Rod Liddle

The BMA’s bizarre jihad against e-cigarettes

21 September 2013

What strategy should we adopt to cope with the British Medical Association? Its members kill more people each year than President Assad — 72,000 is the latest estimate, from the House of Commons health select committee. Perhaps it is at last time to sit down and negotiate with them, much though this will stick in the craw, like a misplaced scalpel. We say that organisations like the IRA and the BMA will ‘never win’ and that we will ‘never negotiate’ – but this is empty rhetoric, because we always end up doing so. If we could just reduce by 10 per cent the number of people killed every year through medical errors it would at least bring the figure below the combined annual deaths attributed to smoking and drinking and obesity. That’s something to aim for, isn’t it? Attempt to find some common ground with the more moderate elements and then persuade them to put down their weapons. It could work, it could work.

The BMA’s latest act of lunacy is to oppose, with all its might, what we have come to call e-cigarettes. These are those electronic devices, usually styled to look like a B&H, often with a glowing tip, which release nicotine when inhaled and emit a colourless, odourless water vapour. Steam, in other words. They are used by people who wish to give up smoking in preference to nicotine replacement gum, which can have a nasty bilious effect on the gut, and patches, which seem to deliver no nicotine buzz at all (in my experience). Certainly e-cigarettes are totally harmless to anyone in the vicinity of a user, and nobody has argued otherwise. They are also much, much less harmful to the user — everyone is agreed on that — than actual, proper smoking, and may be of no harm at all. But the co-chair of the BMA’s Public Health Medicine Committee, Richard Jarvis — certainly not one of the aforesaid ‘moderate elements’ within this organisation — has said that e-cigarettes ‘directly undermine the effects and intentions of existing legislation’ which bans smoking in public places. He did not explain how, possibly because his statement is a palpable idiocy. The intention behind banning smoking in public places was to remove the risk to the so-called passive smokers, which was also the effect, as he put it. E-cigarettes are of no risk to people other than the users, and probably not to the users either. The BMA, though, is worried that electronic fags will act as a ‘gateway’ to smoking for people who hitherto had not smoked — but as usual they have refused to allow the facts to get in the way of their reflexive fascism. The latest study on this very matter suggested that 1 per cent of non-smokers had tried an e-cigarette once and that 0 per cent had progressed from there to either smoking or using the electronic devices regularly — 0 per cent. That survey comes not from the tobacco industry, or from the libertarian campaigning organisation Forest, but from the gobby and usually extremist anti-tobacco lobby group Ash, which thinks the BMA’s stance on e-cigarettes is ludicrous. Ash holds that e-cigarettes are a valuable means of weaning people off the real thing, while suggesting more research needs to be done into the possible harm they cause users.


But despite the BMA’s idiotic track record, it has influence and the sale of e-cigarettes is to be tightly regulated and various companies are queuing up to ban them completely — largely because of the BMA’s recommendations. Most of our train companies — C2C, Greater Anglia and First Capital Connect among them — have already banned the devices. The horrible pub chain JD Wetherspoons, which fortunately neither you nor I would ever dream of frequenting, has also banned them. The airline companies have begun to ban them too, claiming that users ‘unsettle’ other passengers. I suppose it would be a cheap retort to suggest that they do not ‘unsettle’ half so much as copiously bearded and be-robed Muslim fellow passengers closing their eyes in prayer as the flight takes off, but nobody has suggested banning them. But we have become terribly fractious and chippy of late, gravely intolerant of other people’s behaviour, anxious to stop other folk doing stuff: it is one of the consequences, I suppose, of a grossly over-regulated society. The Eastern Daily Press, meanwhile, has been carrying out a survey to see if the public believes e-cigarettes should be banned from all public places in Norfolk, in accordance with the BMA’s wishes.

Meanwhile, the tobacco industry is reportedly preparing an advertising campaign designed to improve the image of these contraptions, or ‘glamorise’ them, as has been alleged. They will have a job on their hands. E-cigarettes are possibly the least glamorous thing in the history of the world. Smoking may well be a filthy and dangerous habit, but at least smokers of proper fags could claim a certain devil-may-care insouciance attended to them, an agreeable recklessness. E-cigarettes, by contrast, are immediately redolent of a craven and cowardly addiction which cannot be shaken, in other words they are redolent of weakness. Also they look stupid. There is nothing glamorous about e-cigarettes and yet 1.5 million British people use them, knowing this. They use them in order to kick the habit: the BMA is trying to stop them doing so.

More Spectator for less. Subscribe and receive 12 issues delivered for just £12, with full web and app access. Join us now.

  • rorysutherland

    I suppose coffee is a gateway drug to crystal meth if you look at the statistics selectively enough. And I suppose there is always the chance of a youth-craze. But there is a risk of a youth-craze for churchwarden pipes, too. It’s just not going to happen.

    • David Lindsay

      It bloody well should.

  • David Lindsay

    I have smoked various things in my time, but only ever occasionally, and always within the law.

    However, I have never had a menthol cigarette. Would it be worth trying them before they are banned?

    Lovely though the real ale was with the last pipefull of cherry and vanilla, a cooling agent might not have gone amiss at the end.

    I know, we merely occasional smokers are a contemptible lot.

    • george

      What about pipes, David? The straight tobacco, not the cheaper and gaucher aromatics.

      • David Lindsay

        I smoke a pipe, all right. And very fine cigars on appropriate occasions. But neither very often.

    • Fergus Pickering

      Naw, don’t touch them. I suggest one good Fidel Castro cuban cigar a week.

      • george

        I know someone, bought a Cuban cigar in London, knowing they were banned in his native land (America). I mentioned the people suffering under Communism. He couldn’t smoke it, but threw it away.

        • Fergus Pickering

          My sister went on a holiday to Cuba ten years ago. She liked it. Of course she might be a London lefty, but she isn’t. A bit battered but better than the Philippines, principally, I think, because most of the total shits now live in Miami.

          • george

            I don’t know how to answer that: truly. Are you drunk?

          • pedestrianblogger

            Not all the total shits made it to Miami. According to Wiki, “between 1959 and 1993, some 1.2 million Cubans (about 10% of the current population) left the island for the United States, often by sea in small boats and fragile rafts. Between 30,000 and 80,000 Cubans are estimated to have died trying flee Cuba”. Rather a lot of dead shits don’t you think, Fergus? I wonder, incidentally, how many died going the other way, towards the socialist paradise.

  • William Tollins
  • Dragonmum

    Very good, balanced view; the BMA has always opposed innovation especially when it is of no benefit to the Pharmaceutical Industry whose reach is very long, to say the least – I can think of no Health body that is without links to them, and that includes the WHO, MHRA and charities like CRUK etc. In this case the reasoning is crystal clear; the ecig is a death-blow to the patches, gums etc for which the tax-payer has bled over a billion to the Pharmas in a decade, for a lamentable failure rate of around 95%! Ecigs are a brilliant alternative to smoking – as a smoker for 60+ years I can attest to this; all the enjoyment with dramatically reduced (if any) risk.

    • ghl

      I totally agree, Dragonmum.
      But the group with the most powerful reason to oppose e-cigarettes is the tobacco lobby. Given their nature they will be sneaky and creative. Does the BMA receive any money at all from the Tobacco industry?

      • Dick_Puddlecote

        The tobacco lobby? You mean the ones investing hundreds of millions into e-cigs so they can earn from the massive profit potential? I’d say they must be incredibly creative to invest massively in an industry which offers trillions in future profits, only to destroy all their investment and all the mega cash that they might earn from it. Yes, that makes perfect sense. Good grief.

        Or, of course, it could be the pharma industry … who work hand in hand with the BMA … who might have something of a disruptive hand in this.

        • Fergus Pickering

          But why should they not make profits from selling a harmless product? Or are you just against profits per se?

  • Dan West

    Thank you Mr. Liddle for a bit of very enjoyable sanity on a subject that is otherwise riddled with atrocious hypocrisy and downright lies by those who wish to either ban or take ownership of this uncool yet remarkable invention. The million or so people who use e-cigs in the U.K, as an alternative to smoking, desperately need journalists like you to help publicise their cause and bring to the attention of a wider, probably cooler, audience the attempts to regulate e-fags as a medicine and to expose that for what it is . A stitch up by tax hungry governments the always honest pharmaceutical industry and health fascists. Medical regulation of e-fags would see the almost total destruction of a vibrant market and would take away a product that has changed lives immeasurably for the better.

    • george

      tax hungry governments the always honest pharmaceutical industry and health fascists

      Within that lot the drug companies probably have the most integrity: they do at least explore and test drugs and make medicine that improves people’s lives. Some people find it unconscionable that they also make profits — as if chemists and other scientists would devote their lives to researching new treatments for nothing! As if it’s a crime to ask people to pay relatively small sums to preserve their own health or even their lives! (And note that the same people complaining about drug costs think nothing of splashing out on a fancy new TV or other frivolous purchases.) Hatred of pharmaceutical firms is one of the least coherent prejudices out there.

      • David Moger

        George. Sorry no. Pharma companies have been found guilty of paying off governments and health authorities to sell their drugs. They have lied about the safety of their drugs and still sold them and even created panic over non existent health scares to sell cures in massive quantities. It’s all about money.

        • george

          Um, over here we have something called the FDA and that pretty much puts a brake on the ‘lying about the safety of their drugs’ that you apparently believe in. I do agree that much of medical practice (e.g. screening for rather rare, treatable, and unlikely cancers etc.) is motivated by money — but in that case GPs and specialists/consultants are just as guilty, if not more, than anyone else!

          • David Moger

            The FDA may be worse than you think….. Take note of the fines imposed by US courts…. That’s not hearsay.


          • george

            US courts… whose benches wouldn’t be dominated by activist Lefty judges, would they? Nah, impossible!

          • castello

            No, the fda is as corrupt as it gets.

          • george


      • dave driver

        Drug companies habitually lie about the costs of developing drugs,the more one investigates the more disgusting they appear.

  • PatNurse

    If you’re fed up with the anti-smoker industry, it’s lies and coercion, then join #Octabber this stoptober and say Enough’s Enough! Leave us alone, get off our backs and stop wasting NHS cash. The £13.1 million currently thrown into smokerphobic propaganda could be much better used for direct patient care which really would save lives instead of just propping up industry that sells useless NRT

  • Lesley Anna Lawless

    This is a refreshing article about a subject that is either ignored or else only the BMA point is published. I believe that in 2008 Pharma companies complained to the EU (and maybe every other relevant body) that e-cigarettes had an unfair advantage over NRT as they did not need a medical license because they were not marketed for nicotine cessation. In fact they are normally used to switch from smoking to a safer alternative, but the BMA thinks ‘quitting nicotine;’ every time they hear ‘quit smoking’. Of course in the past the only way to quit smoking was by quitting nicotine at some point. Now we have a consumer product that could virtually end smoking (the reason why tobacco companies are producing ecigs and calling for medicalization, which would remove competitors, variety, enjoyment and innovation from the market as well as destroying a growing new industry.
    E-cigarettes are not tobacco and they are not medicine. The MHRA has stated that everything on the market today will be unable to be licensed and no medical ecigs can be licensed unless the current EU clause on e-cigarettes in the EU Tobacco Products Directive, now due to go to plenary on 8th October, is passed. The definition of a medicine by function would need to be3 changed, which would make coffee (and many other enjoyable foods and drinks, medicines. As for the flavours of ecigs appealing to children, adults enjoy flavours, nicotine is flavourless, and nicotine gum can be bought in a number of child-friendly flavours now. Medicalising electronic cigarettes (which come in many shapes and sizes, only the older designs mimicking cigarettes) would effectively ban them, forcing over 1 million Britons back to smoking and preventing smokers from switching to this much healthier alternative whilst tobacco cigarettes would be on sale everywhere.

  • David

    As so often with the Spectator, not letting silly things like facts get in the way of a good argument. ‘Certainly e-cigarettes are totally harmless to anyone in the vicinity of a user, and nobody has argued otherwise’. Plenty have argued otherwise. This Germany study, for example, which notes that ‘adverse health effects for third parties due to second-hand exposure can not be excluded’ ( Or this one, which warns about the possible dangers of ‘passive vaping':

    • Lesley Anna Lawless

      There are genuine unbiased studies and research and there are cherry-picked studies or those that show a miniscule risk that are used by anti-e-cigarette activists. Bearing in mind that nothing is 100% safe and we cannot know for certain about long-term risks, ecigs are being proven to be far safer than smoked tobacco. Regarding ‘second-hand vapour’ a study found some pollutants in a small room where a vaper had vaped, but so low that it would prove no danger. The main toxic compound, if I remember correctly, was formaldehyde but at orders of magnitude lower than from a smoked cigarette. Now formaldehyde is a natural by-product of breathing and far more is found in a room with a cow in it. One can also panic about nitrosamines, if one leaves out the fact that they are no higher than those in prescription NRT, heavy metals, but at extremely low levels, so low that a vaper would be unable to inhale the maximum permitted amount, and so on. In the same way surveys are used to prove that ecigs are a gateway to tobacco because a very few legal minors who smoke have tried them.
      Given the choice between smoking and vaping, vaping holds the hope of ending tobacco use. For me the choice between something that just might have some adverse effects decades in the future (most likely from flavourings) with no second-hand toxins, and smoked tobacco which kills 50% of those using it in the way it is intended to be used, is a no-brainer. In fact as the date of guilty knowledge is long passed it could be argued that any restriction on quality e-liquid and ecigs could lead to very expensive future court cases as restrictions would force vapers back to smoking or create a black market, both of which would .lead to injury and death, as well as preventing millions from switching in the future.
      Remember, every anti-ecig article prevents smokers from switching and frightens some current vapers back to smoking.

      • David

        Lesley, I don’t disagree with you. I just dislike the Spectator’s – and especially Rod Liddle’s – regular habit of simply ignoring facts that aren’t convenient for their arguments. It’s fine to argue that e-cigs aren’t a health risk, but don’t pretend that no one thinks they are.

        • Lesley Anna Lawless

          David, I dislike the habit of most media’s habit of ignoring facts if they get in the way of a good scare story. I don’t think anybody claims that e-cigs are 100% safe, in fact I’d say that nothing is. But although we have no long-term studies yet because they are too new, because so few chemicals are used in them it is far easier to [predict than for cigarettes, where probably thousands of toxins still haven’t been discovered. But two things make me angry, poor or flawed research and the anti e-cig propaganda, which is practically all that is available to mass audiences. Already e-cigs are reducing cigarette sales and are predicted to overtake them if left alone, one of the reasons why tobacco companies have entered the e-cig market. This has happened at no cost to governments and with practically no advertising, but governments call for bans or medicines regulation which would either remove them from the market completely or create a black market. For many e-cigs are the only alternative to tobacco, conventional quitting medicines do not work for them, they want to continue using nicotine, and it is known that pharmaceutical nicotine used in e-cigs is as harmful as coffee. So why the scare stories and the desire to ban which would cause most vapers return to smoking?

        • Fergus Pickering

          There are always people who think nutty things. I knew a woman who thought the Government controlled us through electronic emissions from television sets. There are many teenagers who think that you cannot conceive if you. have sex standing up. And many many thousands in the UK believe in witchcraft.

      • bwims

        I disagree with your first assertion. I am now of the opinion that the number of truly unbiased studies is tiny where the conclusion has an effect on someone’s profit (e.g. tobacco manufacturers) or expenses (e.g. govt health services) compared to the studies funded by either State or Industry. Scientists are as corruptible as any other kind of human now.

        Until we have a class of altruistic tenured scientists who get a set salary and cannot gain or lose financially from their findings, every research paper needs to be read in context of the funding body, and whether the body has any skin in the game.

        Since 21st C politics appears to be as corrupt as hell, and all Industry is amoral w.r.t. the profit motive we should assume that all research papers are biased one way or the other.

      • Paul edge

        Just out of general respect/manners I wouldn’t use a vaporiser in a confined area such as train or tube.
        I can’t remember the last time I was in a room with a cow (no jokes about the ex please) unless it was one of Damien Hirsts and then I’m guessing the latent formaldehyde would be off the scale

  • george

    Beautiful article, in its clarity and witheringly justified contempt; but the subject goes to show that some people, especially from perches in medicine and other supposed moral high grounds, are not happy unless they can make others miserable.

  • Noa

    An excellent post, and the vindictive assault on smokers continues elsewhere with the planned ban on smoking in prisons. The reasons given are that Prisons are government property and the lives of prison officers, or nannies as they shoud be known, are in danger from passive smoking.
    This introduction is to be trialled in selected prisons before full implementation, and £11 million is budgeted for the provision of nicotine patches to prisoners, as the Ministry for Justice, and presumably its Minister Chris Grayling, otherwise fear widespread rioting.
    Of course the widespread problems arising from the legal issue of methadone, and the use of illicit drugs in prison will continue. One assumes that a prisonful of junkies poses no particular threat to the POA’s members and that they thoroughly approve of the ‘drug cosh’ being applied to their ‘customers’. Anything for a quiet life after all, and why should they be at all concerned at the effect of Category A and B drugs on prisoners, legally or otherwise?
    Are there grey areas which need to be addressed here? Is a joint going to be banned because it contains tobacco, or will it escape censure because it doesn’t?
    No one of course has addressed the real problem, which is that prisoners, or ‘offenders’ as the state weasel wording now refers to them, are in prison because they break the law.
    There are some very unpleasent people indeed in prison, some will be there for the rest of their lives. Why should they stop smoking simply because of another law banning it? Who will stop them? And how? A new regulation? Its enforcement by the prissy Offender Management Service? One thinks not.
    Reports are silent on whether the use of ecigarettes will permitted, but one suspects this will become an itrrelevence, as regardless, prisoners light up in their cells and break up the furniture in order to set fire to it. Will various new legal actions be instigated in the European Court of Human Rights to protect prisoners rights to turn their lungs into bags of soot? One sincerely hopes so.
    Only a government minister, and a prison service of extreme stupidity, could create the ludicrous situation where the majority of the law abiding public, their own freedoms already restricted by the state, will cheer on and support rioting criminals as they burn their own prisons.

    • David Moger

      I agree. While on the subject of second hand smoke lets get that one out of the box again. Ask anyone and they will tell you that shs is bad for you and kills thousands every year. That’s because that is what you were told. Go and look at the research papers on the subject. Because all products we come in contact with contain different toxin and carcinogens in different mixes and are consumed or exposed to in different ways a scoring system is used to compare products. Now a score of 3 or less is considered harmless. If I tell you chlorinated water is 1.25 and milk is 2.4 what would you expect shs to be? Well at worst estimate it’s 1.19. We were all told a lie to get smoking banned….. Just the same as e cigs now.

      • Fred Scuttle

        Smoking hasn’t been banned.

      • bwims

        If I’ve learned anything since 2009 it’s that research papers cannot be trusted any more than news. The day of the altruistic scientist died when people started living well-to-do lives of material acquisition, and politicians and other funding groups started to direct the required conclusions of research.

        All your figures are meaningless anyway. Next year the figures of dangerous exposure could be revised up or down, just like X-Ray exposure. When I was a little boy my teeth were x-rayed by machines with orders of magnitude higher exposure than today. The shoe shop had an x-ray machine to let me see how well the shoes fitted.

        Would you like to have an x-ray done by a machine operating close to the maximum “safe” dose? Say, once a week because you like looking at the pictures? Or would you restrict X-ray exposure to the bare minimum and only if you really needed?

        That philosophy should apply to second hand smoke.

        • David Moger

          So that will apply to chlorinated water and milk as well….. I would definatly keep away from them.

    • Fred Scuttle

      Of course prisoners shouldn’t be allowed to smoke. IMO they shouldn’t be allowed to watch TV either.

      • Noa

        The point of the ban is not to punish prisoners, who will not doubt continues to smoke illegally obtained tobacco and cannabis anyway, but to protect prison officers from passive smoking.

        • bwims

          If I were a prison officer I would appreciate such a ban.

    • bwims

      Your arguments aren’t consistent. Why should a prison officer who may not smoke be forced to inhale the exhalations of a smoking scumbag? The way to deal with riots, if we weren’t ruled by pussies, is a few broken heads, tasers, guns if possible. Let the bastards suffer. Incidentally, why isn’t smuggling drugs into prison treated more harshly?

      • Noa

        It’s not me that’s being inconsistent. Why is the government not consistent? If it is prepared to ban prisoners smoking why does it not ban contraband drugs and tobacco?
        Why isn’t the POA agitating for this?

        Because its mambers’ ‘health and safety’ would be adversely affected by serious and ongoing rioting and violence. Good luck with arguing for and enforcing harsh treament for prisoners. As I’ve already mentioned it would be immediately and successfuly challenged under the ECHR, as no doubt will the smoking ban.

  • ButcombeMan

    This article is badly researched and put together. It is intellectually incoherent.

    E Ciggies may well be, indeed are, a safer alternative to tobacco smoking as a delivery mechanism to deal with nicotine addiction, BUT there is evidence from the US that new young users are being recruited to nicotine addiction through e-ciggarettes. These being youngsters who have never smoked tobacco.

    That is not a desireable social outcome. Do we want more addicts? Really?

    I suggest we do not, so controls on e cigarettes and when and where they can be used seem reasonable to me and I am sure seem reasonable to millions who do not use addictive drugs like nicotine.

    I personally do not want vapour containing nicotine anywhere near the air I breathe

    • barenaked_fi

      Do you say the same of the steam rising from a nearby coffee? Research shows there is little or no nicotine in the exhaled vapour. If you’re that afraid of trace nicotine, I assume you eat no tomatoes or potatoes

    • Dan West

      Which evidence is this? It’s not the recently published CDC report is it? That really doesn’t show anything of the sort. That showed an increase of about 1% in the numbers of high school pupils who had tried an e-cig, it doesn’t say if those e-cigs contained nicotine , many don’t contain nicotine, neither did it say that trying an e-cig lead to tobacco use.It also said 80% of the experimenters were current tobacco smokers.

      • ButcombeMan
        • Dan West

          Not really.It’s based on the CDC report and it shows nothing apart from how to conduct a survey on e-cigs, badly. E-cig ‘use’ in their survey was based on having just tried an e-cig in the preceding 30 days, not on daily use. Even then the doubling of the figures put the total at 2.8%, a tiny number . 80% of those surveyed were already smokers of tobacco .

          • ButcombeMan

            Which means that 20 per cent were not!

            And users will not get to daily use without trying them first.

            The potenial for addiction and a new wave of addicts is very clear, it would be surprising if that clarity did not extend to the business plans of those pushing these things.

            Why anyone would argue for these things except as a harm reduction measure for those already addicted, is beyond me. Unless of course they are paid to push these things or have a personal interest in so doing.

            Presumably Rod Liddle is or has been, a nicotine addict ,based on what he says about patches.

            It is perhaps none too wise to base our view of any particular addictive substance on the passions of those who are or have been addicted.

            We should listen, but not too hard.

          • Dan West

            20% did not use e-cigarettes daily, they were asked if they had tried them at all . Of the 20% who tried e-cigs none went on to smoke tobacco in the figures given and no figures to suggest they continued using e-cigs were given . So I do not see how your claim that e-cigs have lead to nicotine addiction in the survey you refer to. No such figures exist.

            Here is a more thorough explanation of the report you refer to.


    • castello

      Nicotine is not very addictive by itself. From 2009 The vapor is not harmful

  • Rob

    Is the BMA insane? I and many others will go back to the fags if they ban e-cigs.

  • David Knox

    quite a refreshing article for once with no plagiarised propaganda thrown in except from some of the commentators who are just cherry picking non factual links. why don’t the BMA ask me and millions of others who used to smoke cigarettes and have switched over to a safer alternative for health reasons? the e-cigarette is a consumer led and consumer driven phenomenon and with no cost to government ? e-cigarettes are saving lives all around the world plus creating business and innovation at the same time. all the BMA and other medical councils will do if they succeed in banning or making them require a medicinal license would be to force them underground and create the biggest black market the world has ever that is a very scary prospect and one the fake cloners and dubious make money quick merchants are closely monitoring. in the u.k as they stand e-cigarettes are covered by several consumer licenses that work very well in protecting the user of e-cigarettes and nothing more should be required. I agree slap a 18 certificate on them and deny them to teens of impressionable age but actually I would prefer my son or daughter to try one of these than actual cigarettes and I suppose in the real world I would prefer them to be saints and try nothing but that very rarely happens amongst the youth of today.
    i’m 63 now and after smoking for 50 years I think I have the knowledge and experience to talk on this matter since I switched to e-cigarettes my clothes my car my house my hair and skin don’t smell terrible any more and I finally realise the misery I caused through second hand smoke to my wife and friends and I am truly sorry for my thoughtlessness since I switched to the e-cigarette my breathing has improved drastically my blood oxygen has gone back to normal my taste has returned no wheezing no heartburn or acid reflux after three short months I feel better sleep better hell even my golf handicap came down to twelve my friends and family are over the moon and I have the satisfaction of knowing I will never smoke again this is a personal experience and one I’m sure is being mimicked all over the world so why don’t the medical people ask us for our opinion its free and doesn’t cost anything is it because they really believe that they know better? I don’t think so not on this subject. its time people woke up and smelt the coffee ( a nice e-cigarette flavour by the way) the e cigarette is here to stay and neither doom merchants /pharmaceuticals /tobacco companies /governments/medical councils or anybody else having a go are going to stop it ..the truth will out it always does

  • bwims

    Surely there are solutions to preventing kids getting them?

    a) make them available on prescription only

    b) use an id card that is scanned whenever they are bought linked to a prescription, to detect a vast number of purchases for resale to kids.

    c) make selling them or tobacco to kids a crime punishable by imprisonment and ruinous fines.

  • Bracken George

    80% of lung cancers are caused by smoking, e cigs are the closest thing to a cure – we must ban them immediately

  • PufCigs

    I didn’t know about this news, but i think that tobacco addicted smokers can’t easily quit smoking unless they have an alternative. For more info visit

  • TJ

    excellent article, and I have just one additional comment to make on the subject. We know with all certainty that tobacco kills. We know with almost all certainty that e-cigs are harmless – why all the energy into banning and controlling e-cigs, and yet no energy whatsoever into banning tobacco?

  • Paul edge

    Stop selling the ones that look like fags, glowing tips and all that rubbish,
    Fags look ugly anyway, and by extension so do people smoking them.
    I’m just coming to the end of my first week smoke free after 20 years or more on roll ups, I’m using a vaporiser (vivid) which looks exactly like a vaporiser if you catch my drift and I’m now taking my drug of choice in a harm free way.
    Here’s an idea, why not use these as a delivery system for all kinds of drugs, painkillers, prescribed, herbal remedies etc.


    I’ve been using an electronic cigarette for 2 years now and I honestly don’t care if some uptight people think of me as a coward. I feel better than ever, I can climb the stairs instead of taking the elevator without feeling like i’m going to pass out when I get to my floor and my house and clothes dont smell bad anymore.

  • Pomegranny

    Until Big Tobacco stops selling the proven killers, burned tobacco cigarettes, their faux concerns for smokers health are suspect, IMO. Vote with your wallets for the actually effective personal vaporizers, you know, the ones that look and taste NOTHING like cigarettes. Vapers could give Anti-Smoking lobbies a run for their hatred as far as Big T goes.
    Remember vapers are the former smokers who could NOT be shamed into submission, vote out the nannies and keep voting with your wallets for the products, by ex-smokers for ex-smokers, that actually WORK.
    Smoke free for 9 months after 36 years. Bye bye Big T and Big Pharma…enjoy your withdrawal pains. You are OVER.

  • Naveen Soni

    Alfa E-cigarette -We provide best electronic cigarette Kit e cig liquid, flavored e liquid & flavored e-juice in Ireland. We are specialized in e-cigarette, providing you with the very best.

Can't find your Web ID? Click here