Public Health and the charities have been using discrimination of smokers for years, as an excuse for ignoring the cigarette itself as the largest potential of health risk reduction.
If the product were the focus, in place of the ideological and moralist scold. We would see broad support for regulations to reduce health risks by reducing the most suspect toxins involved. The dilution of focus entitled by the 4000 and now the 10,000 and likely the 100,000 said to be "toxins" is only self service to consensus capitulation to the most obvious flaws in the "harm reduction" strategy.
We know we can reduce the tobacco specific carcinogens and by significant amounts, reduction of carcinogens and PAH is seemingly a no brainer. If Public health at very least, advocated for moderation in reducing the number of cigarettes one smokes they could precariously lay claim to some form of credibility in relation to their goals and ambitions.
What we see in place of a campaign to encourage smokers to reduce consumption by eliminating the cigarettes you light involuntarily is a promotion of the extremes of addiction, which likely results in higher personal consumption, by the implanted "unquestionable truth", the evidence supports that with reduced exposures the health risks would decline significantly. What we can not see currently is any explanation of a failure to consistency, beyond a; "who cares if they die its their own fault" consensus. Justification is found in a perverse sense of an application of punishment and Penance for their sins, by medical prescription no less?
If we controlled the manufacturing process by regulation, to reduce NAK and PAH as a matter of law, which is done in countries which demand it already. The products are currently exhibiting reduced risk by reduced exposures. Integrity and humanity which respects basic human rights principles, would dictate that policy be aligned with science and observation and more fundamentally with common sense in the target of your advocacy which logically does not currently exist.
If the fear of toxins is the strength of your advocacy and exists as an effect increasing fear in the public; By refusing to follow best practices of reduced risk by reduced exposures to the named secondary toxin exposures, your whole platform which demands "smoking bans to protect employees" falls flat, in a logical sense, fundamentally because the increased risk being mitigated by smoking bans and the unavoidable bigotry which is occurring, is a fault only of those who are demanding those huge concessions and financial loss, associated with the extremes of smoking bans, as any sort of intelligent solution or community respect.
If nicotine is taken from tobacco it makes no logical sense that the carcinogens that exist in the products that contain that nicotine could have a reduced concentration of Tobacco specific carcinogens. The same carcinogens and at the same level they are found in cigarettes are also pre-existing in any product which contains nicotine. The only difference being; when you burn tobacco the carcinogens are reduced by the burning and in significant amounts. So to claim the levels in an e-cig or in the chewing gum or incredibly in chewing tobacco are "safer" caries with it an obscene level of delusion in observation and the realm of possibilities even available. When you combine that thought with a battle cry that "there is no safe level of tobacco smoke" the hypocrisies abound.
It is obvious, or at least it should be obvious, that the cancer societies collecting billions of dollars over the years with markedly little progress in producing the promised "cures", and now "defeat of cancer", would be at a distinct disadvantage, if cigarettes actually were made safer and the risk was reduced in measurable amounts. Those who oppose such a development rail against safer cigarettes with the simple minded claims that; if smokers believed they were using a safer product more people would smoke.
The only conclusion anyone can draw from all of this is that public health covets increased fear much more than it seeks to reduce those fears or any levels of risk, and financial conflicts stand as the only viable explanation, for their crimes demanding an increased mortality risk by bigotry, as we see being promoted by the public health mafia.
And what is the most popular phrase among “Public Health” Lobby groups and their benefactor Politicians, purchasing the creation of our concerns and fears, with our own money?
“Follow us on Twitter”?
This brings forth a vision of mindless sheep following the ever familiar ass in front, to wherever it leads.
