The Pity of Vapers

I do not know what to make of it. Every day, it seems, Michael Siegel finds another TC Zealot in America who deliberately misinterpretes data from epidemiological research to condemn ecigs. Here is the latest one:

None of it makes any sense at all.

How did snus get banned everywhere in the EU except Sweden? There is very strong evidence from Sweden that the practice of using snus, rather than smoking cigs, is correlated with a much less incidence of lung cancer. When that correlation was discovered, why was not the use of snus encouraged? Why, on the contrary, was it banned in the EU? The whole thing is just silly. I could understand the use of snus not being encouraged, sort of, but to be banned?

Let’s try an analogy. Ships keep sinking and all on board are drowned. A movement is started to stop the sinking of ships. Regulations about the safety of ships must be made to stop them sinking. Then someone suggests that it might be a good idea for ships to have lifeboats, just in case they sink. The ‘movement’ is up in arms, demanding that no such lifeboats should be considered. The provision of lifeboats would ‘encourage’ bad ship design, because they would ‘avoid’ proper regulation of ship design. They would hand an excuse over to The Shipping Industry not to ensure that ships cannot sink at all!

That sort of thinking is what drives Tobacco Control, especially at its highest level in the WHO and its FCTC. Those Zealots are overwhelmed by task before them – the eradication of tobacco in all its forms, apart, possibly, from the growing of tobacco plants for medical research and usefulness.

What is incredibly idiotic, of course, is that politicians fall for the excuses. Which elected representatives fell for the idea that snus should be banned? Who were the politicians who agreed to it? Why is the ban still in place? Which politicians are responsible for the continuation of that ban? Why are educated politicians not militating, in great numbers, for the reversal of that ban?

There can only be one answer. It is that they do not give a shit. Ah, you might say, but they have much more important things to do. Erm… right… But they did not have much more important things to do when they banned snus. That also indicates that they do not give a shit.

Article 20 of the TPD is a disgrace. It is a prime example of ‘do not give a shit’, just like the ban on snus.


The People of the UK have voted overwhelmingly to exit the EU. Do not be fooled by those who say that the vote was ‘only’ a 4% difference. Take into account ‘Project Fear’. Remember that the great and good, including some comedians and other slebs, projected the most awful consequences should we break free. We shall never know what might have happened if the Remainers had concentrated on what the EU has done for us, such as reducing our fishing industry to a shadow of its former self – in the seas around OUR OWN coasts. And is that not the nub? Around OUR OWN coasts? OUR fishing grounds? If you do not accept OUR fishing grounds, then you cannot accept OUR agriculural land. In fact, nothing at all would be OURS.

The People of Scotland can hanker after independence. As far as I am concerned, and I feel sure that most Englishmen would feel the same, they can have it. In fact, it might have been best if the vote a couple of years ago had gone for independence. I don’t think that it would have gone so far as to produce border walls, but it might have. Most likely is that the politicians would have fudged it. England would have continued to finance Scotland because the alternative, Independent Scotland, would have created mayhem and bancruptcy.


When we use the word ‘conspiracy’, we automatically sneer. We think ‘conspiracy theory’. That idea has been a bounty for conspirators. That thinking is stupid. People have always conspired and would have been stupid not to. Our Nation’s response to Hitler was a conspiracy on a grand scale. The gathering together of people who are in agreement is normal. All of politics is conspiratorial.


So we come to vaping and ecigs. OF COURSE there is a conspiracy to defame ecigs! Just as snus was defamed. What else do vapers expect? It is laughable to think that the opinion of Public Health, England will make any difference. PHE has no influence in the WHO. The WHO is a creature of the USA and BIG PHARMA – ‘stakeholders’, aka funders.

What is obvious is that the fate of ecigs is going to be determined by unelected people who do not give a shit.

But that was obvious from the beginning of anti-smoking hysteria. Smoking bans were the product of that hysteria. Because the bans were based upon hysteria, rather than knowledge, vapers can expect the same treatment.


Brexit has opened up a massive can of worms. A ‘proper’ new Government should start an enquiry into the corruption intrinsic to the EU. That would include the ban on snus and the attacks on Ecigs. But the corruption is so endemic, and has been so for decades, that an enquiry would take forever. Better to simply draw a line.

The People voted to exit the EU. It may take some time to cross the t’s and dot the i’s, but the first thing is absolutely clear – our Government has no mandate whatsoever to continue to give British taxpayer’s money to the EU. None at all. Previous agreements have been rendered null.

Further, any emissions from the EU are null and void. The TPD is null and void, regardless of corruption. It is still null and void. Once the vote for Brexit was known, then no directives from the EU had any force, nor had the UK a duty to give money to the EU. I am not saying that such payments should actually stop – I am saying that the UK had no DUTY to make such payments.


Vapers have good reason to be agrieved. All the people, Professors and Doctors in Universities, who are most well-placed to supprt them have been cowed.

But that is only an extension of the Puritanical attack on smokers. Smokers stink. Kissing a smoker is like kissing an ashtray. Lips that have touched alcohol will not touch mine. History repeats and repeats and repeats. We never learn.



8 Responses to “The Pity of Vapers”

  1. michaeljmcfadden Says:

    Well, SOME of us learn. The problem is it’s generally just not ENOUGH of us. ::sigh::

    Ahhh welll… Happy 3:30AM to thee Junican!


    • junican Says:

      Yes, 3.30am. One of the joys of being retired.
      There would be enough of us it we all started shouting as loud as tobacco control. But we cannot. We do not have massive funding to establish an independent ‘Charity’ to produce ‘studies’ – people with full time jobs to establish the real facts. Also, there is the problem of decades of propaganda.
      But we know that the worm will turn. We do not know how and when. There may come a time in the not far distant future when the UN and all its works, will no longer have any usefulness to politicians, at which point it will be defunded and wither and die.

  2. Roberto Says:

    Following idiotic self-destructive policies Is not a strange or infrequent or outlandish phenomenon and is not confined to a single issue pressure group like Tobacco Control. We would like to think that individuals, companies, public institutions and governments (specially if democratic) tend to act rationally, but a lot of times they don’t. History has many examples of this. However, in all cases “the shit hits the fan” sooner or later or the irrationality drive runs out of steam (or both).

    In the case of TC, the shit will also hit the fan sooner or later. I think that vaping may be one of the triggers for this, since I doubt the zealots will be able to deal with its challenge as they did with tobacco (via the SHS scare) or with snus (not well known and used outside Sweden when it became prohibited by the EU). Another signal is the fact that the new fashionable Public Health crusading motive is obesity, so anti-nicotine in all its forms (anti-smoking, anti-vaping and anti-snus) may start loosing a lot of momentum, which means loosing $$ in public grants and Pharma money, which means loosing political influence. TC is a self-preserving prohibitionist cult tied to clear vested interests. Paradoxically, the widespread public perception that TC has won the “Tobacco War” may be the beginning of its final demise as health zealots start focusing on the next demon (obesity).

    • junican Says:

      Ver true, Roberto, and it is in the nature of these things that the ‘about turn’ can happen very quickly. At the moment, it is easy for politicians to go along with anti-smoker legislation since there is little opposition. That might change when politicians realise that the persecution of smokers has produced as much political leverage as it can do – that all the blather is a waste of time and money. Sack the UN trouble-makers.

  3. Sarah Says:

    I think your ship analogy should go more like this:

    Ships keep sinking and all on board are drowned. A movement is started to ban ships. Then someone suggests that it might be a good idea for ships to have lifeboats, just in case they sink. The ‘movement’ is up in arms, demanding that no such lifeboats should be considered. The provision of lifeboats would ‘normalise’ ships, since they look a bit like ships if you squint, and anyway they’re just likely to sink. If ships can’t be banned it’s better to let the passengers drown as a lesson to those who might consider taking up shipping.

    • junican Says:

      LoL! But it is much the same thing, don’t you think?
      The point is that the anti-lifeboat zealots must have a reasonable arguement, and ‘let them drown’ is not a reasonable one. Much better to hum and haw about the efficacy of lifeboats, and how they might lull passengers and crew into a false sense of security, while still demanding unsinkable ships.

      • Sarah Says:

        California and Australia are full of anti-lifeboat zealots who think that ‘let them drown’ is entirely reasonable (drowning stops them from recruiting ‘The Cheeeeeldren’). They actually hate lifeboats more than ships because the lifeboat passengers are altogether too trappy for their own good and have an irritating habit of not dying. At least the movement can weep crocodile tears at the sad demise of the drowned ship passengers whilst holding them up as examples of the victims of Big Ship’s evil intentions.

        Anyway, if the Titanic taught the movement nothing else it was that there can never be any such thing as an unsinkable ship. Big Ship lied about that one and thus cannot ever be trusted to tell the truth in the future. The movement won’t be caught with its pants down again, nosiree.

      • junican Says:

        Get’s better all the time, Sarah. The transport of crims to Australia was a sort of slave market, wasn’t it? I suppose that the equivalent of slave masters hung around the docks waiting for the next penal ship to come in. But who would want lifeboats on the penal ships? The crims/slaves might escape. Lifeboats such as ecigs allow addicted smokers to escape from the clutches of the slave masters. That will not do at all.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: