Today Sara Kalkhoran and I published “Modeling the Health Effects of Expanding e-Cigarette Sales in the United States and United Kingdom”
Is the beginning of one of Frampton’s latest blogs. It is always amusing (if a little difficult to digest his grasp of the English language) to read these as most of the time (95% CI) it’s all based on mythical hypothesis and conjecture, none of which surprises me when it comes to the “leading tobacco control activist”.
It must surely come as no surprise at all that there has finally been a response to the Public Health England 2015 review on e-cigarettes from the hard-core anti-vaping opponents. So I wasn’t particularly surprised when the excrement hit the whirling blades of the media, no sir.
There had of course been a gleeful comment from Simone Chumpman that “the answer” (and I know someone said “42” to that) was coming “later this week” regarding the provenance of the “95% less harmful” phrase.
After the recent rush of positive news first from RSPH where they are trying to de-stigmatise nicotine and encourage vapouriser use (at the expense of throwing smokers out of pub gardens which I do not agree with), then from ASH that once again shows that vaping isn’t a gateway to smoking which Linda Bauld discusses at great length, all of which is incredibly positive and simply proves what we instinctively know. Electronic cigarettes, vapourisers, vapour products or whatever you want to call them (just not nic-sticks please) are not encouraging the rabid youth of today to start smoking combustible tobacco, at least not in the current regulatory climate at any rate. Who knows, that may all change.
If you weren’t already aware, the FDA are currently accepting commentary on “Nicotine exposure warnings and child-resistant packaging for liquid nicotine, nicotine-containing e-liquids, and other tobacco products” whereby they are looking to, from those that are interested to comment, for information on the regulation of “tobacco products”. They are specifically looking for comments, data, research results and any other information that may inform regulatory actions that the FDA might take. If you haven’t done so yet, the link is here, it’d be worthwhile adding your own comments.
There is a whole secondary approach being deployed by those in various sockpuppet tobacco control charities across the pond with our dear American friends, all intent on reducing tobacco prevalence and protecting youth. Their grandiose plan is to *ahem* raise the legal age of sale from 18 to 21. That’s it. They completely ignore the fact that there are age restrictions already in place, albeit terribly enforced by the local authorities (as is the case everywhere else).
Why is it that whenever we get media attention on vaping from anywhere in the world, a quick dive around into the “study” behind it generally doesn’t match up to the headlines? Or should it be, why on earth are media outlets and the journo hacks not asking the right questions whenever they get their grubby little mitts on a story?
The cool factor: Teens report positive feedback to using e-cigarettes
A common refrain from many in the tobacco control camp. They want you to stop smoking because, well kids. They also don’t want you to stop smoking by vaping because, well kids.
State funded fake charities aimed at “promoting the stop smoking message” are no different. Just recently ASH wanted the UK Government to force tobacco companies to pay a levy to “fund further tobacco control efforts” and we all know how that’s turned out in the US don’t we?
Let’s face it, there’s a whole world of industries out there that run quite happily on its own without interference from any kind of trade union, and even if they had a union they still don’t have a huge amount of power or influence. With some exceptions, most notably the British Medical Association.
You will of course remember that the Bloody Meddling Association held their Annual Representatives Meeting recently spread over the course of four and a half days, seriously how many times do you think someone said “any other business” only to have some cockweasel cough irritatingly with a “yes, there is just one more thing”.. Of course that’s a major exaggeration, as the entire ARM was scheduled with quite a lot of the schedule being specified as “if we have time”.
In the grand scheme of things much is said about how giant monolithic entities control and distort everything even when those entities have absolutely nothing to do with the subject. If that is the case, why then do many “public health” faux charities insist on blaming “Big Tobacco” for every fopar they have ever made?
Three completely different media outlets, with three very similar and completely inaccurate headlines. So what exactly has these media buffoons so worked up? Well of course it is the defeat of SB140 where Senator Mark Leno “disassociated” himself from the Bill all because the committee voted to amend the definition of electronic cigarettes to not being tobacco products. Such a shame.
Another day and yet another “study” that has been totally skewed to the rafters in order to push a regulatory agenda. It really can be depressing, what makes it even worse is when organisations that state “Our vision is to eliminate the use of nicotine and tobacco products by youth and young adults.” get it so badly wrong. You could be forgiven for thinking that the stats were only slightly misinterpreted, but no. These wonderful folks deliberately co-joined two completely different sets of statistics to get the results they were looking for.