Feed aggregator

De retour avec davantage de commentaires et analyses en mars.  Voici quelques manchettes ici et là en attendant. 


 Risques de cancer de la prostate Si cette étude dit vrai, que penser du guide alimentaire du Canada qui recommande de 3 -4 verres de lait par jour à l’adolescence? 
Les réseaux sociaux tel que Facebook et Twitter, pourraient un jour servir pour détecter des problèmes alimentaires chez les usagers en utilisant un algorithme de détection ! 
Facebook et Twitter: de nouveaux outils de santé publique?
Ce n’est pas comme si on n’avait pas prédit qu’une interdiction nous mène toujours à une autre à perpétuité :Un âge minimum pour les sucreries?‘’ Les autorités pourraient commencer par interdire les publicités de bonbons, gâteaux et autres boissons sucrées, puis interdire la vente de ces produits dans les restaurants, dépanneurs et épiceries près des écoles. D'ici 10 ou 15 ans, on pourrait fixer un âge minimum pour l'achat d'aliments contenant trop de sucre.’’
Si vous aviez le moindre doute que les interdictions de fumer à l’intérieur n’avaient aucun rapport avec la santé d’autrui, les appels des instances de santé d’Ottawa pour les interdictions de fumer en plein air devraient convaincre même les plus sceptiques.  Le tabac dans la mire d'Ottawa
Il n’y a pas eu de réchauffement climatique depuis 1997 selon l’unité de recherche sur le climat de la University of East Anglia ! Le triomphe de la vérité

Many years ago I read an interview between Matt Groening (the creator of The Simpsons) and Frank Zappa. The interview doesn't seem to exist online, but I recall them both agreeing that their job was to 'offer their scorn'. No one had to accept the scorn. They didn't even have to acknowledge it. It probably wouldn't make any difference if they did acknowledge it, but it was the artist's job to offer it all the same.

Several years later I saw the greatly under-rated film Election, in which a school teacher (played by Matthew Broderick) spots a bad egg running for student president and recklessly tries to sabotage her campaign because he knows that a victory will set her on course for a life of making other people miserable. The teacher is exposed, Tracey "pick" Flick wins the election and he is ruined. By the end of the film, he has lost his marriage and his job, his nemesis has won and he has nothing. In the final scene, he comes across her by chance—she is now rapidly ascending the greasy pole of politics—and in a futile and impotent gesture, he hurls a milkshake at her car. The end.







If I was to tell you that this scene and the aforementioned quote regularly come to mind as I write my books, speeches, articles and blog-posts, you would get a glimpse of the hopelessness with which I view the pursuit of liberty and tolerance in the second decade of the twenty-first century. To be candid, I do not see myself on the winning side. As I hinted at in yesterday's post, the forces of reason are no match for the forces of ignorance, avarice and fear which outgun us.

With the odds stacked against you, all you can do is offer your scorn. With that in mind, I point you to Carl V. Phillips' recent testimony to the US Food and Drug Administration. Dr Phillips is an honest scientist, too rigorous for the public health movement he represents and too measured for the e-cigarette and smokeless tobacco industries whose products he implicitly or overtly endorses. The FDA committee on tobacco harm reduction, meanwhile, is ostensibly interested in public health but, as Carl writes, is actually "dominated by dedicated anti-tobacco extremists who are opposed to harm reduction, and its external scientific advisory group (TPSAC) is stacked with extremists and junk scientists". For financial and ideological reasons, it exists to promote pharmaceutical nicotine products at the expense of more effective alternatives.

A genuine harm reductionist cannot expect to change anyone's mind in such an environment. You can waste your three minutes' speaking time trying to win favour with a unwinnable audience or you can seize the moment to offer you scorn. Carl chose the latter...  

I speak today as an educator with an interest in the nature of science and its role in the functioning of our society, and from that perspective would like to say, "won't someone please think of the children?"

If an impressionable young mind stumbled across how science is often portrayed in this corner of our nation's government, he would be at risk of never becoming scientifically literate, let alone to wanting to be a scientist.

First, science is supposed to be an honest truth-seeking process that attempts to figure out the best possible answer to a question, often via methods that require innovative thinking. Our impressionable young mind, however, might come away:

-believing that science consists of just a few narrowly-defined recipes, rather than taking in all the information we have in myriad forms, available from many forums, and thoughtfully making the best use of it;

-believing that health science focuses on looking only under streetlamps and obsessing about easy but not directly informative work like chemistry, rather than trying to do the more difficult work to translate this and other information into what we really want to know about health effects;

-from today's session, he might believe that science involves such methods as manipulating children into giving the answers you want, speculation-laden anecdotes, limiting reviews of the evidence to exclude any evidence that you wish did not exist, and counting unsupported assertions by authors as evidence;

-and he would be taught that science it is not about identifying how we maximize our knowledge, but that it involves declaring that we just do not know anything, when in fact we know quite a lot.

