Good Grief

As part of the implementation of the Tobacco Products Directive - 2014/40/EU - and specifically Article 20, the section that relates specifically to e-cigarettes the European Regulatory Science on Tobacco (EUREST - what can I say, the EU does alphabet soup better than the Americans) - the EU wanted a report on the “potential risks” of the product. To be fair, that is a laudable goal considering the use of the product. The problem, of course is the implementation. Not to mention the cost.

Social media. A rather quaint place. Filled with thousands of people from a variety of walks of life. You could be forgiven for thinking that social media is important, ‘cos it isn’t. Not in the least, but by that very same token it is important for Big Brother.

As I’ve written about before, researchers in the field of Tobacco Control absolutely adore social media as it gives them raw, unfettered access to a field of stuff that they know nothing about.

Once again, there is a headline sweeping the UK media channels - both print and radio - that is not only misleading, but is also downright dangerous. Many of the UK papers have led with the headline “Vaping is as bad as SMOKING”, which regular readers of this blog will know is simply not true. Vaping may indeed not be entirely risk free, but there are very few things (if any) in this world that are risk free. I suppose you could say, the greater the pleasure the greater the risk - but that doesn’t apply to vaping, it’s always been the odd one out really.

In a truly mind-bendingly terrifying moment, one of the key arguments used - particularly in the US - by the opponents of vaping has been gloriously ripped asunder. That argument is of course that The Children™ will use them and become “addicted” to nicotine. The thing is, there is a substantial portion of teens that vape without nicotine a statistic that is overlooked by the US tobacco controllers. You can imagine the shock and horror on their faces when they read that part of this study.

Every once in a while there is such utter ridiculousness that I simply cannot help but laugh. See, this is one of many reasons why I (like Dick Puddlecote) love ecigs. They have managed to throw the entire tobacco control industry into such frothing madness it is pure comedy. These budding researchers - seeking to make a name for themselves within the tobacco control industry - are analysing everything to do with ecigs in a bid to make the mantra “ecigs are bad mmmkay” more legitimate. As in, let’s make the ridiculous stance of the FDA, Australia and the EU the right one by doing untold amounts of utterly pointless trash that will later get cited by more ridiculous trash to make these nasty horrible ecigs go away.

The hypocrisy is rife within the EU (not such a great shock it has to be said), but it is such a glaring “we don’t know what the fuck we are doing” type that I simply couldn’t resist putting finger to key. Ya see, as any business knows, distance selling is one of many keys to success. More often than not, products and services are sold to other territories. This takes distance selling to a different pot. Cross-border. Businesses aren’t just having to apply local laws and so forth, once their product crosses an international border, it has to comply with the destination laws too.

I would say that this is a break from the norm, but I’d be lying. You see, as vapers, ex-smokers and current smokers (and even never smokers to some extent) we all know that the tobacco control science is little more than bits of paper trying to justify disproportionate restrictions, taxes and even bans on the things we enjoy doing.

I get it, some folk really don’t like us for our choices and they really don’t want us outside of their sphere of influential control. That’s really the reason for much of this pseudo-science. Those in power, seek power entirely for their own sake. They are not interested in the good of others, they are solely interested in power, pure power.

It seems there is no end to the shenanigans that a certain double-barreled researcher can get up to, especially when the majority of said research is (at least in part) funded by payouts from the Master Settlement Agreement. Something that should at least be mentioned (if only in passing) in the “disclosure” section of the paper. But then, why should it be necessary when a large proportion of funding from the National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health, and the US FDA Center for Tobacco Products is mentioned? Natch.

I’m pretty sure we’ve been down this road before. The whole formaldehyde scare - leading to the “10 times more cancer causing chemicals” headlines. That particular study (which started life in the NEJM as a letter to the editor) has been roundly debunked - not least of which because to inhale burning e-liquid, is frankly a rather dumb idea. Any researcher that believes us vapers do that on a regular basis, most definitely need to get out more.

I mentioned in a previous post that a certain Canadian MD - none other than Matthew Stanbrook, by far the most ideological and idiotic anti-vaper “researcher” there is, who claims that “e-cigarettes are a gateway that must be shut” - has had an opinion piece published, alongside a certain study, which is now getting some media attention. Hardly surprising really. Most notably (so far) is his mention in a Medscape article.