At some point we’ve got to tell these people to fuck off you know

E-cigarettes should be banned indoors over fears that they can be as toxic to bystanders as normal cigarettes, the World Health Organisation has said.

Despite releasing vapour instead of smoke, the devices still pollute the air with harmful chemicals, health experts warned.

Many smokers use e-cigarettes as a way to quit, as they deliver the nicotine hit but without the carcinogens associated with breathing in smoke. There are no laws currently banning their use inside.

But a report by the WHO questioned the safety of e-cigarettes, officially known as electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS).

“The fact that ENDS exhaled aerosol contains on average lower levels of toxicants than the emissions from combusted tobacco does not mean that these levels are acceptable to involuntarily exposed bystanders,” said the report.

Given that second hand smoke from regular cigarettes isn’t much of a problem in the first place perhaps we should just hang them all?

22 thoughts on “At some point we’ve got to tell these people to fuck off you know”

  1. They’re just making shit up now. Everyone knows it, and they know everyone knows it.

    This is the exercise of true power. It’s when the powerful are lying, everyone knows they are lying, and they know that nobody is going to do a damned thing about it.

  2. I’m surprised they didn’t use the “think of the grandchildren” emotive. Missed a trick there.

  3. I’m a nonsmoker but get nostalgic for the odd bit of second hand smoke, I don’t know if it’s the memories of flirting through walls of smoke in my youth or the nicotine hit.

  4. bloke (not) in spain

    Future tense?
    I’ve been deploying the “just fuck off” response a lot over my part time vapeing since returning to the UK. After spending the last few years in countries where the response to the smoking inside bans was to be accommodating to smokers, the sheer intrusiveness of some Brits is remarkable. Like my new found NHS GP who requested & had the temerity to then comment on my alcohol consumption, MYOFB’s seen regular use.

    But I despair.
    The default setting for most Brits confronted by censure is the compliant cringe.

  5. I’m surprised they didn’t use the “think of the grandchildren” emotive. Missed a trick there.

    Oh, they did. In the BBC report, they were warning of the dangers to fetuses in pregnant women exposed to the vapours.

  6. The default setting for most Brits confronted by censure is the compliant cringe.

    Indeed. And you’ll find that if they object to one piece of obtrusiveness, they’re in favour of a dozen others. Thank fuck I left.

  7. It’s because we’re a moral tyranny. It’s like other tyrannies, but isntead of being predicated on the political, or religious, or economic, or ethnic etc dimensions of life, it’s manipulation through moralism. Very clever. Instead of less clever regimes that control people through brutality, ours does so by manipulating guilt and shame and the instinct to inflict exclusion and violence on group value transgressors.

    What the antidote is, I have no idea though.

  8. bloke (not) in spain

    “What the antidote is, I have no idea though.”

    The antidote’s a vigorous response. The mistake’s accepting the claimed “moralities” on their own terms. That the moralists have the right to have their moralities listened to.

  9. B(N)IS-

    The problem is, when somebody else has captured the moral flag on an issue, getting the chance to say anything before you’re beaten to death by the mob. Or, at least, shouted down. This is why it’s such a good technique.

    This is why for instance free market arguments get nowhere. The left have captured the moral flag on economics, so anyone who disagrees is automatically identifying themself as a moral transgressor who has, y’know, sided with the Plutocrats, and anything they say is disregarded.

    I have recently become very interested in this issue. Libertarians (or, classical liberals, whatever) keep trying to have a discussion, like enlightenment intellectuals kind of thing. That’s not the game we’re playing. It’s a game of moralist capture the flag.

  10. @IandB

    CS Lewis described it well:

    “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”

  11. e-cigarettes, officially known as electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS).

    This shit is deliberate, and really gets my blood boiling. Everybody knows what an e-cig is; only the Right People know what the jargon of ENDS is. It’s more or less the same thing Orwell wrote about regarding the naming of Oceania’s ministries and other Newspeak stuff.

  12. Another quote, GK Chesterton this time, from around 1920, in which he’s discussing the condition of the worker-

    Nothing marks this queer intermediate phase of industrialism more strangely than the fact that, while employers still claim the right to sack him like a stranger, they are already beginning to claim the right to supervise him like a son. Economically he can go and starve on the Embankment; but ethically and hygienically he must be controlled and coddled in the nursery. Government repudiates all responsibility for seeing that he gets bread. But it anxiously accepts all responsibility for seeing that he does not get beer. It passes an Insurance Act to force him to provide himself with medicine; but it is avowedly indifferent to whether he is able to provide himself with meals. Thus while the sack is inconsistent with the family, the supervision is really inconsistent with the sack. The whole thing is a tangled chain of contradictions. It is true that in the special and sacred text of scripture we are here considering, the smoking is forbidden on a general and public and not on a medicinal and private ground. But it is none the less 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.

    There’s two points in it- the first that, in the USA (Proggie heartland), they were after tobacco long before the cancer issue. Secondly, I think it addresses the issue that many libertarians and fellow travellers tend to believe that welfarism caused a loss of liberty, whereas the sequence of events is that the loss of liberty preceded welfarism. It seems that rather than welfare making the citizen a slave, it is the slavery that induces State support.

    I think this is quite important, because Libertarianism in particular tends to be a kind of inverted Marxism that derives social relations from economic relations like Marx, then just argues for different economic relations to fix everything. I think it’s the other way around, in our culture’s historical case.

  13. After spending a few minutes beside someone vapeing committedly, I wished he had been smoking a cigarette. Whatever scent it is that they put in the vapour was making me feel nauseous.

  14. Its really quite simple do as you always have IGNORE the bastards lite up wherever you want to and live for a change. What are they gonna do toss all of us in jail! lol They cant and they know it. Open rebellion to their Bullshit laws is the only answer!

  15. IanB: “…in the USA (Proggie heartland), they were after tobacco long before the cancer issue.”

    It’s America that’s popularized antismoking insanity – again, and which other countries are following suit. The problem with Americans is that they are clueless to even their own recent history. America has a terrible history with this sort of “health” fanaticism/zealotry/extremism or “clean living” hysteria – including antismoking – that goes back more than a century.

    Antismoking is not new. It has a long, sordid, 400+ year history, much of it predating even the pretense of a scientific basis or the more recent concoction of secondhand smoke “danger”. Antismoking crusades typically run on inflammatory propaganda, i.e., lies, in order to get law-makers to institute bans. Statistics and causal attribution galore are conjured. The current antismoking rhetoric has all been heard before. All it produces is irrational fear and hatred, discord, enmity, animosity, social division, oppression, and bigotry. One of the two major antismoking (and anti-alcohol, dietary prescriptions/proscriptions, physical exercise) crusades early last century was in America. [The other crusade was in Nazi Germany and the two crusades were intimately connected by physician-led eugenics]. The USA has been down this twisted, divisive path before. Consider the following: The bulk of claims made about smoking/tobacco were erroneous, baseless, but highly inflammatory. Unfortunately, the propaganda did its destructive job in the short term, producing mass hysteria or a bigotry bandwagon. When supported by the State, zealots seriously mess with people’s minds on a mass scale.

    For a brief history of antismoking, see:
    “Cigarette Wars: The ‘Triumph’ of the Little White Slaver” (1998) by Cassandra Tate. Google the following combination – “the endless war on tobacco” “seattletimes” – which should bring up a summary article of the book at the Seattle Times.

    Gordon L. Dillow (1981), “Thank You for Not Smoking” [The Hundred-Year War Against the Cigarette]

    Robert Proctor (1996), “The anti-tobacco campaign of the Nazis: a little known aspect of
    public health in Germany, 1933-45”

  16. The current antismoking crusade, very much in the eugenics tradition – involving the same medically-aligned personnel and repugnant methodology, is much like crusades over the previous 400 years. It is a moralizing, social-engineering, eradication/prohibition crusade decided upon in the 1970s by a small, self-installed clique of [medically-oriented] fanatics operating under the auspices of the World Health Organization and sponsored by the American Cancer Society (see the “Godber Blueprint”). This little, unelected group, using much the same inflammatory rhetoric of its fanatical predecessors, decided for everyone that tobacco-use should be eradicated from the world – for a “better” (according to them) world. These fanatics were speaking of secondhand smoke “danger” and advocating indoor and OUTDOOR smoking bans years before the first study on SHS, and extortionate taxes on tobacco years before contrived “cost burden” analyses of smoking: In the 1970s, populations – particularly in relatively free societies – weren’t interested in elitist social-engineering, particularly by a group (medically-aligned) that had a horrible recent track record (eugenics). Given that their antismoking crusade would have otherwise stalled, the zealots conjured secondhand smoke “danger” to advance the social-engineering agenda, i.e., inflammatory propaganda. Until only recently the zealots claimed they weren’t doing social engineering, that they weren’t moralizing. Well, that’s a lie that’s been told many times over the last few decades.

    The zealots’ goal this time is not to ban the sale of tobacco but to ban smoking in essentially all the places that people smoke (combined with extortionate taxes), indoors and out. Up until recently the social-engineering intent has been masqueraded as protecting nonsmokers from secondhand smoke “danger”. But even this fraud can no longer be hidden in that bans are now being instituted for large outdoor areas such as parks, beaches, campuses where there is no demonstrable “health” issue for nonsmokers. This dangerous mix of the medically-aligned attempting social engineering is a throwback to a century ago. We seem to have learned nothing of value from very painful lessons of only the recent past.

  17. Here’s a brief history of the antismoking madness (Godber Blueprint) over the last few decades.

    The first demand for a smoking ban was in the late-1980s concerning short-haul flights in the USA of less than 2 hours. At the time, the antismokers were asked if this was a “slippery slope” – where would it end? They ridiculed anyone suggesting such because this ban was ALL that they were after.
    Then they ONLY wanted smoking bans on all flights.
    Then the antismokers ONLY wanted nonsmoking sections in restaurants, bars, etc., and ensuring that this was ALL they wanted.
    Then the antismokers ONLY wanted complete bans indoors. That was all they wanted. At the time, no-one was complaining about having to “endure” wisps of smoke outdoors.

    While they pursued indoor bans, the antismokers were happy for smokers to be exiled to the outdoors. Having bulldozed their way into indoor bans, the antismokers then went to work on the outdoors, now declaring that momentary exposure to remnants of smoke in doorways or a whiff outdoors was a “hazard”, more than poor, innocent nonsmokers should have to “endure”.
    Then they ONLY wanted bans within 10 feet of entrance ways.
    Then they ONLY wanted bans within 20 feet of entrance ways.
    Then they ONLY wanted bans in entire outdoor dining areas.
    Then they ONLY wanted bans for entire university and hospital campuses and parks and beaches.
    Then they ONLY wanted bans for apartment balconies.
    Then they ONLY wanted bans for entire apartment (including individual apartments) complexes.

    On top of all of this, there are now instances where smokers are denied employment, denied housing (even the elderly), and denied medical treatment. Smokers in the UK are denied fostering/adoption. Involuntary mental patients are restrained physically or chemically (sedation) or multi-day solitary confinement rather than allow them to have a cigarette – even outside. In some countries there are also compounded extortionate taxes.

    At each point there was a crazed insistence that there was no more to come while they were actually planning the next ban and the brainwashing required to push it. The incessant claim was that they were not doing “social engineering” (prohibition) when the current antismoking crusade has been so from the outset, just like pretty well every previous antismoking crusade. There has been incessant (pathological) lying and deception. Many medically-aligned groups have been committed to antismoking – their smokefree “utopia” – since the 1960s, and are also in the pay of Pharma companies peddling their useless “nicotine replacement” products. They have prostituted their medical authority and integrity to chase ideology (this is exactly what occurred in the eugenics of early last century). All of it is working to a tobacco-extermination plan run by the WHO (dominated by the American “model”) and that most nations are now signed-up to (Framework Convention on Tobacco Control).

  18. IanB: “Another quote, GK Chesterton this time, from around 1920…”

    I think that Chesterton was one of the rare critics of eugenics and I think the quote you provide was a critique of the eugenics fervor in America at the time.

    Eugenics didn’t come and end with Nazism. Eugenics was popularized in America decades earlier. Hitler and the Germans were students of American eugenics. For some insight into the connection between American eugenics – California in particular – and German eugenics, google “Eugenics and the Nazis – the California connection” by Edwin Black.

    Eugenics is notorious for its racial/breeding/heredity dimension. Less well known is that it also has a behavioral dimension – anti-tobacco/alcohol (negative eugenics – viewed as body poisons), dietary prescriptions/proscriptions, physical exercise. [find a eugenics text at a uni library. It will typically have sections on anti-tobacco and anti-alcohol] Eugenics reduced all to the physical. Health was perversely reduced to a physical, absence-of-disease phenomenon (biological reductionism). Eugenics was embraced/funded by the mega-wealthy (e.g., Rockefeller, Ford, Carnegie, Harriman) and the educated classes. There were few critics of eugenics. The promise was the eradication of poverty, crime, and disease. It did no such thing. It brought out the worst in people – racism, bigotry, cruelty, brutality.

    Post-WWII, the eugenics issue was never resolved in America. The greatest concentration of eugenicists was in America. Eugenicists didn’t just disappear or change their philosophy. They simply stopped using the “E”[ugenics] word. In the 1970s there was another emergence of an obsession-with-physical-health movement. Unfamiliar with eugenics, the movement was referred to as “healthism”. Healthism is actually the hygienism of eugenics. Healthism is an aspect (behavioral) of eugenics by another name.

    The current antismoking onslaught involves the typical eugenics “personnel” – physicians, biologists, pharmacologists, statisticians, and, more recently, behaviorists. It involves the same physicalism/materialism (biological reductionism) that produces a perverse, sterile definition of health stripped of the art, detail, and humanity of living. It involves the same reliance on flimsy population-level statistics that were pioneered by eugenicists early last century for population control. It revolves around “prevention”, the cornerstone of the eugenics framework. There is the same utter obsession with longevity for its own sake. It involves the same constant call for a “healthier” or “better” society. It involves the same primacy of the medical establishment and social-engineering intent where all should be coerced to abide by this superficial, “medicalized” framework, i.e. medical imperialism. It involves the same denormalization and mass propaganda techniques, a constant playing on the primal fear of disease and death, to achieve social-engineering goals.

    We can also see that the social engineering is extending beyond tobacco to alcohol, diet, and physical exercise – that’s the behavioral dimension of eugenics.

    BTW Even with the eugenics disaster in Germany, the first directorship of the newly-created (late-1940s) World Health Organization was given to the eugenicist, Brock Chisholm. The first directorship of UNESCO was given to the high-profile eugenicist, Julian Huxley.

  19. “Reregistration Eligibility Decision For Propylene Glycol and Dipropylene Glycol“, which was created by the United State Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Was made and approved as a disenfectant spray for HOSPITALS back in 1958 and earlier. You were like born in a hospital surgical room that sprayed it while you were born and then dad took you and your smoking mom home!

    Smokers have as much right to the air to smoke as any non-smoker have a right to breathe the air! Non-smokers don’t own it we all use it like everyone else…………even the cars use the air,restaraunts,cookouts,fireworks and each and everyone of those things including non-smokers releases hundreds and thousands of the same chemicals found in that same cigarette smoke! So go outlaw yourselves under the same pre-text as you used for smoking you HUMAN CARCINOGEN MACHINES!

Leave a Reply

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