Cross Post: Colin Mendelsohn Australia’s looming e-cigarette ban robs smokers of a chance to quit

The Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration’s (TGA) recent interim decision to effectively ban nicotine-containing e-cigarettes is a harsh blow to smokers.

Australian smokers will be denied access to life-saving technology estimated to have helped millions of smokers to quit overseas.

Those most affected will be from lower socio-economic and disadvantaged groups, which have the highest smoking rates and are hardest hit by the cost of smoking.

Currently, nicotine-containing e-cigarettes are effectively prohibited in Australia. If the TGA’s interim decision is made final in March 2017, e-cigarette users (or vapers) in Australia will still not be able to buy or import nicotine for vaping without a prescription. Their only legal option would be to ask their doctor for a prescription, which doctors are generally reluctant to provide.

If the current ban remains, vapers will still be forced to source nicotine solutions (e-liquids) from an unregulated and illegal black market, placing them at even greater risk. Without regulation, the contents of nicotine refill bottles are a mystery, labels are inaccurate, childproof bottles are not mandated and there is no quality control or manufacturing standard.

Other users will buy large quantities of highly concentrated nicotine online and mix their e-liquid at home, with the risk of exposure to children and dosage errors.

Meanwhile, vapers who try to quit smoking are branded criminals. The fine for possessing nicotine for vaping in Queensland is up to A$9,108 and the government encourages the public to report any offenders. This fear will lead some vapers to return to smoking.

Out of step

The TGA’s decision also leaves Australia out of step with other similar countries. E-cigarettes with nicotine are legal and available, or are in the process of being legalised, in the United Kingdom, European Union, United States, Canada and New Zealand.

Their approach to smoking cessation products is in sharp contrast to policy in Australia, which has missed the opportunity to welcome e-cigarettes as a harm reduction tool, and a safer alternative, for smokers. Meanwhile, the most lethal nicotine products, cigarettes, are freely available in Australia and do not need TGA approval.

In making its decision, the TGA focussed on unsubstantiated risks, for example, e-cigarettes will increase smoking in young people and re-normalise smoking in the community.

However, comprehensive independent reports have found no evidence for these claims. In fact, e-cigarettes may be diverting young people from smoking and helping smoking rates decline.

The TGA also says there is little evidence of the safety of long-term nicotine exposure via e-cigarettes. However, this ignores 50 years of experience with snus (moist, oral tobacco used in Sweden) and 30 years of nicotine replacement products.

The TGA also overlooks the huge potential public health gains from using e-cigarettes, or vaping. Based on overseas experience, vaping can save the lives of hundreds of thousands of Australian smokers, making the risk-benefit balance very favourable. Smoking kills up to two out of three Australian smokers prematurely. So, it seems reasonable to tolerate a small amount of risk and uncertainty when such devastating harm can be reduced.

Same evidence, different conclusions

How is it possible researchers and policy makers are using the same evidence to come to vastly differing conclusions?

The TGA assessment appears clouded by a long-standing commitment to prohibition. Many tobacco activists and policy makers have followed a total abstinence approach for decades. In their view, anything that looks like a cigarette, is used like a cigarette or delivers nicotine cannot possibly be a good thing.

Harm minimisation supporters takes a more pragmatic view and understand some people cannot quit smoking or nicotine. E-cigarettes are a safer alternative, providing smokers with the nicotine to which they are addicted and the “smoking ritual”, without the smoke, tar, carbon monoxide and other toxic chemicals that cause almost all the harm.

E-cigarettes are not completely safe. Nothing is. However, even the most ardent opponents admit e-cigarettes are substantially safer than smoking.

Finding the regulatory sweetspot

While there are still unknowns, the available evidence and risk-benefit balance support a role for e-cigarettes with nicotine to help smokers quit.

The ideal compromise is balanced, proportionate regulation of nicotine-containing e-cigarettes under the existing Australian Consumer Law with careful monitoring. This would allow and encourage smokers to switch to e-cigarettes by making products legally available and accessible. Such an approach would also allow responsible advertising to adult smokers and permit retail display to facilitate access and awareness. Vaping would also be approved in most public places.

