The Attitude of Politicians

I still do not understand. Public Health England stated that ecigs are at least 95% less dangerous than inhaling the fumes of burnt tobacco. Others, notably Carl Philips, have said that the danger is more like 99% less, or even more.

What is the basis for those statements? It is the toxicology reports – the chemical constituents of the vapour from ecigs. Think about the scent of a rose. What you are smelling are certain chemical compounds, consisting of various combinations of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen. See this site:

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ed100629v

It consists of a diagram of a rose flower with the chemical formulae of the scent compounds. For some reason, when those compounds hit the sensors in our conks, they give us pleasure sensations.

Much the same applies to ecig vapour. Breathing in that vapour is exactly the same as sniffing a rose. Both inhaling by mouth and by nose draw compounds into our lungs. The only significant difference is that ecig vapours have a taste as well as a smell. The big difference between ecig vapour and cig smoke is the lack of particulates – solid material. Vapers inhale gasses and not solids. In so far as ecig vapour contains water vapour, our lungs are perfectly capable of dealing with water vapour. Indeed, without water vapour in the air, our lungs would cease to function.

But we also inhale vast amounts of ‘particulates’ every day – pollen, dust, traffic fumes. Our lungs cope – until they become old enough not to function correctly.

So how do we explain why “Health Minister Greg Hunt [Australia] remains vehemently opposed [to ecigs containing nicotine]”?

“The overwhelming medical advice and evidence is that it’s likely to lead to the uptake of smoking and we cannot support that,” his spokesperson says.”

Overwhelming?

Let’s think about ‘overwhelming’. What could it possibly mean?

It could mean that ‘the people whom we consulted said so’. Or it could mean ‘many of the ‘experts’ whom we consulted could produce evidence of the gateway effect. Those who disagreed could not produce evidence that ecig use did not not cause a gateway effect’.

Let’s think about that for a moment.

Suppose that some ‘expert’ checked bus services for delays. He finds that buses often arrive at their final destinations late. He finds that very, very few buses arrive there early. He therefore concludes that bus services are crap. What he has failed to take into account is that most people deliberately time their arrival at a bus stop a few minutes before the bus is due – say, five minutes. There is nothing more annoying than seeing your bus sail past your stop before the appointed time. What happens if a bus is running ahead of schedule is that the driver waits at a stop for a couple of minutes before proceeding. I have seen it and experienced it many times.

The impossibility of proving that there is no gateway effect is somewhat similar. The reason is that there is only one way that a non-smoking youth can go – either not smoking or vaping, or vaping but not smoking, or vaping then smoking, .

1, Neither vaping nor smoking: zero gateway.

2, Vaping but not smoking: zero gateway.

3, Vaping then smoking: Gateway.

In that argument, going from smoking to vaping does not exist. It does not matter. Vaping then stopping vaping does not matter. Those possibilities are like buses arriving early. Only those people who WANT to start smoking will go from vaping to smoking. The vaping does not cause the movement. It is the desire which does.

For some reason that I cannot understand, politicians like Health Minister Greg Hunt become ‘vehemently opposed’. Why ‘vehemently opposed’? Why not ‘not sure’?

I think that I know what the problem is. It is that politics does not recognise uncertainty.

That is why we have the smoking ban.

Did Blair know for sure that Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons? Of course, not! But it was possible, and was sufficient justification for killing thousands of Iraqis, whether they were soldiers or not.

But my purpose is not to deny the need to depose Hussein. That is irrelevant. It is THE EXCUSE that I deride.

The smoking ban was based upon AN EXCUSE – second hand smoke danger. I remember reading some sort of report that SHS might have caused the deaths of some fifty persons in the UK. 50!!!! I don’t know if that report still exists on the net – probably not. But I remember it well. Had I realised its importance, I would have saved it.

So why do politicians feel desperate to claim appalling consequences? I do not know. Perhaps it is because propaganda works.

But it seems to me that propaganda is becoming more and more useless. Certainly, ‘Health Minister Greg Hunt’ has shown himself to be not fit for the office. His mind is closed, or he is opportunistic or he is stupid.

The facts are simple. Many people, throughout the world, have substituted ecigs, including HnB, for inhaling tobacco smoke.

But how will  ‘Health Minister Greg Hunt’ be punished for his stupidity? He will probably become Prime Minister. For that is what happened in the UK. The useless Home Sec, Theresa May, became PM.

There must be something that I am missing. Perhaps it is the notion of ‘a safe pair of hands’. But in whose view? I cannot help but think that ‘academics’ have been in control for centuries. Isaac Newton was not only a famous physicist. He was also controller of the Bank of England. He had some counterfeiters of ‘The King’s Coinage’ executed. He was also an academic.

Has anything changed? Who controls the ‘deep state’? Was it not ‘academics’ who created Soviet Russia? Was it the peasant origin of Stalin that drove him to kill or gulag those ‘academics’ because he knew that they would never be satisfied?

For academics are never, ever satisfied. It is in their nature. Perhaps politicians are the same – they are never satisfied.

Trump has turned it on its head. He demands satisfaction, not dissatisfaction.

Would that our Brexit negotiators demanded the same ‘satisfaction’!! We can negotiate trade deals with each individual country without the interference of the EU apparatus.

What is obvious is that the EU apparatus is becoming obviously irrelevant. Medium term planning should embrace the use of EU buildings after the dissolution.

A new cooperative vision for Europe needs to be devised. And it must not be secret. No more Masstrick Treaties, which the vast majority of The People knew nothing about. Or any other such treaties. Such treaties must be approved by plebiscite.  The reason is that they affect our Sovereignty.

But it is hard for ordinary people to weigh arguments for or against. Perhaps it was ‘a gut feeling’ which persuaded people to vote for Brexit.

I voted for Brexit because I believe that the EU is hand in glove with the WHO, IPCC, UN and all the UN’s dreams, such as Tobacco Control. TC wastes enormous amounts of money and time. The real challenges are the wealth of African Nations.  Asia is doing quite well. Misery and poverty in Africa is the really, really important thing.

It is crazy that the UN concerns itself with longevity in the Healthy Wealthy West when most of Africa is desolate.

The UN needs desperately to be demolished and rebuild. In the first place, its headquarters needs to be moved from New York to Somalia or some such deprived place. And the WHO from Geneva to Algeria. The ‘wealth’ and ‘indulgence’ is sickening.

So where are the politicians demanding these ‘improvements’?

The fact is that they are too ‘small’ to envisage anything outside their bubble. They have to be led by the nose by their betters – academics.

Advertisements

4 Responses to “The Attitude of Politicians”

  1. artbylisabelle Says:

    I like what you’ve said. I add this, one hand feeds the other where politicians and fake junk academics make deals. #FollowTheMoney

    • junican Says:

      I agree. I would also describe such practices as corruption. What is the penalty for being corrupt?

  2. Samuel Handley Says:

    People have been “educated” to believe that just because someone has been elected or appointed to some government position that they should be “at work” every day doing “something”.
    The truth is that the less any of them does the better off all the rest of us are. If the various Congresses and Parliaments and Presidents and Prime Ministers took a 364 day vacation the day after their election/selection we would all be living much better lives. How many laws are really needed? A single one would work for most differences between people. The only legitimate use for government is to enforce existing laws – not inventing new ones to bedevil the rest of us.

    • junican Says:

      I would not quite put it that way. I would say that Government exists primarily to sustain ‘peaceful coexistence’. It is a sad fact that that phrase was much maligned during the cold war.
      Murder, theft, etc, are threats to ‘peaceful coexistence’, and laws are required to make that clear.
      Problems arise when Gov takes sides.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: