bacon, vaping, and the odd alcoholic drink are pretty pointless considering now we are faced with something that is actually killing people. Right now!

Telling people to scrutinise bread because it has sugar in it is not really a skill we need at the moment, especially since people would mostly like to just get a loaf for their family rather than fanny around wondering about how it is made. Who cares about the sugar content of baked beans when you've not seen any on shelves for a fortnight and someone tells you that there might be a few in a corner shop two miles away?

So why not use these 'public health' workers by re-deploying them to perform proper public health work?  Granted, a lifestyle nanny will have zero transferable skills which enable them to be put on the front line, but hospitals need cleaners, people to fill out forms, to serve meals and other gopherism which they could do without costing the country a penny more.

People are dying every day, and ordinary citizens are volunteering to help with counteracting that. Some huge businesses are converting their entire operations towards health products rather than retail ones.

Getting productive jobs for lifestyle commissars so they contribute to the common cause on their hefty salaries is a great restructuring of resources, and would mirror the immense efforts being donated from the private sector.

Remember "Dig for Victory" in the second world war to get regular people to lay down their highly paid jobs and work on farms to help feed people? Well how about "Grab your mop and bucket and clean for the nation" as a mantra for those whose career is an overhead and far less important than what they could instead be doing to support the NHS?

Professional nags are a luxury at the best of times but when we are facing a crisis of this magnitude they are simply not a good use of taxpayer funds. By their own parlance, this would also be helping them, just as they say they 'help' the public by making alcohol more expensive, complaining about Easter Egg adverts or banning ads for Burger King on the London Underground.

It must be depressing for those whose normal lives, absent this crisis, entail lobbying the government for policies when government has absolutely no interest in their ideas right now. By giving them a tabard, some bleach and a mobile cleaning station, we could free up their potential and make them more productive, and happy that they are doing their bit for the country. It's for their own good.

They would most definitely thank us, I reckon, so to borrow a phrase, let's get this done. Because as the government says, we are all in this together. Aren't we?

EU Wants To Tax Vaping, Don't Let Them

Via new vaping media source Vapetrotter (which you should bookmark, by the way), it won't surprise you to learn that a vast impenetrable bureaucracy which lives solely on the basis of tens of thousands of employees earning their living by doing nothing but regulating, wants to regulate e-cigs further than the absolute shit-shower they did with the TPD.

The EU seems to have decided it wants to tax e-cigarettes. They don't have any moral or scientifc basis for doing so, but hey, salaries have to be paid and vaping is killing the treasuries of many an EU country.

They have published a consultation and - whether you vape or not - please respond to it and tell them (nicely) that they are taking the right royal piss.

There is also a petition organised by the Collective of EU Vaper Associations which is quite cool and and has been translated into a number of different languages. It's up to about 18,000 so far so do consider supporting that too.

Oh, and remember, as you can see from this, the state is not - and never will be - your friend. 

Keyboard At The Ready, Vapers

Here's one for those British vapers who like to engage in a bit of advocacy occasionally. Firstly, you might like to watch this video which has just been released (a longer version is available here).

Now, imagine if your local MP were to see that. It might give him/her/it a fresh perspective, don't you think?

Now also imagine they were to see it and were also told about this debate in Westminster Hall tomorrow morning, eh?

9.30 am - 11.00 am - Vaping 

To be moved by Gareth Johnson, MP for Dartford

Wouldn't it be good if your representative was tempted to take part in that debate? It may be that it was one that had eluded their attention, so a reminder can't hurt, can it?

Yes, I know it's tight for time but you never know. If nothing else, a message from a constituent (i.e. you) may result in a researcher being sent along to take some notes.

Anyway, if you are minded to, you can contact your MP easily at this link. Good luck. 

Drafting An ASA E-Cigs Consultation Response

Tomorrow sees the deadline for a consultation by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) about regulations placed on ads for e-cigs.

The ASA claim this has come about due to products becoming more reliable, but it's fair to say that their rules have been pretty much overtaken by events. What with the Tobacco Control Plan recently putting emphasis on e-cigs being part of the government's future strategy, and with Stoptober prominently featuring vapers in their ads, the rules as they are currently laid out are quite absurd.  Reason being that the CAP & BCAP rules both prohibit claims which are demonstrably true.

The accompanying consultation document states that the purpose of the rules on e-cigs are to make sure ads are "not misleading". Well, it is not misleading to say that vaping is less harmful than smoking because the same has been said by Public Health England, the Royal College of Physicians and it is mentioned in government documents too. It's a bit of a nonsense, therefore, that business can't say such things just because a bunch of idological anti-vaping extremists lobbied dullard MEPs in 2013 to protect the makers of useless pharmaceutical patches and gums.

So the ASA is consulting on bringing the rules back into the realms of reality by relaxing the wording to possibly allow general claims of relative risk. Here is the wording they intend to change ... very slightly.

click to enlarge

The simple deletion of those two words would technically permit an e-cig vendor to put an A-frame outside his shop saying that e-cigs are 95% less harmful than cigarettes (although, to be fair, the ASA were always fighting a losing battle with this because I've seen vendors do it anyway. They can hardly fear a court case when they can safely back the claim). Common sense really, isn't it?

So it's a fairly simple consultation to respond to.

Question 1 

Do you agree with CAP and BCAP’s proposal to remove the prohibition on health claims from unlicensed nicotine-containing e-cigarettes? If not please explain why. Please also provide any relevant evidence not already taken into account by CAP and BCAP in making this proposal.

Well of course.

Remember that the ASA is running a campaign on the tube claiming that they are there to ensure adverts are truthful.

So what could be more appropriate than having rules which allow e-cig business to tell the truth? It's a no-brainer.

Question 2 

Do you agree with CAP and BCAP’s proposed changes to the wording of the rules, as set out above? If not please explain why

Seems fair enough, yes. It removes the blockage and will help counteract much of the fake news put out by certain tobacco control liars which has led to a majority of the public thinking vaping is just as bad as smoking.

The consultation then addresses the confusion in its rules which could feasibly mean health groups couldn't make the same claims in their adverts. The ASA proposes this qualification.

click to enlarge, again

Well, I suppose if it's fair enough that businesses can make those claims, we mustn't be churlish and say that the nannies can't.

Question 3 

Do you agree with CAP’s proposal to add qualifying text to the introductory text of the ecigarette section of its Code as set out above? If not please explain why.

Sigh, I guess so, yes.

Question 4 

Do you agree with the wording proposed? If not, please explain why and provide your suggestions as to how it should be amended.

Yes, it seems straightforward enough.

Question 5 

Do you have any other information or evidence that you think might be relevant to CAP’s consideration of its regulation of public health advertisements which refer to e-cigarettes?

Well, I think some organisations should be prohibited from calling themselves 'public health' groups, but that's a different issue, so no.

Talking of which, in case you're wondering why this consultation is worth taking part in, I think I only have to tell you the groups who have registered their objections to the relaxation of these advertising rules.

1. Blackpool Council
2. British Medical Association
3. Johnson & Johnson Ltd (What a surprise! - DP)
4. Proprietary Association of Great Britain
5. Royal College of Radiologists
6. The Welsh Government

They may be few - and laughably miguided - but the more responses we who are on the side of the angels submit in favour of the rules being changed, the more their pathetic voices are drowned out.

Responses are due in by 5pm on Monday 16th October 2017, that's tomorrow of course, so don't delay. Responses should be submitted as a Word attachment to e-cigarettes@cap.org.uk or by fax to +44(0)20 7404 3404.

Go on, you know you want to. 

Who's Standing Up To Stop Vaping Being Used As A Tool Of Coercion?