Secondly, regulations should minimise any potential public health risks such as harm to children, for example by restricting sale to under 18-year-olds, mandating child resistant containers for nicotine liquid refills, restricting use in some confined spaces such as in cars with children under 16 years, and setting quality and safety standards.

According to the UK Royal College of Physicians:

‘… It is important to promote the use of e-cigarettes … as widely as possible as a substitute for smoking.

Australia cannot afford to wait any longer.

The ConversationColin Mendelsohn is an Associate professor at UNSWThis article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

This entry was posted in Cross Post, Innovation, Take Nanny down. Bookmark the permalink.

46 Responses to Cross Post: Colin Mendelsohn Australia’s looming e-cigarette ban robs smokers of a chance to quit

  1. Bruce of Newcastle

    Colour me cynical that governments who make billions of dollars a year in excise might ban an alternative that would strip them of that revenue steam.

    I strongly suspect the number one reason why they don’t like e-cigs is they are effectively untaxable. One small bottle of AR grade nicotine would do for something like 20,000 normal cigs. That is over $12,000 in tax foregone. There is no possible way to tax a $100 bottle of nicotine that amount, it would be crazy, and impossible to enforce.

    Never stand between a government and a bucket of money.

  2. Rafe Champion

    RIP the clever country.

  3. Tel

    In making its decision, the TGA focussed on unsubstantiated risks, for example, e-cigarettes will increase smoking in young people and re-normalise smoking in the community.

    Ahhh, but you see the real risk is that they might lose control of the narrative… and that’s the most dangerous thing of all.

  4. Infidel Tiger

    Australia is a truly horrible country.

  5. Diogenes

    Calling Rabz to aisle 5 for a cleanup

  6. Leo G

    Is the TGA running a protection racket for Big Pharma:-
    – protecting profits from the treatment to tobacco-related illness; and
    – protecting the source of government subsidies for pharma products- the tobacco excise?
    It certainly doesn’t appear to be protecting the public interest.

  7. struth

    BoN gets it.

    Pfft.
    What has saving lives got to do with it?

    This is Auscorruptistan.
    Smokers pay lots of tax.
    Lots of tax.
    Humungous amounts of tax.
    Then they die early, costing the socialist health service less, (people gotta die of something that usually requires hospitalisation) and costing less in pension payouts.
    It is preferable for people to die the day before they are due for the old age pension.
    Smoking is a huge win for Australia.
    It is also interesting to note that Australia probably taxes smoking at a rate much higher than the comparative countries mentioned.
    I reckon I would be right about that without researching it.
    It’s a given.
    Follow the money.

  8. Some History

    Folk should be familiar with some of the history of the e-gizmo. When they first started getting use a few decades ago it was in dealing with smoking bans. Smokers would use e-gizmos where smoking was not permitted.

    In the years since, there have been more and more smoking bans, nastier smoker denormalization, and ever-increasing extortionate taxes on tobacco. There have been all sorts of shenanigans (much of it already seen in the demonizing of smoke/smoking/smokers) in demonizing e-gizmos, bundling them with tobacco. More recently, the louder aspects of the e-gizmo community decided that attempting resistance alongside smokers to the propaganda onslaught was futile. They decided to throw smokers under the bus, going it alone, promoting e-gizmos as an essentially quit-smoking aid. As such, the e-gizmoists started parroting the antismoking propaganda to advance their “cause”, including the nonsense of “nicotine addiction”. It’s pathetic.

    Before the takeover by prohibitionist nut cases, smoking was considered to have a strong psychological component(s). This consideration was jettisoned with the simple-minded, agenda-driven myth of “nicotine addiction”.

    Belief about Nicotine Modulates Subjective Craving and Insula Activity in Deprived Smokers
    These results suggest that belief about nicotine has a strong impact on subjective craving and insula responses related to both craving and learning in deprived smokers, providing insights into the complex nature of belief–drug interactions.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4942468/

  9. Indigo

    We are a nanny state and it is getting worse. Starting to approach a totalitarian stance. For the first time I have joined a political, paid a fee and made a donation. Who to? Not the libs, the Australian Conservatives. We have to join the fight against the progressives.

  10. Some History

    Antismoking is leftist class warfare.

    Over the last decade, I’ve kept an eye on smoking policies at holiday resorts. The antismoking trend began with 5-star resorts. Initially it was nonsmoking rooms that were offered. Then all rooms were made nonsmoking. Some resorts even declared the entire property nonsmoking.

    So there was a small percentage of 5-star resorts offering nonsmoking facilities; the percentage became greater and greater. We are now at the point where the vast majority of 5-star resorts are highly smoker unfriendly. And this has all occurred over a short time-frame, i.e., bandwagon effect. There are still some 5-star resorts that cater to some extent for smokers but these are now very few.
    The trend has trickled to 4-star resorts. There is now a growing proportion of these offering nonsmoking facilities on a par with 5-star resorts. There is even a small percentage of 3-star resorts offering nonsmoking facilities.

    What can be said of the circumstance is that antismoking is elitist. It is the wealthy (and the “educated”), primarily American, that pushed the trend in their 5-star sphere, i.e., snobbery/bigotry. Smoking has now been manufactured into a lower-class, “uneducated” activity. The wealthy have become [physical] health obsessed (just like earlier last century). These antismoking policies are a way of distancing the smoking riff-raff (even wealthy smokers that haven’t yet gotten with the “health program”), a way of avoiding “contamination” from the “unclean”. A very significant percentage of 4-star resorts and smaller percentage of 3-star resorts have followed suit (copycat, “trendy”).

    It’s sad to say that if you’re a smoker, you’d now be hard pressed to even find 3-star facilities (in numerous countries) that don’t have rabid antismoking policies.

  11. Senile Old Guy

    I don’t smoke but a situation where -cigs are banned and real-cigs are a legal product is insane.

  12. Some History

    The vast majority of cruise lines now have what could be termed anti-smoking/smoker policies. If you want to smoke onboard, it is a highly controlled/restricted behavior – hardly a holiday atmosphere for smokers.

    Although cruise lines came late to antismoking fanaticism, the deterioration has happened even more quickly on cruise ships. Up until only a few years ago, most cruise ships banned smoking only in most indoor public areas, particularly eateries. But then the cruise-line “health officers” got moving, tapped into GlobaLink for the most effective tricks/strategies, with the eradication agenda. Now on most cruise ships, smoking is also banned in state rooms and balconies, with only a few designated outdoor smoking areas. Smoking is still permitted in casinos, but only if the smoker is playing (spending money).

    The adoption of such draconian policies is made all the easier by antismoking complaints. Complaining/whining is not only an aspect of antismoking bigotry, it’s also an antismoking strategy. The antismoking bigots will go into smoke-permitted areas and complain – loudly and constantly – of the “terrible” smoke. Or they’ll lodge complaints with the front desk that they had to endure a whiff of tobacco smoke as they were walking along the deck that has almost ruined their entire holiday. Antismokers promote themselves as health and moral “superiors” that must be accommodated first and foremost (this mentality goes back centuries). The cruise lines themselves have become rabidly antismoking. Unfortunately, society (including cruise lines) cannot yet discern the perils of twisted fanaticism, and so they currently fully appease the neurotic antismoking bigots believing this to be “progress”.

    There are a number of “cruise blogs”. All of them have adopted the antismoking line. They occasionally will have an antismoking theme and out come the cruising antismokers (and/or antismoking astroturfers). Some of the most vile, bigoted comments come from cruising antismokers. They are well-versed in the propaganda; how smokers are ruining antismokers’ holidays and health. They even complain of thirdhand “smoke” getting into the crevices of furniture imperiling innocent antismokers. It’s an extraordinary mental mess.

    But the latest deterioration concerns e-gizmos…… this policy from the Sea Princess:
    “The use of electronic cigarettes is permitted in all areas onboard with the exception of dining areas and the Princess Theater. However, should a fellow passenger in the vicinity feel inconvenienced and complain, even after being told the difference between electronic cigarettes and real cigarettes, we will ask the passenger to refrain from smoking the electronic cigarette.”
    http://www.princess.com/learn/faq_answer/onboard/experience.jsp

    It’s all been put in the hands of the lowest common denominator. You can use the e-gizmo just about anywhere on board. But if anyone complains, even after the e-gizmo is explained to them, you have to put the gadget away like a good little boy/girl because only the complaining of stupid, bigoted people counts.

  13. Some History

    A fundamental problem that facilitates the expanding hysteria is the “health officer”. Health officers are all over the place. You’ll find them in corporations (including cruise lines, hotels). You’ll find them in local government. Health officers are lobbied by the typical antismoking groups (e.g., cancer society, heart foundation) and operate by the standard Public Health propaganda. Health officers then define their corporation’s position on smoking. And the standard position is antismoking. And by antismoking is meant the eradication of smoking, to not accommodate the smoking habit in any way. Whether these health officers are aware of it or not, they are in line with the WHO FCTC.

  14. Some History

    IEA (UK) report on the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control from 2000, 4 years before, 2004, most countries signed up to and ratified the WHO FCTC. Still relevant:
    https://iea.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/upldbook6pdf.pdf

  15. Dr Fred Lenin

    They should abolish tobacco and fore go the taxes ,they could increase the excise on alcohol by 20769per cent to make up loss of revenue deportation of all unemployed refugees would save heaps ,cutting pollies and PS wages in half would help , stopping borrowing money to give away as foreign aid too. That should cover the lost excise on tobacco. Every problem has a simple solution see?

  16. B Shaw

    We gave up smoking years ago; well, some of us did.
    What replaced the pleasure?

  17. I started vaping at the end of May last year after about 45 years of smoking. Haven’t touched a cig since.
    I import nicotine from New Zealand and mix it with the Vegetable Glycerine and flavours I buy locally.
    My lungs have cleared up, I can walk and jog without running out of puff in minutes and have saved a shitload of money.

    The biggest push to stop vaping is coming from Big Pharma who sell nicotine replacement products with heavy government subsidies.
    The next big push is from Big Tobacco and governments like California who made a deal some years ago after Big Tobacco was sued for billions of dollars. The deal was that Big Tobacco would pay a percentage of turnover for a couple of decades instead of going out of business.
    States like California expected this guaranteed income to stream in regularly so proceeded to spend it even before receiving it. But when vaping took off (quite big in the US) tobacco sales declined much faster than the long term average, eating into States revenue. Then came the push to ban.

    So, as ALWAYS, follow the money.

  18. Tim Neilson

    BoN is of course correct. People’s health is a trivial issue compared with the vast pillaging with sanctimony that tobacco excises facilitate.

    But there’s a more deep seated psychological reason why the health naz!s want to ban vaping.

    If people are allowed to vape, they’ll be enjoying themselves in a way that the health Naz!s disapprove of, without suffering any adverse consequences.

    Bully, shame, punish, inflict suffering, establish and exercise micro-managerial control with punitive sanctions… that’s the modus operandi of the health naz!s, and they aren’t going to be deprived of their perverse self-gratification without one hell of a fight, no matter how much damage they cause to other people’s health in doing so.

  19. Tim Neilson

    They should abolish tobacco and fore go the taxes ,they could increase the excise on alcohol by 20769per cent to make up loss of revenue
    Crikey Fred, prohibition and punitive taxes – have you got an evil twin brother who hijacked the first half of your post in search of a Greens preselection?

  20. Tezza

    This is a classic case where a Liberal National Government with any guiding principles (yes, I know, but try to imagine what I am driving at) would kick these regulators so hard they’d go into orbit.

    It is a bad decision at so many levels – health, regulatory burdens, libertarian principle.

    I’ll add this example to my very large file of why Turnbull’s Coalition has to be wiped out, and a decent centre right party created from the ruins.

  21. Gab

    The “evidence” for this eciggie ban is right up there with the “evidence” that CO2 causes catatropic weather events and temperature rises. So naturally the LNP is all on board.

  22. hzhousewife

    We gave up smoking years ago; well, some of us did.
    What replaced the pleasure?

    For many, food. The evidence is clear to see on the backsides of the nation.

  23. J.H.

    No IT, our Socialist bureaucracy is truly terrible….. The Australia I used to inhabit on the frontiers as a commercial fisherman…. Was fukin’ awesome.

    The cities and their bureaucracy finally caught up with us though. I knew it was over when regulation came to such an extent, that they put satellite tracking devices (vessel monitoring system VMS) on our trawlers. Computers and bureaucracy could now reach into every aspect of everyone’s lives.

    You could no longer escape them on the frontier.

    It’s the politics that are terrible, not the people or their enterprise.

  24. Rococo Liberal

    Some History

    Give it up, mate. You are fighting a losing battle. Smoking is awful. It gives you a minor buzz and something to do with your hands in return for diminished taste, smelly clothes, shortness of breath and a higher likelihood of contracting several diseases. So it is right that we ridicule smokers. They are making a silly choice in carrying on the habit.
    Many years ago, the majority of the adult population smoked, or least a very large minority. So maybe we didn’t notice the smell so much. We all expected to have a bit of a tobacco smell in our hair and clothes after a day at the office or a night out. But as the idea that smoking was silly habit took off the tolerance for smoking became weaker and weaker. And of course we in the upper reaches of society are more vain and so are likely to have given up smoking more quickly than the working classes. That is why 5 star resorts are all non-smoking these days (though I don’t know whether they are being forced to be so by law).
    I do agree with you that a lot of the propaganda put out by the anti-smoking lobby is self-righteous drivel. The whole argument against smoking is shot through with nanny-state nastiness that we should all abhor. But the point is that smoking is really odious to non-smokers but smoke free environments do not harm smokers. So now that the vast majority of people are non-smokers, it is going to be very hard to get them to really care about the fascistic methods of the anti-smoking lobby. The non-smokers are all pleased that just about all public venues are smoke-free. Yes, it would have been better if this was all achieved by society alone and not by qangos and governments, but the average punter doesn’t really care.
    I say this all as someone who smoked heavily for 20 years until the late 90s .

  25. JohnA

    The Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration’s (TGA) recent interim decision to effectively ban nicotine-containing e-cigarettes is a harsh blow to smokers.

    What a blow, eh? It really sucks!

    GD&R

  26. .

    Give it up, mate. You are fighting a losing battle. Smoking is awful. It gives you a minor buzz and something to do with your hands in return for diminished taste, smelly clothes, shortness of breath and a higher likelihood of contracting several diseases. So it is right that we ridicule smokers. They are making a silly choice in carrying on the habit.

    Nothing worse than an ex smoker.

  27. Tim Neilson

    Rococo Liberal
    #2296004, posted on February 14, 2017 at 3:08 pm
    Serious question – I’m not trying to be a smartarse. (just happens by accident.)
    Would you be in favour of allowing pubs, restaurants cafes etc. to decide for themselves whether they want to be smoke free or not, so that the market decides and people get what they actually want? (Which is highly likely to include lots of smoke free venues, I’m sure, but probably not 100% of venues.)

  28. Some History

    Hey, RL, you’re a typical pompous antismoking (ex-smoker) wanker spouting the standard antismoking slop. Further, it’s not new. Antismoking “superiority” has been going on as long as smoking has been about in the West…. 400 years. Domineering antismoking is not a good sign.

    BTW Don’t confuse non-smoking with anti-smoking. Antismokers are a [deranged] mentality unto themselves.

  29. Some History

    Which is highly likely to include lots of smoke free venues, I’m sure, but probably not 100% of venues.

    How dare you, Tim! Antismokers don’t do reason or “accommodation”. In the antismoking worldview, everywhere – indoors and out – must cater only for antismokers. Only antismokers are truly important, their nostrilitic “sensitivities”, neurotic proclivities, and dictatorial tendencies to be appeased always.

    Here’s the antismoker wet dream – the Godber Blueprint in sight. Already having severe antismoking legislation, Laguna Beach, California (where else), is contemplating going “all the way”. It’s proposing a complete ban on smoking – even in alleys (dumpsters might get sick from wisps of smoke). The only places where smoking will be permitted is in one’s vehicle and one’s home:

    Laguna Beach looks at banning smoking in all public places
    The list of places where Laguna Beach bans smoking is apparently getting longer.
    The city currently bans smoking at public parks and beaches and in restaurants, the Act V lot, elevators, public transportation vehicles, hospitals and other healthcare facilities.
    On Tuesday, the City Council supported extending the list to all public places — including alleys, bike paths, sidewalks, parking lots and plazas — as well as common areas of multi-unit residences.
    In a unanimous vote, the council directed staff to return with a draft ordinance. Electronic cigarettes and vaporizers would be treated as tobacco products under the new rules and be similarly banned in those areas..

    http://www.latimes.com/socal/daily-pilot/news/tn-dpt-me-0126-lb-smoking-20170125-story.html

    “One of the basic rights I have is to travel and be in any public area; another right I have is to breathe clean and non-toxic air,” said Councilman Steve Dicterow.

    The deluded, antismoking Councilman is implying that a whiff of smoke outdoors is “toxic”. It’s a straight out lie, a common practice for antismoking plops. It’s been indicated many times that antismokers have no grasp of even basic chemistry and the critical toxicological concept of “dosimetry” is entirely lost on the antismoker. What antismokers do well is snoot/fear/hate-mongering, lying, hysteria, bigotry, haughtiness, and spitefulness. It’s the antismoking mindset that’s toxic.

  30. Recent Historian

    I switched to e-cigs 2 months ago, MASSIVE health improvement, fitness improved immensely, BP back to normal, lung function improved, saving a fortune!!!

  31. .

    Good luck, the govvy. wants to ban e-cigs. How about that! You may become the “prodigal historian”.

  32. [Anon, just this once]

    I’ve been smoking a pipe for over 30 years. Not long ago I had a full health check (which work makes us do every few years for some reason).

    The doctor said to me:
    ” I’m going to write in your report that you should give up smoking, because if I don’t I’d get shot. But what I’ll say to you, but won’t write, is that as long as you only smoke a pipe and don’t do it too often, and your health signs stay the way they are, it’s no big deal. But if next time the health signs relevant to smoking have deteriorated I’ll tell you to give up and I’ll mean it.”

    First time I’ve experienced sanity on the subject. Mostly they say “give up” and when I demand evidence that pipe smoking is bad I get directed to reams of stuff about cigarettes.

    One of the signs of anti-nicotine monomania is a reluctance to differentiate between cigarettes and other means of nicotine consumption. Vaping is a work of Satan in the monomaniacs’ eyes precisely because there’s no evidence that it has any materially adverse effects. It threatens to undermine their crusade.

  33. Some History

    I switched to e-cigs 2 months ago, MASSIVE health improvement, fitness improved immensely, BP back to normal, lung function improved, saving a fortune!!!

    If the switch is your choice, wonderful.

    The Chinese are just beginning the antismoking tirade. The public isn’t yet in the thrall of antismoking hysteria and concomitant anxiety disorders. Here’s a guy warming up for the 2015 Beijing marathon….. with a cigarette:
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-34483448

    Here are the rules/manners for the 2011 Tokyo marathon. It includes “Refrain from smoking while running”
    http://sarahmarchildon.blogspot.com/2011/02/cigarettes-and-accidental-poetry.html

  34. Some History

    A half-marathon in the great Delhi smog (see gas mask pic):
    http://www.thejournal.ie/delhi-smog-3097599-Dec2016/

  35. Some History

    If we are to believe antismoking nut cases, any smoker, even a 20-year-old, shouldn’t be able to run more than, say, 11 12 metres without collapsing, grasping for air.

  36. struth

    There was a bloke who gave up smoking, drinking, bad food and loose women.
    He exercised too, and was really healthy right up until the day he shot himself.

  37. Some History

    Someone was permitted to publish a reasonable questioning of some Tobacco Control “evidence”, e.g., heart attack “miracles” following smoking bans, on the leftist media outlet – Slate. Slate is anti-tobacco, anti-Trump, climate change alarmism. Check out the comments section. It’s loaded with antismoking comments parroting the standard antismoking rhetoric. Watch the goalposts constantly shift.

    http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2017/02/secondhand_smoke_isn_t_as_bad_as_we_thought.html

    Frank Davis has opined on the article/comments:
    https://cfrankdavis.wordpress.com/2017/02/14/terrible-science-was-used-to-justify-smoking-bans/

  38. None

    Bruce is probably right.
    Look, I am an ex smoker. Nicotine is an addiction so you can’t fight an addiction to nicotine with more nicotine. The idea of nicotine e-cigarettes being life saving is hilarious. Nicotine is nicotine. The good news is that nicotine, despite being excessively addictive, also has totally mild, benign, miniscule withdrawal symptoms (akin to mild hunger pains) unlike heroine withdrawal or other such onerous addictions. It is dead easy to quit nicotine (all those Quit ads that show people moaning about how hard it is….blah blah are just more reasons for government to waste your money). Anyone with a drop of nous knows there are absolutely no benefits to smoking – all you do is feed your addiction, but given nicotine starts leaving your system the minute you finish your cigarette (until the withdrawal symptoms prompt you to light up another every 1-2 hours). All you need to do is get your head straight – smoking is just like licking the bottom of a dirty ashtray, you only keep smoking because you are addicted, but as the withdrawal symptoms are so miniscule, all you just need to do is not light up – withdrawal is only like very mild hunger pains which pass after a second or two – and are almost zilch after 24 hours -and whammo you are free. Having said that, who cares if you chose to smoke. If tobacco is legal there is no way you can ban nicotine-containing e-cigarettes for any reason other than you can’t get enough tax out of them, just as Bruce said.

  39. None

    Yeah sorry, just reading the news while typing that half-heartedly so rambled a bit. The short of it is this: there are more lies told about nicotine then about climate change.

  40. None

    If we are to believe antismoking nut cases, any smoker, even a 20-year-old, shouldn’t be able to run more than, say, 11 12 metres without collapsing, grasping for air.

    I regularly ran 10K while still a smoker.

  41. Some History

    there are more lies told about nicotine then about climate change.

    You’re doing a pretty good job yourself.

    Anyone with a drop of nous knows there are absolutely no benefits to smoking

    And the nitwit hits just keep on coming.

    smoking is just like licking the bottom of a dirty ashtray

    And you know this, how? Did/do you make it a habit of licking the bottom of dirty ashtrays? I don’t know of any smokers that have licked the bottom of dirty ashtrays. Rather, it seems a common pastime of antismokers; they’re the ones that typically make the “analogy”.

  42. Some History

    Yeah sorry, just reading the news while typing that half-heartedly so rambled a bit.

    Although there’s a fair bit of blather in your comment, I think your heart’s in the right place.

  43. Tim Neilson

    None,
    Read this.
    [Anon, just this once]
    #2296182, posted on February 14, 2017 at 5:12 pm
    Then re-read your own post of 4.01 am.
    I think you’ve proved Anon’s point in spades.

  44. None

    And you know this, how? Did/do you make it a habit of licking the bottom of dirty ashtrays? I don’t know of any smokers that have licked the bottom of dirty ashtrays. 

    Ask any smoker what their first cigarette tasted like. My first cig btw tasted like shit. Then ask why did they continue then?

  45. None

    Hey Tim. Try read my comments first before scoring an own goal. Thanks for playing.

Leave a Reply

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