When lies come back to bite

I came across another piece of “research” the other day.

My new Best Buddies in ASH have discovered that “use of cigarettes remains low among young people“.

And here was I thinking that all those poor cheeeldren were seeing people smoking in the street and on films and were being suckered into a [very] short lifetime of addiction, pain and disease.  Apparently not?

ASH has released new data today which finds no evidence that children are being recruited to smoking through their use of electronic cigarettes.

So no “gateway” theory then?  Mind you, you lot were the only ones who believed in that rubbish so this must come as a bit of a shock?

During this period there has been a decline in smoking among children, countering the suggestion that e-cigarette use leads to a take-up of smoking.

But that “suggestion” [which has been quoted many ties as “fact”] was only made by the Anti-Smoker Industry.  No one with half a molecule of brain believed it except you lot so this is a bit of an about turn?

Understanding of e-cigarettes among young people is generally good, with nearly two thirds (63%) of those who have heard of e-cigarettes believing correctly that they are less harmful than tobacco cigarettes.

That’s going to piss of a few people in America and Australia? Heresy, they will cry.

However, there has been a rise in the proportion of young people who mistakenly believe that e-cigarettes are equally as harmful to the user as cigarettes.  Between 2013 and 2016 the proportion believing that the electronic devices are as equally as harmful increased from 11% to 23%.

Now I wonder how that could be?  A sudden increase in kids believing electrofags are as “dangerous” as cigarettes?  Could it possibly be because of all the lies and propaganda put out by your best buddies in the Tobacco Control Industry?  My mammy always told me that lies come back to bite you, and it appears she was right?

Until the implementation of the Tobacco Products Directive on 20th May 2016, e-cigarette manufacturers were allowed to advertise on television and other media with few restrictions.  However, this does not appear to have had any significant impact on youth use of e-cigarettes.

No, it wouldn’t.  Kids don’t dash out to buy something just because they have seen it on television.  Advertising doesn’t turn kids into crazed zombies.  They have more important things on their minds like celebrities, selfies and getting each other pregnant.  There’s more to life than smoking. or even vaping but you lot wouldn’t realise that.

Although more young people are trying electronic cigarettes and many more young people are aware of them, this has not led to widespread regular use or an increase in smoking.

You must be happy so?  Job done?  We can all go home now?

E-cigarette advertising permitted under the CAP code should enable adult consumers to make informed choices about the products while ensuring that children are protected from inappropriate marketing.

Oh for fucks sake!  Having just admitted that there isn’t a problem with the “gateway” theory, that kids aren’t taking up vaping and that advertising has very little effect you still whinge on about protecting cheeeldren from “inappropriate marketing”?

Let’s go over the facts here.

You state that there is no evidence for the “gateway” theory yet your friends across the Atlantic claim that there is?

You claim there is no evidence that advertising caused an uptake in electrofags yet you still want stricter advertising standards?

You wonder why an increasing number of kids regard e-cigarettes as dangerous while your pals across the Atlantic are screaming that they are just as, if not more dangerous than cigarettes?

And possibly the most confusing fact of all – you state your belief that electrofags are “less dangerous” than cigarettes, yet you are all for them being banned in all nonsmoking areas and even in the open air?  You want the same restrictions applied to them as are applied to ordinary cigarettes?

I am confused.

I wouldn’t call this an about-face.

I would call it two-faced.

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

Comments

When lies come back to bite — 8 Comments

  1. This bit of confusing two-faced drivel from your new Best Buddies in Ash proves that these anti-smoker maggots are full of shit. Condemned by their own words. Hopefully writing crap like this could be a signal that it is the beginning of the end for these scumbags.

    • I hate to turn on my new Bestest Fwends but they really do pump out some outrageous garbage.  I swear that if they all fucked off into the sunset [or preferably into the sun] that no one would notice the difference, apart maybe for the exchequer who would be saving some cash.  They are so wrapped up in their little isolation chambers that they can’t even see how idiotic their own pronouncements are.

  2. I wouldn’t call this an about-face.

    I would call it two-faced

     

    Come on GD.. Deb Arnott is NOT two faced – if she was, do you really think she’d be wearing that fucker?

     

  3. …being suckered into a [very] short lifetime of addiction, pain and disease.

    Oh how true.

    I started with the evil weed at eight years old, and although I’m now only a fledgling 67, and fit and healthy, I’m sure a brutally truncated life will be my fate.

    Ye gods, I might only make it to 85 or 90! Yet another young life tragically cut short by that terrible drug, tobacco.

    And just to think, had I eschewed the siren call of that destructive poison, I could probably have looked forward to an extra five years of having some hatchet-faced ‘carer’ wiping the dribble from my chin and the shit from my arse, meanwhile not knowing my own name or the names of my children.

    Oh, those precious years that I will be missing, and all because I became totally addicted to the most dangerous substance on earth.

    Oh woe is me…

  4. Pingback: In the News November 3rd | Convicted Vapour

Leave a Reply

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