- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 66
EU US Senators warn EU that TDP violates international trade rules, would harm trade relations with US.
- Thread starter Bill Godshall
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Not sure this helps our cause. Those guys want to keep stinkies going.
Interesting. More pressure brought to bear on the EU there.
I don't think it will have a critical effect because the committees responsible for the TPD (the Health [Health and Consumer Directorate] and ENVI committees) appeared unwilling to even listen to the EU JURI (law) committee telling them that it wouldn't fly in court.
The various pressures do add up though, and it will be interesting to see what finally emerges from the TPD amendments negotiations. It looks as if this is so complex now that the TPD vote may be delayed until the next session. That would be nice. What I fear is a quick-fix agreement that classifies ecigs as a tobacco product, with no regulations included at the date of the vote. This will allow the TPD to pass, along with an easy route to force through a de facto ban fairly soon afterward.
I don't think it will have a critical effect because the committees responsible for the TPD (the Health [Health and Consumer Directorate] and ENVI committees) appeared unwilling to even listen to the EU JURI (law) committee telling them that it wouldn't fly in court.
The various pressures do add up though, and it will be interesting to see what finally emerges from the TPD amendments negotiations. It looks as if this is so complex now that the TPD vote may be delayed until the next session. That would be nice. What I fear is a quick-fix agreement that classifies ecigs as a tobacco product, with no regulations included at the date of the vote. This will allow the TPD to pass, along with an easy route to force through a de facto ban fairly soon afterward.
I agree with BerylAnna. This will not help our cause, because it's coming from an eminently smearable direction:
1. It's a southern US Senator. Now, this Senator might well be speaking on principled, well-reasoned grounds. It doesn't matter. The No.1 preferred tactic of accusing the speaker of being a mindless mouthpiece/paid shill for Big Tobacco will work even better than usual here.
2. The legal avenue used for the objection is an international free trade treaty. Not a popular way to influence more local policy. Legal, and effective, but not popular. Rinse and repeat the "in the pay of Big Tobacco" mantra.
3. The objection comes from outside the EU. "American tobacco lobbyists want to kill Europe's CHEEEELDRENNNN!". Here we also face the "impugning our sovereignty" technique.
And the wonderfully effective thing about these smear tactics is that the smeared substance is infectious! If you can convince people that this US Senator is a Big Tobacco Shill/Corporate Lobbyist/Foreigner who wants to kill our CHEELDREN, then you can argue:
a) He opposes the EU TPD amendment
b) These other people (e.g. CASAA, you, me) also oppose it (for different reasons, but let's skim over that...)
c) Therefore these other people are also Big Tobacco Shills/Corporate Lobbyists etc!
I wish we could stop this amendment, not by finding loopholes or slightly off-topic legal mechanisms, but on the simple, germane grounds that it's WRONG. It's based on bad science and propaganda. Its own logic is deeply twisted and confused, because it's a fruit of the anti-nicotine lobby's aim to wipe out all nicotine usage worldwide, irrespective of the actual health risks of nicotine, and irrespective of the cost.
Because this aim doesn't dare show its true face, what we get and get to see is the deep illogic of this proposed amendment.
Traditional tobacco products, which are proven to kill people (though not through nicotine), and which should be the prime target of any genuine concern about smoking and health, happen to be entrenched and politically untouchable. Tax them, ban their use in certain places, sure: but campaigners know that banning them outright, or subjecting them to the kind of pharmaceutical cost/benefit analysis proposed for e-cigarettes (an effective ban) is a non-starter.
So how about NRT products, which contain nicotine? These, too, are entrenched, and untouchable. They're licensed as effective pharmaceuticals (even though, in fact, they're not effective). The nicotine they contain is Good Nicotine, unlike the Bad Nicotine in cigarettes and e-cigarettes. This nicotine is Good Nicotine, because it's present in careful, scientifically controlled doses (unlike e-cigarettes, which contain nicotine in carefully, scientifically controlled doses, and allow self-dosing by means of a quick-feedback delivery method). It's Good Nicotine, because NRT products are only ever used in a rationed, controlled dosage, under the constant supervision of a medical professional (even though this is not true). It's Good Nicotine, because, in a StAugustinian manner, it can only be used by nicotine addicts who want to stop using nicotine, and who eventually do (even though it is not true). It's Good Nicotine because it costs a fortune, and is no fun whatsoever to use (here, surprisingly, we find something that's actually true). It's Good Nicotine, because the special metaphysical ingredient in it actually makes smokers give up smoking, and then give up NRT, easily and painlessly (even though this is about as Not True as you can get). It's Good Nicotine, because... the pharmaceutical companies somehow transubstantiate it, like a priest at Mass, driving all the base Big Tobacco and addiction evil out of it, and turning it into pure divine Medicine.
So campaigners are in a bit of a bind. Nicotine addiction, as they (and of course we all) know, is the ultimate scourge of humanity. A species of addiction that goes so far beyond any other evil that it can hardly even be talked about. One microgram of this substance from Hell will suck out your soul, without you even knowing it. And the terrifying thing is that while you may sound like a rational human being, capable of self-determination based on your genuine experience, once Nicotine has you you are in fact only an empty shell, a vehicle for the interests of Big Tobacco. You are Borg. Anything you might say, as an individual, must be discounted. Your experiences, your choices and decisions are not worth listening to: because it's only the Addiction talking. There is no salvation from this. You will never regain your full humanity. You must deliver yourself over to the priests of anti-nicotine. You'll still be an empty shell, with a head full of lies. But it'll be their lies, which are Good Lies.
And so the frustrating thing, for the anti-nicotine priesthood, is that nicotine, in its most widespread forms (traditional tobacco products and NRTs), simply can't be banned. It's not politically possible. So they jump on the small specimens, the slow animals at the back of the herd; the young ones, new on the global scene, which don't have protection from vast vested interests: smokeless tobacco products, and e-cigarettes. Because that's the only "win" that's within their reach. Actual harm caused is an irrelevant measure. Possible public health benefits are an irrelevant factor. Truth is irrelevant: what matters is the "message" e-cigarettes emanate about smoking. (Because these "messages" are powered by Nicotine, they can warp and immediately take over the mind of any person - especially children - in a 20km radius).
It's pure politics. It's full of lies. And lies to hide the lies. I've had a few replies from my MEPs, saying that they want to consider the evidence. I'm trying to find a way to persuade them to be extremely careful when reading any "evidence" on this subject. Two things I'm considering bring to their attention:
German cancer research centre lies about lipid pneumonia
American Cancer Society opposes ban on e-cig sales to minors
And a great summary:
Opposition - TobaccoControl Tactics
1. It's a southern US Senator. Now, this Senator might well be speaking on principled, well-reasoned grounds. It doesn't matter. The No.1 preferred tactic of accusing the speaker of being a mindless mouthpiece/paid shill for Big Tobacco will work even better than usual here.
2. The legal avenue used for the objection is an international free trade treaty. Not a popular way to influence more local policy. Legal, and effective, but not popular. Rinse and repeat the "in the pay of Big Tobacco" mantra.
3. The objection comes from outside the EU. "American tobacco lobbyists want to kill Europe's CHEEEELDRENNNN!". Here we also face the "impugning our sovereignty" technique.
And the wonderfully effective thing about these smear tactics is that the smeared substance is infectious! If you can convince people that this US Senator is a Big Tobacco Shill/Corporate Lobbyist/Foreigner who wants to kill our CHEELDREN, then you can argue:
a) He opposes the EU TPD amendment
b) These other people (e.g. CASAA, you, me) also oppose it (for different reasons, but let's skim over that...)
c) Therefore these other people are also Big Tobacco Shills/Corporate Lobbyists etc!
I wish we could stop this amendment, not by finding loopholes or slightly off-topic legal mechanisms, but on the simple, germane grounds that it's WRONG. It's based on bad science and propaganda. Its own logic is deeply twisted and confused, because it's a fruit of the anti-nicotine lobby's aim to wipe out all nicotine usage worldwide, irrespective of the actual health risks of nicotine, and irrespective of the cost.
Because this aim doesn't dare show its true face, what we get and get to see is the deep illogic of this proposed amendment.
Traditional tobacco products, which are proven to kill people (though not through nicotine), and which should be the prime target of any genuine concern about smoking and health, happen to be entrenched and politically untouchable. Tax them, ban their use in certain places, sure: but campaigners know that banning them outright, or subjecting them to the kind of pharmaceutical cost/benefit analysis proposed for e-cigarettes (an effective ban) is a non-starter.
So how about NRT products, which contain nicotine? These, too, are entrenched, and untouchable. They're licensed as effective pharmaceuticals (even though, in fact, they're not effective). The nicotine they contain is Good Nicotine, unlike the Bad Nicotine in cigarettes and e-cigarettes. This nicotine is Good Nicotine, because it's present in careful, scientifically controlled doses (unlike e-cigarettes, which contain nicotine in carefully, scientifically controlled doses, and allow self-dosing by means of a quick-feedback delivery method). It's Good Nicotine, because NRT products are only ever used in a rationed, controlled dosage, under the constant supervision of a medical professional (even though this is not true). It's Good Nicotine, because, in a StAugustinian manner, it can only be used by nicotine addicts who want to stop using nicotine, and who eventually do (even though it is not true). It's Good Nicotine because it costs a fortune, and is no fun whatsoever to use (here, surprisingly, we find something that's actually true). It's Good Nicotine, because the special metaphysical ingredient in it actually makes smokers give up smoking, and then give up NRT, easily and painlessly (even though this is about as Not True as you can get). It's Good Nicotine, because... the pharmaceutical companies somehow transubstantiate it, like a priest at Mass, driving all the base Big Tobacco and addiction evil out of it, and turning it into pure divine Medicine.
So campaigners are in a bit of a bind. Nicotine addiction, as they (and of course we all) know, is the ultimate scourge of humanity. A species of addiction that goes so far beyond any other evil that it can hardly even be talked about. One microgram of this substance from Hell will suck out your soul, without you even knowing it. And the terrifying thing is that while you may sound like a rational human being, capable of self-determination based on your genuine experience, once Nicotine has you you are in fact only an empty shell, a vehicle for the interests of Big Tobacco. You are Borg. Anything you might say, as an individual, must be discounted. Your experiences, your choices and decisions are not worth listening to: because it's only the Addiction talking. There is no salvation from this. You will never regain your full humanity. You must deliver yourself over to the priests of anti-nicotine. You'll still be an empty shell, with a head full of lies. But it'll be their lies, which are Good Lies.
And so the frustrating thing, for the anti-nicotine priesthood, is that nicotine, in its most widespread forms (traditional tobacco products and NRTs), simply can't be banned. It's not politically possible. So they jump on the small specimens, the slow animals at the back of the herd; the young ones, new on the global scene, which don't have protection from vast vested interests: smokeless tobacco products, and e-cigarettes. Because that's the only "win" that's within their reach. Actual harm caused is an irrelevant measure. Possible public health benefits are an irrelevant factor. Truth is irrelevant: what matters is the "message" e-cigarettes emanate about smoking. (Because these "messages" are powered by Nicotine, they can warp and immediately take over the mind of any person - especially children - in a 20km radius).
It's pure politics. It's full of lies. And lies to hide the lies. I've had a few replies from my MEPs, saying that they want to consider the evidence. I'm trying to find a way to persuade them to be extremely careful when reading any "evidence" on this subject. Two things I'm considering bring to their attention:
German cancer research centre lies about lipid pneumonia
American Cancer Society opposes ban on e-cig sales to minors
And a great summary:
Opposition - TobaccoControl Tactics
This might not help with anybody who is not ALREADY trained in science, but I think it's worth bringing up anyway, at least sometimes. In addition to 2 years of intensive college science including chemistry and physics, I have 1 year of college journalism, where I sat and listened to the future stars of information be taught that they don't need to know ANYTHING as long as they can find 2 people to interview who disagree with each other.
So, from both lawmakers and journalists, we hear "You can find studies that say anything, so there's no reason to look at them, we can't tell the difference between good studies and bad studies."
Corbett says the difference is who funded them (with the implication that ANTZ-funded studies are valid, of course.)
SCIENTISTS (Including Dr. Siegel I believe) say the difference is the bad studies HAVE FEWER DETAILS. They leave out context, or they don't tell you the brand, or whatever. That lack of context or details should be a red flag to whoever is looking at "the evidence."
Of course the other issue is bad math, like the quit-line study. I'd like to try to find the names of some scientists who don't have a horse in this race to nominate to provide critiques on the study methodologies and the math in a format that can be passed along to lawmakers. But I don't know who that would be. There have been articles about how a doctor in the U.S. is promoting "evidence-based" decision making to decide which medical procedures to approve vs. de-approve. For instance, he said evidence-based studies show that we should do a lot less back surgery, and a lot fewer cardiac bypasses -- more medications, more therapy, and IIRC maybe more stents. I'd be curious what he could say about THR.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
