The EU and the banning of E cigarettes.

karkus30

A shining example of how corporates utilise the state machine to squash competition.

Why on earth bad E. ciggies ? Apparently because it convinces more people to take up smoking. That's total rot. The reason people are using them is to get off dirty, harmful cigarettes in the first place.

It should make people consider why the EU feels it is necessary to make a regulation about something that is obviously better than cigarettes ? The fact is that the EU likes to expand its scope of power, to be all things to all people and it only takes powerful tobacco lobbyists to get the state mechanisms wheels turning. All that needs to be said 'think of the children' and the state marches into action against this scourge of the infants. One more competitor squashed by the tobacco lobbyists and a load of back slapping and self congratulatory applause for the caring, sharing EU.

Its the same thing that occurs worldwide. Companies like Standard Oil, Microsoft and Apple are stung by competitors for being monopolists and the state intervenes to make sure everybody else pays for the poor performance of the competitor.

johntheexpat

A puff piece?

That was intended as a pun, BTW

karkus30

You are a drag ;-)

MikeTV

Just suck it up.

EarthRod

I notice you have used electronic cigarettes as an excuse to yet again voice your anti-state opinions. However, leaving that aside.

Its estimated about 700,000 people die from tobacco-related illnesses every year in the EU with many others suffering from chronic illnesses.

The cost of this to healthcare is about £25 billion.

The EU, having carried out extensive research, feel that mint and chocolate flavoured cigarettes and electronic cigarettes and the packaging of these cigarettes are enticing people (especially young people) to take the first steps to smoking.

I am in total agreement with the EU on this one.

johntheexpat

I wonder what the cost of these people not dying is?

From my experience, most people who have died from smoking related illnesses die towards the end of, or soon after the end of their economically active lives.  

Take a real life example with no names.
A woman gives up smoking at 55, so stops paying large amounts of duty to the state.  Her health improves considerably, so her first heart attack is at 75. By which time emergency stent teams have been developed, so she is rushed to hospital and her life is saved.  Another stent is placed three years later.  A couple of years later she is diagnosed as needing two knee replacements.  In the run up to the first replacement, she falls and breaks a hip which is immediately replaced.  Six months later the first knee is replaced.

If she had continued smoking, she would probably have died in her sixties.
So, the state has lost out on a decade of cigarette duty, has paid out 25 years of pension, has spent goodness knows how much on cardiac care and orthopaedic care, plus the usual other treatments, for rheumatism and failing eyes plus a multitude of other age related niggles.

Now, I have no problems with all the costs, especially if  I get the same level of treatment in my dotage.  But due to the anti-smoking sentiment in today's society, there are eye wateringly large costs associated with it.
10 years of duty that weren't paid.
25 years of pension that have been paid, which wouldn't have been paid if she had continued smoking.
Two stents and the associated recovery costs.
One hip replacement
One knee replacement and another replacement soon.
On-going rheumatism and other treatments.

£25 billion is starting to look like small change, when the above costs are multiplied up over an ageing population.

Like I say, I have no problems with the costs, but it should be acknowledged.

karkus30

10/10

karkus30

Think of the children. Always emotive. Let people smoke if they want. They will die earlier and be less of a burden.

As it happens e.fags are used by those trying to get off the evil weed but have become direct competition for the tobacco industry that has invested heavily. Getting rid of chocolate and menthol is one more process that manufacturers can omit which saves them money.

The state can't stop interfering. The EU subsidises tobacco farmers ***. How can you subsidise and support that industry while banning a tobacco substitute ? Pretty obvious really.

MikeTV

On the issue itself (as opposed to the anti-statism), and as an e-cigarette user myself, if the government (either Westminster, or the EU) make the availability of e-cigarettes too difficult, the likelihood is that I will return to smoking.

The health risks associated with e-cigarettes are far lower than those associate with tobacco smoking, and for that reason alone, it would seem logical to make e-cigs more accessible than cigarettes, not less. And the legislation needs to be done consistently. If e-cigs are regulated in this way and require a prescription, and only available at pharmacies, then cigarettes should be too. Anything else doesn't make sense.

But that won't happen, because this is about big tobacco lobbying against a perceived threat to their monopolies. The suggestion that children will be drawn to using e-cigs is utterly ridiculous, and just tobacco industry propaganda.

Ed Selley

Genuine question- do you know of anyone who started smoking e-cigarettes who wasn't previously smoking the real deal? I know plenty of people that use them but to an individual, they all smoked normal cigarettes first. Is there any data for how many people are using them having never previously smoked?