Has ANYTHING changed in my vaping year?

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 "promoting smoking".

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 futile!

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?

Even 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!

Anyone 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 buttons, yes?

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.

I just 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 be rebellious.

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!


Jonathan BW

"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.

ASH '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.

The 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?