For years, many smokers have expressed concern about e-cigs to me. They are obviously quite happy for others to exercise their choice to vape, but they are worried that e-cigs - if accepted by the authorities - will be used as a tool to bully them into quitting smoking. I have always said that these fears are far-fetched, and I certainly would never agree with the idea of any organisation being so crass.

In the UK, acceptance of vaping is arguably more advanced than anywhere else in the world, but it is still true that it is only spoken about by 'public health' in terms of smoking cessation. Yes, there are a very few who understand that long term vaping is fine, but they are just admirable outliers. Remember that this is the official government line on vaping, as expressed in July's Tobacco Control Plan.

The best thing a smoker can do for their health is to quit smoking. However, the evidence is increasingly clear that e-cigarettes are significantly less harmful to health than smoking tobacco.  

DH will monitor the impact of regulation and policy on e-cigarettes and novel tobacco products in England, including evidence on safety, uptake, health impact and effectiveness of these products as smoking cessation aids to inform our actions on regulating their use.

The word "recreational" does not appear once in the whole 32 page report. E-cigs are seen solely as something that will help smokers quit. The whole category is viewed through the lens of health, entirely ignoring the fact that it is continued enjoyment of nicotine that is the foundation beneath the huge success of vaping.

It is still good that our country is leading the way - albeit with ridiculous caution - on this kind of subject, because we are seeing other jurisdictions looking awkwardly our way and realising they are being a bit, well, prehistoric.

So recently we saw the FDA in America marginally relax their hardline stance on risk reduced products and - very surprisingly - now Australia is starting to move on the matter too. It's all the talk over there right now.

HOT TOPIC | Tobacco giant Philip Morris is pushing for e-cigarettes to be legalised in Australia.#sun7 | @TomElliott3AW | @JaneCaro pic.twitter.com/XHpqVS0GFY

— Sunrise (@sunriseon7) October 4, 2017

It's like some in Australia's health community have finally buckled. They tried to brazen it out as the last (allegedly) enlightened nation to resist common sense, but the comparison of their e-cigs policy to knuckle-headed candlemakers resisting the advance of electricity must have finally told.

The transformation has been incredible though! Dr Marita Hefler - a woman not previously noted for any particular positive stance on e-cigs - has changed the conversation from one extreme (prohibition of vaping) to another (prohibition of tobacco).

A leading Australian health researcher has called for a total ban on cigarettes as a new study finds millions of deaths could be prevented if smokers switched to electronic cigarettes.  

Menzies School of Health researcher Dr Marita Hefler says the rapid evolution of alternative nicotine products, such as e-cigarettes, meant outlawing combustible tobacco, including cigarettes, was now possible.

Just a few weeks ago 'public health' Australians were queueing up to tell a government inquiry that e-cigs were rubbish. Now they are apparently so effective that vaping justifies the government banning smoking altogether. Exactly what smokers have been telling me they have been afraid of.

How has this kind of fascistic nonsense - which I'm sure other tobacco controllers worldwide, however supportive of vaping they are, secretly dream of - happened? Well, it seems pretty clear that vaping is being considered by 'public health' solely as a cessation tool. I've long argued that e-cigs can be viewed as both a way to quit smoking, if one chooses, but also as a recreational device one would choose to indulge in. Both arguments are persuasive so I've always been supportive of both.

But with the first open admission that tobacco control want to use e-cigs to force smokers away from tobacco, it's clear that the other side have no intention of honouring the freedom of choice approach, they exclusively regard e-cigs as a method of coercion, nothing more, nothing less. They feel they have captured the idea and are now promoting it - see Stoptober - as just another tool in their armoury on the way to the 'endgame' and full prohibition of tobacco.

At the end of December, Carl Phillips described 2016 as "The year tobacco control officially came to own e-cigarettes", and this new development only serves to prove that he is correct. The whole debate has become a clusterfuck.

'Public health' talk about cessation, vaping industry associations talk about cessation to 'public health', tobacco companies talk about cessation to 'public health', vaping advocates talk about cessation to 'public health'. Where are the advocates for choice for vapers and also for smokers?

As Paul Barnes said today, quite rightly:

I’m sure I don’t need to remind you, but vaping isn’t a stick to go around beating smokers with.

No, it's not, but no-one seems to be that bothered about stopping it being used as such. 

A New Voice Of Freedom From Nags

As Snowdon noted recently, there is a concerted effort underway by 'public health' charlatans to make alcohol into the same kind of pariah substance as tobacco. They employ the same frenzied lie-fest that tobacco control has employed for decades, but these hideous bansturbating bloodsuckers won't rest until they have siphoned the joy out of every facet of our lives.

For the latest on this new hysterical phenomenon, let's take a trip to Australia.

The public health ninnies having a go at Malcolm Turnbull for this beautiful moment need to get a grip - and get a life. #auspol pic.twitter.com/awtRme73Ez

— Helen Dale (@_HelenDale) September 10, 2017

I had to ask about this because I couldn't believe such an endearing photo was being used by joyless 'public health' plankton, but yes it was. They are chasing the dream of the "no safe level" status - unsupported by common sense and against the rules of physics and biology - that tobacco control has disingenuously bestowed on smoking.

What's more, they have hypnotised ordinary folk into coming out with the most incredible load of bollocks.

The PM has been branded "irresponsible" for the photo, which showed him holding his granddaughter Alice, with a beer in his other hand at the AFL final between the Swans and Bombers at the SCG yesterday. 

He captioned the image "multi-tasking". 

Another wrote: "Does anyone see anything irresponsible with an adult hold(ing) a baby and juggling a beer? And when was drinking while holding a child OK?" 

The backlash continued: "I find it disgusting to see people breathing grog all over baby’s but sadly I’m not surprised by Malcolm doing it."

"And when was drinking while holding a child OK?"? Erm, well it's always been OK. Has the person saying that never been to a wedding?

Sadly, there are some catastrophically gullible people in this world, as well as a massive amount of intolerant bigots. They are the type of person 'public health' targets and actively cultivates. Tobacco control employs the useful hand flapping idiots, the temperance crusaders tend to rely on crusty old Aunt Mauds whose idea of a life is peering through their curtains and criticising their neighbours while cats spray up their sofas and their relatives make excuses to be unavailable at all times.

Some uncharitable types might say that's quite a good description of most 'public health' advocates, but I digress.

Look. Australia is this mad place where their chief anti-smoking, anti-drinking, anti-vaping, anti-industry bellend comes out with crap like "if you're thirsty, drink from the tap, why do you need Coke?". Where they ban Carmen the opera for crying out loud! It is a country rushing headlong into eradicating all joy out of all lives, led by people who belong in an asylum.

That the reaction to a beautiful picture of a grandparent kissng a child while enjoying a beer at a sporting event should prompt such ridiculous comments shows that the place has thrown its soul to the wolves.

Is there any hint that Turnbull may be drunk? No. Is there a hint that the child could be in danger? No. Is there a health threat from "breathing grog all over baby’s (sic)"? No.

It's school playground thinking promoted by people who are salaried to spread irrational fear about alcohol. We have the same type of anti-alcohol careerists here who would love to cultivate the same bovine mentality in the UK. My entirely personal view is that they should be given long prison terms and then kicked out of the country, but I know I may be an outlier with that.

Instead, then, how about a fight back? Just after hearing about this latest piece of Australian bedwetting nonsense, I was alerted to a new online campaign from an organisation calling itself Drinkers' Voice. In their FAQs they have this very astute raison d'être.

