The Dangers of Ecig Liquid

One of the things that we have learnt over the past few years is that people who are not actually qualified to pronounce have been doing a lot of pronouncing. Readers who read the link to Linda Bauld’s pronouncement yesterday about ecigs might not have noticed her ‘expert’ qualifications:

“Linda Bauld is Director of the Institute for Social Marketing at the University of Stirling which receives research funding from Cancer Research UK and a range of other public sector organisations and charities.”

I fail to see her toxicological expertise to pronounce upon the plus or minus toxicological effects of ecig vapour. But, of course, she does not claim to be able to do so – she cleverly ‘appeals to authority’ – “a recent study observed …”. That is a common TC trick – the results of the ‘recent study’ are assumed to be true.

———–

Tonight, I just want to blow the fears of ecig liquid away. Here is a pic:

2014-02-06 01.02.57

That is the front. Here is the back:

2014-02-06 01.03.17

I know that the writing is hard to read, but, on the back, the orange square reads ” CORROSIVE”.That is the only danger warning. There are no pics of corroded lungs or skin.

But that very dangerous substance is confined within a simple plastic container, and there is 500 grams of it. There is no special dispenser involved. ‘Childproofness’ is indicated in the pics – the simple expedient of having to sqeeze and twist the top at the same time. I am sure that readers are fully aware of the many other products were are also rendered ‘childproof’ by this simple expedient.

But we cannot help but observe that, in many situations, even those rudimentary requirements do not exist. For example, if a person runs out of petrol in his car, it is not uncommon for that person to use any container at all to acquire a quantity of petrol which he pours into his tank. In those cases, we might be talking about a couple of gallons of the stuff, and not 100 millilitres.

——

In the case of the petrol example, common sense prevails. There is no need for legislation. Legislation would only produce complexities which are not warranted.

IBut tobacco control is trying to introduce unwarranted complexities via superstitions, myths and miasmas.

=======

For me, ecigs have one simple use, which is to enable smokers to get around smoking bans. That is what terrifies the Zealots. and they have said so. This means that Smokers and Vapers are very,very closely aligned. I have said that smokers and vapers may not be ‘brothers’, but they are certainly ‘cousins’.

======

It may be true that much political discussion occurred in pubs. Personally, that has never been my experience. People do not go to pubs to fall out. On the contrary, people go to pubs to ‘agree’. That is, they generally talk about things which affect all of them in the same way.

But very few people go to pubs any more. Pubs, as such, hardly exist at this time.

What the Nation has lost, as a result of the decimation of pubs, has not been discussion of politics. It has been cohesion.

======

I think that the latest excrescences of Tobacco Control, in the form of Linda Bauld’s miasmas, are comical. But our Leaders do not see the ‘end of pier’ jocularity.

Because Cameron, Clegg, Milliband will not take on the Public Health Zealots (which they, politically, are supporting), then they must agree. The main political parties agree with the persecution of  smokers.

Enough – I must to bed.

 

 

About these ads

8 Responses to “The Dangers of Ecig Liquid”

  1. michaeljmcfadden Says:

    Well said as per usual Junican!

    Your comment “very few people go to pubs any more” made me think of something that I don’t think I ever completely strung together before. A fair number of people still go to pubs on the weekend or for a single drink or two after work, but I think that most of the people who were the pubs bread and butter — the ones who’d stop in several afternoons a week to chat with the bartender, pub owner, other regulars, maybe watch some sports on the TV and read the paper over a few smokes and beers — THOSE people tended, by and large, to be smokers. And since they were going to the pub as simple relaxation and enjoyment, and since that relaxation and enjoyment was suddenly being interrupted every time they wanted to have a smoke, they suddenly started simply staying home to watch their TV, read their paper, or maybe have a friend stop over for a pint.

    The “community” of the pub was lost and a very important part of our “social glue” went with it.

    :/
    MJM

    • junican Says:

      …..but I think that most of the people who were the pubs bread and butter — the ones who’d stop in several afternoons a week…..
      Not so much in the afternoons, although there were small groups who were so inclined, more in the evening, here in the UK. But an awful lots depends upon where these pubs are situated. In the cities, lots of people tended to call for a drink after work before going home. Pubs in residential areas tend to have most custom later on – about 9pm or thereabouts. It is that group which seems to have disappeared. It started with the smokers, as you suggest, but, gradually, the non-smokers have also drifted away.
      I think that the smoking ban had an insidious effect. The smokers know why they stopped going – as you suggest, no pleasure in it any more. Non-smokers? Well, they might look at the weather and decide not to bother on a particular night. It doesn’t take long for that particular night to become most nights, then, possibly, every night. I know that it was the smoking ban which cut my pubgoing by two thirds, but it is likely that non-smokers do not really know why. I just feel that it was the smokers who were the jolly ones, and when they started to stay away, the life and fun disappeared.

      • cherie79 Says:

        My non smoking son says the whole atmosphere of pubs has gone, not surprising as I always found smokers tend to be more sociable and gregarious. I doubt if he goes any more than I do, very rarely now, just for a meal sometimes but never just for a drink as we used to.

      • michaeljmcfadden Says:

        “I just feel that it was the smokers who were the jolly ones, and when they started to stay away, the life and fun disappeared.”

        Fully agreed from what I’ve seen. One of the advantages of Philadelphia is that we DO have roughly 100 smoking pubs (out of about 1,500 all told) and so I’ve been able to compare the crowds in the two varieties. Of course I’m viewing the reality through my own smoke-tinted glasses, but from my perspective at least — you’re dead spot on.

        – MJM

  2. michaeljmcfadden Says:

    Heh, I have to confess, I may have quite innocently added a touch to the Antis’ paranoia about e-liquids when I wrote the later segments of the “TobakkoNacht!” story. Here’s a passage from the part that was written back around 1997 — LONGGG before e-cigs! — and set in the vaguely specified era of the 2030s:

    ===
    True, some problems had developed. First of all, the hundreds of billions in expected tax revenue simply disappeared as many smokers showed their true criminal orientation and turned to smuggling or growing their own drugs. Larger basement greenhouses were detected by infrared radiation picked up by AntiBac Copters, but small family operations were hard to find unless helpful neighbors, encouraged by generous head bounties, blew the whistle.
    Unfortunately, standardized USA NoNic cigarettes had never caught on in a big way with the American public. To the small extent that they were sold, they were usually bought by customers who brought them home and spiked them with concentrated nicotine oils smuggled from South America. The number of children who had died as a result of imbibing these concentrated oils, or through smoking homemade cigarettes pumped up to fifty times the normal nicotine level, made Waxham shiver.
    ===

    Heh, at the time I wrote it I got feedback from friends that it was simply too hokey even for science fiction: they said I’d have to push the dates a lot farther into the future before such things could exist.

    – MJM

    • junican Says:

      “Nicotine oil” = aka e-juice? Now then …… didn’t the Americans have a lot of problems with moonshine during prohibition? Like people dying?
      The EU are talking about banning menthol cigs, but I read somewhere that the effect can be produced simply by injecting the filter tip with a bit of menthol.
      But everyone who is aware knows that the idea of banning menthol is just another twist of the anti-tobacco-company screw. Consumers are like mice living underground on a battlefield.

      • michaeljmcfadden Says:

        Yep. E-juice didn’t exist in 1997 when I wrote that part of TobakkoNacht of course. My antismoking dystopia had a government that allowed only government-issued “No-Nic” USA cigarettes. And then of course a black market developed for concentrated nicotine that could be injected or sprayed on them.

        That’s what prompted me to ask about the bag of non-tobacco (lettuce?) material I believe you had gotten at one point. I would imagine that you COULD get ejuice from one of the vaping suppliers and apply it to that if you found the smoke unpleasurable without the nicotine component to it. I have no idea how well the idea actually works though: maybe the nicotine in those juices would all just dissolve into the air rather than be absorbed into the leaves. Dunno.

        It might *also* be possible to develop a “healthier” cigarette (If you accept the general idea of the nicotine being the pleasurable component and the tar/CO etc being harmful.) by taking tobacco and, as in my tale, “reinforcing” it with extra nicotine. For that segment of smokers who smoke primarily for the nicotine effect such cigarettes could indeed be healthier as they’d smoke fewer of them (or inhale less deeply or roll smaller ones or whatever) and end up inhaling less tar and carbon monoxide.

        Of course that also opens the door to the problem I alluded to in TobakkoNacht: cigarettes “pumped up” to strengths much stronger than the norm. I doubt if such things would cause problems as severe as the NicoGummyPatchyProducts though: those things *easily* allow for the massive ingestion of nicotine… as we’ve seen in the cases of the school kids going into comas and being rushed to hospitals after chewing the gums or popping the NyQuitin/whatevers.

        – MJM

  3. The Dangers of E-Cig Liquid | VapeHalla! | Scoo... Says:

    […] One of the things that we have learnt over the past few years is that people who are not actually qualified to pronounce have been doing a lot of pronouncing. Readers who read the link to Linda Bauld’s pronouncement yesterday about ecigs might not have noticed her ‘expert’ qualifications: “Linda Bauld is Director of the Institute for Social Marketing at the University of Stirling which receives research funding from Cancer Research UK and a range of other public sector organisations and charities.”I fail to see her toxicological expertise to pronounce upon the plus or minus toxicological effects of ecig vapour. But, of course, she does not claim to be able to do so – she cleverly ‘appeals to authority’ – “a recent study observed …”. That is a common TC trick – the results of the ‘recent study’ are assumed to be true.  […]

Comments are closed.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 103 other followers

%d bloggers like this: