Bolton Local Authority Ban ‘Smoking’ Ecigs

Smoking e-cigarettes banned by Bolton Council and Royal Bolton Hospital”

shouts the headline in today’s Bolton News.

“PEOPLE using electronic cigarettes have been banned from “lighting up” inside council or hospital property.

The “no smoking” policy by Bolton Council and the Royal Bolton Hospital means people will be asked to leave premises if they use e-cigarettes.

Both have confirmed they treat e-cigarettes the same as normal, tobacco cigarettes — meaning smokers have to go outside if they want their nicotine kick.

The controversial battery-powered devices do not contain tobacco, and instead use a heating element which vaporises a liquid solution which can have different flavours.”

Clearly, the local authority and the hospital have lost their marbles since they are banning NOT smoking under rules which ban smoking. Here is the excuse:

A council spokesman said they have a no-smoking policy across all council buildings, which extends to e-cigarettes.

He added: “We currently treat e-cigarettes the same as normal cigarettes and will continue to do so until there is proven and empirical evidence of the safety of these devices.”

Precisely what right the council has to demand such assurances is beyond me, and why the council should have the right to ban them for this reason is also beyond me. But we have seen again and again how ‘science’ is being degraded far beyond what we thought possible. NOT smoking has been banned because there is insufficient evidence that NOT smoking is not harmful. Yes, according to the spokesperson’s reasoning, NOT smoking could be harmful, and he wants proof that NOT smoking is not harmful before he will permit NOT using tobacco.

Then we move on to the inevitable ‘straw man’ argument  (I didn’t quite understand the ‘straw man’ allusion until someone explained. It is an argument which, in effect, changes the subject. The following is a perfect example):

Heather Edwards, spokesman for the Royal Bolton, confirmed it had the same policy on the guidance of public health experts.

A public health spokesman said: “While it is likely that e-cigarettes are considerably less damaging to health than smoking tobacco, they cannot currently be recommended as part of the clinical management for smoking cessation. “This is because they are unregulated and there is insufficient evidence as to whether they are safe, effective or made to a consistent standard of quality.”

See the straw man? We are talking about a ban on NOT smoking. What the hell does ‘clinical management of smoking cessation’ have to do with it? ‘Clinical management’ is the ‘straw man’.  In reality, when people decide for themselves by using ecigs, ‘clinical management’ is irrelevant.

———-

I wonder if that phrase, ‘clinical management of smoking cessation’, is the key to the whole effort to effectively ban ecigs? When you think about it, ‘clinical management’ is making a lot of people a lot of money. It is not just big pharma and tobacco control top dogs. It is also all the ‘actors’ in between as well. EVERYONE involved is making money out of ‘clinical management’. The whole thing is a massive scam.

But, to make things worse, this scam is almost entirely destructive. The scam of SHS danger has emptied pubs. This afternoon, herself and I and two daughters went to the pub for a little celebration. We went into the pub part and not the restaurant part. In the main room of the pub was a large party of family members having a birthday party. The birthday person was a child of about three years old. There were several other kids there also.  Why are young children being allowed to be exposed in public to the drinking of alcohol? It’s disgusting!! They might get the impression that it is normal to drink alcohol! Its disgusting!! But that is an aside, I suppose, and yet it exposes the ’emasculation’ of the pub industry. They now rely upon birthday parties for children to survive – in the actual pub!

What other damage has been done? We have the evidence of many people that they have also stopped going out much at all, and have stopped buying new clothes, and such. What is the point? We can see the closed and empty pubs, but we cannot see the loss of business from people not buying stuff. Nor can we see the effects of people going on trips abroad to buy their fags, or home-growing, or white van man. There is obviously the increase in smuggling, which has required an increase in border force personnel. It must have done. Ten years ago, I might have brought back from holiday a couple of sleeves of fags. Now I bring back thirty sleeves. I cannot be the only one. I am not smuggling, but thousands of people, non smokers themselves, must be taking advantage. To control this sort of activity, loads of manpower must be required. We must be aware that this manpower is entirely COST. Even if they interrupt supplies, there is nothing gained in savings, since the confiscated goods have to be destroyed – which is itself a further, unproductive cost.

So the full cost of tobacco control in all its forms is hidden. No one knows what they are.

