A Newish Thought: Are Ecigs Replacing Tobacco Control?

One cannot help but laugh. Chuckle, chuckle.

Many of us smokers have been astonished at the behaviour of tobacco control regarding ecigs. As committed smokers, we watch the ecig debacle with some interest. According to toxicologists, ALL the toxic substances that matter have been eliminated in ecigs, although there are some minor possible risks about heating up flavours. That in itself is astonishing in that we routinely experience heated flavours whenever we enter our kitchens when something is cooking. Such heated flavours are lovely, and we may start to salivate at the prospect of the meal to come. In fact, I think that it is reasonable to say that we only salivate as a result of experiencing flavours which come from the heating of food. I’m not sure about that though, but it seems reasonable. There are not many foods that emit flavour when cold. Cold bacon smells, but cooking bacon has a wonderful flavour. Personally, I love the flavour and taste of crispy bacon, but that is only my personal taste.


I hope that readers are seeing where I am going.

Ecigs have thrown a spanner into the works of the ‘five year plans’ of tobacco control. One must imagine the situation, and it is something like Soviet Russia. The Elite Zealots, who could possibly consist of profiteers, plan for years ahead. In some countries, smoking bans indoors still need to be enacted, whilst in other countries which have such smoking bans, the priority is the extension of such bans outdoors.

Those are the plans.

And then comes along a means by which individuals can decide for themselves, and they take to the alternative in droves, but not to such an extent, as yet, that the ‘five year’ plans are disrupted. The taxpayer funded plan rolls on.

But the danger is that some politician of note, somewhere, might just throw his weight behind ecigs. Remember that it is politicians who decide the law and not health zealots. Thus, it becomes imperative for tobacco control to gain control of ecigs and to block them. The ‘five year plan’ must proceed without hindrance.

Carl Phillips has taken apart the corruption of Tobacco Control:


Specifically regarding the latest scientific obscenity, concerning the effect of ‘ecig vapour extracts’ on cultured cells from the linings of internal bodily organs, Carl extrapolates the reasons for the dishonest conclusions. The research itself showed only that some effect was observed in cultured human cells. It did not observe effects in the living human body. From that laboratory research, one or more people claimed that ‘ecigs are as bad as smoking cigarettes’.

The important point of concern is not the stupidity of that claim. The important point is the dishonesty. The ‘stupidity’ does not matter; what matters is ‘dereliction of duty’. In matters of Health, honesty and duty are paramount.

But there is no punishment for dishonesty and dereliction of duty. In fact, they are rewarded.



I don’t know about other smokers but I think that we have much the same ideas. I don’t much care about smoking bans here or there. What really, really annoys me is punishment via costs. The important word is ‘punishment’. Thus, smokers have every human right, if possible, to escape the clutches of the inquisitors.

Politicians passed laws enabling medical porn to be publicly on display to children. Do not blame tobacco control. That is what it exists for. Blame politicians who think that they have the God-like authority to authorise witch hunts and dunkings.

It isn’t really laws which must be defied. It is politicians. Cameron authorised ‘Plain Packaging’. I doubt that he had the foggiest idea what he was doing. What he probably thought, and was advised, was that no one gives a shit about the persecution of smokers.

But more and more smokers, every day, are escaping from the stranglehold. They are doing so in their own individual ways.

Important though such human rights might be (the freedom and liberty to enjoy tobacco if one wishes to), all are subject to the possibility of punishment. “There is no human right to smoke tobacco”, said someone or other.


Be in no doubt. Politicians are the weak link. It is they who CREATE the FCTC obscenity. They do not know what they vote for and dare not say that they were mistaken. The same applies to Global Warming.

I must wind up and go to bed.

Thirty years of ‘five year plans’ designed to use propaganda to destroy the tobacco industry, have been derailed by the simple ecig. Is it any wonder that ecigs have been demonised?


16 Responses to “A Newish Thought: Are Ecigs Replacing Tobacco Control?”

  1. Some French Bloke Says:

    Politicians are the weak link.

    Here’s hoping that at least some of them will recognise it, and realise at the same time that “The weakest link in a chain is the strongest because it can break it.” (Stanislaw Jerzy Lec)

    • junican Says:

      I love that quote. I’m surprised that I have not heard it before. To paraphrase, the STRONGEST likelihood of success in a military attack is to attack the WEAKEST part of the enemies defences.

  2. castello2 Says:


  3. Roberto Says:

    I agree with you. Save for those hyper-zealots who are “true believers” religiously committed to their utopia of a “smoke free Universe”, the rest of the anti-smoking crowd (specially politicians) are in various shades an opportunistic crowd, which is understandable because there is lots of $$$ involved in the crusade against smoking. The cynics know that the whole anti-smoking machinery (TC, plus lobbies, plus health bureaucracies, etc) is based on scientific fraud, strong arms tactics, violation of civil liberties and public deception. They know that sooner or later all this will crash. Senator McCarthy rode high and unchallenged for almost 15 years, but in the end he crashed. Perhaps the cynics are already thinking of accommodating themselves to a post TC world in which e-cigs become the universal replacement of all other forms of smoking. As you say, the cynics (specially the politicians) see the $$ potential of e-cigs and may be trying to mold them to their needs and to own tax revenues from the e-cigs industry. The cynics probably realize that eradicating all smoking from the face of earth (as the zealots want) is costly and unattainable, so e-cigs can be a profitable alternative, as long as they are “in control”. If e-cigs continue to be marketed (as their manufacturers are now marketing them) as “much much safer” than regular cigs or cigars, they may become much more acceptable to the non-smoking public, specially if indoor bans remain. Obviously, this is unacceptable to the zealots because it would spoil their crusade to their utopia (no more 5 years Soviet style plans). In my opinion, the cynics will prevail in the end but not after a bloody fight vs the zealots.

    • junican Says:

      There are a lot of motivations involved.to propel the demonisation of ecigs. Personally, I think that ‘upsetting the apple cart’ is the strongest. That motivation can percolate throughout the whole TC Industry. The phenomenal rise in ecigs over a few years was a red rag to a bull.

  4. Carl V Phillips Says:

    Thanks for the s/o. One important point of clarification about what I said: I was perhaps extrapolating from the ecig experience to characterize public health in terms of the narrative of the essay. But I was not doing so in terms of the conclusions. That is, I have a lot of experience with PH beyond the tobacco realm, and I was trying to point out that anti-ecig is not out of character for them. Consider, as just one similar example, the war on alcohol (despite it clearly being health-beneficial, and that being clear 25 years ago) that Chris Snowdon has been writing about lately.

    • junican Says:

      I have read CS’s writings on that subject. No doubt you are aware of the latest nonsense promoted by the so-called ‘Chief Medical Officer’.
      The dissonance between reality and theory becomes more and more extreme every day. When a gang of influential people get it into their heads that they know the truth, such as the global warming gang, the moment that they start to massively exaggerate for publicity purposes, spells the moment that they diverge from reality. Further, they have no option but to continue the deceptions. They cannot go back.

  5. Timothy Goodacre Says:

    Yes you are right. My main objections are the punishment by the costs and also what will be the very restricted choice available after May 20 2016. I thought that the Conservatives stood for Free Trade however I now realise they are no better than the Socialist prats.

    • junican Says:

      I too do not understand the Tory capitulation. It looks as though they are also about to capitulate about sugar taxes. I must admit that I simply do not understand. What are they afraid of?

  6. Frank J Says:

    I feel we’re tending to lose track. E-cigs were relatively unknown prior to 05-07, they weren’t required. Every bit of this tripe, alcohol, fats, sugar, salt, meat, you name it, started with the smoking ban and seeming acceptance of SHS back at that time. Flushed with the ‘success’ of their ability to con the green benches over SHS, they have moved on to every other green hate applying the same format.

    Surely then, any attack should be against the very basis of all this – SHS. Any success in this direction would produce difficulties for them in all others.

    It may be problematic as the anti everything Puritanical Marxists have stormed the DoH and the advisory committees in the House producing the same culprits ‘advising’ on every occasion. They are not interested in the public. They are only interested in talking to themselves and their selected lapdogs in the House and all, though vociferous, are few in number. The green benches is the target and SHS should still be the main aim.

    I feel the ban is far worse than any costs. Budgets throughout my life have hammered baccy and booze like night follows day. They just didn’t use ‘health’ as the reason yesteryear. It was grimly accepted as a fact of life. The ban is horrendous. It has ruined what I and others have enjoyed for most of our lives. Lets not be distracted. It should remain the focus.

    • junican Says:

      When I think back, as a young man in his early 20s, there was not that much to spend your money on which you could easily afford. Beer and cigs equalled social lubricants. We thought nothing of buying rounds of drinks and offering each other cigs. But we must also recall that nights out were quite compressed in time. Pubs closed early and clubs and dance halls were not much better. The differences between the 1960s and today are enormous.
      I agree that SHS has been a huge confidence trick which has enabled all the consequent junk. What organisations could afford to investigate SHS and be willing to do so? Only tobacco companies could do so, but they blotted their copy-book 50 years ago due to their arrogance.
      Now that smoking indoors is forbidden, how an scientific studies be performed?

      • Some French Bloke Says:

        tobacco companies … blotted their copy-book 50 years ago due to their arrogance.

        It’s not “arrogance”, it’s far worse than that! For this “arrogance” is nothing more than a perception that’s been purposefully created and sustained by Tobacco Control, of which TobCoMs have been part and parcel of long before the legal puppet shows that led to the ’98 Master Settlement Agreement in the U.S.
        How else could one explain that, in the wake of the 1975 Godber Blueprint, between 1976 and 1981 (when the conveniently manufactured and highly dubious SHS ‘studies’ by Hirayama and Trichopoulos finally came out), TobCoMs let the Mainstream Media propagate the SHS scare with complete impunity, and later on allowed a spate of other diseases and conditions to be blamed on smoking by the corrupt agency that is the U.S. Surgeon General’s office without so much as a squeak of dissent? How could such “arrogance” turn so easily to mind-boggling compliance?
        The integration of state and economy has become a fact of life, and ‘big business’ is no more a guarantee against ‘big goverment’ than the other way around.

      • Frank J Says:

        I don’t feel it’s a matter of conducting fresh ‘surveys’ unless for filtration purposes. There are enough already to show what a con it is. Didn’t some Oxford academic show that 80% showed no change at all and the remaining 20% were statistically insignificant? Notwithstanding the few that showed a preventative result?

        It’s finding somebody with the balls to categorically state how disproportionate and over the top it all is. Someone to take on the DoH et al. How it’s letting medics and researchers off the hook for spending fortunes and time for no result. I wish I could have blamed any of my problems and failings on peoples lifestyles. What a winner, eh? It would be helped by choosing impartial people to conduct assessments of economic and social effects and not the likes of Linda Bauld appointed by the DoH.

        Anyone who’s had any business experience at all can see right through this bollocks.It’s political, not scientific.

        The aim is the green benches.

  7. Timothy Goodacre Says:

    Absolutely right Frank J. These bans are driving me away from the pub.

    • junican Says:

      “Have driven me away from the pub” as far as I am concerned. On a quiet, mid-week evening, I enjoyed the pub just as much as I did when it was busy and jolly. That was because I could have a couple of pints and a smoke, and contemplate. Most of my best ideas came to me in the pub. Nowadays, my pub visits are only a third of what they were before the ban.

  8. Timothy Goodacre Says:

    Me too ! I used to go every night, now I go once a week for obvious reasons !!!

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: