Courtesy of KeepCalm-o-matic.co.uk

Article from Today’s Thinking

We are fed diarrhoea

Columnist MR EUGENIDES

 WHAT FRESH HELL is this? Via the ever-excellent Christopher Snowdon (whose book “The Art of Suppression” everyone should go out and buy), we learn that the World Health Organisation is pushing for a worldwide ban on electronic cigarettes, presumably because it has nothing better to do now that it has eradicated malaria and AIDS.

In a new report, the WHO claims that e-cigarettes – which are smokeless, tarless, non-carcinogenic plastic replicas that deliver small doses of nicotine to the user – “could undermine the denormalization of tobacco use” simply because they resemble cigarettes, and it urges countries to consider banning their use in order to “change the social norms regarding the consumption of tobacco”. Since the WHO has significant influence on national health bodies around the world, it is reasonable to guess that we will be seeing a lot more of this report as the bansturbators start clamouring for yet another avenue of pleasure to be closed off to us.

What the “something must be done” brigade will most assuredly not mention, as they fan out across the airwaves to bang the drum for yet more government intervention in our lives, is that the WHO report has absolutely nothing to say about the supposed dangers of e-cigs. Only four of the sixteen nations surveyed have done any research on the health effects of the devices, and not one – not a single one, including those that have banned them – provide any evidence whatsoever that there are any quantifiable risks to the health of those using them.

None of this, of course, will show up in the press releases sent out by ASH and the Department of Health, which will be recycled verbatim by overworked hacks and published on a thousand newspaper websites. Instead, the “evidence” will be held clearly to “prove” that e-cigs are a danger to health and should therefore be illegal. This will, simply, be a lie; a miasma of bullshit designed to obfuscate the truth. The language used by proponents of a ban is revealing; these devices must be banned because there is not yet enough evidence to prove that they are safe.

Read that again: they must ban them because they can’t prove they aren’t bad for you. It turns every principle of freedom on its head and treats you like the five year-old they believe you to be. And it makes this non-smoker mad.

Everywhere you turn these days, there's a fucker with a lab coat talking shit. Opening the health page in a newspaper these days is akin to turning a high-pressure hose full of diarrhoea on yourself. We're binge-drinking, chain-smoking, sedentary lardbutts, the nation's health is worse than it's ever been, we're told (unutterable horsecock; there's never been a healthier point in human history than right now, as you're reading this) and we face an obesity/cirrhosis/lung cancer/asthma timebomb. The end times are near.

Now, there's no doubt that all is not rosy where public health is concerned. Too many people *do* smoke their lungs to a cinder and drink themselves spastic on cheap rocket fuel, and this *is* going to cost a lot more in the future, because even if old Mr McGlumpher isn't getting pissed on your dime (which he usually is), when he's admitted to hospital with that persistent hacking cough, you’re still the one paying for the bedpan to get changed (which it usually isn't). Yet the way that our wise overlords choose to tackle this problem says a lot about their attitude towards their doughy, gin-addled subjects. Every bottle must be festooned with warning labels, every fag packet with snapshots of blackened lungs. Let there be a fat tax, a ban on cheap alcohol deals, a fruit and veg database to monitor our children and an inspection regime for packed lunches. Let a thousand admonitions bloom.

Again, the language in the WHO report gives the game away. Despite there being no known dangers from e-cigarettes, we are told quite explicitly that they must be banned because they could undermine the “denormalisation” of tobacco; not because they are bad, but because they look a little like something which is bad. These are the same spam-brained dickheads that got smoking edited out of Tom and Jerry cartoons because they thought it might make kids take up fags. (That Tom repeatedly gets fed through meat slicers and gets his brain bashed out with a mallet roughly twice per episode doesn't seem to faze these mouth-breathing fucktards.)

The truth about these thin-lipped busybodies is that they are the new Puritans of our age. It isn’t the health damage that really enrages them about tobacco, or alcohol, or fish suppers. What they hate, for lack of a better word, is the sin. If tests were to show conclusively and beyond a shadow of any doubt that these e-cigs were utterly harmless, these people would be horrified and the report suppressed, buried or simply ignored. If someone invented a synthetic alcohol which gave us the pleasure of a few pints without the hangover or long-term harms to our wellbeing, I genuinely believe that the nannying fucknuts at Alcohol Concern would be beating their fists on the wall in rage.

Pressure groups and do-gooders like ASH and the WHO are little more than monomaniacal fascists who seem to be labouring under the delusion that my lifestyle is any of their fucking business. It's not. End of story. And if that means I want to buy three bottles of wine for the price of two, or stick a harmless electronic replica fag in my mouth, or pour boiling chip fat down my throat, then I will damn well do so and fuck them all for thinking they have any right to stop me. I know I'm a fat bastard, and I know I drink too much. I don't need the state to hold my hair back while I chunder.

And as for the WHO: they can, with all possible due respect, fuck off.

Article source www.thinkscotland.org

Article from Saturday 27, October, 2012

User Comments

Why am I not surprised by WHO's position? "The World Health Organization,WHO, established by the United Nations in 1948 and based in Geneva, built its outstanding reputation on funding research and programs to fight communicable diseases. Today, WHO, with its 192 member nations, continues to coordinate and sponsor international efforts directed at treatment and control of worldwide health problems, such as AIDS, influenza, tuberculosis, malaria and a host of other diseases. In the 1980’s, however, the organization expanded its attention to noncommunicable disease, although it was limited by a budget frozen at $450 million. Today, the international agency now takes in more than $500 million a year, more than it gets from all its member nations. This money comes primarily from drug companies whose fortunes are intimately connected to its donations to WHO. Although spokesmen deny WHO is influenced by the pharmaceutical industry, the drug companies’ internal documents give another perspective. According to the Seattle Times Daphne Fresle, a former top official in the WHO office that monitors worldwide pharmaceutical use, resigned in protest in 2002, complaining of the agency's relationships with drug makers. Unpublished documents of WHO reports first obtained by The Guardian newspaper in 2003 describe "undue influence" on guideline panels dealing with diets and food additives" http://www.easydiagnosis.com/secondopinions/newsletter17.html http://www.easydiagnosis.com/secondopinions/newsletter18.html

Posted on 27/10/2012 by Wiel
I've smoked 30+ cigs a day for the last 30 years and now down to 4 a day since using an e cig. If the reason they want to ban e cigarettes is because 'they could undermine the “denormalisation” of tobacco' then ban cigarettes - oh no, they can't, too much of a tax loss.

Posted on 27/10/2012 by Angela Tamburrini
I have been using e cigs for 2 months. Not a long time granted, but going from 30 cigs a day to nil I think is pretty good. Saving a fortune (and therefore not a much tax in coffers...anything to do with their stance I wonder). To ask for a ban on a substitute to smoking (not an aid to quitting I might add) in order to change attitudes is a disgrace. If there concern is so great, why not ask for a worldwide ban on tobacco? The narrow minded, simplistic attitude of these so called experts is appalling.

Posted on 27/10/2012 by Thomas Murphy
This makes me livid. As a VERY heavy smoker I've tried everything and spent a fortune to try and give up over the years. I even smoked whilst wearing the strongest patches and nearly gave myself a stroke. Finally, since finding ecigs I've been clean since January and rarely even use the ecig either. But it is my safety net. If on night out or at a party I've always been tempted to cadge a ciggy ot two from smokers. Not any more becuase I have my ecig! Ecigs are the best thing since sliced loaf and I'm so much happier AND richer since discovering them. Stop this idiocy!

Posted on 27/10/2012 by A E Christie