Odd, is it not, that the justification for banning ecig use in council properties and the Bolton hospital is that it is a good thing NOT to stop people smoking. I can see it now. A person who does not know about the ban, and is a dual user, sits in a hospital cafe and pulls out his ecig. Someone says, “You cannot use that in here. It is banned” He replies, “Really? OK” He then exits said cafe and goes outside and has a real fag, even if he has to cadge the fag off someone else. Thus, he realises that giving up smoking is a fools game because the health authorities want him to continue to smoke tobacco. That is what they have said in Bolton. “WE FORBID YOU NOT TO SMOKE”

========

About the last post, re YouGov – blow me down with a feather, I have received a third copy of that survey. Again, I have said that:

a) I smoke every day.

b) I use an ecig.

c) I have no intention of stopping smoking.

Clearly, I am an incorrigible, dual user. If enough people complete the survey in the same way, then tobacco control will be thrust into a complete paradox. Or on the horns of a dilemma, if you like. The more that they discourage ecigs, the more that I shall smoke. The more that I use ecigs, the less control they have.

=======

Smokers were unable to organise, but even if they had been able to do so, they were on a hiding to nothing since the were described and displayed as ‘disgusting, filthy, stinking’. Ecig users have no such baggage. In fact, as I have said before, they hold the ‘high moral ground’. They have stopped smoking tobacco. TC are trying to dislodge them from the ‘high moral ground’ by moving the goalposts from smoke to nicotine/and or safety in a physical sense. Safety? How much more likely is it that a fag end will start a fire than that an ecig battery will explode? There cannot be an exact answer since there has been no research, but Zealots continue to complain, via proxies, that ecigs explode and are dangerous for that reason. And yet, to the best of my knowledge, the Health and Safety Executive have not complained at all.

=======

Whatever. It just so happens that my local councillor is chairman of the health committee.  LOL! Tomorrow, I shall write to him (a proper letter, and not an email) and point out the numbskull logic of his spokesperson. The trouble is that I firmly believe that he is ‘a plant’. That is, that he stood for election pretending to be a conservative when, in fact, he was a anti-smoking zealot. I suspect that there are a number of MPs who are the same. I have no doubt that they were supported in their applications to be a candidate for election by ASH ET AL. And, I have no doubt that these people were put up as representatives of various parties – s0me as conservative, some as labour and some as liberal. I doubt that any were put up as UKIP. I have no doubt, for example, that Williams MP was put up as representative of the liberal party, but was in fact a representative of the Monster Raving Loony anti-smoking party.

We have Monster Raving Loony party members, masquerading as conservatives and such, in our local authority. That is evidenced by their intention to ban NON smoking.

Advertisements

14 Responses to “Bolton Local Authority Ban ‘Smoking’ Ecigs”

  1. smokingscot Says:

    In many respects this is perfectly fine for most patients and visitors. No need to go outdoors, just grab the e-fag and leg it to the John.

    Complete privacy. No smoke, so no alarms and no clypes.

    I use these and much prefer the black colour. Absolutely perfect to get in for a patient and they really do deliver and last for yonks.

    http://www.totallywicked-eliquid.co.uk/products/disposable-e-cig/totally-wicked-disposable-manual-e-cig-product.html

  2. Rose Says:

    “It just so happens that my local councillor is chairman of the health committee. LOL! Tomorrow, I shall write to him (a proper letter, and not an email) and point out the numbskull logic of his spokesperson. The trouble is that I firmly believe that he is ‘a plant’

    If he is a plant he may find this helpful

    Nicotine is an alkaloid found in the nightshade family of plants (Solanaceae), predominantly in tobacco, and in lower quantities in tomato, potato, eggplant (aubergine), and green pepper.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/n/nicotine.htm

    The Nicotine Content of Common Vegetables
    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199308053290619

    If you are not allowed to inhale it on hospital grounds you shouldn’t be forced to ingest it either, however unwittingly.
    Let the hospital show the courage of it’s convictions and ban all nicotine containing vegetables from it’s menus forthwith.

    Ignorance is no excuse.

    • junican Says:

      Thanks for that, Rose – especially the table of nicotine contents.
      I doubt that he is in the slightest bit interested in such things. It seems to me that this ban is just grandstanding. Think about problems of enforcement as outlined above by smokingscot. What is to stop a patient from having a crafty drag on his ecig during the evening when most of the staff have gone off duty? What is to stop a visitor vaping in corridors and lifts? It isn’t as though he needs to actually ‘light up’, as the article describes it.

    • Davy.C Says:

      Of all the disinformation out there, probably the most skilfully done is the origins of niacin. That is the B vitamin known as B3. Niacin is Nicotinic Acid or… nicotine!

      The benefit of nicotinic acid is essential for the normal function of the nervous system and the gastrointestinal tract. Without nicotinic acid, our food isn’t processed properly and we don’t get the vitamins we need. Worst case scenario equals death at an early age.

      Niacin is of major benefit to the body and needed for all kinds of systems to function properly. But, they didn’t want you to associate it with smoking and so they changed the name from nicotinic acid to niacin.

      The easiest and most efficient way of oxidizing nicotinic acid is to burn it, hence, smoking is a great way to get your vitamin B3. Knowing the benefits of this “vitamin” it is easy to see why smokers enjoy smoking so much and anti-tobacco is so intent on you not knowing its origins. If it is ok to take a vitamin, but not ok to smoke because of nicotine, yet vitamin niacin is nicotine, what then are we to believe from the experts?

      http://justmytruth.wordpress.com/2008/04/20/niacin-origins/

      • junican Says:

        I knew about niacin. The link was useful. Niacin (nicotinic acid) is oxidised nicotine? A way of oxidising nicotine is to heat it, as in a cig? How interesting!

  3. beobrigitte Says:

    “A council spokesman said they have a no-smoking policy across all council buildings, which extends to e-cigarettes.

    He added: “We currently treat e-cigarettes the same as normal cigarettes and will continue to do so until there is proven and empirical evidence of the safety of these devices.”

    How quickly rules change!! Now it is the case of: “guilty until proven innocent”.

    I can only assume that the holy zealots cannot provide proof of harm.

    A public health spokesman said: “While it is likely that e-cigarettes are considerably less damaging to health than smoking tobacco, they cannot currently be recommended as part of the clinical management for smoking cessation.

    E-cigs as part of clinical management for smoking cessation?
    HUH??

    1. I use e-cigs to stretch my tobacco supply. I have NO INTENTION of giving up smoking, despite enjoying my choice of e-liquid. I just no longer buy tobacco in GB. And hell will freeze over before I will. Too expensive + this government sanctioned the holy anti-smoking zealot’s invasion of my property.

    2. I believe that there are people who no longer smoke. They chose to do so by converting to the e-cigarette for which non-nicotine containing e-liquid is also available. It looks like people can do it for themselves. No – for the NHS and the taxpayer – expensive smoking cessation clinic required.

    The more that they discourage ecigs, the more that I shall smoke. The more that I use ecigs, the less control they have.

    I am one of these incorrigiable dual users. Indeed, as an adult, I reject any person, let alone the big fear club, assuming control over me.
    I can only guess that ASH’s calculation with respect to profit for the government on increasing the tobacco tax further ‘in-order-to-discourage-people-from-buying-tobacco’ is way off the mark.
    They DO want us to buy the disproportionally expensive tobacco!

    Whatever. It just so happens that my local councillor is chairman of the health committee. LOL! Tomorrow, I shall write to him (a proper letter, and not an email) and point out the numbskull logic of his spokesperson.

    As a dual user I’d be most interested to hear what the reply was – if you will receive one, of course!

    • junican Says:

      I am about to formulate a letter. I have been too busy earlier. The point about no-nic is a good one, but the spokesperson talked about the safety ‘of the device’. Right? Divide and conquer – claim nicotine harm when appropriate and claim device danger otherwise/as well.

      I’ll try to demand a reply, although there is no certainty.

      • beobrigitte Says:

        claim nicotine harm when appropriate and claim device danger otherwise/as well.

        The holy zealots are going this way!
        Remember? We have the PERFECT right to HARM ourselves – the smoking ban was about HARM TO OTHERS!
        Surely, a battery “blowing up” in MY hand does not harm others!
        (Not even a “rescue” pistol – fired from e.g. sinking ships – harms other!! One of them “blew up” on my big bro – it cost him only 2 fingers!)

  4. Bolton Local Authority Ban 'Smoking' Ecigs | Va... Says:

    […] “Smoking e-cigarettes banned by Bolton Council and Royal Bolton Hospital”…shouts the headline in today’s Bolton News.“PEOPLE using electronic cigarettes have been banned from “lighting up” inside council or hospital property.The “no smoking” policy by Bolton Council and the Royal Bolton Hospital means people will be asked to leave premises if they use e-cigarettes.Both have confirmed they treat e-cigarettes the same as normal, tobacco cigarettes — meaning smokers have to go outside if they want their nicotine kick.The controversial battery-powered devices do not contain tobacco, and instead use a heating element which vaporises a liquid solution which can have different flavours.”  […]

  5. west2 Says:

    Is a zero nic PV ok?

  6. Desperados. | underdogs bite upwards Says:

    […] fight against Electrofag is increasingly desperate. More and more idiots are imposing bans – not because of any real danger but because Electrofag can’t prove it’s […]

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: