There is a lot of excitement at the moment about a video of a Clive Bates interview.

Dick Puddlecote got quite excited about it last night and urged us all to watch and cheer.  I did watch it this morning and found myself distinctly unimpressed.  Sorry Dick.

Shortly after I saw that Simon Clark had weighed in with his tuppenceworth, and to be honest I would be more inclined to cheer at his contribution.  Sorry again, Dick.

My attitude is that I don't give a flying fuck whether vaping is any safer than smoking.  If I choose to either or neither is my own business and I can make that decision myself.  Maybe a push bike is safer on the roads than a two-litre motorcycle but if I happen to prefer motorcycling then the pedal cyclists can fuck off.

Unfortunately a hell of a lot of vapers have climbed on the Tobacco Control Bandwagon.  Their constant references to vaping being safer than smoking and that vaping is saving millions [a billion?] of lives is nothing short of regurgitating the mass hysteria pumped out by TC.  Then we have an ex-ASH bloke coming on and repeating the same crap about "public health" and getting people off the Evil Weed and the vapers cheer him on.

Where the vapers are wrong is in their attempts to prove that vaping is safer than smoking.  That is completely irrelevant.  By doing that they are playing the Nanny State game.  The argument should be that no one should be dictating how we live our lives in the first place.

Maybe smoking does have health implications, but they aren't as bad as the Nannies make out.  That is irrelevant as I make my own decisions about what I do.  I cannot see why it is anyone else's business.  If I enjoy doing the ton on a motorbike then provided I don't kill anyone else then that's my choice.  If I decide to climb Mount Everest I know there are huge risks but they are my risks and I choose to take 'em.

So whether it's smoking, vaping, alcohol, fast food or sugary drinks it is none of the Nannies business, and the stance should be to tell them to fuck off and keep their noses out of private people's lives.  The gubmint does not have a responsibility to keep us healthy – that is our responsibility as individuals.  If we make the wrong decisions and end up as obese alcoholic chain-smokers then so be it – we may regret it in later life but we knew the risks and took them.  

So my message to all the vapers out there is to stop trying to prove that vaping is "safer" than smoking.  It isn't relevant.  Stop trying to prove how you are improving "pubic health".  You vape, you enjoy it, and fair play to you.  Some of you have noticed health improvements?  Again, fair play and good luck to you.  But stop trying to appease the lawmakers because you are only encouraging the Nanny State.  Tell them that you want to vape, that it's entirely your own business and tell them to mind their own fucking business.  You are fighting the wrong battle.

I have every respect for vapers.  I have every respect for smokers and non-smokers too.

I have nothing but contempt for the Nanny State. 

That is the real enemy.

It's only fair to share...Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInPin on PinterestShare on RedditShare on StumbleUponShare on Tumblr


The Vaper Wars — 19 Comments

  1. You are fighting the wrong battle. 

    I'd prefer to win the wrong battle than lose the war. That is what I see happening if we try to 'beat' public health – which is roughly what 'fighting the nanny state' boils down to.

    • Unfortunately the war is just about lost.  Ever since they convinced the Bovine Masses that the State somehow had the right to dictate lifestyles then it just became a matter of how much interference was to be applied.  The State is now marching into areas such as diet and alcohol having browbeaten smokers into near submission, and god knows where they will turn next.  The vapers are basically just fighting a rearguard action in a retreating population at this stage.  Maybe they'll win concessions and maybe they won't and all I can do is wish them luck.

    • Didn't it just.  There are a lot of similarities there all right.  "Do what you want with the smokers but we're the good guys".

  2. Nicely put Grandad, you old scrote! 😉

    Vapers in general have the same view as you, I know I certainly do, but there are two arguments for vapers to use, choice AND health, why would it be a good idea for them to abandon one entirely? I can understand that, I find it difficult to understand why others can't. Thing is, I only mentioned Clive's words at the end of that video, you may be judging from the whole vid, I dunno. During which, btw, Clive mentions smokers who just don't want to switch, cos I know for a fact he believes they should be left alone. That's why he is a big fan of harm reduction policies, because he doesn't like coercive policies at all and thinks they are pointless. Hence why the rant at the end of his piece was so well observed. 

    I'll write something further on it, maybe it will become clearer. 

    • “ … he believes they should be left alone.”

      Exactly.  Totally alone.  Outside in the pouring rain, or in front of their TV.  And as a vaper, I’m guessing that you share that view, n’est ce pas, Dick?  As long as it doesn’t include you and your vaping chums? 

      Yep.  Thought so. 

    • What I was trying to say [I think] is that I see an outright war being waged against the majority of the population, where various vested interests are doing their damnedest to force their own personal agendas on us.  It is being fought on several fronts – tobacco, vaping, sugar, alcohol, salt, you name it – and the Clive Bates interview was just a skirmish within that war.  I grant that he spoke a lot of sense [acknowledging that a percentage of smokers are quite happy and don't want to quit, and that there is no logical reason to attack vapers apart from vindictiveness] and it might be seen as a small victory by some but as I said, I would regard it as a skirmish as we all retreat.

      The day I start cheering is when someone just asks the simple question "why?".  Why are e-cigarettes, tobacco, sugar etc any business of the gubmints?  Why should they be regulated?  Once people are reasonably well informed then that's that.  The only time the law should intervene is when the risk is to a bystander, and the only excuse they have there is their so called second hand smoke, which was dreamt up precisely to provide the excuse for their bans.

      • Yep, agree entirely. 

        The part I liked what Bates's rant was is that many smokers have done what tobacco control told them to do ("the right thing" as in what TCI says is right, not necessarily what I think is right) but are still being hounded and should be left alone. How some think this now means I don't think smokers, drinkers, foodies and fizzy drinks fans should be left alone too is baffling!

        We are where we are, and can only fight what is in front of us. So when someone highlights the bullying of tobacco control and says that a section of society should be left alone, why wouldn't I like that, whoever said it? 

        • What we need is an in-depth documentary examining the whole business of state intervention, along the lines of A Billion Lives [I'm still disturbed by that name!].  Of course it won't happen as no one would finance it, or air it.  After all, if the lies and deceit were to be exposed it would cause a fairly sizeable backlash throughout the world and cause massive problems.

          I suppose I'm just rambling around in my head, viewing the world from the viewpoint of my own ideals.  It seems I have stirred things up a bit?

          • I don't know if anyone's tried to interest "More or Less", R4's stats programme (I haven't – yet).  I wonder what they'd make of the SHS is so dangerous because of the 25% increase in risk crap?  They depend on listeners writing in with suggestions and they've looked at a couple of  public health's pronouncements.


  3. The 40+ years old 'none of your fucking business' argument showed no result in the way laws have been implemented. The health one is a good option, imho.

    • I'm just a stubborn old bugger and will never concede that any of those laws are moral, no matter how old they are.

      • I'm just a stubborn old bugger and will never concede that any of those laws are moral,

        We need more like you. Please keep up the good work.

        I'm not going there myself (yet) but you have my (philosophical – if that means anything) support.

  4. Pingback: Whatever Next? | Frank Davis

  5. Pingback: Another attack of the Vapers | underdogs bite upwards

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Hosted by Curratech Blog Hosting