Very briefly, and probably distorting the correct words and phrases, a Swedish Government Quango decided to medicalise ecigs on the grounds that, as ‘smoking cessation devices’, they were the same thing as nicotine gums, patches, etc, and therefore subject to medical regulation.
Oh, the delicious irony! The court rejected medicalisation of ecigs on the grounds that they had not been shown by the evidence to be effective quitting devices! So people like Grantz (sorry, Glantz) in the USA, by their constant twisting of epidemiological studies, have provided the ‘evidence’ that there is no evidence that ecigs help smokers to quit.
Are not court decisions weird? The decision was not based upon the nature of ecigs, in the sense that they do not promise to cure or relieve the symptoms of a disease. Nicotine patches and gums claim to wean people off the act of smoking by providing a nicotine ‘fix’ each day which suffices to satisfy the nicotine craving while the person gets used to not handling cigs and thinking about that comforter. After a while, the person can reduce the use of patches and gums.
Some individuals have reported that they have used ecigs in the same way – stop lighting up, get used to the tastes in ecigs while keeping up the nicotine content, and then reducing the nicotine content. If everything went according to plan, they would finish up requiring neither the nicotine nor the ecig vapour tastes.
Sadly, the above site gives no link to the detail of the actual decision. I would love to read it. I can’t help but think that there was more to the decision that ecigs should not be treated as though they were medicines than meets the eye. I don’t mean any sort of corruption. I mean INTENT. The intent of ecigs is to provide a much safer way to enjoy ‘smoking’ without smoking. It is not to ‘cure’ addiction.
I have no idea what ‘evidence’ of the ‘lack of evidence’ that ecigs help smokers to quit smoking was presented to the court. It would be wonderful to know.
But what is important is that Tobacco Control has shot itself in the foot by attempting to have ecigs banned, either directly, by having them banned in ‘Public Places’, or indirectly by regulating them out of existence.
This court decision about the medicalisation of ecigs is not the first. There was a similar decision in some Balkan State, I think, but based upon the simpler premise that ecigs were not a ‘cure’ for any disease.
If you put the two together, then TC tyrants have no leverage, unless they are deliberately permitted to have leverage.
There ought to be a mechanism whereby these court decisions knock back upon the charlatans who propose these tyrannies. Is that not what we elect politicians to do? But we should note how powerful the TC Industry is. The McTear Case proved that even the case for smoking causing lung cancer was extremely weak. And yet that Case has been totally ignored as though the court action never took place.
Expect some ‘noise’ from TC in Sweden to distract attention from this ecig court case. Expect loads of shouting about ecig danger. That is how these charlatans work.
I’m not quite sure what makes some ‘academics’ become charlatans. I really don’t understand. Scientific enquiry is supposed to be unbiased, and yet the Climategate revelations showed that some academics sought to ‘hide the decline’ in global temperatures in the past.
What I find very weird is that the Prime Minister seems to be expected to know everything about everything, and that he must take responsibility for every failure, regardless of how minor that failure might be. The PM will not say, “That is not my department”, but he should. He makes a fool of himself if he pretends to know everything.
I must admit some misgivings. I’m not quite sure that the EU is not better than Cameron and co, or Corbyn and co. I’m not quite sure. There are MASSIVELY important issues in the World, and yet Cameron et al permitted the waste of Parliamentary Time, and Administrative Time, on Plain Packaging and smoking in cars – two utterly minuscule matters which could rebound massively in the future.
In my mind, Politics seems to be CARELESS, in the sense of ‘let’s see what happens if we do this’. Thatcher’s ‘Poll Tax’ was a perfect example. It was rolled out in Scotland without objection, but in England, there was insurrection. Thatcher did not survive the ensuing need for a witch to burn. She burnt.
There is only one conclusion from this mess, which is that SHS is harmless. TC fraud is becoming more and move evident.