Our impressionable young mind is not going to think very highly of science, and he might reasonably conclude that the best way to get involved in America's version of science is to go to law school. And, yes, that means that misguided ways of looking at science may be a gateway to more dangerous behaviors.

Second, this poor child would get the impression that a hypothetical cardiovascular condition or cancer 40 years from now will be just as harmful as a near-term case in a current smoker, a case that was caused because smokers are discouraged from switching to low-risk alternatives. Do we really want to tell that child that we expect so little of him, that his generation's health science will be so lousy that the 40-year-out cancer will be no more treatable that it would be today?

Finally, at the very least, I would urge this committee and Center to make sure that any such anti-scientific writing is kept in child-proof packaging, rather that being left laying around on the internet where anyone could stumble across it and damage their developing minds.
Go over to Ep-ology to read the background of this story and the various references to which the good doctor alludes.

Yet again the Dutch come under fire for their lax attitude to tobacco control, because they have rolled back the tobacco campaign and withdrawn the funding for smoking cessation campaigns.

Chief among the complaints of the anti-smoking campaigners is the attitude of Anne Mulder, head of Dutch health policy. He admits that the health department 'does hold meetings with the tobacco lobby':
'It's a legal product, I think it's right I speak to everyone and that's what I'm doing. I don't have any problem speaking to the lobbyists. If you want to make policy you have to speak to people on all sides then make your own decision.'The inevitable objection (see earlier example):
'If you want to control malaria you don't invite the mosquitoes to negotiate with you on these issues. This is so illogical. It is absolutely irresponsible what they're doing, it's not a health policy not at all.'The mosquito is a very poor example to illustrate why relevant interests should not be consulted over policy. Politicians don't control malaria, nor do they prevent disease. They legislate on policy. If you want to control malaria as a medic, you go to war with the mosquito and if you need the support of the law then other considerations might become relevant. The fact that mosquitos cannot speak for themselves has absolutely no bearing on the propriety of consulting all relevant parties to issues on which laws are being passed (Sheila Duffy also had a go a few months ago when she blogged,
 'Malaria kills people, but mosquitoes don’t have PR agencies and expensive promotions budgets,' a consideration that is absurd as well as irrelevant.)

In consulting with tobacco companies the Dutch are flouting Article 5.3 of the WHO's Framework Convention for Tobacco Control. This measure seeks to 'protect' health policy from tobacco industry influence – because the FCTC is the first global multilateral treaty of the World Health Organisation. It should worry people that the WHO believes tobacco should be the subject of its first multilateral treaty, or that the tobacco industry is the only one supposed to be a threat to national public health policies.  (More here.)

Not much time to blog lately but so much going on.  Here are some noteworthy articles, blog posts, and forums from the www.  This blog should be more active with analysis and commentary in March.     FDA says your body is a “drug” and subject to gov’t regulation How does that make you feel ?   Tobacco plain packs – a protection against the “Silent Salesman”An ongoing discussion in a British MP’s blog about plain cigarette packaging and so much more!
Sugar 'is toxic and must be regulated just like cigarettes', claim scientistsThe campaigns for taxing sugar are getting ever increasingly aggressive.  
The Marginalization of Smokers Benefits Corporate Interests and Conditions the Populace to Accept Totalitarian PoliciesAn article written by a green socialist author about the corporate interests of smoking bans and smoker de-normalization sparked controversy with some of the members of the party who even called for censorship.  A long but must read article and the comments that follow. 
Raw milk supporters speak outA farmer faces maximum penalties of $13,000 in fines or 2 1/2 years in jail for selling to customers milk they prefer to consume and willingly buy.
Facebook and Twitter 'more addictive than tobacco and alcohol'So when can we expect extortionist taxes and public bans on networking? 
Bylaw officers are busy enoughThe City of Ottawa has undertaken an aggressive campaign to ban smoking in public parks and patios albeit public opinion is mostly against it.  
The Cleveland Clinic in the U.S.A. (one among many employers) no longer hires anyone who has traces of cotinine (the by-product of nicotine) in their urine.  This policy includes smokers, users of nicotine replacement therapy and e-cigarettes.  A policy that has sparked big controversy.  Read about it here:  Opposing view: Why we won't hire smokers  here :  Not hiring smokers crosses privacy line  and listen to more opposing views here :  Issues around bans on hiring smokers


Now that the precedent was set with smoking, anything and everything can be compared to it to create the necessary emotional effect. Sitting can be more dangerous than smoking, study shows
The Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit now declare that there hasn’t been any global warming in 15 years!  Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about

The vaposhphere is up at arms about certain legislation against electronic cigarettes that has emerged over the past weeks.

The following links explaining these lead to “calls for action” concerning the bills.

