The Vaper Wars — 17 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.

  2. I'm reminded of CAMRA. They tried appeasing the monster. That worked out well.

    • 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".

  3. 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.


  4. 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.

        • Thank you Andrew.  It can get quite lonely up in my ivory tower so philosophical support is always welcome.

Hosted by Curratech Blog Hosting