Why they want e-cigarettes banned
I came across yet another survey yesterday.
Over the past couple of years, I have become deeply cynical when it comes to any ‘survey’, ‘research’ or ‘reports’ as they all tend to be slanted, biased or just plain crazy.
Yesterday’s survey was done by E-Cigarette Direct, and I would normally dismiss it on the grounds that a) it’s biased, b) it’s a tiny survey [145 respondents] and c) it’s an on-line survey which is notoriously unreliable. The reason I mention it though is because it rings true.
According to the survey, 62% of e-cigarette users said they would return to normal cigarettes if e-cigarettes were banned.
Just for a moment, assume I am a fanatical environmentalist [mwaaahahaha!!] and I decide to sell my petrol car and go for an electric one? Let us then assume that the government bans electric cars? What am I going to do? Do I give up driving altogether? No. I go back to driving a petrol one. It’s logical. The same logic can equally be applied to smoking.
There is a major push to have electronic cigarettes banned. The arguments are many but basically they boil down to “they are full of carcinogens” [which is a load of bollix] or “they encourage young people to smoke” which presumably means that sticking a white pencil in your mouth is tantamount to encouraging smoking.
The arguments against electronic cigarettes are nonsensical. I cannot think of one single reason why they should be banned.
Well, actually I can.
You see, they are not made by the pharmaceutical companies, and this is why they are under attack.
The pharmaceutical companies want everyone to quit smoking, hence all the crazy propaganda that we have floating around these days. However, they want people to quit by using nicotine patches or nicotine gum. The introduction of an alternative that they don’t manufacture could cost them billions, and they will do everything in their power to stop that.
You look at just about any ‘research’ done into the effects of smoking, be it primary smoking or secondary and you will find the pharmaceuticals funding that research.
Of course the Antis will say that anyone who counters their arguments is funded by the tobacco industry.
I’m not funded by anyone.
I wish…..
Good points there Groandad. If pharma companies are so keen we all look out for our health they’d be distributing nicotine patches for free wouldn’t they?
I hope they try to introduce legislation to ban something because it might influence children- I could use the same logic to ban the catholic church in Ireland or ban cars on the grounds that seeing them on the roads encourages children to see private transport as desirable.
Someone sooner or later is going to try to legislate smoking out of existence and will leave a new principle in law that can be exploited to annoy the fuck out of politicians and judges.
Bring on that law that bans behaviour which might influence kids in a bad way. I could use that legislation to great nuisance effect.
Thanks for mentioning our survey here, Grandad. It is small, but it is a lot larger than lots of the surveys published in medical journals.
Got to make one point here. The pharmaceutical companies produce nicotine cessation aids that have a long term cessation rate (when measured at one year) of around 5%. One study actually found a cessation rate of 0.8%. (The study was hailed as a big success by the scientist who conducted it – see Prof Siegel’s analysis of it here. I’m sure it is coincidental that the scientist takes money from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Pfizer and Novartis.)
The same pharmaceutical companies also provide millions in grants to anti-smoking organisations. These anti-smoking organisations continually push cessation aids even though cold turkey has been proven to be a more effective way of quitting.
In effect, then, the pharmaceutical companies have a captive, addicted customer base, who are always being told pressured to try quitting smoking by using nicotine cessation aids but are failing to do so 95% of the time.
Con – If you can invent an anti-priest drug or a prescription to provide matter transportation, then the pharma industry will be more than happy to back you up. I doubt they will ever ban smoking though – governments make too much tax out of it.
James – Welcome. If I appear to knock the survey, it’s simply that I take very little at face value. If I knock the Antis, I have to knock the Pros under the same rules. I was well aware of the research that shows the lack of success of patches and gum. Pharma isn’t going to mention that though, are they? Hah!
No, no, knock it all you want. We know small surveys are not perfect (but they are interesting!) We are not the sort of people who would pretend that a survey of people’s opinion makes medical fact – we leave that to the antis and their crazy third hand smoke theories.
Hat-tip to James who seems a very sensible chap to me … Groandad, re the required inventions I’m pleased to announce that both anti-priest drugs and matter transportation already exist so its a matter of distribution really.
The anti-priest medicine is called Logic and is available worldwide and the good news is there’s no cost (heh) and the second has already been achieved in laboratory conditions. The problem now is how to direct the physics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunnelling
Agree with you mate. Will put up an excerpt of your statement. Cheers!
ed