Where health Meets Politics

    Electronic Cigarette Politics

  1. Location
  2. It’s not about health
  3. The immense revenues created by smoking
  4. The Smoking Economy
    1. A significant public health crime
    2. The result of a technology change point
  5. Tobacco Harm Reduction
  6. Smoking Harm Reduction
  7. The 20% Prevalence Rule
  8. The nicotine issue

That is an online resource for materials related to e-cigarette politics, legal issues, regulatory issues and health-related topics.

We aim to provide reference components for EV (electric/electric vaporiser or ‘ecig’) and THR advocates, and for those involved in the regulation and health debates. There are of help information resources here incorporating a reference list, quotes, politics-related terminology, vaping-related conditions and in-depth explanations of various issues. The existing state of understanding of nicotine, diet and well being is a primary feature.

What’s everything about - and just why all the fuss?

The response to that question is easy:


“ If all of the smokers in Britain halted smoking and started [using] e-cigarettes we’d preserve five million deaths in persons who are alive today. It’s an enormous potential public well being prize. “
- Prof. J Britton, Royal College of Physicians

It’s as simple due to that. Britton’s assertion doesn’t actually need much in the form of explanation: it is obvious and concise, and the benefits he outlines happen to be self-evident. There are no ifs, buts, maybes, caveats, or dramatic unintended outcomes: it truly is as simple as that.

Nobody has ever questioned his affirmation in print, in debate, or in reported comment.

Location

That is a UK-centric resource, and the facts and figures mentioned are usually those relevant to UK or European issues. Although almost all of the issues are global, some monetary issues usually do not transfer since countries could be grouped according to factors such as for example tax arrangements, the amount of social support supplied by the talk about, the relative riches of the population, and the size of the money supply; therefore, the many factors and their results have a tendency to differ by country. Among the clearest dissimilarities is that between your UK and USA: the united states money supply is indeed enormous by comparison with the united kingdom there are few similarities in the sensible financial aspects; and, unlike the united kingdom, the US has a very considerable oral tobacco user base (8 million, according to Prof Rodu’s analysis of natural CDC data), which includes an interesting influence on a few of the numbers.

It’s not about health

It is now clear that putting artificial restrictions on usage of e-cigarettes has no regards to well-being, since there can be an overwhelming excess weight of evidence that tells us there are zero issues requiring action in virtually any country where buyer products are effectively regulated. Moves to block usage of electronic cigarettes in such countries will be based firmly on monetary pressures and ideology. Policy-making is certainly a trade-off between keeping lives and maintaining current salary streams, and the simple fact is that predicament on life versus gains determines predicament on the ecig concern.

The immense revenues created by smoking

Smokers who cannot or won’t quit deserve safer alternatives. The basic problem here is that smoking generates wonderful wealth for federal government and giant transnational sectors, and there is strong pressure to protect that income stream. For example, the united kingdom government currently rewards by around 16 billion annually before costs, and for that reason clears around 10bn a season from cigarette sales and the subsequent revenues and cost savings. It can promptly be seen that regulators must be under superb pressure to remove any threats to the giant revenue generator - which used is the world’s biggest gravy teach - since vaping will shut much of it down. The bottom line is, that’s the problem.

Something that causes zero measurable sum of disease and in comparison with smoking is harmless can’t be supertaxed and cannot build any gigantic cost benefits by killing an incredible number of users typically 8 years early, thus creating massive cost benefits on pensions, health care and social support for the elderly at the most expensive amount of time in their lives to get the state.

Increase this, the tremendous revenues created simply by disease for the pharmaceutical sector, who probably earn double the revenues of the tobacco sector from smoking cigarettes in the united kingdom, together with their very strong affect on health coverage (whenever not outright control), as well as perhaps the core trouble is now able to be seen: the money that smoking cigarettes generates is so vast, and so susceptible to removal simply by THR approaches, that the chance of ecigs being allowed to destroy the ones revenues unhindered is unlikely.

For each and every 10,000 smokers who change to vaping, 9,999 of them will be removed from the government’s supertax generator; from the government’s pensions and elderly healthcare early death cost savings bonanza; from the pharmaceutical industry’s disease and medicine sales gravy coach; and from the cigarette trade’s dependency model and cash machine (which, incidentally, is by considerably the tiniest of all these revenue channels). And therein lies the trouble: there is obviously an extremely powerful machine in destination to safeguard those revenues. We contact it the Smoking Market.

The Smoking Economy

Smoking has created one of the world’s biggest money machines - a equipment that benefits innumerable persons in multiple sectors, organisations, and government departments. The smoking market is worth multiple trillion dollars a year globally; it really is immensely effective and well in a position to secure itself. Its electricity is obvious from just how that, now ways to finally remove smoking cigarettes has come to exist, that solution has been blocked at every move. It’s the ultimate gravy train and essentially a licence to printing money: a 25% portion of the population can be oppressed and killed for profit, completely legally, and with the full consent of the different 75%, enabled by the world’s most significant propaganda campaign.

A significant public health crime

There is absolutely no possible excuse for avoiding usage of low-risk consumer products, and the political processes whereby government and the pharmaceutical and cigarette industries protect their incomes to the detriment of public health should be exposed.

We believe that, with time, and given the opportunity, more than half of smokers will swap (since this has previously happened in Sweden with an alternative product). Artificial restrictions on this method purely for the good thing about those who earn vast incomes from the smoking money machine happen to be essentially criminal because they’re hugely detrimental to general public health.

If somebody argues against THR then you can certainly be reassured that their career depends, ultimately, upon smoking. Otherwise, no one would be arguing against a thing that will destroy cigarette smoking and obviously save an incredible number of lives when nothing else can do hence: after the 20% Prevalence Guideline operates, the usual methods for reducing smoking no longer work.


“ We have such an enormous opportunity here. It might be a shame to allow it slip away when you are overly cautious. E-smokes happen to be about as safe since you can get. “
- R West

The result of a technology change point

Technology advancements, though, and life alterations inexorably due to this fact. Progress can be slowed by those whose job is determined by smoking - but it can’t be stopped. There happen to be massive public health gains here for the taking; our job is to greatly help sweep aside those people who are deliberately slowing progress.

The smoking economy is much too powerful to be easily defeated. Even so, we are in a technology change level: at such a break level the world changes, no other issue can override that modification. It means that nothing can stop electric vaporisers nowadays the technology is definitely in use - only the time scale to total implementation can be affected by external factors, regardless of how powerful they are. We know that must happen within thirty years as it is always hence; for obtain the most to public well being we should shoot for a 20-yr conversion period. Sectors that benefit from smoking will attack hard to safeguard their domain from destruction by vaping; but we know the results. Nothing stops a fresh technology: it eventually replaces the old program and little or nothing can prevent it doing so.

Tobacco Harm Reduction

The focus of the resource is to provide access to truthful info on THR, and especially the EV (electric/electronic vaporiser or ‘e-cigarette’). The quantity of propaganda generated by professional rivals and their dependents is usually unprecedented, and clearly crafted to obscure the reality. THR advocates who support free and unhindered access to the full selection of e-cigarette products will enable the solo most important advance in public areas health because the discovery of antibiotics: in a single small country alone, total support because of this approach gets the potential to preserve millions of lives merely among those alive today. You will find a sharp contrast below with the current approach to the reduced amount of cigarette smoking morbidity and mortality, which includes stopped being powerful and cannot produce even more significant gains in countries including the UK because of the 20% Prevalence Rule.

Although smoking cigarettes prevalence fell dramatically during the last decades of the 20th century, it slowed, and all progress halted around 2008. There has been no progress at all recently. In many countries including the UK, smoking prevalence possesses remained static at around 20% of the adult populace for many years.


“ The rate of cigarette smoking in the UK has remained generally unchanged during the last five years. “
- ONS, UK official figures, 2014 (discussing the period 2008-2013)

Despite the huge sums allocated to reducing smoking cigarettes in the UK, the number of smokers increased between 2008 and 2013. A tough calculation - since such statistics are incredibly well hidden certainly - is that, in the beginning of 2013, there have been about 50 % a million extra UK smokers than five years before (because cigarette smoking prevalence stayed the same at around 20% and population size more than doubled). By early 2014, cigarette smoking prevalence had began to fall again, because of the ‘ecig impact’: the fall in cigarette smoking prevalence equals the quantity who switched to vaping.

We can expect smoking prevalence to keep to fall: through 19%, 18%, and possibly 17% later on - given that zero hindrance is placed on smokers switching to vaping.

Just as technology has radically changed many areas of our lives, it has changed tobacco use, which advance cannot be stopped. It usually is slowed, perhaps significantly, by regulations made to protect existing sectors and federal government revenues; our focus is to assist removing such artificial impediments made to slow the process of adjust and that are therefore massively detrimental to people health. The best outcome is immutable however the time scale could be significantly prolonged by delaying methods.

The prospect of stopping death and disease from smoking is currently a reality for the very first time, because we now have the tools to lessen morbidity to insignificant proportions. The THR way is reinforced in Sweden, where male smoking prevalence will be only 5%, with the amount of smokers dropping by 1% per year, and consequently with the lowest smoking-related mortality of any created country by a broad margin. We should have the ability to gain the same or better with e-cigarettes, since they are popular with smokers than Snus, and because ecigs contain the same or not as much risk than Snus.

Do smokers have rights? We believe they carry out: smokers’ rights. Maybe even more significant are ex-smokers’ rights: the rights of those who are ex-smokers never to be forced back to smoking. This right is completely ignored by current legislative proposals; many ex-smokers simply manage to avoid smoking cigarettes by usage of an EV, and taking away their free choice in this place will inevitably cause various to revert to smoking.

Does regulations have the proper to compel persons to smoke?

Smoking Harm Reduction

It should oftimes be remarked that we are talking about reducing the harm from smoking here; tobacco is not actually the problem, cigarette smoking it is [7]. Because of this a more accurate term will be ‘Smoking Harm Reduction’ or ‘SHR’, and not Tobacco Harm Lowering / THR, which is currently the accepted term because of this area of community wellbeing improvement and is most likely too well established to change.


“ Three months of additional cigarette smoking poses a greater risk to someone’s wellness, on average, than a lifetime of by using a low-risk alternative. “
- CV Phillips

The 20% Prevalence Rule

This is an essential issue: once smoking prevalence is reduced to about one-fifth of the adult population (20%) in a created country where it had been previously at least double that rate, as is the case for most developed countries under western culture, then it can’t be further reduced drastically by continued application of methods which were successful up compared to that point. No nation exists that is an exception to this rule.

Combined with 9 out of 10 failure rate of pharmaceutical interventions designed for smoking cessation, it implies that the only approach to reduce smoking considerably down below 20% of the populace for many countries is substitution: replacing smoking with alternatives such as the electronic vaporiser. That is called THR.

This is simply not a theoretical concept, because:

  • Smoking prevalence possesses remained around the 20% mark for several years in many countries, including the UK [3], despite immense sums of money being allocated to trying to lessen it
  • Sweden possesses smashed the 20% barrier by the use of a THR choice: male smoking falls at 1% each year and will be around 5% in 2016 - significantly less than a quarter of the united kingdom figure
  • Sweden may be the world leader in the reduced amount of smoking prevalence and the community leader in the reduced amount of smoking-related mortality
  • Sweden’s smoking-related death rate (aka ‘tobacco-related mortality’) may be the lowest of any designed country by a wide margin; thus THR isn’t a theoretical theory, it is proven
  • Sweden may be the only developed region in the world which has a genuine prospect of reducing smoking mortality to near-invisible proportions
  • That is absolutely unthinkable for just about any other developed country - unless they completely support THR too

At last we can see the light by the end of the tunnel for the united kingdom, though: in 2015 the most recent smoking statistics display that - finally - cigarette smoking prevalence is starting to fall; and the fall precisely equals the amount of ex-smokers who right now vape instead. The same effect is seen in the USA, where in fact the drop below 20% smoking cigarettes prevalence is because of the 8 million smokeless tobacco users and 10 million-plus vapers. THR gets results when little or nothing else does.

Why conduct ec-igarette bans and constraints exist?
Simple: to protect the smoking economy.

Although there are almost too many to list, the main beneficiaries are transnational industries, government revenues and NGOs reliant on funding by industry. Legislation was created principally to safeguard existing industries, but cannot be obtained immediately by them; hence they use front teams instead: pressure groups funded by industry who seem to be independent ‘pro-health’ lobbyists, but happen to be funded by the federal government and commercial interests that reap the benefits of smoking and the disease and death it triggers. Because continuation of smoking cigarettes has large financial benefits for federal government, they are implicitly involved with protecting it.

These are a few of the important factors:

  • Governments in countries including the UK are 90% stakeholders in cigarette revenue - cigarettes are, in place, bought from the federal government
  • You buy 18 out of the 20 smoking cigarettes in a pack directly from the government, not the tobacco industry
  • Smoking is vigorously secured, because federal government cannot afford to lose the enormous revenues or infuriate 25% of voters by banning smoking
  • The amount the UK government makes from cigarette smoking is at least double the cost of EU membership (which was 1.9bn for 2010/11 in line with the UK Treasury) - in the end costs are paid
  • Government can be under pressure from the multiple huge transnational industries who highly benefit from smoking: the pharmaceutical sector, and to a smaller extent the cigarette market.
  • The cigarette industry’s fiscal strength ensures that competitors do not succeed
  • The disease due to smoking is merely as lucrative as the cigarette product sales to begin with - indeed, in socialised claims such as the UK, it really is more successful. The pharmaceutical industry earns extra in the united kingdom from smoking than the tobacco industry does
  • Most tobacco sector players can mitigate the anticipated losses due to the drop in cigarette product sales due to THR, however the pharmaceutical industry cannot - it is determined by the resulting disease for a substantial proportion of its total income (at least 10% and probably 15%)
  • The pharmaceutical sector will eventually lose billions as THR developments, due to the concomitant fall in disease; because it has significant affect within government it is in practice the most effective opponent of THR
  • The pharmaceutical industry has extremely strong affect within government and absolute control of at least one division (Health). This probably is true in every region due to the enormous wealth of the industry, who’ll always make certain that its pursuits are safeguarded and promoted above all others - which most certainly includes public health
  • In Europe, the EU may be the central agent for control and coverage of cigarette sales, and can do everything feasible to block any threat to smoking from THR. Referred to as “a huge, stinking cesspit of corruption” by a UK authorities adviser, the EU will make certain that THR is normally blocked at every step
  • The ideologists in the tobacco control sector supply the workforce for the commercial players who require bans and limitations on THR as a way to protect cigarette product sales and the successful disease they trigger; the agendas of both groups overlap sufficiently that the relationship is normally symbiotic: tobacco control will the work, industry pays the bills
  • The tobacco control industry’s agenda is definitely to remove all access to cigarettes, tobacco and nicotine, and destroy the tobacco sector; the pharmaceutical industry money them extensively as blocking usage of THR items is a core the main TCI agenda and rewards pharma tremendously (since THR is now the thing that threatens the hugely successful smoking disease income stations); and because they understand that the TCI cannot quite possibly succeed in considerably reducing smoking, never mind removing it, as a result of 20% Prevalence Guideline; and because they understand that, whatever is thought to the contrary, tobacco is usually a government organization and is rigorously safeguarded; and for the reason that TCI become highly-effective medicine pushers for pharma’s pharmacotherapies for cigarette smoking cessation (which are never even going to produce a dent in smoking cigarettes prevalence because they have a 9 out of 10 failing rate, and are simply highly-profitable placebos)
  • Pharma recognizes the TCI happen to be in effect useless following the 20% barrier, and cash them to protect smoking by blocking THR, which may be the only threat to disease amounts and for that reason pharma income
  • Therefore the pharmaceutical industry’s vast profits from smoking is secure: access to THR goods is blocked, smoking is usually protected, and disease amounts remain huge; and the very best feature of all can be that the legislation to safeguard smoking by preventing usage of THR products appears to have been obtained by ‘public overall health’ groups
  • Pharma’s hands are tidy; and government is content because the money machine rolls on
  • The system that protects smoking is beyond perfect: it really is armour plated, bombproof perfection

The pharmaceutical industry’s most important property may be the principle that it, and it alone, chooses health policy. It comes with an iron grasp on health policy, products and services and provision, which control should be defended no matter what since it is the key to profitability.

People who claim they are actually legislating to protect public health are actually sentencing millions to loss of life for the sole purpose of protecting existing sectors. The make use of electronic vaporisers will probably prove 1,000 circumstances safer than smoking - it cannot probably be significantly less than 100 instances safer and could even be 10,000 times safer. Browse the statements in this article from Profs. Britton, Phillips, Rodu and West, and choose for yourself; there happen to be dozens extra in the same vein from a great many other professors of public wellbeing, clinical research, and regulation, and from different independent expert public health advocates such as for example Clive Bates.


“ Opposition to THR can be an completely dishonest enterprise. “
- Phillips, Rodu

The nicotine issue

On June 5th 2013 the UK health service clinical instruction organisation, NICE, published ground-breaking assistance to the medical job [4]. It included the important assistance for doctors that tobacco injury reduction is reinforced; that nicotine is comparatively harmless and is not associated with cancer [5][6]; and that doctors may unofficially recommend e-cigarettes if that seems the best option.

Smoking, after all, is merely a normal dietary ingredient that everyone consumes and everyone tests positive for; that in regards to a quarter of the population appear to need supplementation of (barely an abnormal scenario with active dietary parts); and that is not dependence-creating unless provided in tobacco [10]. The actual fact there is absolutely no published scientific trial of nicotine dependence in individuals regardless of the huge curiosity in this matter indicates that it’s certainly not ‘addictive’: trials with undesirable email address details are not published.

There is absolutely no published clinical trial of the administration of nicotine to never-smokers to determine any prospect of dependence. All such trials for additional purposes report that it’s unattainable to create nicotine dependence in never-users of tobacco.

Then, in October 2013, the nicotine toxicity myth was finally demolished; a fresh LD50 as high as 20 times the current figure will need to be established [8][9]. This pertains to absorbed nicotine simply, since ingestion of large levels of nicotine by people is known to be survivable without injury (because of the vomit reflex induced, which expels almost all of it.)


“ Nicotine has a comparable implication for wellbeing as espresso and fries. “
- CV Phillips

“ E-cigarettes are most likely about as secure as drinking coffee. “
- R West

We have to stop believing the propaganda published with respect to industries who benefit substantially from smoking, and above all we must stop them from influencing the political functions blocking THR.

It’s time to give up protecting smoking; it is time to stop safeguarding industries that benefit from the disease due to smoking; it’s time to stop hearing front organizations funded by those industries; it is time for radical transformation in smoking cessation practice.

page PV:  ・  site PV:  ・  site UV: