Vaping and ‘The Man’

Back in the day, people referred to working for ‘The Man’.  This meant working for the government, the system, doing what you’re told, being a ‘good citizen’, complying.  Today, we have to decide exactly who the man is.  In the case of vaping, are we to be controlled and regulated by the World Health Organisation, or the British Government?  Both seem to be manifestations of ‘The Man’, but they say completely different things, when it comes to vaping.

The position of the UK Government is that vaping saves lives.  It follows, in essence, the science.  All of the science shows that vaping is 95% less harmful than smoking tobacco.  This has been said many times, by the Royal College of Physicians, the Royal College of Nursing, Public Health England, and others.   So the policy is a ‘nudge’ policy, nudging people in the direction of ‘harm reduction’.  Many people find it extremely difficult to stop smoking, as we all know, and it is surely much better for such people to vape.  That is what the science says.

vaping saving lives

But then, there’s politics.

The World Health Organisation is politically corrupt.  That is not to say that it takes money from the tobacco industry to enact policies that benefit the tobacco industry and hurt the vaping industry.  It may do that, I don’t know.  But whether it takes money directly, or the tobacco industry uses its massive power and influence in a more surreptitious, sneaky way, the fact is that the World Health Organisation is knowingly promoting policies that hurt, that damage public health.  It disguises this corruption by saying that people should not ‘reduce’ the harm (by vaping or otherwise), but should stop completely any habit that involves ingesting nicotine.

There are many problems with this.  Firstly, most smokers can’t simply stop, just like that.  So, they need time to rid themselves of their nicotine addiction.  They need to ween themselves off.  Is it better to tell these people that they either stop ingesting nicotine completely, immediately, or they are a ‘failure’?  It is surely better to pass on the message that they can still have their nicotine, to which they are addicted, but in a much less harmful way.

And this leads us to the second problem with the WHO philosophy.  The problem with smoking is NOT nicotine.  Nicotine itself is a relatively harmless product, much like caffeine.  It raises your metabolism, sharpens your thinking and even helps stave off dementia.   The problem with nicotine is not in the product itself, but with the addictive nature of it, again like caffein.  Nicotine is the second most addictive substance known to mankind (most addictive is crack cocaine).  But the thing that does the damage to human health is all of the stuff tobacco companies put in cigarettes (many of which are known carcinogens) to make the nicotine more ‘assimilable’ – that is, to make your body ingest the nicotine quicker, more efficiently…But then, as harmful as tobacco is, per se, the real harm comes when you burn it.  Setting anything on fire and ingesting the fumes, is not going to do you much good!  

Why, then, why ON EARTH, is the WHO denouncing a product that will reduce the harm of nicotine addiction?

Because it is corrupt.