We have two camps. One camp consists of anti-smokING people and the other camp is anti-smokER people. It seems to me that the anti-smokING camp approve of ecigs whilst the the anti-smokER camp disapprove. But there is another twist. In the anti-smokING camp, there are those who want smokers to be able to have as much freedom to decide for themselves as possible, but there are others who say that they support the use of ecigs, but only on their conditions. Their conditions mean, in effect, that they own ecigs via regulation, and only those ecigs of which they approve are legal. They pay nothing to own ecigs. Manufacturers and vapers pay. Such people are the likes of ASH ET AL.
The other camp is the prohibitionist camp. They are the anti-smokER camp. They want to play a very long game. They are happy to wait for another 20 years or so until all the older smokers have died. You can see that by their emphasis on youth. The ultimate indication of this intent is the proposal to ban anyone born after 1999 from being permitted to buy cigs. They do not see the impracticalities of such a plan at all. It is an ideal. Sod the consequences. I doubt that they even realise that what they are proposing is absolute prohibition.
I have a feeling that the inner circle of this camp have something in the nature of ‘five year plans’. They have an ultimate objective, which is prohibition, and a tentative master plan, but each step to prohibition is planned in detail only for a few years ahead. For example, third hand smoke was first proposed rather tentatively a few years ago. Now, the proposal is being fleshed out with greater and greater emphasis.
So let us consider ecigs in this light.
- Camp 1 (a): (The ‘laissez faire’ pro-ecig group). They argue that toxicology has shown that ecig vapour contains only minute traces of toxins which can be ignored, especially when compared with tobacco cigs; that only the lightest possible regulations should be put in their way.
- Camp 1 (b): (ASH ET AL). They pretend to be the same as Camp 1 (a), but, in reality, will only become whole-heartedly in favour of ecigs if they own them via strict regulation.
- Camp 2: (The Zealots). Ecigs will spoil the ‘five year plan’. They are toxic to the plan. They permit tobacco companies to continue to exist, which is anathema. They take control out of the hands of the Zealots and give it back to individuals. They break the stranglehold of the ‘partnership’ between Big Pharma, the WHO, universities, and some sections of Government. Most of all, they overturn indoor bans and other bans. For example, using an ecig in a car with children present is not banned.
You may call this some sort of conspiracy theory if you wish, but there are strong indications that it is in the right ball-park. For example, in the UK, the MSRA (medicinal drugs and devises control) has recently rushed through approval of Vuse ecigs made by British American tobacco for ‘medicinal’ purposes, which are described as ‘smoking cessation’, just like patches, gums and inhalers. Is it not interesting that Public Health England is involved in this travesty? Is it not also likely that ASH AT AL have been involved? Remember that ASH is a creature of the Royal Society of Physicians. That group is in the 1(b) camp.
Weird, is it not, that the British Medical Assn appears to be in Camp 2? It wants prohibition.
We should note that, in this view, there is no essential conflict between Public Health England, the MSRA and the EU Directive. Vuse has been approved because it conforms to the EU Directive.
The important thing, in the end, is: “Which camp will win?” Camp 1 (a) has little chance. That is because the people involved have been excommunicated. No matter how erudite they might be, and no matter how strong their arguments might be, they are outside of the political iron triangle. They have no power and can therefore be ignored. Camp 2 is currently likely to be losing the battle, even though they are not outside the triangle. In the UK, that seems to be so, but it is not certain what is happening in the USA. The Federal Drugs Administration (political) seems intent upon over-regulating, which suggests that it is similar to the MSRA. It will make rules which only Big Tobacco can comply with due to their wealth. The result will be something like the Vuse situation.
The upshot is that Big Business wins.
But there is still hope for vapers. The reason is that whatever laws are passed, they have no force. They are just ‘legislation’. Imagine the difficulty of defining an ecig legally! A kettle could be defined as an ecig, if it was filled with glycol and heated up. I simplify, of course, but you get the idea.
It is a pity that vapers have been targeted by the Zealots, but at least they have a chance, provided that actual legislators realise that there are massive problems in putting the EU Directive into legislation.
Frankly, I think that it is all very comical. Erm… Comical though it might be, the corrupt EU costs us all massive amounts of taxes. I doubt that most people understand that much of the taxes they pay are NOT paying for the NHS but are paying for the EU massive Bureaucracy. Has anyone heard a peep from Baroness Ashton in the last year? I have not. Is she not in charge of Foreign Policy?
I tend to drift.
It seems to me that the anti-ecig motivation depends upon which camp the person is in. The most relaxed group are in Camp 1 (a). But those people might as well be smokers for all the notice that their argument are given. No Regulator gives a shit what they think since the Politics are much more important.
I’m glad that I am a disgusting, filthy, stinking smoker. I know my place. I am one of many, many. I know my place. My place has nothing to do with academics. I would really like to have as safe place. My desire to have a SAFE place to enjoy tobacco, with the proprietor’s permission. My desire trumps the Health Zealots.