For too long, the anti-alcohol lobby has dominated the conversation on alcohol and your health, resulting in misleading statistics and scaremongering news headlines. This has left those of us who want to enjoy a drink without the fear of judgement out of the conversation.

Fucking too right they have! 'Public health' likes to leave the public out of their conversations because they know that we don't like them or the fact-free crap they spout. If they were confident that they would win an argument they would enagage in debate, the fact they always avoid doing so and purposely exclude the public from everything they do tells you all you need to know about them.

Drinkers' Voice is only a few days old but has already attracted the attention of BBC radio, Sky News, The Sun, The Telegraph, The Daily Mail and the Sunday Times. It looks like a goer. One of its spokespeople is Richard Harding, who I have written about before.

Next up - and my personal favourite on the night - was Dr Richard Harding, a member of the 1995 committee which came up with the previous alcohol consumption guidelines. He was so calm and laid back that you could almost have missed the subtle contempt he has for Sally Davies and her ridiculous "no safe level of alcohol consumption" nonsense.

Here he is on Sky News yesterday talking about this subject.

Want to know what we stand for before you donate and share? Here's our Director talking about it on Sky News today.https://t.co/xfK65PmwCT pic.twitter.com/bXTFWyMDGV

— Drinkers' Voice UK (@DrinkersVoiceUK) September 11, 2017

Having looked into Drinkers' Voice, it appears they have been set up by CAMRA (meh), have refused industry backing, and will therefore be impossible to ignore via 'public health's' usual avenues of misdirection and ad hominem, although I fully expect the anti-alcohol lobby to be scrambling around trying to find a few lies to fling at them anyway. Anything, in fact, to avoid accepting the indisputable fact that moderate alcohol consumption is beneficial to health.

You can learn more about Drinkers' Voice by going to their website here. I'd like to think that whatever premises they have chosen as a base was christened with a nice smashed bottle of Bolly. Let's hope that they will be an inconvenient thorn in the side of 'public health' lunatics everywhere, and that no UK politician has to put up with shite about how they drank a light beer in the presence of a baby as if it's anything more than irrelevant orgasm fodder for rust-hearted, interfering busybodies. 

You Too Can Own A Rarity!

I don't half treat you guys sometimes.

Today I have listed an item on eBay so rare that I don't think you will see another one this decade. Rarer even than a first folio Shakespeare!

And yet you can own it. Yes, you really can! What's more, this copy is signed by the author himself in tribute to your humble host, and contains a quote of mine which you can read about in an article I wrote earlier this year.

It is offered with free postage to wherever you are and all proceeds will go to NNA Australia so bid generously. To view this incredible once-in-a-lifetime offer, go to the eBay listing page here for full item description details.

It ends in 10 days, so don't miss out. Good luck!

Oh, and if you happen to win, do let me know what you did with it, eh? 

Calling Australian Vapers And Liberty Lovers

I'm sure many of you will know that e-cigs containing nicotine are illegal in Australia, it's almost certainly why the UK's accelerating decline in smoking prevalence means that we just overtook the Aussies whose rate has stalled. Not because of a state-led authoritarian approach - that has been pretty irrelevant in this country - but because of allowing the e-cig market, which smokers choose to purchase from, to be at least a little bit free.

Well, the Australian House of Representatives and Senate are both now holding inquiries into legalising vaping, and a site has been set up to allow members of the Australian public to generate a pro-forma submission to both of them.

This is a great chance to do something to effect legalisation in Australia. If the inquiries recommend against the idea, then it will take years further more before legalisation comes about (because it is inevitable that it will occur one day). I understand that there are some sympathetic noises coming from those on the bipartisan committees, but without public support they can easily be swayed into making the wrong recommendations by hideous anti-vaping lunatics like Sydney pensioner Simple Simon.

So do consider going to http://www.legalisevaping.com.au/ and making a submission to your elected representative, and if you are not Australian yourself, share the link widely with friends, family and acquaintances who are. The more responses that are received, the more chance some sanity can be installed Down Under. 

Drafting An EU Tobacco Taxation Consultation Response

As regular readers know, we often take part in public consultations here, and there is an important one currently open which ends on Thursday 16th February (yes, this week) which I'd urge you to have a bash at.

The EU is planning to make changes to directive 2011/64/EU which deals with manufactured tobacco products, and one of the proposals is to make e-cigs liable for taxation as a tobacco product category. Obviously this is daft, but there is more than just that in the consultation survey, it also deals with new 'Heat not Burn' products (HnB) along with raw tobacco, cigarillos, cigars, waterpipes and other tobacco category items.

Ordinarily I'd write a guide suggesting how to respond but this time I don't have to, because Vapers in Power (ViP) have written one one already.

This consultation is pretty straightforward and won't take very long, so go read the ViP guide and then click on the EU consultation page here to let them know what you think. Remember, it closes on Thursday so don't leave it too late. 

Drafting A Sheffield Council 'Smokefree' Consultation Response

It seems that another daft council is proposing to waste taxpayer cash on illiberal, incoherent, unenforceable and pointless outdoor smoking bans, this time it's Sheffield.

Council chiefs are considering whether to ban lighting up outside hospitals and other NHS buildings, universities, council offices and leisure centres – and they are seeking the public’s views on the proposal.

Seeking the public's views, did they say? That sounds right up our street, I reckon.

The consultation can be found here and only consists of six questions, so let's have a bash at it, eh?

1. Tobacco is an addiction that takes hold in childhood. It is estimated that 5 children start smoking every day in Sheffield. We want to work with all secondary schools in the city to equip children with the skills to resist starting to smoke. Are you in favour of us doing more work in schools to prevent children from starting to smoke, and funding this work by moving some money out of stop smoking services?

Do you know, I can actually agree with this. I'd disagree that it's an addiction rather than a habit, and that it always "takes hold in childhood", but who could disagree that children should be educated as to the risks of any substance, not just tobacco. They are, of course, likely to be taught all kinds of alarmist bullshit, but the basic premise is sound.

Especially since the proposal is to take money away from stop smoking services, with which I can heartily agree. As I've mentioned before, they shouldn't exist at all, and not only because they are an abject failure.

Consider also that demand for stop smoking services has plummeted by around half since 2010 and there is simply no need for them now. So yes, remove that funding and spend it elsewhere. If you needed any further justification, ASH's Debs Arnott says education doesn't work (which is bollocks) and that only handing her and her pals more cash does, which speaks volumes about her seeing as she has strenuously tried to obstruct e-cigarettes at every step of their evolution so far.

It would be preferable if Sheffield didn't spend any money on such things, but taking it away from stop smoking services - which are used in certain situations as a tool to shame or bully smokers into quitting - and funding non-coercive education of children instead is a step forward.

2. We know that children learn the smoking habit from observing their parents and others, so we want to reduce the number of public places where people are visibly smoking so that children don’t think it is normal and copy this harmful behaviour. Are you in favour of us doing more work to increase the number of Smokefree outdoor sites in the city (e.g. outside NHS buildings, hospitals, universities, Councils, leisure centres, at events such as Skyride/Sheffield half marathon/Christmas light switch on) and funding this work by moving some money from Stop Smoking Services?

Erm, didn't we just get told that kids start smoking because of the glitzy packets? I wish they'd make their minds up.

This is an absurd suggestion. Yes, peer pressure is a factor in starting smoking, but the council has no business playing parent and getting involved, it is simply none of their business. Smoking is a legal activity and doing so outdoors has no harmful effect on bystanders whatsoever, nothing should be spent on preventing people from consuming lawful products where they can harm no-one else. It's a silly idea, is entirely unenforceable and would be a waste of taxpayer funds if so much as a quid is spent on signage, even if it's just a scribble on a post-it note.

