toadalone >Patrick Barry
08 October 2013 11:13pm
What was the argument for having eCigs a medical product?
Errrrr.... I can't remember!
So much crap has been piled onto the debate since the original proposal for the TPD (Tobacco Products Directive, or, as I now like to call it after reading this thread, Taco Products Directive) amendment that I can't remember what the original rationale was - if there was one. I suspect it went something like this:
1. People are inhaling something in a way that looks like smoking.
2. EEEEK! It must be bad for them.
3. Definitely is - they're inhaling NICOTINE, everyone knows that gives you Cancer(TM) (* NOTE *).
4. What are we going to do about it?
5. Did I mention, they're enjoying it as well?
6. Then we've definitely got to do something. Can't have people enjoying Drugs(TM). What can we do?
7. Er, it's a round hole, we haven't come across one of those before.
8. Well, we've got a square peg (pharmaceutical licensing).
9. But it's a square peg, it won't go in a round hole.
10. Yes it will, we just need to make up some arguments after the fact to ram it in. Round up the usual Tobacco Control suspects, shout "Nicotine! Cancer! Children! Flavours! Gateway Drug!" at them to get them excited, poke them with sticks a little bit, and before you can say "fix-up" we'll have stacks of "academic research" proving that e-cigs give you cancer just if you look at them, corrupt children, deplete the ozone layer, give you acne, and strangle baby wombats when they think no-one's looking. And that medicinal licensing is the only way to stop this.
* NOTE *: The fact that nicotine causes cancer is an interesting fact. It's what is known as an Untrue Fact. Some people call this kind of fact by other names, such as Bollocks, Total and Utter Bull...., or You're Totally Making This Up Aren't You? Surprisingly, almost half of UK GPs think that it's a True fact, though.
