COP 6 and E-cigs

It is an old adage: “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”, or words to that effect. In the defence of e-cigs, there are some strange alliances appearing. Michael Siegel, for example, has been a vicious critic of tobacco companies for decades, so much so that any product which contains tobacco is anathema to him. Thus chewing tobacco, snus, heated not burnt, are unacceptable. But e-cigs are not tobacco, and so they are acceptable.

Carl Phillips is also very anti-smoking, but he is not particularly anti-tobacco company in the sense that he does not quite see them in ‘merchants of death’ terms. (Well, I don’t think so) Thus, he finds any ‘harm reduction’ product as a jolly good thing, provided that it is really, really, much ‘safer’ than smoking. E-cigs, of course, are one of those products and, again, are not tobacco.

I have been reading Clive Bates blog tonight. I’ll give you his blog address in case you want to have a read:

He has written an open letter to COP 6 delegates. I don’t know if he has actually sent it to any of them. I doubt it, since trying to find out who they are and how they can be contacted is a formidable task. So I guess that he has just published it on his blog and sent a copy to a few people whom he knows are delegates and, perhaps, to the ‘Secretariat’.

None of them will read it, needless to say. Bates was excommunicated (as were Siegel and Philips), and no one reads stuff from apostates, do they? You must cross yourself if you so much as see anything from them, never mind actually read it.

However, I suppose that it is worth his while to publish his opinion, and write these letters, if only to put the contrary view, regarding quack claims of potential ecig vapour harm, on the record. What specifically amuses me no end is that he turns the ‘merchants of death’ accusation back onto those who attack tobacco companies. He accuses them of possibly influencing smokers NOT TO switch to ecigs, and thus Zealot like S Glantz are actually just as guilty as tobacco companies of causing illness and death.


One of the interesting thing about this abomination of holding COP 6 in Russia (apart from the involvement of Russia in death and destruction in Ukraine, possibly also in the accidental (?) shooting down of the Malaysian airliner) is that the USA will not be sending a delegation. The USA has not ratified the FCTC, and is thus only an ‘observer’, but the lack of a USA presence is very bad news. I can give you a link which partially explains the importance of a USA delegation being involved, even though only as non-voting ‘observers’. Even though they cannot vote, Observers can speak at the conference. Even American tobacco companies are worried about this lack of involvement because they feel that the COP 6 might pass some way-out motions without the restraining voices of USA influence. Tobacco production in the USA is still a HUGE industry, and massive amounts of its tobacco are exported. Without USA presence, it is not unlikely that COP 6 will pass motions which are very economically detrimental to the USA specifically, and beneficial to counterfeiters and such.

What the above actually translates into, of course, is political shenanigans. In effect, it means that the Zealots must not proceed too quickly, in the USA view. Further, it might well be the case that the USA delegation might want very strict regulation of ecigs so as not to permit them to damage US tobacco exports. We must bear in mind that the whole UN/WHO organisation relies heavily upon USA approval. The USA could kick the whole UN operation out of New York any time it wishes to. Perhaps the UN could relocate to Liberia. That would be good for the economy of that country. In fact, it is a very good question to ask about why the UN/WHO all have their headquarters in the healthy, wealthy West. Why are they not located in Africa and the Indian subcontinent, if they are so worried about tobacco use and morbidity in those places? After all, these organisations are MISSIONARIES, aren’t they?

It also appears to be the case that this COP 6 also intends to force Governments to increase tobacco product taxes enormously. One must assume that this will only apply to countries which have low tobacco taxes, since countries like Ireland are already feeling the effects of ‘contraband’ operations due to their ridiculously high tobacco taxes.


It would be interesting to know how the ‘contraband’ operations work. I doubt that it is merely importing finished tobacco products. Much more likely that lots of tobacco is being imported, into Australia, for example, as raw tobacco, disguised in some way. Cottage industries can take care of the cig making and packaging. In Australia, there is a brand called “Manchester” which is not an official brand and is untaxed and is ‘popular’. It is almost impossible for Customs to ‘bust’ such cottage industries.


My gut instinct sees this COP 6 as having only 2 objectives:

1. A back-slapping, enthusiastic, congratulatory, celebration.

2. A jolly in Moscow and a sightseeing extravaganza.

3. Lots of votes for the plans of the ‘top dogs’.

4. Motions protecting tobacco companies against competition (to protect the income of the Zealots).

5. Motions to persecute the poorest people and deprive them of their little pleasures.

6. Motions to promote the growth of their own institutions.

Oh dear. There are more than two objectives.


So what is the answer for Smokers? My suggestion is to continue to scratch away at the foundations of this massive edifice. We might continue to point out (among other things) such simple facts, as Gary K has talked about again and again. The Doll ‘Doctors Study’ showed that:

85% of smokers die from ‘tobacco related’ diseases.

84% of non-smokers also die from ‘tobacco related’ diseases.



4 Responses to “COP 6 and E-cigs”

  1. garyk30 Says:

    Another neat paradox about smokers vs never-smokers and the diseases ’caused’ by smoking is this:

    Altho TC harp about smokers being more apt to die from those diseases due to a higher rate of death, smokers have the same chance of NOT DYING from them.

    Heavy smokers and never-smokers have almost precisely the same chances of NOT dying from those diseases caused by smoking.
    Doll’s doctor mortality report.

    The table on page 3 shows this:
    Lung cancer deaths per year.
    heavy smokers(25+/day) = 4.17/1,000 = 995.83 did not die.

    never-smokers = 0.17/1,000 = 999.83 did not die.

    999.83 divided by 995.83 = 1.004.

    Never-smokers are only 1.004 times more likely than heavy smokers, to not die from lung cancer!!!

    When you have to go to 3 decimal places to find a difference, that difference is, for all practicality, non-existent.

    Other results:
    mouth/throat cancers = 1.001 times more likely to not die.

    all other cancers = 1.002 times.

    COPD = 1.002 times.

    other respiratory = 1.002 times.

    heart attack = 1.005 times.

    stroke = 1.002 times.

    other vascular = 1.003 times.

    • garyk30 Says:

      I do not know; but I suspect, those figures will be about the same for all of the bad things like booze, obesity, and etc.

      Why do the Nannies claim that lifestyle changes about those things can keep us from dying from them when our chances of not dying are the same to start with?

      • garyk30 Says:

        “Why do the Nannies claim” should read:
        Why do we let the Nannies claim…

      • junican Says:

        Maybe the idea of ‘not dying’, being a negative, is too complicated for most people’s brains. After all, it does contain the inference of immortality.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: