In Defence of Liberty

Driven by data; ridden with liberty.

Vapour-Filled Rooms

Are e-cigarettes safer than cigarettes? The answer is yes. (Edited: jonnwilliams)

Are e-cigarettes safer than cigarettes? The answer is yes. (Edited: jonnwilliams)

Occasionally, the line between seriousness and satire can become ragged and faded. Nash Riggins, writing in The Guardian, argues against the idea that “e-cigs are somehow safer than normal cigarettes”.

Amazed at the coalition opposed to the Scottish ban against e-cigarettes on hospital grounds, Mr Riggins pens:

One of the most dangerous aspects of your typical, run-of-the-mill cigarette is the tar-filled smoke you’re inhaling with each puff. That tar may contain up to 7,000 different toxins, which are otherwise found in everything from rat poison to nail polish. E-cigs, on the other hand, produce a light, tar-free vapour. But this doesn’t necessarily make them any safer.

Yes, it does. Yes, it does! The corollary of that statement would be the presence of “7,000 different toxins” doesn’t make cigarettes any more dangerous, which is absurd. Tobacco cigarettes kills up to half of users, following the product’s intended purpose.

Mr Riggins continues:

E-cigs don’t contain the same type of nicotine you might find in an ordinary tobacco leaf. They contain liquid nicotine, which can be lethal: doctors say a tablespoon of some e-liquids on the market would be enough to kill an adult; half a teaspoon could kill a child. And the worst part is, you don’t even need to ingest these liquids to end up in hospital. Mere skin contact with concentrated liquid nicotine is enough to cause symptoms of poisoning, such as dizziness, elevated blood pressure and seizures.

The liquid nicotine in an e-cigarette and the nicotine in a tobacco leaf are chemically identical: the nicotine is in a different state. A child did die in Fort Plain, New York, after ingesting liquid nicotine. This is not an intended use of vaporizers, any more than bleach is meant for human consumption.

It should be noted the second link provided by Mr Riggins gives a summary of nicotine poisoning symptoms, rather than support for the claim that “mere skin contact” can cause those symptoms.

The Presence of Evidence

Despite the article’s byline asserting there is “no evidence” that e-cigarettes are safer than traditional forms of tobacco, there are many studies concluding that vaporizers are, indeed, less dangerous than typical cigarettes. In the Tobacco Control journal, researchers found levels of toxicants in e-cigarette vapour were “9-450 times lower than in cigarette smoke and were, in many cases, comparable with trace amounts found” in a medicinal nicotine inhaler. Led by Professor Peter Hajek in the journal Addiction, the abstract contained the following result:

Long-term health effects of EC use are unknown but compared with cigarettes, EC are likely to be much less, if at all, harmful to users or bystanders.

A large cross-sectional study in the same journal found e-cigarettes had a beneficent effect on smoking cessation. A report commissioned for Public Health England concluded electronic cigarettes were “an alternative and much safer source of nicotine, as a personal lifestyle choice rather than medical service”.

Smoking and vaping can be informed choices. We should look poorly on those publishing virulent concoctions of ignorance and innuendo.

Advertisements

21 comments on “Vapour-Filled Rooms

  1. prog
    February 24, 2015

    Yep, believe everything TC spouts apart from anything anti-vaping.

    ‘Tobacco cigarettes kills up to half of users’.

    It either does or it doesn’t.

    • Anthony Masters
      February 24, 2015

      “Yep, believe everything TC spouts apart from anything anti-vaping.”

      It is not a question of believing “everything TC spouts”, but reading academic papers on the issue. This is Richard Doll’s and A. Bradford Hill’s seminal paper on the deleterious effect of smoking tobacco: http://www.who.int/docstore/bulletin/pdf/issue1/smokingand.pdf?ua=1

      The individual should be free to make their choices, but misinformation must be openly countered.

  2. junican
    February 25, 2015

    Oh Dear, Mr Masters.
    It is a matter of fact that, shortly after WW2, there was a continuous and fairly substantial increase in the import of oranges into the UK. At the same, there was a continuous and fairly substantial increase in divorces. Did the increase in the import of oranges cause the increase in divorces, or did the increase in divorces cause the increase in the import of oranges?
    That is a good example of why correlations do not constitute causation.
    But I am surprised that you quoted the ‘Hospital Study’ rather than the ‘British Doctors Study’. I would have thought that you would be aware that the ‘Hospital Study’ was merely a ‘proof of concept’ study (as they are called these days). The statistics produced by the short ‘Hospital Study’ justified the costs and effort involved in the ‘British Doctors Study’. The claim that smoking kills half of smokers was only introduced by Doll very near the end of the Doctors Study. Since then, it has become one of those handy truisms which The Tobacco Control Industry loves to repeat ad nauseam. What the Doctors Study actually showed was that some smokers and non-smokers died before a theoretical average age at death. (Erm…. It is also perfectly clear that 50% of the population will die ‘prematurely’ and 50% will die ‘postmaturely’, using such an average) More smokers died ‘prematurely’ than non-smokers, but lots of non-smokers also died ‘prematurely. There is no real justification of the truism that tobacco kills half its users.It is propaganda.
    Have you heard of the McTear Case? It was held before the Scottish Supreme Court and ended in 2005. In that case, McTear sued Imperial Tobacco claiming that IT were responsible for the fact that he contracted lung cancer. One of the necessary conditions for him to succeed was the need to show that smoking causes lung cancer in general terms, but only to the extent of ‘on the balance of probabilities’ (as opposed to the criminal requirement for proof ‘beyond reasonable doubt’). Even at that lower level of proof, the Tobacco Control Industry could not produce evidence to the court that smoking causes lung cancer. The judge dismissed all the claims.
    Perhaps you would like to read my summary of that case. It might open your eyes to the extent that the TCI has been distorting evidence for decades:

    https://junican.wordpress.com/

    • Anthony Masters
      February 25, 2015

      Firstly, it’s Dr Masters. Secondly, my PhD is in Mathematics, so I am aware of the distinction between association and causation. I have written about statistical matters on this blog multiple times before: https://anthonymasters.wordpress.com/category/statistics/

      There are three principal reasons as to why an association may not be causation. It could be there is a third variable, causing both the associated variables to align. The causation could run in the opposite direction to the proposition. Alternately, the causation could be spurious, as listed here: http://www.tylervigen.com/

      I did state that the paper I referred to was the “seminal” study, so it is not surprising that other studies followed.

      With regards to the McTear vs ITC case, the judge did, indeed, state that he could neither accept nor reject the argument that smoking causes lung cancer, either in general or individual terms. Nevertheless, the conclusion 9.4 reads:

      “I am satisfied that at all material times, and in particular by 1964, the general public in the United Kingdom, including smokers and potential smokers, were well aware of the health risks associated with smoking, and in particular of the view that smoking could cause lung cancer (para.[3.1] and Part III generally). I am also satisfied that Mr McTear was aware, in common with the general public, well before 1971 of the publicity about the health risks associated with smoking, and in particular the risk of lung cancer. Therefore by the time he is shown by acceptable evidence to have started smoking the John Player brand of cigarettes he was already aware of the publicity about the health risks. As with many other aspects of his life, he chose to ignore it (para.[4.230]).”
      http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2005CSOH69.html#cigarettesmoking

      There are always going to be limitations in epidemiological studies. Demographic variations and other population changes may perturb these results.
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16756216

      As the McTear case highlighted, smoking is considered a major risk factor, but it is not the only risk factor for lung cancer. These other risk factors would explain why non-smokers may contract lung cancer. Moreover, the reasoning proffered in the above comment would reject declaring anything a risk factor, since “many” people who satisfy a criterion would die prematurely, however that is defined.

      Both comments have accused me of creating propaganda on behalf of the ‘Tobacco Control Industry’. I have written against the goals and methods of tobacco control advocates many times, such as:
      https://anthonymasters.wordpress.com/2012/06/05/all-smoke-and-mirrors/
      https://anthonymasters.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/against-plain-packaging/
      https://anthonymasters.wordpress.com/2014/02/01/smoking-in-cars/

  3. junican
    February 26, 2015

    Oh Dear (again)…..
    I thought that I was being polite by calling you ‘Mr’ Masters. There is nothing immediately visible which suggests your doctorate. I am sorry if I upset you.

    I used to be entitled to add the symbol ‘AIB’ after my name. That was because I qualified via three years of examinations to be an “Associate of the Institute of Bankers”. All yesterday’s news, I’m afraid.

    I have read your blog before from time to time, probably via references in Dick P’s blog.

    —–

    I must be honest. The reason that I commented was that someone told me that you had used the Doll and Hill ‘Hospital Study’ as an example of ‘academic papers’ which influenced you. Yes, I did see the word ‘seminal’, but there had been other studies which were even more ‘seminal’ in pre-WW2 Germany. I was curious as to why you used the ‘Hospital Study’ rather than the ‘Doctors Study’ as an example of definitive research when the Doctors Study was far more appropriate.

    —–

    Forgive me, but do you not think that your quote from the Judge’s statement in the McTear case re the published warnings about tobacco smoking harm is irrelevant? He was talking about the published warnings, and not proof of harm. Please do not try to obfuscate – the fact is that The Tobacco Control Industry has the perfect opportunity to PROVE (“on the balance of probabilities”) that smoking tobacco causes lung cancer. It could not produce satisfactory evidence. In fact, as you know, animal experiments had failed.

    —–

    I do not deny that there are some people who should not smoke because, for them, for various reasons, it is dangerous. That is also true of jogging.

    —–

    Finally, what upsets me, as regards educated men like yourself, is the acceptance of propaganda statements such as ‘tobacco, when used as directed, kills half its users’. Doll said something similar in his fourth or fifth report in the Doctors Study- I cannot remember which and can’t be bothered looking it up. That is propaganda since it is impossible to draw such a conclusion from statistics alone, as you well know.

    —–

    I have two ecigs. If I wanted to pack up smoking, that is the way that I would go, without a doubt. But from an enjoyment point of view, I prefer smoking. I am 75 and in good health, and have been smoking since I was about 17. When I peg out, will I have died ‘prematurely’? Back to the oranges and divorces.

    • Anthony Masters
      February 26, 2015

      Your words insinuated I was some dullard who had no understanding of statistics. I was merely correctly this misapprehension. Correlations do not necessarily imply causality, but neither are correlations necessarily flukes.

      I thought it would be unnecessary to cite the entire library of research into the connection between smoking tobacco and lung cancer, as well as other diseases, in a short blog comment.

      I am not obfuscating nor it is irrelevant: why would it matter if Mr McTear was aware of the health risks, if there were no confirmed health risks with smoking?

      Despite Lord Smith claiming he was seeking to prove or disprove “on the balance of probabilities”, it is plain from a reading of his methodology that he was using a more restrictive standard of proof. If Lord Smith was using the probabilistic standard, it would not be necessary to exclude entire swathes of evidence and research. The increased incidence of lung cancer among those who have smoked (typically between 5 and 10 times in published papers) would be counted as evidence towards the proposition that smoking causes lung cancer, though any deficiencies in such research would be acknowledged and analysed, to see if they would perturb the overall results. Moreover, it is a clear appeal to authority to believe that a single judgement can repeal decades worth of research. I have no doubt that Lord Smith is an intelligent man, but humans may make errors.

      It has been repeatedly asserted and implied that the correlation between smoking and lung cancer is merely spurious (“oranges and divorces”). Such an assertion cannot endure the confirmation and reaffirmation of this correlation over different times and different countries, across age, gender, geography, occupation, socioeconomic status and other factors.

      http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/38/5/1175.full

      This strongly suggests a relationship between the two variables, which sires three alternate hypotheses. Either smoking ’causes’ lung cancer, lung cancer ’causes’ smoking or there is a third variable which causes both smoking and lung cancer. In line with the above journal article, I will refer to these as the causal hypothesis, the reverse-cause hypothesis or the constitutional hypothesis. (This cited article also answers your concerns, though I will attempt to answer them too, with brevity. Furthermore, it contains the results to which I will refer).

      The reverse-cause hypothesis would mean a tumour would cause a person to undertake smoking in the past, which cannot be a serious idea.

      The causal hypothesis is best supported by the available evidence. Studies repeatedly demonstrate a persistent increase in lung cancer incidence, across time and across demographic segments. A greater proclivity for smoking (that is, dividing the data according to the regularity of the smoking habit) is correlated with a higher incidence of lung cancer. Stopping smoking is found to lower the risk of contracting lung cancer compared to those who continue to smoke.

      A causal mechanism has been suggested and studied: the inhalation of carcinogenic smoke. Multiple studies have found a greater tendency to inhale more during the act of smoking is associated with a higher propensity for contracting lung cancer. The “failure” you refer to is for the carcinogenesis of lung cancer through animal experimentation, but the production of skin cancer in mice through the application of tobacco tar has been repeatedly performed and confirmed.

      The constitutional hypothesis would have to explain the increased lung cancer mortality, why laboratory experiments on animals with tobacco tar induces cancer, and why discontinued smokers have lower incidences of lung cancer than persistent smokers, among other impertinent information. To my knowledge, a third variable that could satiate these results, but also cause smoking and be as carcinogenic as smoking cigarettes is currently believed to be, has never been posited (and so never tested).

      It would appear that the only standard of proof that would fulfill the demands placed by critics of the causal hypothesis would be a series of controlled experiments on human subjects, each experiment lasting decades. Such an experiment would be grotesquely unethical, which is why it has not been done.

      Data analysis does not end at the proclamation at ‘correlation does not equal causation’. Data can be segmented; further research can be conducted; more studies can be analysed. However, we can draw conclusions based on the available evidence, but I would be happy to amend my beliefs if the available data on this topic changed. Until that time, the present evidence strongly suggests a casual relationship between smoking tobacco and lung cancer, as well as other cancers.

      I praise you on your good health, and I apologise if this comment is overly long or I was previously aggressive. Unfortunately, I have known closely people have passed away from cancer, after lifetimes of smoking.

      It is better to deal with data, rather than anecdotes.

  4. junican
    February 27, 2015

    I guess that it would be best to leave the discussion at this point. I just thought that I would add a few thoughts. Thanks for taking the time to write at some length.

    I very much admire people who have moved over to ecigs because they have made their own decision and ‘helped themselves’. What I hate is the use of force against smokers. The General Smoking Ban is an abomination in that it forced publicans and others to become snitches and unpaid enforcers. It set a precedent which other prohibitionists will exploit mercilessly in due course (think alcohol, fast food).

    I wish you well, Dr Masters.

    • Anthony Masters
      February 27, 2015

      I should highlight, in line with the title of my blog, that I too am against the use of force against smokers.

  5. Pingback: A Bit of an Altercation with an Anti-smoking Vaper | Bolton Smokers Club

  6. magnetic01
    February 27, 2015

    Anthony, I’d just like to provide an historical context for antismoking that you (and most) are probably not aware of.

    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 WWII 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 at the time 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.
    http://www.americanheritage.com/content/thank-you-not-smoking
    http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19981129&slug=2786034

  7. magnetic01
    February 27, 2015

    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 http://www.rampant-antismoking.com ). 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, university campuses where there is not even any concocted “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.

  8. magnetic01
    February 27, 2015

    Anthony, I’d just like to provide an historical context for antismoking that you (and most) are probably? not aware of.

    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 WWII 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.

    http://www.americanheritage.com/content/thank-you-not-smoking

    “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.
    [can’t provide direct link or comment will not post]

  9. magnetic01
    February 27, 2015

    Prohibition by “salami slices”, i.e., tobacco control advocates (i.e., prohibitionists) ARE clandestine extremists with agendas which abandon all proportionality in the formulation of policy. 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).

  10. magnetic01
    February 27, 2015

    Antismoking hysteria was rife in America in the late-1800s/early-1900s. There were all sorts of deranged, baseless claims made about the “detrimental effects of smoking”. There was also a plethora of snake-oil “cures” for “saving the slaves to tobacco”. Below are some of the snake oil “cures” offered in America. They’re all from the mid-1800s to early-1900s.

    “Narcoti-Cure” 1895.
    “Coca Bola”
    “Hindoo”
    “No-To-Bac” (Sterling Remedy Co.) late-1800s
    “Tobacco Redeemer” (Newell Pharmacal)
    “Baco Curo” late-1800s

    Then there was Ballou’s Tobacco Disinclinator from 1867
    Interestingly it made these claims, without basis, back in 1867:
    “That the use of Tobacco shortens human life from Five to Twenty years, decreases manly vigor in the same ratio, causes a majority of the sudden deaths attributed to heart disease, and renders the subject more susceptible and less able to withstand any disease, is the opinion of our most eminent physicians. How shall we rid ourselves of this accursed habit, and prevent the uninitiated from falling into it? …..”
    http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/cph.3c02485/

    That sounds exactly like contemporary antismoking. And note the standard prohibitionist refrain that we now hear incessantly – “How shall we rid ourselves of this accursed habit, and prevent the uninitiated from falling into it”?

  11. magnetic01
    February 27, 2015

    The Nazi “war on tobacco”, an extension of American eugenics:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2352989/pdf/bmj00571-0040.pdf

    It’s America that popularized eugenics. The Germans and Hitler were students of American eugenics. Some insight into the connection between American eugenics – California in particular – and German eugenics.
    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/11/09/ING9C2QSKB1.DTL

    American eugenics is terribly under researched. It’s one of the main reasons why we’re right back to the medical establishment perversely dominating the definition of “health” and venturing into destructive social-engineering. It’s an insanity revisited. Adding to the confusion is that the above link, one of the rare analyses of America eugenics, makes no mention that eugenics was/is anti-tobacco/alcohol (i.e., prohibitionist).

    • Anthony Masters
      February 27, 2015

      I’m afraid you have been brought here under false pretences. I am neither an “anti-smoker” nor a vaper. I have commented to that effect on that article, but apparently you have missed this.

      If the relevance of your loquacious comments to my blog were to insinuate that I am a prohibitionist, a eugenicist and a Nazi, then I inform you I am against prohibitions (as could have been divined from actually reading my blog or even just its title), I am a humanist and I am a libertarian conservative. I find the implication that I am part of an “anti-smoking hysteria” absurd, and the consequential statements to be grotesque.

      If this was even a slither of your intention, I demand that you immediately retract.

      • magnetic01
        February 27, 2015

        Anthony, apologies if you’ve misunderstood the intent of my posts. I don’t believe you’re any of those things (eugenicist, prohibitionist). I’m aware that you’re not an antismoker (I linked from the Bolton Smokers blog, seeing your comment there). I simply provided some information that you might not be aware of (maybe you are?) and that you might find of interest when considering smoking/vaping issues. Most are not aware that antismoking has a long, sordid history. My comments were not an attempt to evaluate you or your beliefs whatsoever but are only the provision of historical information – nothing more.

      • Anthony Masters
        February 27, 2015

        I apologise if my first reply was too direct.

        Campaigns to annihilate entire activities typically have long and painful histories. I favour persuasion over force, and I hope this is clear in my writing.

  12. magnetic01
    February 27, 2015

    Anthony, you might find the “comments section” here of interest:

    https://cfrankdavis.wordpress.com/2015/02/27/they-never-stop-do-they/#comment-112993

  13. magnetic01
    February 27, 2015

    Anthony, you might also find this thread and comments of interest:
    http://dickpuddlecote.blogspot.com.au/2015/02/the-framework-convention-on-cake-control.html

  14. Pingback: Waiting for Godot | In Defence of Liberty

Comments are closed.

Information

This entry was posted on February 24, 2015 by in National Politics and tagged , .
%d bloggers like this: