The ‘Ructions’ About Ecigs

A lovely word, ‘ructions’. MjM believes that the word is of Irish origin, and I do not disagree. The word somehow invokes images of noise and pushing and shoving. If I said that there were ‘ructions’ in the House of Commons, most people would have an image of MPs standing up and shouting – and possibly exchanging blows.

This evening, I listened to a speech which Clive Bates extolled as the epitome of reasonableness and empathy. You can listen to it here:

Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller gives outstanding speech on smoking, vaping and public health – listen

It was a speech by one, Tom Miller, a former Attorney General of Iowa for many years. TM has been a lifelong anti-smoking/er Zealot. He thinks that Mitch Zealer (?) is a hero. Zealer is akin to Glantz – a crazed anti tobacco company leader of legions against tobacco companies – from behind. Miller was very instrumental in the imposition of more tax upon smokers via the ‘Master Settlement’ – which had no effect whatsoever of tobacco companies, but further impoverished poor smokers.

If you listen to his speech, I’ll bet a pound to a penny that you will miss the most important thing.

Go on then – listen to it……………..



What you will have missed is the self-praise. He sounds ever so nice. He describes how he got into tobacco control when he found out, many years ago, how damaging smoking cigs was. He accepted the word of DOLL ET AL.

But the fact is that he is not a nice person at all. He is a Zealot. He was instrumental in imposing more tax on smokers via the Master Settlement. He does not give a toss about smokers as individuals who enjoy tobacco.

But he is in favour of ecigs, so that makes him a saint. But, in his speech, he made no reference WHATSOEVER to pleasure. In his world, the only reason that people take up ecigs is to quit smoking. In other words, they take up ecigs as a sort of crutch. Anyone who has ever used a crutch knows that crutches are not without painful sensations. They take some getting use to.


All these people, including Clive Bates, have a misconception. They think of smokers in the same way that they would think of people who have the flu. All of them are ‘infected’ by the same virus. They are all the same. They must therefore all be treated in the same way. They must all be taxed; they must all be ‘exiled to the outdoors’; they must all be stigmatised and denormalised.

There is no such thing as ‘smokING’ as regards ethics. There are only ‘smokERS’. Ethics is about whether or not humans beat each other up. Aka, killing, raping and stealing. There is no excuse for the likes of Miller to beat up smokers.

And he was Attorney General of Iowa. Is that not a major problem? Is it not a major problem that these people attain positions of power? They always seem to be the same sort of people –  they want to ‘make a difference’. But, as I said not long ago, ‘make a difference’ means ‘winning’. They desperately want to ‘win’. Is that healthy?

Listen to Miller’s speech. It is about win, win, win. That is most clearly illustrated by his claims, again and again, in the speech, that he has ‘saved’ millions of lives. Again and again, he uses the phrase ‘save lives’. He thinks that ecigs will ‘save’ millions of lives.

Erm. One might ask him to name one single person whose life has been saved by his blatherings. No, the only reasonable phrase is ‘postponed the death of…’.

But what evidence is there that even one person’s death has been postponed? As far as I know, there is no such evidence.

These people live in a weird, statistical world. In his speech, Miller said that smoking is now restricted to only 16% of the population of the USA. So what? Why does that matter? It is just a number which is irrelevant to 99% of the population. Only tobacco controllers think that those numbers are important. No one else, with any intelligence, does.

What does that line of thought indicate? It indicates that if the vast expense of tobacco control were to expunged, then nothing would change. TC has always been an unnecessary expense and has caused massive economic disruption without visible results.

A massively important consequence of anti-smoker lobbying has been distraction. The reality has been that the more that smoking has reduced, the greater the demand on NHS services. That does not mean that the two are connected. They may or may not be.

I have no view on ecigs. It is none of my personal business.But nor aught it be the business of Government, especially when its own ‘experts’ tell it ‘nothing to see – move on’. That is especially true of the EU TPD directive. There was never a reason for including ecigs – other than graft and corruption.

We MUST leave the EU and stop paying. The ‘paying’ is important because our taxpayers’ money was paying for the graft and corruption. It is a hard road to tread when the corruption is so hidden.


The EU Aristocrats made a mistake when they bribed the EU Parliament to batter ecigs. But what made it worse was the attitude of British Ministers. They had no courage at all – unless they were also tainted. They should have SHOUTED, in the press and wherever, that they were against the EU ecig proposals. Would that Public Health England had pronounced about ecigs before the EU directive!!

But we now have news that hundreds of local authorities are forcing ecig uses to behave as though they were smoking cigs. Lots and lots of such gangs are bashing ecig users.

Why? I do not understand…..

7 Responses to “The ‘Ructions’ About Ecigs”

  1. castello2 Says:

    You understand. It’s not about health.

  2. michaeljmcfadden Says:

    “Why? I do not understand…..”

    It’s difficult for non-psychopaths to truly understand psychopathy!

  3. garyk30 Says:

    Perhaps ‘ruction’ is just another word for the common term ‘ruckus’.

    • michaeljmcfadden Says:

      Merriam Webster notes, “Etymologists speculate that ruction came to English in the early 19th century as a shortening and alteration of another word suggesting an episode of violence: insurrection. The earliest uses of ruction specifically make reference to the Irish Rebellion of 1798, an uprising against British rule on that island. ”

      Heh, 1798 was a bit before my grandmom’s time, but it’s possible that she heard tales from HER grandparents about the ructions in Ireland!

      • junican Says:

        I read that piece also. ‘Ructions’ -insu- rection’? Quite likely. ‘Rumpus’, ‘ruckus’ – they all seem to have the same derivation.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: