The Ecig Controversy Continues

I can see a time when I might possibly stop smoking and move to ecigs or ‘heat not burn’ – more probably, ‘heat not burn’. ‘More probably’ because I enjoy smoking, and I guess that HnB might be the nearest thing to actual smoking. But I would only do so if I was forced to do so. What form might that ‘force’ take?

It is easy to think of ‘force’ as being entirely external, but that is not necessarily true. You can ‘force’ yourself. For example, you can be ‘bloody-minded’ and force yourself to act in a certain way. For example, if I used the bus, and the bus company massively increased fares, even though I could afford the increased fares, I might well decide to walk or cycle. But there is a danger, which is expecting other people to do the same, and being disappointed and aggravated if they do not. So you must be aware that your decision is yours alone. Your decision must be a personal decision, and you must be aware that you are making that personal decision on a matter of principle.

What is wonderful about the ecig controversy is that is that it has pitted one group of liars against another group of liars in tobacco control. It is wonderful to observe liars lying to each other. But a lot of their problems come from their own disinformation. For example, they moved ‘childhood’ up the age of 17 inclusive. In which case, when does ‘youth’ begin? It can only be at the age of 18. And when does ‘youth’ end? They do not say, but they have implied that it ends around 25. So children are up to and including 17, youths are from 18 to 24 inclusive, and adulthood only begins at the age 25. But these same people want 16 year-olds to have the vote, even though they are children!

But we can go further. ‘Youths’ (18 to 24 years old) should not be allowed to buy cigs or ecigs – or alcohol or sugar. Nor should they be allowed to play football because of the ‘health’ danger of broken limbs. And what about driving cars? Out of the question!

The curious thing is that, whilst it appears that smokers have been gradually backing into a corner, the fact is that ASH ET AL have been backing themselves into a corner – and they have no escape. Smokers can escape, even if that means behaving in an artificially criminal way, but ASH ET AL have no such escape. They have already used up their ‘criminal’ options via their torturing of smokers. As we know from the Communist era in Russia, torture can be mental as well as physical. Pain can be fear and uncertainty as well as the thumb screw.

We must differentiate between giving up smoking and giving up the pleasure of smoking. But what I really, really object to academics and politicians taking ownership of of ecigs and tobacco. If they want ownership, they should pay money and not do so by decree.

The invention of ecigs, imperfect though they might be, has brought forth a little more clarity about the danger of second-hand tobacco smoke. Much more attention is being paid to RELATIVE danger. Think of the danger of riding on a donkey on the beach at Blackpool as compared with riding a thorough-bred stallion in the Grand National. Or think of taking one paracetamol tablet every day as compared with taking 1000 tablets every day. An ordinary human being could take one tablet per day with no diminution of life-expectancy, but taking 1000 tablets would end that life pronto. If SHS is dangerous, it it only so in time-scales far exceeding human life-expectancy. Even Richard Doll said that when he said that he would not be afraid of being in the presence of a smoker.

You might reasonably ask why it is that FORCE has replaced persuasion, and why our elected representatives permit it. The answer is simple. It is much easier to ‘go with the flow’ than to battle against the flow.

The wonderful thing about the ecig controversy is that it is ‘much ado about nothing’. But that ‘much ado’ has exposed the corruption of the WHO. It has shown that the WHO is no longer ‘fit for purpose’. It is a bloated bureaucracy with no purpose other than imaginary dangers. It needs to be thoroughly cleansed. But the whole UN needs to be cleansed. That too has become corrupt beyond imagining.

Why is there such silence about UN corruption? In fact, why is there such silence about EU corruption? Is it not obvious that when an organisation promotes torture of a minority of citizens that the organisation itself is corrupt? For be in no doubt that the treatment of smokers is torture.