Simon Chapman admits vaping safer than cigarettes

Listen to anti-tobacco activist Simon Chapman talking vaping. At about 27:50 he describes research into vaping – in particular he refers to a recent British study that shows that vaping is the better quit method over cold-turkey, and replacement therapies. He then tries to downplay that result – we have covered that issue here before.

But then – listen carefully at 29.36. The other guest suggests that vaping cannot possible be more harmful than consuming tobacco, and Chapman agrees. Yet he still doesn’t want tobacco consumers to substitute to what he has now acknowledged to be a safer substitute. Simply astonishing – vaping is safer than cigarettes, and more likely to result in quitting behaviour than the alternatives, but it still shouldn’t be allowed.

Mind you, without big tobacco Chapman would have get a proper job or find another target. Being a nanny-stater is good “work” if you can get it, so it is unsurprising he is trying to string this gig along for as long as possible.

This entry was posted in Hypocrisy of progressives. Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to Simon Chapman admits vaping safer than cigarettes

  1. Leigh Lowe

    Vaping?
    Is that inhaling paint fumes?
    I’ve bean doin it four a wile now and I think is O k.

  2. Leo G

    So it seems “vaping” must be vapid before the likes of Chapman can accept it. I always suspected that such activists were never genuinely concerned about the health impacts of smoking.

  3. TerjeP

    The war on vaping makes no sense at all. I swear the proponents of a ban use a form of logic from some alien planet.

  4. manalive

    Fully informed adults have a natural entitlement to do whatever they like to their own bodies.
    However, since we now have an irreversible public health policy, fully informed people who deliberately damage their own health in any way (by tobacco smoking, bad eating habits or inactivity etc.) should not receive waiting list priority for remedial cardiac surgery and the like as they currently do.

  5. manalive

    Just to clarify my last comment, non-urgent cases on waiting lists should be treated in turn.

  6. rebel with cause

    What’s a nanny-state type when they don’t give a rats about the people they are meant to be helping?

    Banning e-cigs has a real human cost. I know people who have had real success getting off the fags through vaping. People who have tried many, many times to quit via other methods. People with children and grandchildren who would really love to give up smoking. Decent, hard-working Australians who must illegally import e-cigs from New Zealand or the US because of this idiocy.

  7. Manalive, that’s a poor effort:

    Fully informed adults have a natural entitlement to do whatever they like to their own bodies.

    should not receive waiting list priority for remedial cardiac surgery and the like as they currently do.

    Surely that’s between the surgeon/anaesthetist and the patient, not the State?

  8. Tel

    Winston, it’s part of a broader principle that state funded medical care should only be available to perfectly healthy people.

  9. Infidel Tiger

    Healthways in WA, which is the taxpayer funded outfit formed to sponsor sporting clubs which were no longer viable after tobacco advertising and consumption was banned, have declared that unless the ban is extended to e-cigarettes they will be pulling their our money from the clubs.

    How the hell did we get to a situation of being ruled by unelected pressure groups and bureaucrats?

  10. Diogenes

    should not receive waiting list priority for remedial cardiac surgery and the like as they currently do..

    And those that damage their knees , hips, shoulders, elbows, hands and ankles playing sport should go to the back of the line for seeing orthopaedic surgeons as well. In my staff room this year we have lost more time to sports injuries(and the repair thereof) than we have to all other causes combined,

  11. manalive

    Manalive, that’s a poor effort …

    You didn’t like it Winston?
    Oh what rotten luck.

  12. Mique

    Tel, it’s part of a broader principle that state funded medical care should only be available to New Class wankers with “approved” life styles.

  13. manalive

    There seems to be a degree if ignorance of how the public health system (like it or not) works in the case of elective surgery.
    I’m simply arguing for equity in treatment.

    An expert panel on waiting list management in Victoria in 2012 recommended:
    The elective surgery access policy was recently amended to include new ‘treat in turn’ requirements, consistent with the Victorian Government’s ‘first on, first off’ policy. The literature indicates that the best way to ensure that all patients wait the shortest average time is to treat each patient strictly in turn. In reality, a proportion of patients must be designated ‘urgent’. However, the majority of remaining patients should, to the extent possible, be treated in turn within their urgency category. Treating the majority of patients in turn improves patient flow, and leads to decreased variation and an overall reduction in the average waiting time.

    As far as I know this policy has not been adopted. I’m not sure what applies in other states.
    And some elective surgery is performed in public hospitals on privately insured people depending on the procedure, your level of cover, the gap etc. and where you live; government policy mandates that all patients must be treated on an equal basis.

  14. .

    How the hell did we get to a situation of being ruled by unelected pressure groups and bureaucrats?

    The first step to this situation was acceptance of middle class welfare.

    Those cutting the cheques always had an agenda.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>