3. Evidence suggests a very effective way of motivating smokers to quit is by developing mass media campaigns that smokers can relate to, using targeted messages about the reasons to quit. Certain groups smoke more than others, are more heavily addicted, and find it harder to quit. These groups are more at risk of poor health outcomes. We need to ensure that we successfully motivate these groups to quit smoking. Are you in favour of us funding more work on mass media campaigns; targeting those who find it the most difficult to quit smoking and who are the most addicted and funding this by moving some money from stop smoking services?

Why does Sheffield Council believe it is their job to "motivate smokers to quit"? Personal choices should be of no concern to them. While it's encouraging that this is the third question in a row which suggests taking money away from stop smoking services, wouldn't it be better to spend it instead on things that people actually expect their council to do properly? You know, fixing potholes, looking after the elderly, keeping the streets clean and picking up bins? Maybe even funding libraries better considering people are quite fond of them and yet Sheffield seem to have no cash for stuff like that.

Mass media campaigns? Do behave! If they can't fund books, why the blithering fuck are they even considering such a waste of taxes as this?

4. Since 2003 we have had a stop smoking service that anyone can access and we have supported around 3000 smokers a year to quit. From 2010 local demand for stop smoking support has reduced. This has happened alongside increasing popularity and use of e-cigarettes. More people are also choosing to quit on their own. Since 2015 councils across the country have faced significant budget cuts to public health grant funding. This means there is less money to fully fund a stop smoking service that meets the needs of everyone. We are therefore proposing to spend the most on those who find it hardest to quit. For those smokers who are able to quit alone we will direct them to online advice and support. Are you in favour of us supporting only the most addicted groups who find it very difficult to quit smoking, rather than having a universal service that anyone can access?

The reason those budgets are being cut is, hopefully, because politicians are starting to realise that the country can't afford such frivolities anymore, especially since it is none of their business if people smoke or not.

It's encouraging, too, that Sheffield have recognised that e-cigarettes are a good thing and are attracting quitters without need of state intervention. Funny, then, that the recent Freedom to Vape report on council policies revealed that Sheffield City Council treats vaping in exactly the same way as smoking; that is, you can't use an e-cig on any council property whatsoever, indoors or out. This is because, and I quote from their policy:

ii) Whilst they do not produce smoke, electronic cigarettes produce a vapour that could provide an annoyance to other employees.
iii) There is currently no reliable information about what substances and quantities are given off in the vapour from e-cigarettes and therefore no reliable indication of whether or not the vapour poses any risk to health to those in the vicinity of the user.

Now, just a thought, but if Sheffield want to be taken seriously about this new 'smokefree' drive, and recognise the promise of e-cigs, wouldn't it be worth their while changing that ignorant lunacy pretty damn sharpish - as in, now - before they start implementing something new? Motes and beams and all that. 

5. Due to the significant budget cuts to public health grant funding made by Central Government we are consulting the public on their opinion on funding stop smoking medication (such as patches) for the groups of smokers who smoke the most , who find it hardest to quit, and who are the most addicted. Are you in favour of us funding stop smoking medication (e.g patches, gum etc) for the groups of smokers who smoke the most, are the most addicted and find it hardest to quit?

Well this is simple, of course we agree disagree. Pharmaceutical products are utterly useless and ridiculously expensive. Save cash and just hand out a map to the local vape shop, it'll cost pennies. Just have a few handouts in reception and save Sheffield residents the grief of paying fat salaries for the council to employ people to hand taxpayer cash to huge pharmaceutical interests.

6. E-cigarettes have become popular amongst smokers. Public Health England recommends that all smokers should stop in the first instance, however those who cannot or will not stop smoking should swop to using an e-cigarette. There is evidence to suggest they are less harmful to a smoker as they contain significantly less toxic chemicals than mainstream cigarettes, and so encouraging smokers to switch to e-cigarettes will reduce the overall harms from tobacco. Are you in favour of promoting vaping to current smokers as a harm reduction method?

Erm, it's "significantly fewer toxic chemicals", for God's sake. But pedantry aside, see previous response, it's a no-brainer that the council should be promoting e-cigs which smokers buy for themselves rather than hugely expensive and massively useless pharmaceutical products. Spend the savings on a new lawnmower to cut some grass verges.

The consultation is open for a month but don't leave it too late. As usual, how you respond to the questions is up you (above are just a few thoughts) but I do always enjoy seeing what you've written and this consultation is another where they will send you a PDF if you include an email, so if you take part please do feel free to ping me yours.

You can take part in the consultation by clicking here. Enjoy.

Freedom To Vape Campaign Scores A Hit

Earlier this month, Freedom to Vape produced an excellent report after FOIing every local authority in the country to ask their policy on e-cigs at work. It was riddled with explanations oozing laziness, ignorance and often quite shocking disregard for its staff, as I wrote about here.

The report doesn't appear to be a wasted exercise either. Quite a few local newspapers picked up the information about their particular council to run a story - a benefit of localising the issue for regional journos starved of things to write - with glimmers of common sense breaking through as a result. Like this from Bristol, for example.

The Mayor of Bristol has conceded that council employees could be allowed to vape at their desks – or at least in a special indoor vaping room – rather than outside with smokers of traditional cigarettes. 

Marvin Rees could meet representatives from the vaping industry to discuss possible changes to the rules for council workers who have given up smoking and taking up vaping instead.

And this is because?

The Bristol Post reported earlier this week that the pro-choice lobby the Freedom Association claimed all but three local councils in the country – including Bristol and its neighbouring authorities – were going against Public Health England guidelines in treating vaping in the same way as smoking.

Bravo The Freedom Association!

This is a quirk of how local authorities operate. Much of the business will be performed by people in offices who really can't be bothered to make a fuss, and they've had anti-smoking harpies on their case for decades. A lack of understanding of vaping along with indolence from the likes of PHE, ASH, CRUK etc. in making councils aware of their advice means that they produce stupid policies founded on nothing but rumour and hearsay.

However, the buck stops with elected members of the council, and if they are outed by the media or receive a lot of correspondence on a subject, they tend to get quite irate at the officers in their authority for allowing it to happen. I can imagine that the Mayor of Bristol would have been deeply embarrassed that his staff were so ill-informed as to come up with a policy which made his council look foolish and not keeping up with current 'public health' guidance which is in their purview now. Council taxpayers certainly don't tend to take kindly to their council being run by idiots and often boot out councillors as a result while the office staff get away scot free.

With this in mind, you could have a bearing on your own council's policy by reading the Freedom to Vape report here; seeing if your local authority is one of those which currently has a stupid stance on vaping; and writing to an elected councillor or two to object.

Vapers in Power have done some great work on the subject and make it very easy to make your views known in a very short space of time. Go have a look here, they have done half the work for you.

A Survey Of Smokers

One foible that anti-smoking organisations across the globe share is that they are absolutely terrified of actually engaging with the people they abuse ... smokers.

They will commission pliant fellow smoker-haters to conduct cleverly-dodgy 'research' of course, but they don't really want to know what smokers think. They just want a sound bite to use as a stick to beat them with. So this initiative from Forest is a good idea, I reckon.

ANTI-SMOKING campaigners like to bombard politicians and the media with 'facts' about smokers.  

The most common 'statistic' is that 70 per cent of smokers want to quit. More generally they like to give the impression that most smokers wish they'd never started. 

Some smokers probably do fall into one or both of those camps and if you want to quit smoking or switch to a safer alternative such as electronic cigarettes, good luck to you. That's entirely your choice. 

But it's not the full story. Despite the well-known health risks many smokers say they enjoy smoking and have no wish to stop. Sadly their voices are usually drowned out by politicians, the public health industry and even the media who all think they know better.
To find out what smokers really think about these and other issues the Centre for Substance Use Research (CSUR) in Glasgow has designed an in-depth survey.

Indeed they have, I've just done it myself, and I suggest you do too.

Unlike the questionable echo chamber pals that ASH use to gather their propaganda, the study designer - the Centre for Substance Use Research - is an impartial organisation which is actually interested in what motivates the public in nicotine use, not just out to create a headline to nag an MP into yet more prohibition which just happens to put more cash into Arnott and her pals' pockets at ASH HQ.

Do go contribute by clicking here.

Drafting A Birmingham Smokefree Streets Consultation Response

Regular readers will remember that we often get involved in public sector consultations on issues we discuss on these pages. We haven't done one of these for a while but there is a consultation out now for such a crassly stupid idea that it'd be rude not to have your say.

A hospital plans to make the streets around it a smoke-free zone - asking people not to light up in nearby roads. 

The Birmingham Children's Hospital site has been smoke-free since 2005, but the trust now hopes to deter smoking on Steelhouse Lane and Whittall Street. 

People would be asked to "adhere voluntarily" the trust said, adding fixed penalty notices were not being considered. 

The plans are subject to a six-week public consultation.

In case you're confused, yes this does refer to publicly-owned streets - which are not hospital property - surrounding the premises, and not publicly-owned hospital premises. You and I pay for both so the ridiculous morons who run the place should have no right banning legal products outdoors in or on either, but they are actually proposing putting signs up prohibiting smoking (and vaping) here.

You know, on roads with cars and buses and stuff. Here's a Street View of one of the roads in question .. which also happens to contain the packed hospital car park and a six level multi-storey one. I kid you not!

Snowdon and Barnesy have both written good explanations of why this is superlatively laughable, but then the sheer cretinous stupidity of such an idea should be obvious. Yet it seems to have eluded the obviously bored and underworked staff at Birmingham Childrens Hospital. So absurd is this plan that it almost seems designed to illustrate how pathetically ludicrous and wasteful 'public health' and NHS management has become via the medium of parody. But, d'you know I think the fucktards are serious?

So let's get stuck into the consultation, shall we? Usual rules apply, these are just suggestions, so use them as a guide should you choose or just express yourself in your own style.

How strongly do you feel that Birmingham Children's Hospital should be trying to reduce smoking around the hospital?:  

 Support it strongly
 Support it
 Don't mind
 Against it
 Strongly against it

Strongly against, obviously. You see, I believe (and call me old-fashioned if you will) that a children's hospital should be spending all its time and resources TREATING SICK KIDS INSTEAD OF EMBARKING ON POINTLESS ANTI-SMOKER BULLSHIT.

I'd go further and say that whichever dribbling rubber band-flicking tax thief dreamed up this proposal is a cretin who should be fired for criminally wasting funds provided for the benefit of children in their care.

What are your views on a smoke-free zone outside of Birmingham Children's Hospital?: 

 Support it strongly
 Support it
 Don't mind
 Against it
 Strongly against it

Again, strongly against. What the fuck has it got to do with the hospital management what people do on the streets which border their obviously cash-stuffed premises? I note that one can reach the place via bus, train and tram quite easily. If any member of their staff agrees with this idea but drives to work, they are quite astounding fucking hypocrites .. oh and should also be sacked, of course.

Should the zone apply to e-Cigarettes?: 

 Support it applying to e-cigarettes
 Don't mind
 Against it applying to e-cigarettes

They've surely got to be having a laugh, yes?

Should an outdoor smoking ban on property you don't own include something that isn't smoking? Er, no. pic.twitter.com/oKdd5eGVg3

— Christopher Snowdon (@cjsnowdon) August 3, 2016

Quite.

It's also worth mentioning that this is in polar contravention of advice given by Public Health England a couple of weeks ago. I know this is becoming a theme, but if the management of the hospital were not aware of this they are woefully incompetent and should be receiving their P45.

What do you think about the proposed boundaries?: 

 The size should be reduced
 About right
 The size should be increased

No option to say that it shouldn't exist, so we'll have to choose "should be reduced". There is a handy comment box provided though, in which you can explain why it should be reduced to such a small area that it fits up the arse of whoever proposed the daft scheme quite snugly.

Should people be informed about the zone using signs?: 

 Yes
 No

No of course not. No-one should know about it because it should remain some hospital administrator's private wank fantasy.

Should members of the public ask people to stop smoking in the zone?: 

 Yes
 No

Quite obviously no! Because they are legal products being used where they cause harm to no-one. A hospital actually considering encouraging people to wag their finger at people they don't know for doing something legal in a legal setting is criminally irresponsible and almost seems like they're trying to create business for the grown-ups hospital down the road.

I mean, how very fucking stupid are these people?

Should members of staff ask people to stop smoking in the zone?: 

 Yes
 No

No! Members of staff should - as the name of the hospital implies - be treating sick kids or acting to facilitate the treatment of sick kids, not nagging smokers on a public street.

Should there be a risk of a fine if someone is caught smoking?: 

 Yes
 No

No. There cannot possibly be a risk of a fine if someone is caught because there is no law against it and neither the hospital nor the council has enforcement powers to issue one. Again, whoever thought this even a possibility is an incompetent waste of taxpayer funds and should be dismissed immediately and their pension forfeited.

If you saw someone smoking outside the hospital currently, how comfortable would you feel about asking them to smoke elsewhere?:  

 I would be very comfortable
 I would be comfortable
 I would be uncomfortable
 I would be very uncomfortable

Very uncomfortable because I'm not a cunt. I can't speak for the repulsive people this policy would appeal to though.

Do you feel that a smoke-free zone would make you feel more comfortable in asking people to move?: 

 Yes
 No

Erm why? Do these people not have legs? Can they not move themselves? What a quite staggeringly arrogant attitude that is! Smokers should be asked to move because some loathsome, effete, entitled, lazy carcass can't be arsed to keep away from something which mildly displeases them?

Where should signage be put up?: 

 On entrances to the zone
 Throughout the zone
 Inside the hospital

Nowhere, but there's no option for that. Do you think these wankers may have already made up their minds?

Section Four: What sort of images and messages should any signage contain?

Locations of places to smoke? : 

 Yes
 No

Yes, I have an idea. How about the streets outside the hospital and the fucking car park inside too!

How to contact stop smoking services?: 

 Yes
 No

What's the point? The NCSCT advises that e-cigs should be encouraged at those places but the hospital wants those banned too. Fucking morons.

Consequences of smoking on your own health?: 

 Yes
 No

This is 2016, not 1962. Stop wasting our money and go do something useful, for crying out loud.

Consequences of smoking to patients?: 

 Yes
 No

On a street? Outside? Nil.

Hard hitting visual images?: 

 Yes
 No

Always gets back to the gore porn doesn't it? What is it about the health profession that they are so interested in perversion? I think they should talk to their colleagues in psychotherapy.

Children's hand-drawn images?: 

 Yes
 No

Always wanting the kids to wave shrouds for them, aren't they? No, obviously. Because kids don't understand the argument and using children to do your dirty work is a disgrace.

There is one last comment box where you can let them know precisely what you think of the proposed policy.

Do you have any other comments about how we can create a smoke-free experience around our hospital for our patients and families?:

The simple answer to this is that they can't. It is not illegal to smoke on a street, nor should it ever be; there is no ban possible because the hospital does not control land outside its premises, this should be obvious; and even if they did, the NHS does not have, and will hopefully never have, powers to enforce fines for legal activity.

Oh, and did I say that whoever thought up the policy is wasting time and money and should be fired? I did? Good.

So that's about it. Do go here and submit your responses, it only takes a few minutes. Let's see what comes of it when they report back. And if they don't, a FOI will be very much in order, doncha think?

Hey PHE, Actions Speak Louder Than Words

Earlier this week I touched upon PHE's new 'guidelines' on vaping in workplaces and public spaces.

Well, since then the government's prime 'public health' advisory body - for it is they - has tweeted a clarification of some of the wording they were using.

@brainyfurball 1/3 We’re clear that vaping is not smoking, and they should not be treated the same…

— PublicHealthEngland (@PHE_uk) July 21, 2016

This should be pretty clear if you read the guidelines, it has to be said, because although it is buried in amongst public sector makework gobbledegook, they do say that this should be a prominent feature of any policy.

Yet, as I have pointed out before, this is the precise opposite of what is happening with policies in almost all social settings. A few hours after PHE posted that tweet my BFF and I were told by stewards at Lord's cricket ground that "you can't smoke those things there" (we weren't using them at the time) and directed to the smoking area instead. The same is true of all Premier League football grounds and all Arriva Premiership rugby grounds too. Hence my hint to PHE that some action may be useful on their part if they are to be taken seriously.

.@phe_uk Erm, how about telling @premierleague, @premrugby and @ECB_cricket that & giving @healthystadia a deserved slap? @brainyfurball

— Dick Puddlecote (@Dick_Puddlecote) July 22, 2016

For those who don't know, Healthy Stadia are a bunch of repulsive north west England-based pharma-funded charalatans who have been badgering sports clubs and stadium owners with misleading - and arguably fraudulent - information about e-cigs in a deliberate but successful campaign to get them banned.

So we have one cheek of the tobacco control arse saying that vaping should be encouraged while the other (infected and unwiped) one runs around advocating that e-cigs should be prohibited just about everywhere.

It's not just sports grounds either, for example here's one policy tweeted to me just yesterday from a 'leisure' park in Cornwall which prioritises petty and pointless rules over the enjoyment and free choices of its customers.

And, of course, we have the ban on smoking and vaping on a Pembrokeshire beach which is "fully welcomed" and endorsed by ASH Wales as well as a similar ban on smoking and vaping which London's ASH think is absolutely fabulous. Meanwhile, in the past couple of weeks ASH Scotland has confirmed that it too is very happy with vaping being treated exactly the same as smoking. You know, like PHE is adamant should not be the case.

Here is ASH Scotland view on smoke-free children's playparks.... https://t.co/CkfFTr2JK9

— ASH Scotland (@ASHScotland) July 12, 2016

Now, can you see something wrong with this picture?

If you're a vaper I'm pretty certain you will have come up against this kind of policy yourselves. And if you've ever asked why the policy exists - in open air - you'll have been met with a lot of ignorance. The general excuse is that "they look like smoking" which is equally deranged because there is no law against smoking in the open air either, for the simple fact that it is not a danger to anyone's health outdoors, as I've written before.

The ban on smoking in stadia is purely a vile bullying policy imagined, lobbied for and supported by grubby, tax-sponging organisations such as ASH and others in the same mould. 

There is, and never will be, any measurable harm to others from passive smoking outside, it is a fantasy demon that the tobacco control industry has created amongst the public. Worse still, those in tobacco control who promote this fear are very clever with their words because they know very well that they are purposely lying about the potential 'dangers'. 

So what if someone slips under the radar and smokes amongst others who are vaping? Neither is any kind of a problem we should be worrying about. If it is, we sure as shit need another war to illustrate what discomfort is really all about, and to remind many that a lot of people fought very hard to protect the freedoms that the selfish and affected amongst us are now seemingly content to flush down the toilet. 

Ah but, I hear you say, some people don't like the smell of smoke, so it's only fair they be catered for. Well of course, but did anyone consider smoking and non-smoking areas? Well of course not because that wouldn't sit with ASH's chosen policy of bullying and 'denormalisation' of perfectly law-abiding people consuming a legal product. It is only the effete, snobby and repellent who ASH cater for. 

Besides, if the smell of smoke is so rancid and identifiable, it wouldn't be much of a problem to spot, now would it? 

No, the drive by tobacco control tax-spongers is based solely on the 'denormalisation' strategy; to bully and shame smokers into submission. They have deliberately created ignorance to encourage policy-makers to wrongly believe there is something dangerous about smoking outdoors, and the compounded ignorance of e-cigs has encouraged venues to ban vaping too as a matter of course.

A direct result of tobacco control extremism towards smoking has therefore resulted in the widespread 'denormalisation' of vaping as well, at the same time that PHE are declaring that the opposite should happen. Way to go 'public health', you cretins.

So what can PHE do to - as their Martin Dockrell claimed was the goal earlier this week - avoid "policies that end up doing more harm than good"?

Well, they could start by telling their own tobacco controllers that it is completely unacceptable to support any bans on vaping in outdoor spaces. Healthy Stadia should be told to go back to the sports clubs they have lied to and fix the damage that they have created or be closed down. If they refuse to do so, well PHE receive half a billion pounds a year to deliver their policy objectives ... a few stamps and a firm letter to the clubs that Healthy Stadia have shamefully misled would cost pennies and is the very least they could do.

PHE could also advise the government that if it is serious about its support for vaping - which I sincerely doubt - it should order any organisation which receives state-funding to cease blithely allowing vaping bans but instead to oppose them, and that supporting them like ASH Wales did will be a serious offence for the individual concerned which will result in their instant dismissal.

It is empty rhetoric and a crass waste of taxpayer funding to produce reports and issue 'guidelines' if you're just going to sit back and allow shit counterproductive policies on vaping in order to not derail the vile, dictatorial and entirely unnecessary 'denormalisation' campaign against smokers.

Tobacco control seem very quick to speak to organisations and demand smoking bans everywhere, but slow to the point of inertia in opposing vaping bans. You could be forgiven, in fact, for believing that they actually like them on the sly.

Anyone can say that they support vaping, but actions speak louder than words. So come on PHE, put our money where your mouth is, what are you waiting for?

Let's Vote Leave, Eh?

So here we are then, EU referendum day.

By now you should have worked out that I intend to vote Leave, but in case you missed it, here is why.

[M]y objection to the EU has always been based on the handicapping effect of never-ending regulation that is impossible to avoid from such an institution. If you dedicate a few hectares of a major European city to thousands of highly-paid people whose livelihood depends on dreaming up new regulations, what else are they going to do but regulate? 

But, I hear you say, regulations keep us safe don't they? We need them. Well up to a point yes, but that point passed decades ago in the case of the EU. I've written about EU regulations in my industry before which have absolutely nothing to do with safety whatsoever, but instead impose unnecessary costs on businesses, inhibit employment and push up prices for consumers. 

We are well beyond the time where what we actually need is an institution which deregulates, but instead we pay billions to the EU to turn the ratchet further without ever bothering to repeal anything that is unhelpful. Anyone who has kept a close eye on the corrupt shenanigans surrounding the Tobacco Products Directive - particularly towards e-cigs where nothing has been made safer at all, but where innovation and consumer satisfaction has been thrown to the dogs - will attest to that. 

The message that Brexit the Movie conveyed wasn't even a new one. It's incontestable that free markets, competition, light regulation and transparency are the most successful drivers of growth, employment, social mobility and betterment of wealth and disposable income. This has always been the case and no amount of governments pretending they "create jobs", by handing back only some of the taxes they take which could have been paid directly to workers, will change that.

Heavy regulation does, though, protect big businesses at the expense of small and medium-sized ones; props up failing business models; inhibits employment; strangles innovation; and raises prices to consumers. 

I was commenting after the first screening of Brexit: The Movie which I now understand has attracted over 3 million views in all formats. If you haven't yet seen it, I can highly recommend you do**, so here it is.

If that doesn't sway you, perhaps this excellent article from Tom Slater at Spiked will.

The EU exists to limit democracy, preferring backroom deals over public contestation, directives over debate. But it is not an imposition from without: it is the creation of our own national elites – the starkest manifestation of a fear and loathing of the masses that is as common in London, Paris and Berlin as it is in Brussels. The EU liberates leaders from their electorates, allowing them to make decisions in spite of us, and shrug their shoulders afterwards. 

This referendum is not about Britain’s deal with Brussels – it is about the chasm between politicians and publics that cuts across Europe. A Brexit would not only be a blow for freedom at home, and wind in the sails of the Eurosceptic masses abroad; it would also be an affirmation of a truly European principle. From English rebellions to German revolutions, French commune experiments to Greek struggles against military dictatorship, for 300 years or more the key European value and the thread that has bound the people of this continent together, has been democracy. If modern European history could be summed up in one line, it would be people saying: ‘Give us more control.’
This is what European elites seek to undermine. The EU as we know it was born in 1992, in the wake of the reunification of Germany, fed by the fear of what Europe’s largest national demos, a country with a dark history now reunited as a free people, might do if left unfettered. Today, that same fear pervades. That Greece, the birthplace of democracy, has, in recent years, been so brutalised by EU-imposed austerity serves as a grim reminder of how, in the name of Europe, the EU has desiccated Europe’s most defining ideal. 

A vote to Leave, we’re told, would be inward-looking, Little Englander, xenophobic. spiked rejects this view. The EU isn’t a wellspring of European-wide solidarity and cooperation – it’s a hiding place for our elites, an alliance of technocrats huddled together in fear of the masses. Real internationalism means believing in all peoples’ capacity for self-determination, for the freedom to carve out their lives as they see fit. A vote to Leave is a vote of confidence in all European publics, not just our own.
A Brexit would not be the solution to the dearth of democracy in Britain, let alone across Europe. But it would be a start. It would clarify the problem of democracy and allow us to begin peeling away the anti-democratic forces that still temper our political passions, from unaccountable quangos to unelected upper chambers to medieval monarchies. And it would be a break with the deadening, technocratic status quo that stifles new ideas for fear of an uncertain future. 

spiked wants a more open and outward-looking Europe. For us that means more trade and cooperation; liberal immigration – both for those within Fortress Europe and without; and a return of intellectual risk-taking and political daring, so that we might rejuvenate democratic debate and steer humanity into a more prosperous, freer future. But democracy comes first. What a post-Brexit Britain will look like is up to us, the demos. And that’s what makes the opportunity we are being presented with on Thursday so radical, so exhilarating, so European.

Hear hear. Removing one level of stultifying bureaucracy and injecting some much needed optimism certainly gets my vote.

Whatever you decide, best of luck and see you on the other side.

** And if you watch it with the subtitles supplied, it might interest you to know they were added by the boy P during his work experience with Martin Durkin earlier this month. Proud? Course I bloody well am!

How ASH Tried To Destroy Vaping

As I understand it, the fatal motion in the Lords to kill the EU TPD is being voted on this week, and ViP has some good advice for those wishing to sway Lords into backing Lord Callanan's proposal.

ASH once again are busy throwing vapers and smokers under a bus, desperate to protect the anti-smoker parts of the new legislation. They are downplaying the effect that the restrictions on e-cigarettes will have on the viability of vaping as an alternative to smoking. Their recent press release http://www.ash.org.uk/media-room/press-releases/:new-eu-rules-on-nicotine-strength-not-a-problem-for-most-vapers emphasised that ‘only’ 9% of the vaping population would be affected by the restrictions on e-liquid strength, calmly ignoring the fact that this translated to 252,000 individuals, many of whom are people just in the process of switching to vaping. ASH are also completely ignoring current and future smokers who may choose to switch. 

Unfortunately Labour are listening to ASH.

This is why we are asking the vape community to write and tweet to Labour MP’s, Shadow Health Team, Labour Lords and a few other key decision makers.

It’s expected that most of the Labour Lords will vote as they are instructed to by the party whips. Let’s make sure the whips are saying the right thing!

Indeed.

Unfortunately, far too many people listen to government sock puppet ASH in my opinion. They wield too much power over the public considering they have been shamelessly scrounging our taxes for so many years.

On the subject of vaping, I've written recently about how their implacable opposition to allowing e-cigs being available as a consumer product has been disingenuous in the extreme, and on how they have staged a sustained campaign in favour of stifling restrictions.

They are currently furiously lobbying parliamentarians in an attempt to stave off Lord Callanan's vote being successful. That's how very much they despise the thought of recreational vaping - the attraction which has encouraged so many people to take up the devices - being allowed to continue. Not about health, is it?

Anyway, as we await news of the vote, I thought you'd like to see how much worse it could have been if ASH had got their way when the wording of the TPD was being discussed. From the ASH emails, we can see that Debs and her colleagues didn't just want medicinal regulations for products which exceeded 4mg/ml ... they wanted med regs for the whole market irrespective of nicotine strength.

In short, they actively worked to get all vaping products to fall under EU Directive 2001/83/EC which regulates "medicinal products for human use". That is, the same heavy regulation that their friends in the pharmaceutical industry are bound by for patches, gum and other lucrative but useless products. Isn't that an incredible coincidence?

You can read their suggested amendments below.

ASH Recommendations on E-cigs to the TPD March 2013

It's little wonder that they're trying so hard to derail Lord Callanan's motion then, is it? Even the strict and pointless regulations under Article 20 of the TPD must come as a big slap in the face for prohibitionists like Debs.

If you haven't already written to support this week's motion, do consider doing so by following ViP's guides here and/or here ... if only because ASH will hate you for it.

#LordsVapeVote Update And Its Origins

I recently highlighted a 'fatal motion' proposed by Lord Callanan to kick out the Statutory Instrument for a pretty awful EU Directive. The response so far has been very impressive. The petition is approaching 50,000 signatures and all the Lords have received a letter, with almost 40% having been contacted more than once at time of writing (Excel), If you haven't yet contributed, do follow the guide here as to how to go about it, it's surprisingly simple.

On a side note though, via the ASH emails, I'm sure those admirably writing letters to the Lords - otherwise known as "some e-cigarette users" - might like to see why they are having to do so.

Y'see, here's what ASH - in their capacity as lead of the Smokefree Alliance - sent to their supporters in February 2014 while vapers were trying to protect e-cigs from the vacuous and incompetent regulations now imposed by the Tobacco Products Directive (TPD).

Click to enlarge

As is becoming clear, ASH has lobbied furiously for years - and continues to lobby furiously - in support of restrictions on vaping in the TPD. When, just under a month ago, the Lords rose almost in unison to condemn the TPD as "nonsense", "absolutely absurd", "madness" and "bonkers", it was ASH - who supported the absurd, mad, bonkers madness - who jumped quickest to try to silence the dissent.

There are now moves afoot at EU level by Conservative MEPs to challenge the validity of Article 20 and re-open the debate. On what we've seen so far, I presume we can expect ASH to frantically lobby against that too.

Who would bet against a circular email being sent out by ASH, as we speak, to Smokefree Alliance supporters and MPs urging them to write to the Lords and demand they vote against Lord Callanan's motion? It'd be short odds considering one of ASH's pet Lords - Lord Faulkner of their APPG - has declared his hand already.

