For a change, smokers have the high moral ground.
Such a statement ought to raise eyebrows – understandably. And so it would be, were it not that I include vapers in the group ‘smokers’. However, to do so, I have had to redefine the meaning of ‘smoker’. Perhaps I should use the word ‘puffer’, for vapers puff on their ecigs and smokers puff on their cigarettes.
But is it possible for smokers to cooperate with vapers when retailers of ecigs are using much the same language that the Tobacco Control Industry uses to vilify smokers, in order to sell their ecigs? Well, hopefully, yes. The reason is in the phrase “commercial imperative”.
Business rarely considers morality. If it is not illegal, you can do it. If that means bad-mouthing your competitors, then go ahead. In this case, ecigs are in competition with tobacco cigs, so, in a business sense, it is perfectly all right for ecig retailers to describe tobacco manufacturers as ‘purveyors of death’ if they wish to. This ‘principle’ also explains the former habit of tobacco companies trying the hook youngsters. Interestingly, it also underpins the activities of the Tobacco Control Industry. The “Commercial imperative” also underpins the exaggerations and lies of ASH ET AL. Remember that ASH ET AL have no real interest in the health aspects of smoking, but only in doing the job that they are employed to do. which is to put the best publicity spin that they can on press releases and such. That is why they came a cropper in the McTear Case (see sidebar). In front of a judge, the remonstrations of Doll and the Surgeon General of the USA were no use. The reality was that there were no FACTS which could back up their claims that smoking causes lung cancer. So poor was their case that they did not even bother to try to produce evidence. Instead, they tried bluster, and it did not work at all.
So “commercial imperative” governs the actions of all ‘industries’. Thankfully, ordinary smokers and ordinary vapers have no such imperative. It is sad when one sees former smokers (very few vapers are not former smokers) denigrating the former habit that they used to enjoy so much. I suppose, in effect, those vapers are wearing a form of sackcloth and ashes and flagellating themselves to atone for their former sins. Perhaps we smokers should understand and accept that urge. It is not abnormal.
In the above, I have made a simple case for vapers and smokers to be sympathetic; to understand that the Zealots do not care whom they hurt. Anyone in the way of their ‘quit or die’ slogan, along with its implication of long-term, remunerative employment, is to be brushed aside, or, preferably, swatted. Ecig users are a threat to the long-term plan of a 2% per an reduction in smoking and not more than that. Remember that the government (meaning treasury mandarins) also have an interest in only a slow reduction in smoking. A sudden and massive decrease in tobacco sales would be disastrous for the revenue.
But what does that have to do with being proactive, one might ask?
A strange thing happened today. I came across a document on the internet which was linked to by Jonathan Bagley on Dr Siegel’s site (see sidebar). He pointed to the following:
It is a Pubmed publication about the use of nebulizers for the inhalation of drugs dated Nov 2002. Nebulizers are, in effect, much the same thing as vaporizers, which are much the same thing as ecigs. The drug is mixed in a solution which is ‘vaporised’, mostly by pressure, and is inhaled with the objective of getting the drug quickly and efficiently into the bloodstream via the lungs.
Now …. Many readers will know that Dr Siegel is a proponent of ecigs as a means of reducing tobacco smoking and decries the opposition to them from Zealots. Zealots constantly state that we do not know what is in ecigs, while Siegel says, over and over again, that we do. Zealots say, again and again, that we do not know what the long-term effects of breathing propylene glycol, and Siegel says, again and again, that it does not matter since the effects of breathing propylene glycol is hardly likely to be anything like as bad as tobacco smoke.
When I read Jonathan B’s link, I wondered if Dr Siegel knew about it. Remember that Siegel is a professor of public health and may be unaware of many things in detail about the administration of medicines.
Here is the important quote from the link:
“To deliver a drug by nebulization, the drug must first be dispersed in a liquid (usually aqueous) medium. After application of a dispersing force (either a jet of gas or ultrasonic waves), the drug particles are contained within the aerosol droplets, which are then inhaled. Some drugs readily dissolve in water, whereas others need a cosolvent such as ethanol or propylene glycol.