In Hawaii, they want to add 70% tax on digital cigarettes and accessories – here is where you can fight this bill.

Kentucky’s bill  to reclassify vaping as smoking and ban e-cigarettes should also be protested.

New Jersey wants to make e-cigs a public safety issue in cars with children present. You know what to do…

Tell Saugus, Massachusetts you don’t agree also about their public ban.

And finally a positive note: the State of Wisconsin wants to exclude electronic cigarettes from anti-smoking legislation… Encourage them!

Let your vapor’s voices be heard!

Saturday 11th February – 13:00 GMT

Mr Garry Dibley, aka The Modfather, joins us once again for another of his ‘Fly On The Wall’ shows, where we get a chance to look over his shoulder in his workshop…

Thursday 9th February – 21:00 GMT

Once again, Dave invites Keith around to discuss ecigs, and any Vapemail will no doubt be borrowed by Keith for his opinion…

Celebrate the first World Vaping Day with CASAA on Thursday, March 22nd, 2012!

Since their introduction in 2003, electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) have taken the world by storm. Millions of former smokers have either switched from smoking completely or greatly reduced their cigarette consumption due to this innovative device. CASAA is joining other organizations around the world to promote this event!

Electronic cigarettes are a completely different approach to addressing the concerns about the cost and health effects of smoking. Until now, the focus on quitting smoking has been on ending nicotine dependence, yet billions spent on nicotine cessation products has resulted in very low quit rates. Nicotine gums, lozenges and patches that require eventual abstinence; and pills that attempt to make smoking unpleasant for the smoker completely ignore the social and behavioral aspects many smokers enjoy and do not wish to give up. It is a myth that most smokers "want to quit." In truth, most smokers simply realize that they probably should quit. Therefore, not only do those products fail to help 93% of the time - even for smokers who actually do want to end nicotine dependence - they are completely ignored by the millions of smokers who enjoy smoking for reasons beyond nicotine use. Electronic cigarette use - or "vaping" - addresses smokers' needs on multiple levels, rather than simply focusing on the nicotine.

Electronic cigarettes are not intended to be used as a nicotine cessation product. They are intended to replace tobacco cigarettes by providing an alternate source of nicotine and mimicking the familiar behaviors associated with smoking, thereby eliminating the user's exposure to smoke and significantly reducing the health concerns related to smoking. By eliminating the cigarette smoke but not requiring the user to give up familiar habits and nicotine, electronic cigarettes are showing significant promise as a highly successful tobacco harm reduction product.

Contrary to what you may have heard, e-cigarettes have been researched, studied and tested; including research on nicotine delivery, toxicity, carcinogens, efficacy for smoking cessation and nicotine content. While it has been generally acknowledged that manufacturing standards need to be established, even the highly publicized and misrepresented analysis by the FDA found that the e-cigarettes it tested did not contain harmful levels of any toxic chemicals or carcinogens. Most medical experts and public health experts agree (or at least grudgingly concede) that the typical electronic cigarette vapor, consisting of propylene glycol, glycerin, artificial flavorings and nicotine, would not deliver anywhere near the harmful levels of chemicals and carcinogens that are found in traditional cigarettes. So, while we cannot claim that e-cigarettes are 100% safe (really what is 100% safe in this world?), it would be hard for anyone to argue that the vapor is not infinitely safer than smoke. Therefore, CASAA feels confident recommending e-cigarettes as an acceptable smokeless alternate for smokers who wish to reduce or completely eliminate cigarette smoke exposure.

Take the opportunity to participate in World Vaping Day 2012. If you are a smoker and haven't tried e-cigarettes yet, there are inexpensive disposable brands, which are available online or even at your local Walgreens - now is the time to give one a try! If you are already an e-cigarette user, this is a great day to talk about how you made the switch to friends and family who are smokers. Post about it on your social networks. Show a co-working smoker at work your e-cigarette or even a a stranger standing outside in the cold. World Vaping Day is the day to let the world know that you are a vaper!

Web Link: http://www.world-vaping-day.com/

CA Riker, K Lee, A Darville, EJ Hahn (2012): E-Cigarettes: Promise or Peril? Nursing Clinics of North America, 47(1), 159-171.

Quote: [Abstract] Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) use a heating element to vaporize nicotine and other ingredients, simulating the visual, sensory, and behavioral aspects of smoking without the combustion of tobacco. An ever-growing number of companies around the world manufacture a wide variety of e-cigarette brands, despite scant information on the safety of the ingredients for human inhalation. This article provides an overview of the history, production, and marketing of e-cigarettes, the contents of e-cigarettes and vapor, how they are used, public health concerns, and implications for nursing practice, research, and policy development. Well, this abstract reads nearly innocent. Outline includes topic “The role of E-cigarettes in the “harm reduction” debate” and there it might get interesting - but article is behind a paywall.

