The following is a very good article about the ecig situation in Oz:
I have to assume that the author is a journalist working for News.com.au. When he wrote the article, the authorities were still discussing whether or not to repeal the ban on nicotine in ecig liquids. He describes his own experiences of using ecig liquid containing nicotine, and how it worked for him. He castigates the authorities for the utterly, utterly illogical position in banning ecig liquids which contain nicotine, whilst doing nothing to ban cigs which contain nicotine and, in his view, cause death via the smoke and not the nicotine.
The first few sentences read:
WHEN I quit smoking last year, I got a message from Associate Professor Colin Mendelsohn from the School of Public Health at the University of NSW.
“Congratulations,” he said. “You’ve just added almost 10 years to your life.”
He then added: “You’re also now a criminal.”
Today the Australian Government will decide whether I will remain one, and whether 2.6 million other Australians will get the chance to potentially save their lives.
My crime was to quit the only way I knew I could: By replacing a real cigarette with an e-cigarette that delivered the nicotine without virtually all of the stuff that actually kills you.
That practice is currently illegal. The Therapeutic Goods Administration will announce today whether that should change or not.
the kick is in the last sentence:
UPDATE: Shortly after midday the TGA released its decision and Dr Mendelsohn sent me another message. “Hi Joe,” he said. “You are still a criminal.”
The proposal to permit nicotine in ecig liquids had been rejected.
What I like about these incidents ‘down under’ is that they reveal, in no uncertain terms, the severe limitations of Government. It makes one wonder if both WW1 and WW2 could have been avoided had not the Governments of the time been less cautious. That sounds like, and is, a sort of ‘double negative’. You might say: “Governments should be very cautious about declaring war”. Obviously, you would be right. But you might also ask: “Should Governments have been less concerned about fulfilling Treaty obligations which would lead to a continental conflagration?” In other words, throw caution to the winds and refuse to implement Treaty obligations which were intended to deter, but not actually intended to produce World War.
WW2 was initiated by the German invasion of Poland. The UK and France had a Treaty with Poland to defend Poland. God only know why. Had Germany first invaded France, would Poland have declared war on Germany? We do not know. I would suggest, probably not.
So, you might reasonably say ‘CAUTION’ was the cause of both wars.
So let us think about what has happened in the recent past. The USA invaded Iraq not because of some Treaty, but because of it threw caution to the winds and just ACTED. There is no such thing as ‘international law’, unless a very strong nation decides that there is. Who is going to be first to declare war on Russia because of the annexation of the Crimea? The USA invaded Iraq. It did not declare war on Iraq. It avenged 9/11. But it made terrible mistakes. It purged the Iraq Government of Bathists as though they were Nazis. They were not Nazis – they were people who had to be Bathists to have their jobs. Thus, the Yanks removed all the people who were skilled in organising local authorities. Is it any wonder that chaos ensued?
There is chaos in Oz. To get a job in ‘Health’ you have to be a fully-paid-up member of the ‘Healthist Party’. At the top of Public Health England, you have no chance of securing a position unless you have a record of published, anti-tobacco papers. For example, suppose that two people apply for a position which requires knowledge of pneumonia. Suppose that one applicant has years of dealing with pneumonia on the ground, but the other applicant has several published papers about pneumonia. Which of them would get the job?
So we go back to the heading. WHO decided to continue the ban on nicotine containing e-liquids? What makes things even worse is that Ausies can legally buy and import such liquids from New Zealand, which permits such liquids. I suppose that that is because OZ has some sort of trade agreement with NZ.
Is it possible to conceive of anything more illogical, ridiculous, nonsensical, pathetic, etc, than that GOVERNMENT edict?
But does such nonsense go deeper? I think that it does. It goes deep into the anti-tobacco movement which has existed since the late 1880s. And the basic premise is still the same – tobacco is EVIL! And that argument applies just as powerfully to sugar, salt, etc. But note how salt has been degraded. It is now not a ‘feature product’ for Health Zealots.
So let us envisage a post-Brexit Government.
The UK Government frees its People from vastly complex taxation regs. The Inland Revenue is separated from politics. If you earn, you must pay income tax, but it does not matter HOW you earn.
I could go on all night, but I am tired. But what I have proposed, makes a lot of sense. But the ideas need to be strengthened and supported. I do not have such expertise. Some countries in the EU have vastly simplified their taxation systems.
So suppose that Theresa May ignores the demands of the anti-tobacco zealots and concentrates upon Brexit. I mean, even May must be sick to death of Zealots.
Defund their ‘Charities’ and let them sink or swim. It is so simple.