Do you see? The Zealots say that the effect of breathing in propylene glycol is not known, and yet that substance has been used for years and years as a carrier of medicines into the lungs! If the possibility of some sort of harm exists from mixing prop gly and nicotine, then what might be the harm of mixing prop gly and a drug? But read this:
“Newer strategies to improve the delivery of non-water-soluble drugs include the use of liposomes and the milling of the drug into very small “nanoparticles.” In addition to the active therapeutic ingredient and solvents, drug formulations may include buffers (the solubility of some medications is influenced by pH), stabilizers, and, in the case of multi-dose preparations, antibacterial agents.”
What is the perfectly obvious conclusion? Is it not that propylene glycol is considered to be absolutely safe as a carrier of drugs and everything else into the lungs? So why should there be any doubt about its safety as a carrier of nicotine?
You should read Dr Siegel’s latest article here:
And you should read the article which he is claiming to be lies here:
This Dr. (of what?) Hunt is just lying and lying. Everything that he says is lies. He produces all the same junk – tobacco company involvement, don’t know…., gateway, etc. Not a thing that he says is backed up by evidence.
The study referred to is ammunition. Ammunition which could be used in a proactive way. Vapers should be taking every opportunity to shout in no uncertain terms, to everyone that will listen, that the carrier, involved in an ecig has been used for years and years as an inhaler to administer drugs via the lungs. What can be wrong with it? We tobacco lovers can also do the same thing, thus assisting vapers. Vapers, in their turn, could support smokers by stopping covering themselves in sackcloth and ashes and flagellating themselves for ‘sinning’ by enjoying tobacco. If they don’t stop flagellating themselves, they will soon be flagellating for sinning by drinking that carcinogenic substance formerly known as ale. It has already been said that there is no safe level of alcohol.
Further, both vapers and smoker should take every opportunity to quote the McTear Case. Tobacco Control have no defence against it. This is one of the statements that the Judge made:
[9.7] I must base my decisions about questions of fact on the evidence, and that alone (para.[1.8]). It is not open to me to take account of any passage in any document, the terms of which were not agreed, and to which reference was not made in the course of the evidence of any witness (para.[1.37]). It is not within judicial knowledge that cigarette smoking can cause lung cancer: this is an issue which I am duty-bound to approach with an open mind and to decide on the basis of the evidence led before me; and the burden of proving it is on the pursuer (para.[1.12]).
What the bold bit means is that there is no legal precedent to uphold the idea that smoking causes lung cancer.
[9.9] The pursuer relies on epidemiology to prove general causation. I have not been sufficiently instructed by the expert evidence relating to this discipline to be able to form my own judgement as to whether or not this averment is proved. Special knowledge of this subject-matter was not imparted to me, so as to enable me to form my own judgement about it. The pursuer has accordingly failed to prove this averment (paras.[6.149] to [6.171]).
In other words, the Judge was not told about the epidemiology and how that proved that smoking causes lung cancer.
[9.15] In my opinion therefore, for all the foregoing reasons, the pursuer’s case fails on every issue on which I would have needed to find in her favour were I to hold the defenders liable to her in damages. I accordingly sustain the second and third pleas-in-law for the defenders and assoilzie them from the conclusions of the summons.
Vapers should understand that:
a) Tobacco Control could not prove, even on the ‘balance of probabilities’, that smoking causes diseases.
b) That, as a result, the idea that SHS causes diseases is ludicrous.
c) That ecigs do not even produce SHS, and can by no stretch of the imagination, even Tobacco Control’s over-active imagination, produce any sort of illness whatsoever.
It seems to me that vapers ought to be telling their suppliers to stop allying themselves with tobacco control, even though the “commercial imperative” suggests that it is a good idea. Phrases such as: “Vaping avoids the thousands of toxic chemicals in tobacco” should be avoided since they support Tobacco Control, which is out to destroy their industry. On the other hand, phrases such as: “If you are concerned about the health effects of smoking tobacco,…” are OK, because those phrases do not actually assert that there actually are any health effects. That is, such phrases are neutral.
So much for the way that vapers could be proactive. But what about People who Enjoy Tobacco (PETS)? How can they be proactive?
PETS have serious problems. They most certainly do not hold the moral high ground, except in cooperation with vapers. But it is clear that the McTear Case is of enormous importance. I’m glad to say that, in the recent past, that Case has been quoted many times. TC never responds, of course. It cannot, because it has no defence. Shortly after the end of the case, ASH said that it was sorry for poor Mrs McTear and implied that the Judge was ‘got at’ by the Tobacco Industry. Same old, same old.
The Fracas in Ireland has opened up a new front for us to be proactive. That is the economic front.
The Institute of Economic Affairs arranged a debate to take place at the College of Physicians of Ireland. A certain Prof (of what(?)) Crown agreed to take part. Since he must have known that the subject of the debate was: “How to really stop people smoking”, he must have known that there was an implication of failure to date. Or, perhaps because he is a simple oncologist, he did not see that implication. Nor did he notice that he would be debating with people who think about economics. He decided not to take the sensible way out and cry off. Instead he decided to ‘make a statement’ with all the usual slogans – “tobacco companies are murderers”, “smoking kills 50%”, “the IEA is funded (2%?) by Tobacco Companies”. What is so unbelievable is that this ‘simple oncologist’ had all the body language of an out and out bully, including the strident voice and arm waving that Hitler would be proud of.
Many bloggers rightly compare Tobacco Control methods to Nazi methods, and they are right. Personally, I try to avoid the comparison, not because it is not true, but because it is too horrific. But, having seen the video of Crown’s performance at the debate, I saw nothing other than a speech from the Fuhrer.
However, that is not the important point. Crown’s actions, although they were designed to draw attention away from the important points, only drew attention to them. The important points are the serious economic effects of smoking bans.
We can be proactive in drawing attention to the serious economic effects of the Tobacco Control Industry. In Ireland, the first country in the EU to be taken over by Health Zealots, the effect was that economic wisdom and veracity were ostracised, and that any person who resisted was accused of killing babies. We can proactively point out, using the figures in previous posts, that Tobacco Control is not only a drain on the economy in itself, but also a destructive force which is causing vast damage. But, at the same time, it must also be pointed out that the damage that it is doing is ‘here and now’. The economic damage that it claims ensues from smoking occurs only in the distant future, if at all. It must be so since Doll’s Doctors Study indicated that the serious health effects of smoking in the population as a whole only become significantly evident around the age of 60 to 65.
Erm …… From an amoral State point of view, being purely objective, would it not be better if more people smoked and thus perished before they reached pensionable age?
But there is one thing that we must all fight with all our might, both smokers and vapers, and that is THE CHILDREN. It is absolutely necessary to DEMAND PROOF FOR EVERY SINGLE EFFECT CLAIMED BY THE TOBACCO CONTROL INDUSTRY. That is important, since the TCI is adept at stringing ‘effects’ together, as though they all happen to the same child – or rather, that the aggregate of tiny effects all condense into a single child.
But how can we be proactive?
My own opinion is that it is pointless trying to communicate with your local MP in the ordinary way by writing or emailing, because someone will interrupt and stop your MP reading your letter or email. At best, your email/letter will will be one of X number, and only the total of X will be taken seriously. However, there is the remote possibility that you could get through to your MP if you insist. But that requires an awful lot of perseverance.
In any case, what effect can your local MP have on either, a) the POLITICAL APPEARANCE OF GOVERNMENT as constituted by Ministers (remember Milton and Subry!), and, b) the real Government which consists of the ‘experts’ who are the mandarins?
I have noticed, over the last couple of years, that when tobacco control goes quiet, so do blogs. It is as though blogs only respond to TC. Perhaps blogs could address their thinking at pubcos, supermarkets, etc. Maybe it would be better to think about writing to the CEOs of pubcos, TobCom’s and such.
It is unlikely that such approaches will be successful. I do not know why. That leaves only one alternative, which is civil disobedience. In this case, regarding tobacco control, the only way to be civilly disobedient is take every opportunity open to you to fight against your oppressors. If that means buying from white-van-man, so be it. It is the only way.
And so we arrive at the solution:
1. Contest the ‘science’ of bullies like Crown and O’Meara.
2. Be in no doubt that you have every right to contest the demands of the Bullies by civil disobedience – which comes down to being as self-sufficient as possible by whatever means are possible.
I have digressed somewhat, but I am happy with the general tenor of my post.