On this occasion, it’s certainly worth to recall authors’ previous, highly polemic opinion piece: Hahn & Riker in 2011 called a user interest group the problem. “By refuting research on potential dangers and attacking public-health professionals, these groups derail effective interventions to reduce tobacco use and exposure to secondhand smoke, such as FDA-approved cessation treatments and smoke-free laws.” (see OP-Eds: Hahn & Riker attack, Kristin (CASAA) response).

This is a wonderful opportunity to share your story regarding why you decided to try an e-cigarette.

http://copd.about.com/u/ua/quitsmoki...ette.htm?r=un2

CASAA is currently looking to fill the three open Director positions on the Board of Directors.

If you would like to become much more involved with helping CASAA achieve its mission, please send an email to board@casaa.org to request a copy of the Board Candidate Questionnaire and/or with any questions.

I woke up this morning thinking about a few places now trying to ban e-cigarette use (along with smoking) outdoors - including at parks and beaches. A recent television episode of a show my kids watch showed a girl trying to read at the beach and being bothered by grill smoke - which got me thinking....

Would the FDA or CDC argue that charcoal or wood smoke is actually safer to inhale than the smoke from tobacco leaves? If not, then would that not be an argument to also ban charcoal grilling from parks and beaches, in order to protect innocent bystanders from THAT smoke, as well? And since there is "NO safe level" of smoke exposure, regardless of ventilation systems installed, would that not support banning the use of wood-fired ovens and charbroil grills in food service and restaurants, in order to protect employees and patrons? If you can smell the grill in the dining room, that means you are being exposed to smoke, right? How can they argue one smoke is safer than another smoke? (Yet, apparently they do.)

Men "smoking" at the park.
Think of the children!And then there's campfires, fireplaces and fire pits to consider. Shouldn't those be banned, as well?

I think at these meetings where they are trying to ban e-cigs/smoking outside (where grilling is allowed) we should insist that they add grills to the ordinance or not pass it at all!! And if they are trying to ban e-cig use in bars & restaurants, insist they also ban wood-fired ovens and charbroil grills, because my safety is at risk! (Let's see them answer THAT one.)

I know that this has long been an argument made by smoker's rights groups, but I have yet to hear it or about read this argument at any public testimonies regarding outdoor bans and I don't think anyone has insisted or argued that we SHOULD ban grills and fire pits. Maybe the time has come to force them to put their money where their mouth is or shut up.

Think about it - they want to ban smoking and smokeless e-cigarettes at the stadium in Indianapolis, but the hundreds of tailgating grills that will be at the Super Bowl this weekend, pumping out enough smoke to equal dozens of smokers for hours before the game, isn't a concern? Still think these bans are supported by "science?" Time to call them on their bluff?

According to studies, ingesting nicotine can help control appetite… but what if vaping becomes delicious and stimulates appetite?

Visiting handcrafted e-juice producing Ms T’s Bakery website will not only make you want to move beyond the standard electronic cigarette flavors many often start with – tobacco or menthol – it also makes you want to hit the pantry or bakery for a binge.

Hand-made individually per-order, Ms T’s e-juices range from completely flavorless to a variety of savory-sounding baked goods, a huge selection of beverages, and different breakfast-themed flavors.

If you’re in the mood for Apple Crumble, Banana Fosters Coffee or French Toast & Bacon vapes, explore Ms T’s vast range of e-liquids and keep in mind you can create and order any taste you can’t find there – which is not likely!

In oral arguments before Judge Richard Leon of the D.C. District court, the Department of Justice apparently used an analogy to defend the FDA's proposed graphic warning labels. According to this article: "Mark Stern, a Justice Department lawyer, compared the FDA mandates to warnings on packages of charcoal telling people to not use it indoors, noting that 28 people a year die from carbon monoxide poisoning for using charcoal inside their homes. With cigarettes, there are 440,000 deaths, Stern said. 'That's a pretty big interest,' he added. 'It's no secret that the government wants people to stop smoking.'"

The Rest of the Story

As with many of the arguments provided by the FDA to defend the graphic warning labels with a 1-800 quit line phone number on them, this one steers clear of the actual constitutional issues involved in the case. The analogy is an errant one, as the FDA is not requiring a warning to let people know that it is unsafe to use cigarettes in a particular way. The appropriate analogy would be to a required warning on packages of charcoal urging people not to use the product at all because it generates poisonous carbon monoxide when burned, and requiring a picture of a person suffocating to death from carbon monoxide poisoning, or on a respirator unable to breathe.

Would the FDA argue that it is not an infringement on the free speech rights of Kingsford and other charcoal makers to require them to put a prominent warning on charcoal bags urging people not to buy the product?

The constitutional issue is not whether or not the government can require warning labels. The tobacco companies concede that point. The question is whether these are simply factual warning labels or whether they are, instead, compelling speech by manufacturers which is more than factual, and which forces the manufacturers to actually advocate against the purchase of their own products.

The graphic warning labels, as proposed by the FDA, are tantamount to requiring the manufacturers of a particular product to make public statements urging people not to purchase their products. This seems particularly intrusive on First Amendment rights because it is not an issue of restricting speech; it is actually an issue of compelling speech: speech which goes against the interests of the company and forces them to urge their own customers not to purchase the product.

I would really like to see the FDA defend this specific point. So far, it has not done so, and has not even tried to do so. Unless they do so, Judge Leon is not going to change his mind. Nor is an appellate court likely to overturn Leon's decision.

Compact flourescent light bulbs have many advantages, including the use of much less energy than traditional incandescent bulbs. However, they contain mercury, and if a bulb breaks, mercury vapor is released, which can be harmful to humans. In fact, if a bulb breaks, the EPA recommends that people leave the room (although they provide directions on how to clean up the spill, which is confusing because how can you clean it up if you have to leave the room?)

Clearly, it would be constitutional for the government to require a warning label on compact flourescent light bulbs to warn people that the bulbs contain mercury, that this mercury could be dangerous, and that care should be taken not to break the bulb.

However, would it not be an infringement of free speech for the government to instead require a warning on the bulbs which urges people not to buy them and refers them to a 1-800 number of an organization that advocates against the use of compact flourescent bulbs and provides counseling to consumers on how to avoid these bulbs? (And which requires pictures of people dying from mercury poisoning)

This is the apt analogy, rather than the warning against firing up the charcoal grill inside your home.

I have a post about the 'toxic sugar' canard over at the Adam Smith Institute. Before you go any further, please click over there and have a read.

I would like to leave it there, but there really is so much more to say. Seriously, has the whole world gone insane? I can understand why the media would pick up on a story like this and I can almost understand why a popular science magazine like Nature would publish the wacky article in the first place. It sells. What I don't get is why a bunch of nodding-dog journalists would respond with half-witted opinion pieces such as 'Evil is among us. And it’s called sugar'.

It's not that I didn't see it coming. I've been saying for years that the anti-tobacco blueprint would be rolled out to alcohol, food and fizzy drinks. It's just that I didn't think it would happen this quickly and when it did happen, I expected gales of laughter and an anti-nanny state backlash. This is manifestly not happening. That is a problem, but it isn't the biggest problem. The truly terrifying thing is that the intellectual climate is so retarded that Nature can publish such an article without feeling any shame.

Look at the people in the video below. Look at their self-satisfied little faces. These are the authors of the toxic sugar article. They are idiots. I do not say that to be insulting, but as a statement of fact. The woman on the right, in particular, should not be trusted with a pair of scissors. She calls herself a "medical sociologist" and works at UCSF. This should disqualify her from going anywhere near a scientific journal. She thinks that sugar is a poison because it is fermented to make alcohol. If you read the Daily Mail, alcohol is made by "distilling sugar". This is what we're up against: cretinous arguments made still more ludicrous by a woefully uneducated media.







The asshole on the left begins by saying "We are in the midst of the biggest public health crisis in the history of the world." He's not talking about the Black Death, cholera, influenza, malaria or even cigarette smoking. He's talking about people drinking fizzy drinks in North America. The guy is either ignorant or insane or a liar. This one statement is enough to discredit him and yet he has made another video in which he says: "Fructose is ethanol without the buzz ... fructose is poison." That video has had nearly two million hits on Youtube. It's over. The morons have won.

He's another UCSF chump and it's no surprise to find that he's friendly with the anti-smoking loons of that quasi-university. In that same video, he refers to "the UCSF Legacy Tobacco Documents Library that Stan Glantz runs right across the street. Stan's a good guy. I like Stan a lot." Right there we have another disagreement because Stan is not a good guy. On the contrary, he is a charlatan and a crank and he should be investigated, prosecuted and imprisoned. He is another obsessive fruitcake who has found a pulpit from which to preach his warped, scientifically illiterate ideas thanks to the lax admissions standards of UCSF.

As you may know, Glantz regularly appears on television claiming that half of all teenage smokers picked up the habit solely as a result of seeing smoking in movies. This is a man who should, as Christopher Hitchens might have said, be out in the street, shouting and hollering with a cardboard sign around his neck and selling pencils from a cup. Do interviewers call him on his bampot theories? They do not. Instead he is perched up in San Francisco with millions of dollars of grants and a professorship in a subject which he has not studied at degree level and of which he apparently knows nothing.

Glantz also invented the heart miracle scam. What better illustration of the Western world's plunge into unreason can there be than this? Here we see the perils of the campaigner-researcher, the corruption of peer-review and the pitiful credulity of the media in perfect alignment.

To take just one example, last year Michael Siegel wrote about a heart miracle in one Minnesota county. It was so pathetic I don't think I even mentioned it at the time. In summary, some devious anti-smoking lobbyists cherry-picked a county and claimed that heart attacks had fallen by 45% after the smoking ban. Siegel listed some of the news stories that unquestioningly covered it.

For example, the headline of an ABC News article reads: "Smoking ban cuts cardiac events 45%, Mayo Clinic says."

A Procor headline reads: "Smoking ban cuts heart attacks in half."

A Thirdage.com article headline reads: "Smoking Ban Cuts Heart Attack Risk In Half."

The UPI headline about the research reads: "Smoking ban cut heart attacks risk in half."

The Minneapolis Star-Tribune headline reads: "Smoking bans cut cardiac events 45%."

The EMax Health headline is: "Smoking bans reduce heart attack rates by half, finds study."

The Business Insider headline reads: "Heart Attacks Decreased By 50% After These Workplaces Launched Smoking Bans."
The trick was a simple one. They didn't look at the year of the ban (2007). Instead they compared heart attack rates in 2001 with those of 2008. Sure enough, they fell by 45%, but this was not out of line with the general decline in heart attacks across the USA. The heart attack rate is falling everywhere. You may recall from last week that the UK saw a halving of heart attacks in the same decade. The longer the timeframe the bigger the fall. Cherry-pick one small county (population 150,000) and the effect can be exaggerated further.

This is routine deception on the part of tobacco control, but that is not the point. My point is that you don't need to be privy to this information to work out that "Smoking ban cut heart attacks risk in half" is a bullshit headline. You do not need to be well versed in statistics to work out that, if this were true, half of all heart attacks before the ban were caused by wafts of tobacco smoke in bars and restaurants. And you don't need to be cognisant of medical science to realise that this is simply preposterous.

Similarly, you do you need to understand biology to know that you are not going to get cancer from smelling tobacco on someone's shirt and yet the concept of thirdhand smoke has been widely talked about, not least by the Daily Mail, as if it was anything other than the ramblings of the insane.

Who came up with the idea of thirdhand smoke? Georg Matt. Who's Georg Matt? He's a wacky psychologist based in San Diego. There is a running theme here, is there not?

Where does every crackpot idea come from?

Where does every hysteria-driven, junk science-based ban begin?

Which is the home to the world's worst university?

Which state is dragging the world into an intellectual dark age?

California.

Lex Luther had the right idea. Bill Hicks had the right idea.

California has to go.

Ask Stephen Williams, MP for Bristol West and chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Smoking and Health.

On January 16 Williams wrote that he was "pleased to help launch Europe’s first major campaign to raise awareness of the dangers of glitzy tobacco packaging to children. The Coalition Government will shortly launch its consultation exercise on whether to follow the example of Australia and introduce the plain packaging of cigarettes" ... blah blah, blah blah blah.

I mentioned it here and invited people to add a comment on Williams' blog. To date there are 958 comments. (Most of his posts attract single figures.)

At the time I estimated that 99 per cent of the comments were strongly opposed to Williams' vision of a Utopian smoke free world. So what did he do? He fell back on the desperate argument that most of his detractors must be in the pay (or a stooge) of Big Tobacco.

Back on this blog I described this response as "pathetic". To my surprise he responded with a comment of his own:

Oh Simon, I'm disappointed. Pathetic is such a mild insult. Your mates have gone rather further on my blog. It's been at least a few hours since someone alluded to my neo-Nazi cum fascist opinions.

Anyway, on a serious note, whether you like it or not the Coalition Government is about to launch a consultation on plain packs. I hope you and your friends will be able to rise to the debate.

Well, I couldn't resist that challenge so, this week, following the launch of the Hands Off Our Packs website on Monday, I emailed the cheerleader for plain packaging as follows:

Dear Stephen,

We have just launched a website, Hands Off Our Packs, to counter the arguments put forward by the Plain Packs Protect campaign, among others.

During the course of the consultation on plain packaging we will be organising a number of events including a panel discussion and debate at a central London venue close to Parliament Square.

We would welcome the opportunity to have a public debate on this issue and I would therefore like to invite you to speak on a date – probably in March – that is convenient for you.

Our proposed format is a debate with four speakers, split 2:2 for and against plain packaging, and a chairman. Alternatively we will invite 4-5 panelists with a variety of opinions.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards,

Simon Clark
Director, Forest

No reply.

Yesterday I rang his Westminster office and spoke to an assistant researcher who thought he had seen my email but asked me re-send it so he could bring it to Williams' attention.

So I resent the invitation and here is the (very efficient) researcher's response:

Many thanks for sending that information through to me. I do recall seeing this invitation now, and I did in fact show it to Stephen earlier this week.

He informed me that although he would ordinarily be happy to speak in such a debate, he is reluctant to take part in this particular discussion because he believes that it would be preferable if the debate were organised and hosted by an independent body, rather than by Forest.

Unfortunately therefore Stephen does not feel that he would be able to participate in this discussion.

So, having challenged us to "rise to the debate" on plain packaging, Stephen Williams couldn't be bothered replying in person to our invitation and he is now trying to wriggle his way out of a public debate on the feeblest of grounds.

I guess we'll just have to find an "independent body" to organise and host the debate. Can't wait to hear what his excuse will be when that happens!

See also: The difference between an MP with bottle and one without

Nicotine causes cancer. That’s just one of the misconceptions that surrounds nicotine. In fact, while not healthy in an absolute sense, nicotine is nothing like as bad as nicotine plus the tar, toxins and carcinogens that are in cigarette smoke. And in this post we aim to clear up some of the misconceptions. 1. Nicotine [...]

Over the years I have NEVER rejected an invitation to take part in a public debate.

If organisers are hostile to my views, so much the better. It's a lot more fun.

There's a much bigger buzz to be had from addressing a potentially awkward audience. Less pressure too because fighting your corner in an adversarial situation is quite enjoyable in a masochistic sort of way.

Preaching to the converted, on the other hand, is boring and nerve-wracking at the same time because there's so much more to lose if you don't deliver.

In 2010, at a Voices of Freedom debate on Big Brother style surveillance, speakers included Philip Davies MP. Now Philip has libertarian tendencies on many issues (including smoking) but surveillance isn't one of them.

He agreed to take part knowing that he was going to be given a hard time and he wasn't disappointed. Alex Deane, former director of Big Brother Watch, was particularly harsh, but after the event Philip confided that he enjoyed every minute of it.

I knew what he meant. It's a great feeling to be in a debate, sticking to your guns while the overwhelming majority of people are firmly against you. In my experience you earn respect if only for turning up!

Sadly, tobacco control advocates are especially feeble when it comes to engaging with the opposition, even when THEY have challenged US to "rise to the debate".

There's another part to this story that I will reveal shortly.

Here's a clue: it involves someone called Stephen Williams. You may have heard of him ...

 If you are new to the world of “vaping,” (Don’t be afraid to admit it, we all had to start somewhere) the bevy of associated lingo and slang can seem like quite an obstacle. But not to fear – if you do not know the difference between smoke juice and a box of juice, you have stumbled upon a great source. Read below for a quick definition to some common e-cigarette terms.

Your Electronic Cigarette Dictionary

Atomizer: The atomizer is the heating element, responsible for creating the “vapor.” In simple terms, the atomizer heats the flavor solution (or smoke juice) and vaporizes it. In a blu Electronic Cigarette, the atomizer is contained within the flavor cartridge.

Analog Cigarette: Analog cigarette is a fancy way of referring to a regular, old-fashioned tobacco cigarette.

Cartomizer: A cartomizer refers to an electronic cigarette cartridge with a self-contained atomizer. Because they are one unit (cartridge and atomizer), the user receives a new atomizer every time they replace the flavor cartridge, allowing for optimum performance.

Disposable: Disposable electronic cigarettes come fully assembled, and cannot be recharged or refilled. They are simply bought, used, and discarded. This makes them a great choice for first time e-cig users or travelers.

e-Juice (e-liquid): E-liquid or e-juice is the solution contained within the electronic cigarette cartridge. This liquid  is heated and vaporized inside the e-cigarette.

e-Cig (e-cigarette): This is simply an abbreviated way to refer to an electronic cigarette

Smoke Juice: This is the same thing as e-liquid or e-juice. It is the liquid that gets heated and turns to vapor.

Personal Vaporizer: This is just a fancy way of saying “electronic cigarette.”

Starter Kit: If you are new to electronic cigarettes (or vaping), you will need an e-cigarette starter kit. This normally contains a case, flavor cartridges, batteries, and charger.

Throat Hit: This basically refers to the sensation received from inhaling on an analog cigarette or electronic cigarette.

Vapor: E-cigs do not have combustion; this means there is no smoke. Instead, the bi-product is a vapor.

Vaping (Vape): Electronic cigarettes do not produce smoke; just vapor. So it’s called vaping, not smoking.

There are a ton of additional terms that could be included. If you have some you would like to share, please let us know.

 

Tweet This Post

New from Steve K's Vaping World:

Here’s your end of the week e-cigarette news!  Idaho passes a sales ban for minors, and at least one person is convinced that makes Idaho a nanny state.  I’ve got a link to an interesting Swiss TV segment about e-cigarettes.  Finally, the e-cigarette battle spills out into Facebook (again).  Come on in and get your helping of e-cigarette news!

Swiss e-Cigarettes on TV

WRS out of Switzerland ran a news story about e-cigarettes.  The story was reminiscent of similar investigative-style news segments they show here in the States.  Much like the domestic version, this story grabbed onto trace amounts of substances and beat them into some sort of huge issue.

My favorite part was when the host was shocked to find out people actually make their own e-liquid and use devices designed to produce more vapor.  Apparently, my ProVari is too dangerous for Swiss TV!

You can view the segment from the Consumer Show (dubbed in English).  The good news is that at least the story points out that e-cigarettes are not as dangerous as traditional cigarettes.  The video isn’t embeddable, nor is there a transcript. You’ll have to forgive the omission of the quote that’s normally found between these two paragraphs.

 

Idaho House Passes Minors Ban

Idaho’s House unanimously passed a bill outlawing the sale of e-cigarettes to minors in the state.  The bill will now go to the senate and onto the governor.  Not much of a story here.  Some in the state want the ban to go further.  However, one lawmaker already thinks the law has gone too far according to this story in the Spokesman-Review.

Which one's the nanny?

Harwood said, “It seems like we’re headed down a path where we’re going to be the nanny state for everybody, we’re going to make … a total mark on everything we can think of.” He added, “Lot of time we get these statistics saying that htis is what’s happening, it’s really not actual, and it’s sometimes not true. … You have to question the people that put these statistics out.”

While I generally agree that there certainly is abusive of science going on all the time, I’m going to disagree on this one.  Kids actually DO need nannies, that’s why they’re kids.  The trick is to keep kids from doing stupid things, not preventing adults from doing things so kids wont know stupid things exist.

 

blu Cigs Takes a Stand

Tax increases like the one going up for consideration in Hawaii are beginning to rattle some cages.  Volcano obviously has a stake in the Hawaii tax and is being pretty active against it.  blu Cigs recently issued a press release (also posted on their blog) also vowing to fight against these ill-conceived money grabs.

Not pictured: political outrage

blu Cigs has been vocal about its support of any legislation that prevents minors from purchasing smokeless tobacco products, but according to Healy, tax increases on e-cigs are completely counter-intuitive and only serve to inhibit adult consumers’ freedom of choice. “Federal and state governments claim that high taxes on e-cigs are designed to price out consumers, but these increases are purely based on fiscal reasons, and completely contrary to consumer health advocacy,” comments Healy. A 2010 study co-authored by Dr. Michael Siegel of Boston University’s School of Public Health actually concluded that e-cigarettes are safer than tobacco cigarettes, and have the potential to become a smoking cessation device. Healy continues, “If consumer health is their primary concern, as it should be, then premature bans and tax hikes are not in the public’s best interest.”

It’s encouraging to see some of the large vendors become more active in protecting vaping.  It’s going to take as many resources as possible to fight these battles that will keep coming.  Until all the vendors are on board and serious about lobby efforts, and vapers are dedicated to grass-roots actions, vaping will continue to be targeted for extinction.

 

Facebook War

There’s currently a battle going on between vapers and what I thought to be prohibitionists over on the Mayor of Indianapolis’ Facebook page.  According to this story on the Indy Star, the mayor is threatening to veto the proposed smoking ban because it is too restrictive.

You can always visit me facebook.com/stevevape

Supporters of the ban, though, have urged Ballard to change his mind. And that message has been repeated dozens and dozens of times today by individuals’ messages on the mayor’s Facebook page. Most seem to be from the Indianapolis area, though some are from other places with long-established smoking bans; some are Giants and Patriots fans. This afternoon, the one-sidedness of the posts began to ebb as some electronic cigarette users began chiming in, urging Ballard to veto the measure. (It would ban use of e-cigarette devices from bars as well.)

At first I thought this was a prohibitionist move.  There’s certainly that element.  However, reading some of the comments it seems that a lot of the general public is simply not educated about e-cigarettes.  For example, some are convinced there’s some sort of e-cigarette lobby.  Oh how I wish that were so.

 

Deal of the Moment

If you are a fan of the Joye tank e-cigarettes, My Freedom Smokes has a couple of deals that might be of interest.  Over on their specials page, you can pick up a 510-T kit for just $29.95 or an eGo-T kit for $49.95.  They also have a couple other goodies on the sale page like an eGo pass-through battery.

 

Be a news spotter! Run across an article you think I should be mentioning here?  Let me know!  Just Tweet @SteveVape with the hashtag #ecignews or post it up on my Facebook page.  I’ll be sure to give you a shout out in the news update if you’re the first one to spot it

Stock photos via MorgueFile

Related posts:

1. e-Cig News Roundup 12/30 – I can’t believe I forgot the tag line
2. e-Cig News Roundup 1/9 – Puff the magic something
3. e-Cig News Roundup 1/6/2012 – Here we go again

Originally posted: e-Cig News Roundup 2-3-12 Steve K's Vaping World - A site dedicated to unbiased and detailed e-cigarette reviews, electronic cigarette news commentary and helpful e-cig articles for vapers of all levels