Ah well there is always one! This is an appalling attitude from a supposed rational person @LordPhilofBrum ? pic.twitter.com/CHyDB6SG0Y

— EFVI -UK #Militia! (@EFVI_UK) 24 May 2016

Interesting times, huh?

The Lords vote is rumoured to be taking place next week, so if you don't want ASH and Ms Arnott's privileged position in the echelons of government to yet again ride roughshod over the public, do consider writing to your MP and MEP via this simple portal, and add another letter to the Lords like many others have already done by following the simple instructions here.

The Real Deal; A Fatal Attraction

There's been a bit of misguided excitement of late about an Early Day Motion on the subject of the negative effect of the Tobacco Products Directive (TPD) on e-cigs.

I say misguided because EDMs are the laziest possible thing an MP can do, they mean absolutely nothing and will achieve nothing. I have met MPs who have been unaware that they have even signed them because EDMs are such a low-level priority that they leave it up to their staff to handle; the political equivalent of routine filing. So irrelevant, in fact, that many MPs have a policy of refusing to sign them no matter the subject for the understandable reason that they are utterly pointless but could rebound on a politician if something changes in the future and their name is on a document supporting a cause which could harm their career.

They're a relic of the past and mostly now only a tool to appease those who don't know anything about politics and convince them that their MP is really working hard for them (even though he/she isn't). Plus they're notorious for having a negative effect, if signatures are low (and with many MPs excluding themselves that's not difficult) it can be used to say there is no support for the idea. The potential harm far outweighs the non-existent chance that it will do any good.

The particular EDM which has caused the misguided excitement also promotes probably the most egregious example of tobacco control industry junk science (the full Monty, it even cited vape-hating Glantz) I've seen in all my time in the blogosphere. I wrote about it here, and it was also rubbished in the MSM as well as here, here, here, and here. After the furore had died down, the bungling bellend who wrote it and his formerly well-respected employer parted company; you can make of that what you will. Far from supporting such a pointless and absurd motion, I'd be far more inclined to urge my MP not to sign it.

However, yesterday saw the tabling of a completely different motion, and this one is the real deal. A proper stonker which has the potential of delivering something quite extraordinary in modern politics.

†Lord Callanan to move that a Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016, laid before the House on 22 April, be annulled on the grounds that its restrictions on product choice and advertising of vaping devices were devised before evidence had accumulated that vaping was enabling many people to quit smoking, run counter to advice from the Royal College of Physicians to promote vaping and are so severe that they could force vapers back to smoking and create a black market with harmful products (SI 2015/507).

The important word here is annulled. This signals that this is a bona fide 'fatal motion' being presented in the Lords. There are others which are regretful or just want to make a note, but the one presented by Lord Callanan today seeks to (as the name implies) kill the Statutory Instrument (SI) behind the entire EU Tobacco Products Directive (TPD). ECITA has written a good explanation of the process at their site here.

Far from shilly-shallying like an EDM inevitably does, this is an attempt to sling the TPD back in the face of government for having the temerity to even present it. There is no room for compromise, it's a yes/no thing and, if successful, would kill the enabling mechanism in parliament for the TPD to be ratified by the UK.

As things go, this is a very big thing compared with other big things. It's the Daddy of big things!

In practice, it won't be the end of the TPD (sadly) but a vote by the Lords in favour of the fatal motion would force the government to consider re-issuing the SI without the provisions on e-cigarettes. This, of course, is where the politics comes in.

You may have noticed that there is a referendum on the EU coming up soon, there has been the odd article here and there about it. Well, one of the main justifications for leaving is that we are hog-tied by EU legislation with our parliament not able to do anything about it.

This motion can derail the entire TPD so will have to be taken seriously by government, but what can they do? If they remove the provisions on e-cigs they are still going to be caned by the EU for not enforcing compliance on daft rules coming from the EU. Quite delicious, isn't it?

It's also worth mentioning that only 9 member states out of 28 have made moves to implement the TPD. As usual, though, the UK is bending over backwards to hurry through our instruments to be perfect British bulldogs Brussels lap-dogs.

So we have a scenario which is hard to judge. It's quite clear that the mood in Britain is that e-cigs are a good idea, Public Health England (PHE), the body overseeing national Stop Smoking Services and the Royal College of Physicians (RCP) have all come out in favour of encouraging their use. But being placed in front of the Lords is a SI which contains regulations which do quite the opposite. It's quite natural for them, therefore, to oppose it.

However, it also contains the (equally daft) provisions on tobacco so many Lords will be quite content with defending the SI and would consider e-cigs as collateral damage for the greater good, even if they support the idea of tobacco harm reduction (THR). There is also the tangential concern - again amongst Lords who would agree with vaping and supportive of THR - that if the fatal motion is passed then it would embarrass the government in advance of the EU referendum. The EU might have their hand forced to punish the UK for standing up to principles and endorsing the views of the RCP and PHE. Erm, doesn't look good does it? If you're a Lord who is keen to stay in the EU, you might find that a compelling reason not to vote in favour of the motion even if you agree that e-cigs shouldn't be in the TPD.

On the other hand, there are also reasons why Lords who prefer to remain in the EU might want to vote in favour of the motion. It would help show that the EU is not in charge of the UK's self-determination; that we can still stand up to dictators; and that this would give them ammunition for saying that we still keep a bit of sovereignty. Of course, if the Lord is an advocate of leaving the EU then this is a good chance to refuse to comply with an EU directive that shouldn't have been passed in its current form.

What is absolutely clear, though, is that ideologically-blind and stupid anti-smoking lobbyists along with vacant politicians have contrived to put the UK government in one hell of a pickle. At any time since around 2012 e-cigs could have been excluded from the TPD but instead ignorance and pomposity prevailed, they were told what would happen but smugly ignored it.

Labour MEP Linda McAvan should be a swear word within government circles at the moment, so should political lightweight Anna Soubry who thought so little of the e-cigs debate that she didn't even concern herself with learning about it. Likewise ASH who lobbied forcefully throughout the TPD negotiations to ensure that e-cigs should be part of the TPD and removed from sale unless by prescription. They have all been made to look utterly pathetic and have caused the government a thumping headache with their arrogant stupidity of turning their back on what they were being told by the public.

So what can be done to ensure this motion is taken seriously? Well, for a start sign this petition, at time of writing it was up to 26,000 signatures in just over a day.

This petition is requesting the House of Lords to back Lord Callanan’s motion to stop harsh regulations on e-cigarettes which would force vapers back to smoking. We urge our House of Commons to debate the implications for public health of the Tobacco Products Directive on e-cigarettes.  And we plead with the Prime Minister to use his influence in Brussels to get a British opt-out from Article 20 before the EU referendum so this issue does not affect that vote.

And it will influence the vote, as I've written before. It even commands its own page on the Leave.eu site.

You can also make a noise on social media.

But most of all, write a personal message to your political representative to show that they should be supporting this motion. It doesn't matter what the Lords allegiances are towards the EU, whether they're in favour of remaining or leaving and how it will affect their vote on the fatal motion is something for their own consciences to decide. You don't need to concern yourself with referendum politics in your letter, all you need do is show the strength of opinion opposed to the TPD, and send them the strong message that the only right thing to do is vote with Lord Callanan and send government away to think again (here is the full list of Lords but you could start with these ones who have expressed a previous interest).

As I understand it, the debate must take place by early June, so there isn't a lot of time, and the motion offers a modest chance of success. However, at least it has some chance of succeeding, and your voice could help bring that about. So do something positive today, stand up for our free choice and get stuck in.