Are these people really such cretins?

Children under the age of 18 will be banned from buying potentially “toxic” e-cigarettes under new laws to be announced next week.

Ministers will also make it a criminal offence for the first time for adults to buy conventional cigarettes for under-aged children, punishable with a fine of up to £2,500.

The moves come in response to concerns that growing numbers of children are taking up “e-cigarettes”, before becoming addicted to nicotine and moving on to regular smoking.

But as Chris Snowden has pointed out, the tests have been done and we know that e-ciggies are not a gateway to real ones. In the jargon, they’re a substitute, not a complement.

Fools.

16 thoughts on “Are these people really such cretins?”

  1. Smoking is decreasing, yet the bansturbators think that e-cigs is a gateway to real smoking. And concerns that e-cigs that children are taking up e-cigs does not match up with the reality that no such thin is happening, just a lot of hype by the nannying fussbuckets desperate to whip of a frenzy. Logical thought doesn’t fit in with their narrative.

  2. Because you’re a “child” until you’re 18. Thank you America.

    Point is, they’re just desperate to kill of e-cigs because they completely undermine everything that has justified the anti-smoking movement for the past 100 years; and prove that it never was about the health damaging side effects of smoking, and is entirely just a puritan temperance movement.

  3. A favourite GK Chesterton quote, from 1922, reminding us of the origins of this nonsense-

    But it is […] relevant to remember that, as his masters have already proved that alcohol is a poison, they may soon prove that nicotine is a poison. And it is most significant of all that this sort of danger is even greater in what is called the new democracy of America than in what is called the old oligarchy of England. When I was in America, people were already “defending” tobacco. People who defend tobacco are on the road to proving that daylight is defensible, or that it is not really sinful to sneeze. In other words, they are quietly going mad.

  4. I heard a supposed representative of the e-cig manufacturers association (if there be such a thing) on the radio saying that her members had been asking for such a law for some time and were pleased at its introduction.

    You have to think that they’re more concerned with a quiet life than with individual liberty and that of course makes short-term commercial sense.

    As though you could throw a bone to those who seek to ban.

  5. “Because you’re a “child” until you’re 18.”
    Be interesting when this proposed ban runs up against Ed Militwat’s pledge to reduce the voting age to 16.
    Not old enough to choose e-cigs but old enough to choose a government.

  6. There’s more votes in lopping another head off the great Hydra, ‘concerns’, than there is in explaining logic and evidence to busybodies. Easier, too.

    I imagine we’ll spend a few more decades bouncing off the fascist bottom.

  7. @MB
    I’ve discussed this with the owner of a sizeable e-cig outlet chain. It’s the skating on thin ice scenario. There’s pressure to ban the things altogether on the “if tobacco was discovered today, it’d be on the illegal drugs list” basis. So it’s what concessions can be made to avoid the nuclear option. An age restriction isn’t particularly harmful to the industry because there’s little penetration into the up to 18 y/o market.
    The big one’s going to be tax. At straight sales taxes on the product, smokers switching to e-cigs will seriously hurt treasuries. What’s the tax take on a twenty a day smoker in the UK? £40?

  8. I mean, just look at the contradiction in the article itself. First they claim to want to legislate to prevent kids having access to nicotine. Then they state that two-thirds of smokers started as teenagers. So clearly the legislation on real cigs doesn’t work, so what’s the point flogging the dead horse another time?

    It’s either disjointed thinking or gesture politics. Evidence, schmevidence.

  9. Incidentally, it’s going to be fun watching legal definitions.
    Not all vapouriser liquids contain nicotine. But would all attract tax? A 10ml bottle is equivalent to between 1/2 & 1 carton of cigarettes (200) but nicotine content (where present) grades from 0.8% to 3.2%. So one 3,2% mixed with 3x nicotine free gives 4 x low strength. And the tiny bottles are eminently smuggleable. Or the bulk liquid would be. You wouldn’t want very high nicotine additives to get into the market. Pure nicotine is a potentially lethal contact poison.
    On the vapouriser, itself: it’s not a one time purchase. The vapouriser element needs regular replacement. The rechargeable batteries have limited life spans. But if you’re intending legislating over vapourisers it’s going to be tricky defining which parts are the vapouriser without including other rechargeable batteries or other consumer products.

  10. Then they state that two-thirds of smokers started as teenagers. So clearly the legislation on real cigs doesn’t work

    You used to be able to buy cigarettes, legally, at sixteen. You remain a teenager until nineteen at which point, even under this new bansturbationist credo, you would be able to buy cigs both e- and real.. They really do choose their words quite carefully.

  11. @SE fair point. I’d forgotten how recently the age was raised.

    Fingers crossed underage smokers don’t find it any harder to get hold of ecigs than tobacco, eh?

  12. I would suggest that maybe it’s a combination of the tobacco lobby and the politicians who see a threat from loss of duty as being the real source of the objections. And yes they do have some strange bedfellows in their puritan fellow travelers.

  13. “Because you’re a “child” until you’re 18.”
    Be interesting when this proposed ban runs up against Ed Militwat’s pledge to reduce the voting age to 16.
    Not old enough to choose e-cigs but old enough to choose a government.

    On this head, the only reason I would welcome the voting-at-16 stuff (becaus it’s clearly risible otherwise) is that it would instantly and irreparably shit up (logically, at least) all of the efforts that successsive govts have made to make 18 the age for everything (and the new ‘Challenge 25’ thing makes one suspect that the eventual plan is to go the whole hog and make it 21).

    I always found it amusing that you could have sex at 16, but if you filmed it and got it passed by the BBFC you wouldn’t be allowed to watch it.

  14. The eventual aim is 25. Hence the outpouring of bilge about neuroscience proving that you aren’t “mature” until that age. The basic idea is that you wouldn’t get full citizen rights until you’ve left University. It will take them years to get there, but that’s where they’re heading.

  15. I always found it amusing that you could have sex at 16, but if you filmed it and got it passed by the BBFC you wouldn’t be allowed to watch it.

    If you filmed it and watched it, you’d be legally a paedophile and child pornographer.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *