Reply to ASH Scotland, with a note for all the others....

This is in reply to a post on the ASH Scotland blog which, despite repeated attempts, I appear not to be able to reply to. Lord knows why, eh?


"ASH Scotland, ASH England and ASH Wales all claim to be "ecig/vaping supportive" however they continually damn them with faint praise and side with those who are clearly anti. Any supposed support is always accompanied with weasel words: "we don't know", "safer but not safe"

That last one was used in the link you referred to first: "While not completely safe, using an e-cigarette is much less harmful".....

There is no such thing as "safe", only safer. Everything, every action (or inaction) bears a risk and it is disingenuous to claim or infer otherwise. The difference is and always will be in the choice to use or do something less risky, less harmful.

People make lifestyle choices, some you're not going to agree with. Tough, move on.

While on the subject of that link, e-cigarettes do not "need to be regulated to improve quality and reliability" as the industry and community have done a pretty darned good job of doing that over the last 12 years already on their own.

The only legislation we've seen in Europe and the UK (TPD Article 20/Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016) serve purely to make the development of improved, safer products difficult or impossible because of ridiculous administration overheads and 6 month pre-notifications. It is increasing the risk of relapse and accident by forcing people to only have 10ml bottles, 2ml tanks. It is preventing at least 250,000 smokers in the UK from effectively switching because it bans nicotine strengths over 20mg when often they need 36mg or more!

Which brings me back to your last comment. Actually, at the doses concerned, nicotine has not been proven to cause harm. Yes, in large enough doses nicotine is toxic, but almost everything is. The TPD/TRPR are based on a fictional lethality level for nicotine that was made up by a fictional character (see Meyer, Arch Toxicology, 2014). ASH were aware of this, as were the EU, the UK Govt and others but they continued with the madness that their regulations are, despite knowing the actual lethal level was at least 20 times higher.

Addictive? You cite an ASH pamphlet but it claims a "fact" that "nicotine is addictive as heroin". Nicotine in tobacco smoke, possibly as it was engineered to be so. Nicotine on its own (bearing in mind it's in foodstuffs) is quite unlikely to be nearly so addictive if at all, borne out by up to date research and plain common sense. Does NRT keep you hooked or help you quit? You seem to claim the former in that leaflet.

And of course ASH campaigned for NRT to be made available for retail sale to anyone over the age of 12, no prescription needed, as it now is. If it were that addictive is that not a wholly immoral act? Or are we actually just sweeping an inconvenient truth under the mat?

But of course, you're following the FCTC rhetoric and regulations. Except you aren't. There are NO LAWS stemming from the FCTC. No responsibilities, only intentions worded by people who won't talk to us because they're too important and we, the people who it affects, are too tainted and evil...


A hypocritical concept given the recent lauding and welcome given by Vera daCosta e Silva, head of the FCTC, to President Duterte of the Phillipines. A despot who has publicly stated that he is happy for 3 million drug addicts to be slaughtered, compared himself to Hitler and his actions to the Nazi state. And he and his administration are already doing just that.

Where is the outrage from ASH on this? Surely it besmirches your efforts and is unacceptable for a UN organisation or indeed a right minded person to support him?

But your efforts were already besmirched by blindly supporting the TPD, where the EU allowed involvement of the Pharmaceutical industry in driving, and being involved in the writing of,the amendments to the TPD, while the EU were having their secret meetings with the tobacco industry (ask the EU Ombudsman) and while the EU continue to pay tobacco growers in Europe subsidies and accept billions of Euros from the Tobacco industry each year based on sales, not taxes. But of course, the EU is a funder of ASH and others....

So, where were your outrage, your humanity, your morals?

If you (ASH of all flavours, the FDA, EU and others) really want to support smokers trying to switch, if you really want to see an end to smoking then you need to engage with us, with INNCO, with the NNA and others.

If not, just get the hell out of the way, you're killing people."

1 comment:

  1. I know the feeling. ASH Scotland will only post responses when they decide they want to: their moderation is not to maintain levels of decency and relevance, but is pure censorship.

    ReplyDelete

All comments are the responsibility of the poster and may be subject to moderation before release.