Clive Bates is defining a new perspective / re-framing of the entire discussion:
[h=1]Turning the tables on public health – let’s talk about risk[/h]I love it when he says
ENOUGH!
The gloves come totally off, and he gets in-your-face
NOTE: Here's his "ENOUGH" on the Cease and desist: making false claims about the gateway effect
Put a burden of responsibility on them for the continuation of known risk & harm in stifling transition to lesser harm options: snus, vaping, etc.
I love it!
Here's the opening...
And the closer:
[h=1]Turning the tables on public health – let’s talk about risk[/h]I love it when he says
The gloves come totally off, and he gets in-your-face

NOTE: Here's his "ENOUGH" on the Cease and desist: making false claims about the gateway effect
Put a burden of responsibility on them for the continuation of known risk & harm in stifling transition to lesser harm options: snus, vaping, etc.
I love it!

Here's the opening...
I’ve had enough of the one-sided conversation about the risks associated with e-cigarettes… poisons, gateways, renormalisation, fires, explosions, MRSA, pneumonia, dual use, undermining tobacco control, nitrosamines, anti-freeze, particulates, heavy metals, dead dog, dead cat…. blah blah blah.
ENOUGH! The public health establishment is conspicuously failing to recognise the risks associated with its preferred policy responses to e-cigarettes: with not having e-cigarettes, with banning snus, with prohibiting vaping in public places, with confusing people about risks, with controlling everything. They carry on as if these risks are zero or somehow not their responsibility – but they are all plausible and all end in more smoking and more cigarette sales. We need to press them much more assertively:
- “do you accept these risks are plausible and can you see how and why they might arise?”
- “what evidence do you have regarding these risks?”
- “what make you so confident your policy ideas will not cause more harm than good?”
- “at what level of risk would you stop advocating these policies, or at least call for more evidence?”
For almost every policy idea there is for regulating harm reduction, there is a realistic risk that it will make things worse for health. For almost every theoretical risks from vaping, there is a more plausible theoretical benefit. Let’s consider the following:
And the closer:
So there you have it: it is time that the naysayers, ANTZs, bossy doctors, risk-averse regulators, prudes and prohibitionists were challenged much harder on the risks they create, the harms they cause and the protection for the cigarette industry that they provide. It wouldn’t be so bad if the risks they created were risks to their health, but they need to be more accountable for the risks they impose on others: it’s not them that bear the consequential harms arising from their misjudgements, ideological posturing and responsibility shirking.
Last edited: