‘Joined up thinking’ requires logical harmony and not logical dissonance. There is a crazy logical dissonance about Tobacco Control. If you say, “Smoking tobacco is extremely dangerous”, which is what TC has been saying forever, then it is logically harmonious to say that ANYTHING which is less dangerous than smoking tobacco is better than smoking tobacco. It follows logically as day follows night.
According to the Doll Doctors study, and I have not seen those ‘proofs’ disproved, pipe smoking and cigar smoking are not nearly as dangerous as cigarette smoking. The ostensible (but unproven) reason has been said to be that pipers and cigarers do not inhale. But suppose that any particular cig smoker also does not inhale? It is very easy not to inhale, or only partially inhale. Imagine that you take a puff of a cig and then inhale through your nose. Most of the smoke will be in your mouth, but some of it will be dragged down into your lungs. But you can also NOT inhale through your nose, and, instead, just blow the smoke out of your mouth. I do that all the time. I draw the smoke into my mouth and throat, hold it there for a second or so, and then blow it out again.That seems to satisfy me. I do not know why. Perhaps it is that (puff), whatever I am doing, like writing this (puff) , that short interlude of taking a puff of my cig (puff), (puff), just gives me a second or two to think about what I am writing. I pause a lot, as I write, and sometimes for extended periods, such as making a cup of tea.
It was in the ‘Hospital Study’ where Doll said that inhaling seemed to have a protective effect. In the Doctors Study, the question of inhaling was dropped, never to be mentioned again. I suppose that Doll was young at the time of the Hospital Study and had to be corrected by his ‘superiors’ so that he did not make the same mistake (that smoking could possibly be a good thing) again.
The logic of ‘harm reduction’ is undeniable, and yet the very powerful lobbyists, such as CRUK, deny it absolutely. (Puff) There is an ecig controversy, but that controversy exists only amongst (puff) the less powerful in TC and the more powerful.
In the USA, the more powerful have the edge, even though their argument is not logically harmonious. They need to be removed from office. Perhaps the recent Surgeon General’s report is a panicked attempt to ‘get something done’ before Trump takes over.
The Surgeon General’s Report is a prime example of logical dissonance. For example (not that it is likely to happen) suppose that tobacco companies produced a cig which had hardly any of the dangerous constituents. By ‘hardly any’ I mean, say, 95% less. Would the SG applaud? Not only he would not, he COULD NOT. That is the result of hardening of attitudes. He COULD NOT, because ‘Cartago delenda est’. In other words, Tobacco Companies must be destroyed. Millions of people might die, but ‘the structure’ of tobacco control (prohibition) must be supported at all costs, despite the possibility of ‘popular’ enjoyment.
So there is only one answer to these ‘logically dissonant’ puritanical zealots. The answer is what Trump seems to be doing. Replace Zealots with Realists.
But when he does so, why should the Zealots get away with their unproven alarmism? My point is that he should get rid of all of Zealots, lock, stock and barrel. NO MORE ZEALOTS! For example, more CO2 in the atmosphere encourages plant growth, which is desirable all over the world.
So, it is not logically dissonant, if smoking cigarettes is very dangerous, to discourage the take-up of a 95% less dangerous alternative. Children and youths do not come into it at all. It is THE PRINCIPLE OF ‘DANGER’ WHICH MATTERS.
The Principle of Danger is well-known, even if it is rarely acknowledged. In the Battle of Trafalgar, sailors expected rewards when they defeated the combined might of Spain and France at sea. They received little bounty. But was that because they were cheated? Maybe, but probably not. The fact was that many of the Spanish and French ships were so badly damaged that they could not be saved.
The Principle of Danger might include the possibility of Mount Vesuvius erupting. There have been indications in Italy via earthquakes, that Vesuvius will erupt any time now.
The unbelievable thing is that the Principle of Danger has been dragged away from reality, here and now, and has been projected into the far distant future.
What is the answer? It is that the hysteria of global warming must be recognised as such. And it must be recognised that Professors who ‘hide the decline’ are fakes.
The idea of ‘possible harm’ is not the same as ‘danger’. Is vaping dangerous? That is the important thing.
But it is up to Vapers to REBEL!!!!! It really is. They must walk into Parliament and REBEL. But they must do so in numbers so that the guards cannot hustle them out.
I cannot see it happening because Vapers are former smokers and are ashamed of being former smokers.
‘Joined up thinking’ requires extremely simple thoughts. EG, going from cigs to ecigs might reduce danger, but that action will not produce an end to the persecution.