“Better to Accommodate Than To Prohibit”

I suppose that most people will be aware of the new study by Robert West and his gang into the efficacy of e-cigs as a cessation device. As Carl Phillips has pointed out, it is easy to misconstrue the finding of that study and interpret it to mean: “E-cigs are 60% more successful than gummy patches when those gummy patches are bought and used without counselling”. Carl P said that this interpretation is wrong. The correct interpretation is: “FOR SOME PEOPLE, e-cig have been more successful than gummy patches….”

Carl P points out that, in the case of e-cigs in particular, people who elected to move to e-cigs from tobacco, either wholly or in part, have done so AS A MATTER OF THEIR OWN CHOICE. Remember that e-cigs do not come with recommendation, counselling and support. They are the choice of the individual.

What I am not sure about is how e-cig success compares with gummy patches assisted by counselling.

One of the curious things pointed out by Carl P is the likely process by which people decided to try e-cigs, bearing in mind, as I have said, that no ‘professional assistance’ comes with them. In the case of gummy patches, people have greater expectations of the efficacy of gummy patches than is warranted. They see adverts suggesting that gummy patches are wonderful and an easy-peasy way to pack up smoking. That is not the reality. People still miss the pleasure of smoking and are very likely to revert to smoking, even though they are receiving measured doses of nicotine. On the other hand, until very recently, people came to know about e-cigs by personal recommendation (including reading personal blogs on the net) and decided to give them a go, without any great expectations. An awful lot seem to have been pleasantly surprised with the results and have quit tobacco completely with relative ease.

But it is true that there have been significant numbers who have used gummy patches successfully, and so have many people quit ‘cold turkey’ without any help at all.

But what the West study seems to show is that more people are quitting successfully by moving to e-cigs than either ‘cold turkey’ or with gummy patches. The guesstimate is 60% more.

The important thing, as pointed out by Carl P, is that the comparisons of -e-cigs, gummy patches and cold turkey ought not to be seen as some sort of competition. All these methods have value for for different people. In other words, there is no single system which is THE BEST (implying that it should be the only recommended one). There is also another implication, which is that the ban on snus in the EU has been an appalling mistake. I mean, an awful, almost criminal, error in magnitude. If the mortality effects of smoking are as bad as the Zealots say, then they themselves have condemned thousands of people to death by the snus ban.

According to Clive Bates, the ban on snus came from similar claims about e-cigs – that snus will lead to smoking. Any evidence that this was not so in Sweden was ignored.  Those fears might have had some justification a couple of decades ago, but the recent evidence shows that the continuing ban on snus, in the new directive, is another example of EU incompetence and the authoritarian attitude of the elite. These thoughts lead to the inevitable conclusion that it is correct to describe the EU as totalitarian in ‘the Soviet Union of Stalin’ sense. Cured tobacco leaves are sinful, however they are used, and Tobacco Companies are the devils.


What I like about the Carl P interpretation is that implies that people can:

1. Quit smoking ‘cold turkey’ with success equal (at least) to gummy patches.

2. Quit with gummy patches with the same success as ‘cold turkey’.

3. Quit (more likely, possibly) with gummy patches and counselling.

4. Have a 60% better chance of quitting using e-cigs when they have made their own decision.

5. May, at their own discretion, carry on enjoying tobacco until they peg out prematurely.

The reason for item 5 is that smoking prevalence continues to defy ALL the efforts of the Zealots. It is still around 20% – 25%, give or take a bit. I favour more the 25% since it is likely that a quitter will proudly brag about it in a survey, whereas a continuing smokers is more likely to feel guilty and discount his ten fags at the weekend – especially if his wife/husband completes the survey.


So, with the best of intentions, Clive Bates and co are arguing about angels dancing on pin-heads, and the EU elite see that. Banning snus is stupid, and so is militating against e-cigs. But the EU Zealots are perfectly correct because their attitude is based upon ABSOLUTES. The attitude of the Zealots, who are STILL in command, is that tobacco, and all its derivatives, must be destroyed. To paraphrase Cicero, “Nicotiana Tobaccum Delendum Est” (a distortion of the famous phrase, “Cartago delendum est” meaning “Carthage must be destroyed”)

As long as this elite, operating as a committee, which is responsible to no one, continues to be in control, there is no chance whatsoever that our votes will matter. Has anyone heard any of the leaders of the Big Three parties talk about limiting the powers of the elite? I do not recall such statements. In fact, I do not think that LibLabCon even know that such a problem exists. I think that they are just too shallow to know.

I wish to coin a phrase: “Better to accommodate than to prohibit”.

By ‘accommodate’, I do not mean ‘grudgingly’. I mean ‘give reasonable priority to the wishes of’. For example, if non-smokers complain about tobacco smoke, then provide a separate, smoking place or, as circumstances dictate, a separate non-smoking place. But, most essentially, the proprietors of places are the ones to decide. TC has abandoned ‘harm to workers’ by advocating out-door bans and in-car bans. It is no longer the case that actual physical harm is claimed. The harm now is a claim of ‘sinfulness’, and nothing else. Smoking is bad for your soul.

Back to 1900, or thereabouts.


2 Responses to ““Better to Accommodate Than To Prohibit””

  1. Harleyrider1978 Says:

    We just keep on whipping them besides Ive lost most respect for mr Phillips these days anyhow.

    • junican Says:

      Cousin, we have to ‘generously accommodate’ both physically and intellectually – in both directions. Carl P is not a person who wishes to dictate. He believes that smoking is harmful and advocates ways to reduce that harm, which he believes to be real, in various ways.
      What is really, really important is that ‘experts’ like CP (and Seigel) do not have the fascist attitude of ‘do as we say’.
      I do not know why it is, but it seems to be taking an awful long time for legislators to realise that they are being tricked into obeying the dictats of Zealots. By ‘legislators’, I mean MPs. The trick of “for the children” needs to be called out once and for all. The answer is simple – no MP has a right to dictate the upbringing of a citizen’s children. Of course cruel treatment of children is outlawed, and rightly so, but that cruelty must be real and actual and now, and not some speculation based upon statistics.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: