| Subcribe via RSS



Norman Lamb: Doh!

 

Only a short while ago Norman Lamb MP was one of our best. He stood up, and spoke out, on principle against needless government intrusion. A true poster boy for all those liberals amongst us who object to the nanny state telling adults how to live our lives.

Back in 2008, when the the Labour government suggested hiding cigarettes behind shutters in shops, Norman was one of the first to speak out. As Shadow Health Minister he rightly stated :

“This is the nanny state going too far.”

And he didn’t stop there. He also said

“This will hit small businesses with added costs while there is no clear evidence that it will actually reduce the number of young people smoking.”

And indeed he said this:

“The Government is obsessed with headline-grabbing gimmicks instead of tackling the real problems. Buying tobacco for children must be made a criminal offence. Ministers also need to clamp down on the shockingly high amount of tobacco that is smuggled illegally into this country.”

Where is that man we wonder? Roll on to 2013 and, when in a position to actually have an impact on the excesses of the nanny state, low and behold he pops up in the Guardian saying:

“As a liberal I would always defend someone’s right to smoke, if that’s what they choose to do. But, given we’re dealing here with a product that kills between 80,000 and 100,000 people a year, I think it’s legitimate for government to seek to control the marketing of that deadly product…”

 

Well, Norman, nothing has changed since 2008. Cigarettes are bad for you. Sure. But no more than they were in 2008, when you were against the display ban. Adults should be treated as adults – even when you are in power.

If ever there was a policy that was nothing more than a “headline-grabbing gimmick” (your words), banning coloured boxes must surely be it? What happened to your concern about the impact of policy gimmicks on small businesses? And why choose this point to ignore the 500,000 voters who registered their opposition to this policy during the consultation? Back in 2008 your concern was rightly focused on the black-market and proxy purchasing. Why, when in power, choose to support a policy that will make it actually easier and cheaper for organised crime to counterfeit cigarettes? You were against the tobacco display ban – but it was introduced anyway – why not at least wait to measure the effectiveness of that policy (and the ban on tobacco vending machines) before arguing for yet more legislation?

Picture courtesy of "Hands Off Our Packs"

Picture courtesy of “Hands Off Our Packs”

You say that:

“I think it would be a legacy for this government to have legislated on something which would be a landmark public health reform and to be out there in front in Europe.”

Great. If that’s the case [or indeed if it is, as it seems, just the usual politician's desire to be "seen" to be doing something]  here are a few policies that may assist you in leaving a health legacy you can actually be proud of.

 

1. Clear the path for e-cigarettes. This revolution is leaving you behind. Hundreds of thousands are electing to choose this product – yet you waste your time on ruling what colour of boxes you think adults should look at – a campaign gimmick that is untried, untested and unwanted. If you want to be “out there in front of Europe” then let’s get as many e-cigarettes out there as possible. If you hadn’t noticed – they are working – unlike the tired, unimaginative and dangerous “more of the same” policies coming from those in tobacco control. Note that Chris Davies [Libdem] MEP seems to be way ahead of you [see “Politics at it should be done“]

2. Introduce a ban on proxy purchasing (your idea from 2008). Smoking is an adult pursuit. If your concern is children, then make it illegal to purchase cigarettes on behalf of minors.

3. And while you are at it, increase the penalties on those caught selling cigarettes to kids.

4. Act on counterfeiting. Fake cigarettes sell at half the price of UK duty paid cigarettes. Quite attractive to cash strapped youngsters don’t you think? They are sold to minors at school gates, car book sales and markets. They don’t ask for ID, and they don’t care who they sell to. Why not introduce some serious penalties for smuggling and counterfeiting?

That is just four for starters – and they really do start to look like a liberal legacy we can all be proud of.

PS: With great relief we note that education minister, David Laws, and the Home Office minister, Jeremy Browne are reported to remain firmly against this policy.

Seen elsewhere on this topic: “Norman Lamb:Perfect Example of the Genre” and “Open Minded?

Angela Harbutt is currently campaigning against the introduction of plain packaging of tobacco.

26 Responses to “Norman Lamb: Doh!”

  1. woolylib Says:

    Well done Norman. Are we to character assassinate any colleague who changes his or her mind?
    Smoking kills you, and your friends and family. This is not about a ‘nanny state’ unless you object to ‘Nanny’ trying to stop you killing yourself slowly, painfully and expensively. Why do any of us try and defend the tobacco industry who for years lied about the link between smoking and cancer and are now telling us that a small measure to package cigs to make them look less attractive is the end of the world for freedom?


  2. Russ Eborall Says:

    So he’s looked at the arguments for and against these measures and seen sense. It is OK to change your mind. Stubbornness is would have been the problem, not open mindedness and courage to change your view when presented with good argument and reason.


  3. Jo Jo Says:

    Deeply disappointed that we have another MP who says one thing in opposition and does another thing once in Government. Woolylib – this is hardly a “character assassination” – The same arguments were made about cigarettes when Norman Lamb opposed the display ban and he opposed that. We should at least expect consistency from our members of parliament.


  4. Martin McKee Says:

    This article could have been written by the tobacco industry. The reason the industry is so opposed to plain packaging is because they know that, unlike the other hare brained ideas here, it works to reduce smoking among kids. They need the imagery on their packs to ensure kids make the connection between their products and their massive Internet and social media presence, designed to get round advertising bans. The industry has been exagerating the threat from counterfeit cigarettes for years. Once again we see the message that smoking is for adults, not kids, knowing well that the message kids take, as aspiring adults, is “when can I start?” And as for e-cigarettes, I despair. Faced with people quitting because they couldn’t smoke in bars, they needed some way to keep them addicted. If they really believe these are quitting aids, then regulate them as medicines and don’t use the same brand imagery on cigarettes – another way of getting round advertising bans. Make no mistake – the industry’s opposition to plain packs is all about trying to ensure that the next generation buys their products, even if 50% will pay with their lives. If politicians want to restore faith in politics, a first step is to act on evidence, as Norman Lamb is doing. It is when they cave in to powerful vested interests, as David Cameron has, that they rightly become cynical.


  5. Angela Harbutt Says:

    Hi Martin – thanks for leaving a comment, much appreciated.

    To address your points:
    “The reason the industry is so opposed to plain packaging is because they know that, unlike the other hare brained ideas here, it works to reduce smoking among kids.”

    There is no evidence that plain packaging will work. All the government evidence on the causes of the uptake of smoking states that its because of social circle interactions, peer
    pressure,rebelliousness etc- not because of brands. When CR-UK conducted research amongst teens last year the vast majority of those interviewed were not aware of the brands shown – and many pointed to smoking one stick at a time – passed from friends – they did not see the pack.

    “They need the imagery on their packs to ensure kids make the connection between their products and their massive Internet and social media presence, designed to get round advertising bans.”
    There simply is no evidence for this. Speculation on your part.

    “The industry has been exagerating the threat from counterfeit cigarettes for years.”

    Experts from anti-counterfeiting groups, packaging companies, branding experts, police (including a survey of serving police officers) and others agree that the threat is real.

    “Once again we see the message that smoking is for adults, not kids, knowing well that the message kids take, as aspiring adults, is “when can I start?””

    The same can be said for alcohol, sex and illegal drugs – teens aspire to adult things. By putting cigarettes behind shutters and into plain packaging the govt is only re-enforcing the message that smoking is a “top-shelf” product. Making something appear more dangerous/forbidden is only going to encourage young people – but that is not the companies doing this – so far it has been govt.

    “And as for e-cigarettes, I despair. Faced with people quitting because they couldn’t smoke in bars, they needed some way to keep them addicted. If they really believe these are quitting aids, then regulate them as medicines and don’t use the same brand imagery on cigarettes – another way of getting round advertising bans.”

    About a million people use e-cigs in the UK – and none of the ecig companies (until very recently) were owned by any tobacco company. People enjoy nicotine – it is addictive – but so is coffee, chocolate and many other substances. There is no sensible reason to regulate as a medicine – consumers are not using it as a medicine – they are using it as a consumer product.

    “Make no mistake – the industry’s opposition to plain packs is all about trying to ensure that the next generation buys their products”

    I am sure the industries opposition to plain packs is based on many factors… not least the fact that it would destroy the market in high-end brands and so reduce profits as prices fall and it will open the door to counterfeiting thus reducing the size of the legitimate market.

    Thanks again for your contribution.


  6. Liberal Pete Says:

    Well said Angela – I thought exactly the same thing when I heard about this.. We do really need to get away from the nanny state- (or “bossy” govt as Dave puts it)… On the doorstep people I often ask people about whether they think government is interfering too much in peoples everyday lives and the resounding answer is yes. UKIP is making great strides – and whilst some of it is undoubtedly about concerns re immigration- the appeal of the straight-talking – “pub and fags man” Farage is definitely big. He is in touch with the public- we seem to have lost that.

    I am not a smoker – but I do like a drink – and I can see everything that they are trying to do to cigarettes coming to alcohol. We have a display ban (I am with Norman Lamb – its a daft idea) and we have the option to do much more to stop people selling fags to kids – so lets focus on that. Anything else is a step too far. We seem to be inundated on a daily basis with health groups telling us what to do. It has got out of hand.

    I had hoped Norman would bring a fresh approach to Health – but he seems to have just fallen in with the same old nonsense. Deeply disappointing.


  7. Tony Winslow Says:

    Agreed Angela. If politicians will say one thing when in opposition and another in power then no wonder that the public are losing faith with traditional politics. Norman Lamb should be ashamed.Sadly I think that the party has lost its soul. We are supposed to be liberals. We seem to have forgotten that. Too many so-called liberals think its OK to be liberal until it comes to something they dont like.


  8. Sarah Denman Says:

    Sarah Denman Says:

    May 21st, 2013 at 6:05 pm

    Spitting with rage at Norman Lamb MP flip-flopping. I am a smoker and I am sick and tired of being treated like a leper. Mr Lamb says that he is a liberal and that people should be able to smoke if they want to. Fine. Then let us. Who doesnt know it is bad for you?????? I really don’t need to be patronised or insulted every time I buy a packet of cigarettes thank you very much. I have given up buying my cigarettes in the local supermarket –closing and opening shutters all the time like i am some sort of criminal. This is the final straw for me. Just drop the word “liberal” from your party name and be done with it.


  9. Martin McKee Says:

    Sorry Angela,
    You are wrong on every point. It is probably futile even attempting to change your mind but I’ve added links below so that others can judge the evidence for themselves.

    Plain packs won’t make smoking less attractive – wrong

    http://phrc.lshtm.ac.uk/papers/PHRC_006_Final_Report.pdf

    “This review found that there is strong evidence to support the propositions set out in the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control relating to the role of plain packaging in helping to reduce smoking rates; that is, that plain packaging would reduce the attractiveness and appeal of tobacco products, it would increase the noticeability and effectiveness of health warnings and messages, and it would reduce the use of design techniques that may mislead consumers about the harmfulness of tobacco products. In addition, the studies in this review show that plain packaging is perceived by both smokers and non-smokers to reduce initiation among non-smokers and cessation-related behaviours among smokers.”

    We all know that e cigs are pushed as quitting aids – what people may not know is that they don’t work – they make people LESS likely to quit, which is why the industry is pushing them
    http://tobacco.ucsf.edu/important-new-evidence-using-e-cigarettes-reduces-successful-quitting-cigarettes

    You think the industry isn’t using “anti smoking” campaigns aimed at kids to increase them smoking – then read this:
    http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/philipmorris.pdf

    Counterfeit tobacco still a threat – maybe, but nothing like as much as the industry portrays it as and HMRC and UKBA have been very successful in reducing it.
    http://customs.hmrc.gov.uk/channelsPortalWebApp/downloadFile?contentID=HMCE_PROD1_031246

    But no thanks to the industry which has long been complicit
    http://www.tobaccotactics.org/index.php/BAT_Involvement_in_Tobacco_Smuggling

    The one good thing is that plain packs will be adopted in the UK sometime – it is just a pity that the government is willing to let another generation be hooked, and 50% of them die as a result, because it s afraid to stand up for the health of its citizens.


  10. Martin McKee Says:

    Sorry Angela, you are wrong on all counts.

    So plain packaging won’t make cigarettes more attractive to kids. Well read this systematic review of the evidence:

    http://phrc.lshtm.ac.uk/papers/PHRC_006_Final_Report.pdf

    To summarise “This review found that there is strong evidence to support the propositions set out in the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control relating to the role of plain packaging in helping to reduce smoking rates; that is, that plain packaging would reduce the attractiveness and appeal of tobacco products, it would increase the noticeability and effectiveness of health warnings and messages, and it would reduce the use of design techniques that may mislead consumers about the harmfulness of tobacco products. In addition, the studies in this review show that plain packaging is perceived by both smokers and non-smokers to reduce initiation among non-smokers and cessation-related behaviours among smokers.”

    E-cigarettes are not seen as quitting aids:

    They are certainly pushed as such:

    http://www.puffweb.com/how-to-quit-smoking-in-90-days-using-electronic-cigarettes/

    However, as this next review of recent evidence shows, they actually make it LESS likely that people will quit – which is of course why the tobacco industry loves them.

    http://tobacco.ucsf.edu/important-new-evidence-using-e-cigarettes-reduces-successful-quitting-cigarettes

    The tobacco industry doesn’t use “anti-smoking” campaigns aimed at kids to increase the likelihood they will smoke? You think so? Then read this:

    http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/philipmorris.pdf

    Counterfeit cigarettes are a real threat? Yes, they are a problem, but much less than the industry says (even though it should know, given its complicity in smuggling

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/bat

    However, now that HMRC and the UKBA are taking it seriously, the volume of smuggled cigarettes is falling rapidly. You seem to suggest there is nothing that can be done about it. This shows that it can.

    http://customs.hmrc.gov.uk/channelsPortalWebApp/channelsPortalWebApp.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=pageLibrary_MiscellaneousReports&propertyType=document&columns=1&id=HMCE_PROD1_031246

    I doubt if this will make you change your mind, given your links to Forest, widely viewed as a front for the tobacco industry, but others reading this may want to look properly at the evidence

    Martin


  11. Junican Says:

    One reads the comments of woolylib, Eborall and McKee and one despairs.
    But first, before the accusations fly, let me say that I have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with tobacco companies!
    Again and again, the Zealots talk about children, and yet I have never seen a Zealot define what he means by ‘a child’. For the purpose of this note, I shall define what I mean by ‘a child’ as up to and including the age of twelve.
    In my view, such persons have little if any real interest in tobacco. I remember when I was a child asking my dad for a puff. He let me have a puff. It was horrible! I had no further interest in tobacco.
    My second point would be, “Do children not have parents?” There was no way, when I was a child, that my parents would have let me smoke. I would have been in big trouble had I done so. My sister got caught when she was about fourteen, and did she get a roasting!
    Thirdly, there is no doubt in my mind that PP is a blatant attack on tobacco companies. Its aim is to make it as difficult as possible for one company to differentiate its products from another company’s and to create mayhem in the tobacco market. It is as simple as that.
    Fourthly, let us consider those youngsters who are not ‘children’; those from thirteen to seventeen. Yes, some of them will experiment, but very few of them will be able to afford to buy a packet of cigarettes. In any case, where would they be able to buy them, other than from ‘white van man’? If they do buy them, it is most likely to be the odd one from a mate. Hardly what one would describe as smoking.
    Further, we note that the period of time involved is a mere five years before they become adults.

    The word ‘children’ is deliberately being used by the Zealots for emotional propaganda purposes. This trick has been used by tyrants many, many times before.


  12. The Blocked Dwarf Says:

    Ask any smoker or former smoker why they started and the chances are you’ll get the stock answer “I was stupid”. Maybe you’ll hear ‘all my mates…’ or ‘i wanted to look adult’ but I lay money you will not find a smoker, who started in younger years, say “it was the shiny packs that enticed me”.

    Not even from one of those apparently- so the fASHistos would have us believe- silly teenage girly types, weak willed dears that they are. Bless.


  13. Sara Scarlett Says:

    If you post comments with lots of links, they will get caught up in the spam filter…


  14. Sara Scarlett Says:

    Jesus fuck, I’ve just read this entire thread of comments. Why (oh why) did I do that to myself?! Will you all just piss off and let me enjoy my booze and cigarettes in peace. Do you people not have hobbies?


  15. Angela Harbutt Says:

    Dear Martin

    I have read the plain packaging systematic review from cover to cover several times. Given that it was written by those with a vested interest in tobacco control, who declared they were in favour of plain packaging long before the consultation started, and given that many of the reports they “reviewed” were authored by themselves I think we are unsurprised by their “conclusions”. Sadly (and perhaps inevitably given the above) the conclusions in this “review” do not reflect their actual findings. The authors say in the body of the report….

    “There are … a number of limitations with the plain packaging studies found. Some of these arise because plain packaging is not yet in place in any country and therefore it has not yet been possible to conduct research that could fully evaluate the potential impact of this policy. This affects study design, which is the first limitation of the review.”

    “Studies of the type that are generally regarded as the most robust (those that compare a population exposed to an intervention with one not exposed to it, such as randomized controlled trials) are not available because plain packaging is yet to be introduced and so therefore ‘real’ comparisons cannot be made.”

    “ … other designs which help increase confidence in the findings, such as longitudinal designs, are also unfeasible in respect to assessing plain packaging prior to its introduction. The absence of trials and longitudinal research is the most significant limitation of this review, although one which is impossible to avoid until the policy is in place in at least one jurisdiction.”

    “… the evidence in the review is largely drawn from correlational studies, which makes it difficult to draw conclusions about expected outcomes.”

    “Many of the studies use hypothetical scenarios, and are therefore not truly able to test how individuals would react or behave if plain packaging was to be introduced.”

    “Within the correlational studies in the review there are further limitations in that some of the surveys use samples representative of the general population but most do not, and instead use convenience or probability sampling”

    “ … some of the qualitative studies included was that quite limited information about the methodology and analysis was provided”

    “ .. findings regarding smoking-related attitudes, beliefs and behaviour from both the surveys and qualitative studies in the review are reliant upon self-report. Without any form of validation (such as validating reported changes in cigarette consumption) these have quite weak predictive validity.”

    “….plain packaging research can never truly replicate real market conditions and, as such, the suggested impacts on consumption, cessation and uptake are so far speculative.”

    “An additional limitation is that the full set of 37 studies included unpublished material (some of which was translated into English) and government reports, which contained variable levels of detail regarding the research methods used which in some instances made it more difficult to determine methodological rigour.”

    “A further limitation is that when comparing new packs (in this case plain packs) with those already in the marketplace the new packs typically attract a great deal of both favourable and unfavourable attention and this can distort the findings.”

    I could go on – but readers will get the point. There were lots of studies conducted, but at best all they showed was what some people THOUGHT they MIGHT do in a HYPOTHETICAL situation. That is not evidence. The Labour government rejected plain packaging in 2008 for this very reason.


  16. Angela Harbutt Says:

    If I can find the time I will return to your other points.


  17. Angela Harbutt Says:

    Martin
    Re ecigs
    You give me one example of a site that shares their experiences of quitting using ecigs. Many more however use ecigs as a way of reducing their smoking intake – not quitting altogether (though some do). To seek to reclassify these consumer products as medicinal products would have a negative impact on public health, because it would require a change in the operation and performance of the products, and would crucially reduce their effectiveness for consumers.

    Why anyone – especially someone working in Public Health – would wish to support an effective ban on a consumer product that is positively contributing to harm reduction is anyone’s guess.

    As for the report you cite re the ineffectiveness of ecigs as a quitting aid. Please note the study you refer to examined people who actually contacted a quit line. Definitionally these are people who are having problems quitting (why else call a quit line?) – and excludes the millions who have never been anywhere near a quitline – because they have no need.

    I say again the ecig “industry” has historically been made up of SMEs not “Big” companies.

    If you want a summary of ecigs go here:- http://www.clivebates.com/?p=787
    the author – Clive Bates – is former head of ASH (Action on Smoking and Health). I assume you have no problems with his credentials?

    I will get back to you on the other points – I have to go out for a meeting :-)


  18. Orange man Says:

    You will never convince Martin McKee that there is any other position other than his. Martin McKee is Professor of European Public Health at the London School of Tropical Medicine

    http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/aboutus/people/mckee.martin

    He specialises in promoting the virtues of public health, whilst arguing against any products (eg snus and now ecigs) that offer proven harm reduction benefits. This is the worst kind of public health advocate – always talking never listening. Refusing to accept that there is any truth except his. He is indeed the infamous person who asserted that those who dispute research studies (even bad ones) are akin to holocaust deniers.

    http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/6219/

    Interesting to note that whilst he is happy to cast aspersions about the authors connections (which I note are stated very clearly), he fails to mention his – I wonder why that is exactly? Could it be that he might be seen as being a tad biased given his connections with tobacco control? Could he be accused of pontificating from his ivory tower? Could he be accused of having a vested interest himself in the very lucrative business of public health? Probably all of the above. Suffice it to say you will never convince him that he has, as is all too clear clear, got it very wrong again.


  19. Sara Scarlett Says:

    Orange man makes a good point. Funny that the blog post immediately preceding this is details just what slimy little rent-seekers public health ideologues are… http://www.liberal-vision.org/2013/05/14/public-health-ideologues-dont-come-cheap/

    If LV has been getting tons of tobacco cash all these years, I’d love to know where my share went…


  20. Orange man Says:

    Cheers Sara. And while I am at it – I didnt mention Norman Lamb. What the hell is that all about? Lamb knew the dangers of smoking (who exactly doesnt know?) when he opposed the display ban in shops – so how come he has changed his mind now he is in the sacred halls of Dept of Health? No doubt rent-seekers like Mckee got to him. That doesn’t go down so well with the public, taxpayers and voters in case he hasnt noticed. Adults want to be able to make up their own minds with out being patronised continually. That was his line not so long ago.


  21. Dick Puddlecote Says:

    Martin McKee came here? Oh joy.

    It is still wondrous to watch the incredible arrogance of left-wing health nutjobs like him who seem to believe that cleverly-constructed policy-based evidence will carry the day.

    The fact that he actually quoted the systematic review as anything less than propaganda is hilarious.

    It’s an object lesson in cherry-picking of studies; self-referencing by the authors; and other sleight of tobacco control industry hands. In short, it was rigged for the purpose. And McKee knows that very well, hence why he’s here.

    I love the way he refuses to accept that anyone but the tobacco industry has objected too. This is puerile denial of the truth – he and his career state-paid prohibitionists have been issuing propaganda over every channel available which stbbornly ignores half a million responses to the public consultation objecting to plain packs.

    McKee talks about Norman Lamb considering evidence? Well, how about the obscene misrepresentation of data coupled with a blithe dismissal of the public who Lamb is supposed to be serving? Seriously, not one of his ilk has even mentioned – I’ll say it again – half a MILLION signatures.

    There is only one lobby in this debate who are “exaggerating the threat”. And it ain’t the tobacco industry.

    I can’t wait till the govt release figures for illicit for 2012/13, I’m noting all these denialists down so we can have some fun in the future as to how the crooks are using 2 year old figures to try to bamboozle MPs.

    McKee here? A positive sign that his sort have been found out. ;)


  22. Chris Oakley Says:

    Martin McKee is a profoundly illiberal man. He is a socially destructive product of the unrestricted funding of dogma driven left wing ideology disguised as public health. It shames the LSHTM that it harbors such a political extremist. His opening salvo of “This article could have been written by the tobacco industry” says it all really. He has a track record of smearing individuals rather than addressing arguments. It is truly disgraceful that this talentless political wretch is funded by the UK taxpayer in allegedly academic role.


  23. Chris Oakley Says:

    That should read an allegedly academic role. Apologies but McKee epitomizes everything that I despise in UK “academia” so I became a bit over excited.


  24. Bryan Stoten Says:

    Amazing to see such crude, abusive nastiness expressed to Lamb, a decent, informed and honest bloke who appears able to change his mind because he remained open to persuasion. Three quarters of smokers start to smoke before its even legal to sell them a cigarette and overwhelmingly it is low income smokers who disproportionately die early as a result. And do these “liberals” give Lamb recognition that he is concerned about this. No, they slag him off in the most abusive terms they think they can get away with. Hmmm, I used to think this was the party of the good guys, shame on you!


  25. Jonathan Bagley Says:

    Martin McKee should be ashamed of himself for his crticism of ecigs. Like snus, banned throughout the EU due to the efforts of his Anti Tobacco Industry, they are currently preventing thousands of future lung cancer and COPD deaths. In a fair world, he and his like would be prosecuted for reckless endangerment. Ecigs are devices which deliver the harmless (anyone over 12 can buy gum at Boots) drug, nicotine in an attractive way. They are no more a medicine than coffee is a medicine which treats narcolepsy. They do not cure any condition I am still nicotine dependent, about which I am intensely relaxed – puffing away at work on my ecig, like an old man with a pipe. I now rarely smoke tobacco. Isn’t this a good thing? McKee also tries to drag tobacco companies into the ecig debate. Up until recently the ecig industry was based around small importers, manufacturers and distributors – many headed by ex smokers. The Chinese inventor of the ecig was a smoker who wanted to reduce harm from his nicotine ingestion. Only recently, as ecigs have become so popular, have tobacco companies become involved – what sinister things are they going to get up to? I mix my own liquid from BP nicotine, BP propylene glycol and approved food flavouring. There isn’t much to go wrong there. Essentially, two well researched and used in the NHS, BP ingredients.


  26. Sara Scarlett Says:

    Get a grip Bryan Stoten. Lamb is being rightly criticised because he’s a flip-flopper. Not only is he a flip-flopper, he’s a flip-flopper against liberal principles. Absolutely nothing Angela wrote could be construed as abuse. Grow up.


Leave a Reply



  • RSS Elsewhere on Lib Dem Blogs…