Why 2 million UK vapers is a bad thing

[darkmenace]

The Real Reason Electronic Cigarettes Need to be Banned | Controversiality

All down to money - not exactly news, but the 2 million mark is going to make politicos look at the lost tobacco revenues.

 

[Anjaffm]

Excellent find indeed!
And yes, that article may be sarcastic. But the author is speaking the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

The feel of the vapour, the ‘throat hit,’ the taste, the action. They’re all there and so good that electronic cigarettes are a recreational hobby in their own right. It’s perfectly possible for smokers to give up nicotine completely with their help, but the experience is just so good that many ‘vapers’ simply don’t want to.

This, of course, reduces the risk of relapse and further boosts the effectiveness of e-cigs.

A spokesman for ASH said this morning that by discouraging their use, “We’re really condemning people to death who might otherwise have lived.”

And therein lies the problem.

People are going to live longer. A lot longer.

There’s already a pensions crisis in the UK, but that is only half of the issue.

Read the source. It is worth it.

The only feasible answer is to restrict the types of electronic cigarettes available to pre-made disposables and ban all others.

We are seeing it, here in Europe. Aren't we?

/edit:
They are referring to this very positive article in the BBC (UK) of 27 Apr 2014:
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-27161965

 

[DrMA]

It's about time somebody had the courage to admit that the net financial impact of smoking on society is actually quite positive. Decades of ANTZ propaganda have entrenched the meme of "societal costs" associated with smoking, but it's all been a bald face lie. The real cost they can't afford is a society without smokers, and every stakeholder in the Government - Healthcare - tobacco Control Industry complex is terrified of the possibility that ecigs might just bring about this scenario in very short order.

 

[Barbara21]

Great article and thanks to the OP for posting it.

Anyone else reminded of Jonathan Swift's 'A Modest Proposal'? That's the first thing that struck me about the article.

 

[rolygate]

Good article, some minor inaccuracies.

The smoking prevalence rate has been static around 20%, not 30%. It fell steadily till 2008 when it stalled out at 20%.

 

[Nate760]

It's about time somebody had the courage to admit that the net financial impact of smoking on society is actually quite positive. Decades of ANTZ propaganda have entrenched the meme of "societal costs" associated with smoking, but it's all been a bald face lie. The real cost they can't afford is a society without smokers, and every stakeholder in the Government - Healthcare - Tobacco Control Industry complex is terrified of the possibility that ecigs might just bring about this scenario in very short order.

Yes. The other big lie, of course, is the ridiculous charade wherein the government and the tobacco industry pretend to be bitter adversaries, when in fact the former is more than happy to protect the latter from competition as long as they're paid a sufficient amount of protection money. When the mob does it, it's called "racketeering." When the government does it, it's called "public health."

 

[NorthOfAtlanta]

Good article, some minor inaccuracies.

The smoking prevalence rate has been static around 20%, not 30%. It fell steadily till 2008 when it stalled out at 20%.

Whats 10% among friends, I mean look at the fiction that the FDA, WHO, MHRA, BP and their minions spread.