The British Medical Association (Scotland) Hate Ecigs.

 

This caught my eye this evening (H/T Simon Clark at ‘Taking Liberties’):

http://taking-liberties.squarespace.com/

“A motion at a meeting of the British Medical Association Scotland will call for the Scottish Government to introduce severe restrictions on where e-cigarettes can be used and sold.”

The report is in ‘The Scotsman’:

http://www.scotsman.com/news/health/call-for-ban-on-e-cigarettes-in-public-places-1-3334174

Frankly, it amused me no end to read that this august body, the BMA (Scotland) would wish to debate a subject which is trivial.

But read the gist:

Electronic cigarettes should be banned in enclosed public places and not be sold to under-18s, a conference of doctors will hear this week.

The motion adds that e-cigarettes should only displayed for sale alongside other nicotine replacement therapies.

The full motion reads:

That this conference is concerned at the current lack of regulation of electronic cigarettes and, whilst welcoming the decision by the MHRA to regulate electronic cigarettes as a medicine, calls on the Scottish Government to:

i. include e-cigarettes within the products banned from use in enclosed public places 
ii. prohibit the sale of e-cigarettes to those under 18 years 
iii. ensure that e-cigarettes are only displayed for sale alongside other nicotine replacement therapies.

The first thing that readers might be amused by is the claim that the MHRA has decided to regulate ecigs as medicines. It did say that, possibly to influence the cogitations of the EU parliament before it voted NOT TO accept medicinal regulation, but changed its mind to ‘take into consideration the EU decision and keep the matter in mind’ – sort of. I wonder if anyone will point out that basic error in the debate? I also wonder if anyone will point out that numerous courts in the EU states have already declared that ecigs are not medicines?

———

But enough of the comedy. I have no doubt whatsoever that the debate will be a charade and that the motion will be passed with a huge majority. My expectation is due to the character of the people most likely to be delegates at the conference. How many ‘real’ doctors will take time off to attend the meeting? Very few, I should imagine. The delegates will almost certainly be BMA employees and fellow travellers, to say nothing of copious university quack doctors and professors. Considering that the BMA is supposed to be the medical doctors’ trade union, it would be interesting to see how many exactly of the delegates are actually doctors, and how many of them do not have a professional interest (aka bias) in the tobacco control industry.

But, on a technical matter, we should take note of item iii. “ensure that e-cigarettes are only displayed for sale alongside other nicotine replacement therapies.” 

Question: Where are these ‘nicotine replacement therapies’ displayed? I don’t know, but I suspect that they are only ‘displayed’ in chemist’s shops. Thus, if such a policy was adopted by the Government, then ‘ownership’ of ecigs would inevitably fall into the hands of tobacco control. Tobacco control would be able to control price and supply, via chemists.

=========

It is for this reason that I welcome this debate. I want it to be passed with a huge majority. I want the BMA to reveal its ignorance and bias and bigotry for all to see. I want its perversity, puritanism and prohibitionist nature to be visible. I want the BMA to be seen, by doctors, as similar to a trade union which has gone rogue by virtue of being taken over by communists, so that a Maggie Thatcher will come along and break the mould. I see no possibility of such a person emerging at the moment among the ‘made to measure’ politicians who inhabit the elite places.

However, the proposals for the regulation of ecigs might just possibly be the straw that breaks the back of tobacco control. The Zealots have anchored themselves to a form of prohibition of ecigs. They cannot now withdraw from that position, from the WHO and the EU downwards. They have committed themselves irreversibly. I would expect that ecig manufacturers and vendors will bide their time for a while as yet, and wait until States start to implement the tobacco directive. Then, when the time is ripe, take the matter to court and demand proof of harm.

Proof of harm is the crucial thing. But that difficulty has not stopped smoking bans because parliaments can do anything that the wish to do, without proof of any kind. They can ban whatever they like purely on emotional grounds, “for the children”, even if ‘children’ are not involved at all.

———

I was reading this evening about the Jimmy Savile thing over at Anna Racoon’s place:

http://annaraccoon.com/

There is a copy of a judgement about who can claim compensation for Savile’s wicked naughtiness and how they can grab pieces of his estate. Savile left an estate of some three million pounds. He made a will giving a proportion to his niece and other individuals, but he also created a trust to benefit various charities.

Some of the people (not all female) who have accused him posthumously of ‘abusing’ them sexually have decided to claim compensation for their injuries from his estate.

You can read the details at Anna’s site. Suffice to say that the only people who are likely to make ‘big money’ from this situation are lawyers. The Judge in the hearing about whether or not ‘The Bank’ should be replaced as executor of Savile’s will stated, as clearly as a Judge can, that excessive legal costs claims will not be tolerated.

———-

The reason that I mention the Savile case is that it is possible for individuals to attack tobacco control as regards ecigs. Not a lot of attention has been given to it. Any individual, or collection of individuals, could defy the EU COLLECTIVE by retaining control of the ‘high moral ground’. The Zealots have been trying to move the goal posts by moving from smoke to nicotine. Nicotine is nice, as is caffeine, and as is alcohol. The important thing, above all, is to retain control of the ‘high moral ground’.

There is no other way.

 

Advertisements

8 Responses to “The British Medical Association (Scotland) Hate Ecigs.”

  1. prog Says:

    I think NRT is openly displayed on aisle shelves in many shops/supermarkets.

    • junican Says:

      I suppose so, prog. I would not know, I must admit. But think of the danger to children!
      But, if that is the case, then I suppose that these NRT products are readily available via the internet, and so why should not ecigs also be so available?
      Frankly, your observation makes the motion even sillier!

      • beobrigitte Says:

        I wholeheartedly agree, Junican!

        Quite frankly, buying e-cigs in a pharmacy is weird…. They are not a medicine and have not been intended to be a smoking cessation aid, although a number of people appear to stop smoking when using e-cigs.

        Isn’t it up to us to decide how we use what is on the market?

      • junican Says:

        Exactly, Beo. A person who buys an ecig can have any number of motivations, which may include the cost of tobacco cigs, the health aspects, the ability to use them where smoking is banned, taste, fashion, etc.
        Dual use is probably the most frequent use of ecigs, despite the Zealots’ twisting of statistics. I surmise this because of the lack of any real involvement of vapers in vaper sites. There are few comments on such sites. I suspect that the vast majority of vapers just buy a machine and some juice and carry on from there without considering such stuff as the EU and the law. In fact, I sort of doubt that most vapers even know what is going on, other than what they read in newspapers. If the Gov passed a law saying that vaping was not allowed in pubs, they would say, “Damn!” but obey. If the Gov slapped a tax of 100% on juices, they would pay. And, they would count their blessings in that they have ‘escaped’ from death-dealing tobacco.

  2. The British Medical Association (Scotland) Hate... Says:

    […] This caught my eye this evening (H/T Simon Clark at ‘Taking Liberties’): http://taking-liberties.squarespace.com/ “A motion at a meeting of the British Medical Association Scotland will call for the Scottish Government to introduce severe restrictions on where e-cigarettes can be used and sold.”The report is in ‘The Scotsman’: http://www.scotsman.com/news/health/call-for-ban-on-e-cigarettes-in-public-places-1-3334174 Frankly, it amused me no end to read that this august body, the BMA (Scotland) would wish to debate a subject which is trivial.  […]

  3. beobrigitte Says:

    But, on a technical matter, we should take note of item iii. “ensure that e-cigarettes are only displayed for sale alongside other nicotine replacement therapies.”

    Question: Where are these ‘nicotine replacement therapies’ displayed? I don’t know, but I suspect that they are only ‘displayed’ in chemist’s shops.

    Actually, in Austria’s pharmacies e-cigs aren’t displayed at all! You have to ask for them – and get the scaremongering waffle for free!

    I would expect that ecig manufacturers and vendors will bide their time for a while as yet, and wait until States start to implement the tobacco directive. Then, when the time is ripe, take the matter to court and demand proof of harm.

    I am looking forward to that!!! What is in an e-cig that you do not heat up with your food?

  4. junican Says:

    You have to ask for them – and get the scaremongering waffle for free!
    I suppose that the perfect answer to the waffle would be: “Oh! ….. I assume that you would recommend that I carry on smoking then?”

    On your second point, sadly, I suspect that the Zealots would make it very difficult. They would not introduce such legislation in a State which had a robust, written constitution. They would start in a country like the UK, in which parliament can create almost any law at all for the most vicarious of reasons and get away with it. Judges here are extremely reluctant to come out against the Government, although they will do if it is a question of interpreting law as directed by the European Court of Justice.
    A serious problem, as I see it, is that politicians simply do not see stuff like smoking and vaping as of any importance, so they go with the Health Dept recommendations. It’s an easy-peasy decision, and it is ‘for the children’.

  5. Rose Says:

    It looks like you will also get the scaremongering waffle if you buy your e-cig at Boots.

    Health charities give a cautious welcome to Boots selling e-cigarettes from next week
    21 February 2014

    “The Pharmaceutical Journal reports that Puritane will only be available in Boots and will not be advertised.

    It is understood that customers wishing to buy the product will have to have a discussion with a pharmacist to ensure they are sold ‘appropriately’.

    The magazine also reports that the pharmacy chain does not want to be seen to be advocating e-cigarettes over nicotine replacement therapy such as patches and gum.”
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2564618/Boots-start-selling-e-cigarettes-week.html

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: