‘Evil’ can be regarded as something which has the quality of being morally bad or wrong; … Or that which causes harm, misfortune, or destruction: a leader’s power to do both good and evil. It can be regarded as an evil force, power, or personification. It is something that is a cause or source of suffering, injury, or destruction: (Adapted from, http://www.freedictionary.com/evil )
Often, when encountering the arguments of those people who wish to stifle… Oh! There is a pun here. …Who wish to ‘snuff’ (sorry) out the fledgling e cigarette industry: when I read their lies; when I finally work my way through their twisted logic; when I am numbed by their repetitions, I think, ‘this is evil.’ Of course, it is just an expression. But there again, is it?
“Evil can be regarded as something which has the quality of being morally bad or wrong.” On the face of it, if so many advocates are correct in their assertion that e cigarettes can save countless numbers of lives, if they can prevent disease and suffering, then anything that does this must be a good thing, and anything which stands in the way of it, must be ‘bad’ and ‘morally wrong.’ It must be ‘evil.’ There again, are the advocates correct in their assertion, and, more importantly, are those who stand in the way aware that e cigarettes are life savers, that they will prevent unnecessary suffering? And the answer to both points is an emphatic, YES.’
Linda McAvan, MEP, stated in her recent Facebook chat, “No. I believe e cigs could help smokers reduce their habit and bring health benefits… No one was arguing to ban them! We are debating how to regulate them.”
This simple little statement demonstrates that she, a least accepts the benefits that e cigarettes can bring. However, look at the second part of the statement. This is sleight-of-hand. You see, the regulation she, and her EU supporters, is proposing is, in effect, a ban. How?
The e cigarette industry is made up of many small, individual companies. They are not big enough to be able to afford the costs of regulation – they would go under. This, in turn, would leave the way open for the remaining ‘big players’ and these are the e cigarette manufacturers owned by the tobacco companies. So regulation will guarantee profit for the very people that the anti-tobacconists claim they are opposing. The future becomes clearer. I am not the Brahan Seer (a predictor of the future who lived in the 17th century.) but, in this case I do not need to be. 1) E cigs are regulated. 2) Tobacco companies control the market. 3) The Medicines & Healthcare Regulatory Agency (MHRA) through the politicians dictate the strength and make up of e cigarettes, reducing then to the same level (or less) than present NRT products. 4) People stop using e cigarettes and go back to tobacco cigarettes OR if not already using e cigarettes, turn to… 4) NRT, used in quit attempts with only a 6 – 10% chance of success. 5) People go back to tobacco. 6) NRT. 7) Tobacco. 8) NRT. 9) Tobacco. 10) Illness and premature death. The tobacco companies cannot lose if regulation goes ahead. The pharmaceutical companies WILL lose if it does not.
There are two points in the above that require further clarification. The first is the assertion I have made regarding the effect of regulation. The second is, even if I am correct about the effect of regulation, there are more people involved in the decision making process than just the MHRA and Linda McAvan at the EU. There are others who will gain. Who are, ‘the others,’ and what have they to gain from regulation?
Am I correct in assuming that regulation would destroy the e cigarette industry? Well, yes. First of all, take the ‘light touch’ regulation which we are told is being proposed. To do this we need to see what the MHRA has said, then compare it to the claims made by the politicians.
This can be done by going to, and reading the following link. It speaks for itself and after reading you should be painfully aware that the intention of ‘light touch’ regulation is to strangle the young electronic cigarette industry.
And that is just the cost… If you can suffer it; because- yes- it is heavy going… Read….
So, small and medium sized companies will go under: That is the intention and the above gives the lie to those who claim, ‘light touch.’
The latest attempt to apply ‘light touch’ regulation is seen in the activities of some of our MEP’s who are conniving in secret / plotting behind closed doors to circumnavigate the will of the European Parliament who recently voted an amendment to the TPD which prevented much of its damaging aspects. This is a real shocker, not only to the e cigarette community, but to any who value democracy. Read please…
The first paper is written by Clive Bates who was a former director (and if I have got this wrong I will soon be corrected) of ASH. The second is by Dr Konstantinos Farsalinos a highly respected, researcher of world renown.
If you are not convinced then here is the actual document prepared by the plotters…
That said, my second assertion was that Linda McAvan and her cronies plotting at the EU, and the MHRA, are not the only players to be considered. There are two important groups. The professional grouping, and, I am very much afraid to say this, but I will – the second grouping is the mass media, and possibly, as its audience, you.
The profession’s group consist of, firstly, the BMA and the charities – Cancer Research, ASH, and the like. Under the BMA banner I will include medical bodies such as, Royal Colleges, etc. as far as I know; they all copy and parrot what the BMA says, or rather, repeat what the pharmaceutical industry instructs them to say. Ok, ok, ok, this is another assertion. Right, how do I go about establishing this as a truth? First of all what is the BMA’s stance on electronic cigarettes and is it credible? And once again, I point you to Clive Bates who has looked at and written on the topic of some of the advice the BMA is issuing.
Right! Enough said!
As for the charities, well, I will just come out with it – it is in their financial interest to see an end to e cigarettes. It is in the arena of their machinations that we begin to see how the application of the definition of ‘evil’ is a fitting one, at least to my mind. I find it difficult to see things any other way.
Cancer Research UK, in their blog, licensing e cigarettes: the unanswered questions, is very revealing. This must be a record breaking blog for Cancer Research with hundreds upon hundreds of responses. It is worth looking at and it demonstrates the attitude of Cancer Research UK towards, not just e cig users, but the public at large. Take time to trawl through the comments, page after page of them. Hopefully the link I have provided will begin at page one, so you will not have to look at them in reverse order.
It is very difficult for me to pin down the reasons for this blind approach because 1) I am not trained in research and 2) information is not so easy to obtain in this country as it is in the USA. However, our charities do have sister charities over the sea, so let us take a ‘gander’ at what is happening there. To do this I will direct you to the writing of Michael Siegel who uncovered something very interesting.
Do I need to say any more?
“…it is in their financial interest to see an end to e cigarettes” What exactly am I referring to with this comment? Notwithstanding the above, it is with charities like Cancer Research that you can see the close links that these organisations have with the pharmaceutical industry. You and I (Used to) give money to the charity who, after paying huge salaries to their CEO’s (Around the quarter million mark – and that is just the CEO) and a large scientific, technical and administration compliment, spend the rest on advertising and research. What happens to the research that you and I have paid for? It gets handed over to the drugs companies. They then produce a drug which is sold back to us at immense profit for the company who tell us that the drug is so expensive because of research costs… hang on, WE PAID FOR THE RESEARCH IN THE FIRST PLACE!
What though happens if e cigarettes are allowed to flourish? Well, it is so simple. Hundreds of thousands, if not untold millions of people, will no longer fall ill and die as a result of smoking related diseases. The pharmaceutical companies will suffer crippling loses and the charities, particularly ASH and Cancer Research will be left to twiddle their thumbs. Oh! And the ‘high heed yins’ (Scots for those at the top of the tree) at the BMA will lose face – and lecture fees?
It is a complicated, dirty mess, and those who would advocate an end to e cigarettes are taking full advantage of this. They use people’s ignorance on the topic to get away with making wild and inaccurate claims about the ‘dangers’ presented by e cigarettes.
Now, I want to take a look at you.
You are the only really important party here, but you are a disparate (not desperate) bunch. There are just so many of you and you have to be controlled. This is where the media come in. News is manipulated by politicians, industrialists and many others. Manipulation of information and misinformation is a whole industry in its own right.
In the UK, papers like the Daily Mail were at the forefront of the media campaign against e cigarettes. Some of the reporting in this particular paper was absolutely appalling. In fact, at one point they were forced to issue a retraction. Once again I turn to Clive Bates. Read…
It is not though just the Daily Mail. The BBC for example had a gentleman from the organisation N.I.C.E. (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) explaining why a smoking ban is justified in and around hospitals in England. Not a mention of e cigarettes and the important role they have to play. He just plugged over and over again the ‘value’ of NRT. Many messages were sent to the BBC about the lack of mention of e cigarettes but this was completely ignored. And this is still going on. The media are still reporting on assertions which have long been discredited as if they are still hot topics. And as for accuracy, one report I have just read stated that many of the e cig juices come from China and we all know what the water there is like. Now I am not sure if water is a constituent or if it is used in the manufacturing process. If it is the former, the researcher should have done research, and if it is the latter, the process involves superheating, so those oriental ‘beasties’ will hardly present any risk.
But this is what the opponents of e cigarettes play on: Our lack of knowledge on the topic. We are exposed to one scare story after another, the latest being that e cigarettes provide a gateway to tobacco use and that young people are being introduced to smoking through e cigarette use.
Surprisingly I now turn to ASH to demonstrate that this is not the case – but read carefully. Learn the lesson pointed out earlier where Linda McAvan states that e cigarettes present no real danger but need to be regulated to ensure safety. Where she assures us with her platitudes that ‘light touch’ regulation is her aim where she is poised to deliver a hammer blow. Something very similar is happening with the ‘young people’ argument. First of all read the following.
So, no real harm; young people and those who have never smoked are not being attracted to them.
NOW look at the recommendation that they fall under the MRHA’s regulations – Huh! If you have forgotten, those are the very regulations which will destroy the industry. Why? The logic here is that they acknowledge there is no harm and that lives will be saved… so get rid of them. Young people are not taking them up so they present no threat… so get rid of them. New victims of tobacco and nicotine are not being created so let us get rid of this very dangerous product… which we acknowledge is safe. Now that really is speaking in two tongues.
- There is now overwhelming evidence that e cigarettes present no danger to users in the short term and that although the long term needs looking at there is no foreseeable threat at present
- Young people are not being attracted to the tobacco habit by e cigarettes.
- E cigarettes are not attracting non-smokers.
Now let us take a look at you. Where do you fit into all of this? This is the most important piece in the jigsaw yet it is the part I will just gloss over.
Do you have an attitude towards e cigarettes because they are so like smoking? If you do then my efforts here will have been in vain. It is as simple as that!
If you are unsure, read the following
So there you have it: A whirlwind tour of the e cig debate and an indication of why I find that the definition of evil fits the opponents of e cigarette development. We lose track of the fact that millions can benefit from e cigarettes. This will not happen if the murderous efforts of some go ahead.
“Murderous…?” Of course, it is just an expression. But there again, is it?……..
For a more complete view of the topic, go to and brows the following sites. (Not in any particular order)
And last but by no means least… in fact this is a must read…
Apologies to the many other first class sites which I have failed to mention.
In this country, having people die from cigarette smoking is fine. The taxpayer has been supporting Nicotine Replacement Therapy / Nicotine Cessation Treatments, provided by the NHS at a huge cost. The success rate for this is a miserable 5%. On the other hand, e cigarettes provide a safer (by a huge order of magnitude) alternative, and the success rate is a massive 75% with no cost to the taxpayer. If 95% of Nicotine Replacement / Cessation Interventions fail, these people will revert to cigarettes and more than half will die prematurely as a result. In this country, money, jobs, and a lack of education and knowledge on the part of our politicians are combining to suppress a lifesaver which is on a parallel to the discovery of penicillin, or is that an understatement?
Note: I remain confused about some of the terminology. Some now refer to NRT when it used to be NCT. It does not matter as e cigarettes are neither. If people like them (and it seems they do) good, they have quit smoking – It is up to each individual to decide what the product is being used for. Me? I use e cigs because I like them and do not like what burning tobacco was doing to me and those around me: They are, I believe, a safe alternative. Note on the use of safe: If you think drinking tap water is unsafe because you could choke and die or worse, be poisoned by the medications added to it, then e cigs are not safe but remain, ‘ safer.’ I will stick with ‘safe.’