I read THIS article in the Guardian a year ago. This is what I wrote after that...
In the comments section, there follows the usual row
about the intention of the journalist/ smoking/not smoking/
snus/e-cigarettes and even one poor soul who accuses The Guardian of
God knows, I become very
discouraged by people's absolute idiocy. I fear it. If such passion is
aroused in people about smokers - such, can I say - such HATE - it shows
that any attempt to stop war, bring peace on earth is absolutely
How terrifying it is to me that in one generation, no, less
than a generation, a group of people can have so marginalised another
group of people, that the marginalised ones cannot even say what they
think. What could happen in our future when some other ideology -
"scientifically" backed of course - is offered to the people -
"civilised" people - in a way that inflames their self righteousness?
smokeless cigarettes that do not produce smoke - and are not made from
tobacco are said to be "dangerous" because they might entrap the young
into smoking - by offering flavours such as "chocolate". I've never
tried chocolate - but it might be fun, along with all the other
flavours. I assumed "chocolate" was for adults bored with the flavour
of their e-cigs and just wanting a change. Well I never! It's made to
trap children into smoking e-cigarettes - fancy that!
speaking up for vaping is accused of promoting a product, and seducing
children by chocolate flavours. Anyone speaking up for smokers is
accused of being paid by the tobacco companies, (and seducing children
by visibly smoking). Its all about the children! That pushes everyone's
If smokers smoked indoors in properly
ventilated smoking rooms, they wouldn't be out on the streets either
enticing others to smoke or offending others by doing so. And Vapers,
who do nothing harmful to others, should really be able to "smoke"
anywhere. The solution to vapers is having an e-cig that doesn't look
like a cigarette - mine are multicoloured and decorated by me - no one
could possibly mistake them for a cigarette.
want to add that I am not promoting any products, nor promoting smoking
and I have not been paid a fee by any tobacco company! I am speaking out
for those who smoke now and those who in the future WILL smoke just to
After trawling through the comments
section at the end of the article, which, as usual had all the same old
stuff regurgitated in it, I found this one which, for me, wins my top
prize. Thank you Jonathan BW whoever you are - you said it how I feel it
is - a cobweb of propaganda and twististics!
"This article may be propaganda funded by dubious organisations.
However, the Public Health industry relies just as heavily on propaganda, selective use of evidence and unethical funding.
'the anti-smoking charity' is funded largely by government: so we have
a lobbying organisation that masquerades as an independent charity
funded by taxation. That's worse, in my view, than 'think-tanks' funded
by big business.
The Department of Health and
the rest of the Public Health industry spends millions on research to
'prove' the number of smoking-related deaths and the cost to the NHS of
smoking; it does not invest in research into the cost of
sports-related injuries to the NHS (which is probably not far short of
that of smoking) nor the cost of disease caused by environmental
pollution; it does not research the cost of those conditions that
affect people who avoid 'smoking-related' illness (which almost
certainly outweighs the 'savings' to the NHS of reducing smoking) nor
the costs in financial and human terms of the closure of pubs and clubs
due to the smoking ban.
And the evidence that 'passive smoking' is harmful is desperately weak.
anti-smoking lobbyists are zealots on a crusade and just as dishonest
as any other vested interest in their assault on individual freedom."
Has anything changed in a year?