Do watch, enjoy, and share widely.
People will be barred from blowing benefits cash on booze and gambling under a controversial scheme to hand out welfare money on “smart cards” announced today.
Instead of handing claimants cash, they would have credits put on a card that could only be used to buy food and other essentials.
Iain Duncan Smith is certain the scheme, to be fully piloted if the Tories win the election, will help alcohol and gambling addicts stay on the wagon.Because this is the same policy he 'announced' two years ago, netiquette surely excuses me for re-publishing what I said about it back then too.
You see, this is how IDS views the world of the underclass: (cue idyllic 1930s English countryside ditty)But that's only tackling the utter absurdity of a state thinking it can effectively enforce such a silly idea. What about more practical - and fundamental failures - of the policy?
Bert: 'Ere, Joe. The social 'av just given me this 'ere smart card. Instead of me benefits, I gotta use this in shops and it won't work if I try to get me fags and booze!Whereas anyone who has ever lived amongst or near the type of people IDS is targeting know the conversation would, more likely, go like this:
Joe: The bastards! So what yer gonna do, then?
Bert: Nuffink I can do, is there? I'm just gonna 'av to give up the drink and smokes and go get a job!
Bert: 'Ere, Joe. The social 'av just given me this 'ere smart card. Instead of me benefits, I gotta use this in shops and it won't work if I try to get me fags and booze!So, in short, IDS's plan will only work for those who can count on no-one trustworthy enough to do a deal with. Not so much smart cards for the feckless as for the friendless. It also shows his astounding lack of understanding as to the resourcefulness of working class (or, indeed, non-working class) folk. They've been dancing round the - mostly class-motivated - avalanche of sin taxes and government regulations on their way of life for millennia, why would they stop when faced with something as poorly thought-out, and easily counteracted, as selective smart cards?
Joe: The bastards! Anyfink I can do to help, mucker?
Bert: Well, I suppose. You can still buy that stuff, can't ya?
Joe: Yeah. 'Ere, tell you what. Why don't I get your baccy and beer, and I'll give you a food shoppin' list for the same amount. Then I just come round your gaff and we swap.
Bert: Sorted! Cheers, mate.
A convenient headline grabber for the Daily Mail contingent, then, while also gently introducing the idea of smart cards as a means of lifestyle control to a largely bovine public.
A smart card scheme will almost certainly require smart card readers and/or “approved outlets” where these cards can be used. No point in a smart card system if the shop can sell you anything it has on its shelves. Either the stores will need to be on a Government “approved list” and agree not to sell a list of forbidden items to the card holders, or at the very least the purchases made will have to have a bar code such that information is somehow be fed back down the line to Big Mother (and the computer says no).
Whilst I am sure that Asda, Tescos, other large retail outlets (and indeed the IT giants behind the Smart card system) will all bend over backwards to facilitate this scheme, what of the small independent shop keeper of market trader? They almost certainly have neither the time, wherewithal, or language skills to go through the bureaucratic nightmare that will almost certainly be entailed in complying with this scheme. And I don’t know about your local market, but at mine only 2 out of about 30 of the stalls even have credit card machines.
The consequence of this scheme will be to place a huge number of outlets off limits to those forced to use such cards for at least part of their purchases. Rich and middle income parents are able to call into the market at the end of the day to pick up the fresh fruit and veg bargains, but the poor who have used all their cash and left only with their smart cards till the end of the week will effectively be barred.Only in statist circles can a policy be sold as somehow "helping" the less well off while simultaneously barring the majority from healthful behaviour; harming outlets such as local shops and farmers markets in favour of restricting all purchases to multi-chain conglomerates; and ignoring the obvious and simple avoidance strategies which will form a new black market in both the smart cards themselves and trading of the benefits, with claimants having to pay a commission for the privilege.
.@TobaccoTacticss gutted! IS abandon anti-tobacco extremism; plans for Iraq to follow Moscow as #COP7 venue in doubt http://t.co/5U0NPSRJ14
— Dick Puddlecote (@Dick_Puddlecote) September 22, 2014
Oh, cripes. Are #cigarettes being played as torches of freedom against ISIs? http://t.co/sHEiFOwfTV
— Ruth Malone (@MaloneRuth) September 23, 2014
"There's definitely been a big change, hasn't there, since we were growing up and sugar was in a bowl on the breakfast table and you added it and your parents could check. Sugar's now built into food."No, Andy. Frosties and Sugar Puffs (there's a clue in the name) are 63 and 57 years old respectively. You are 44.
"I think kids are eating far too much sugar than they should be."Really, Andy? Well, they're eating far less than your age group did when you were kids. Sugar consumption has fallen by two-thirds since you were 5, according to the British Heart Foundation. Probably because the sugar bowl is something only now seen in antique shops.
"Adults have to be free to choose, don't they?"True Andy, perhaps your party could allow us to do so someday. Remember you're from the smoking ban party which is fully behind minimum alcohol pricing and are now advocating a de facto ban on 60 year old cereals. However, the best was yet to come.
Burnham: "We can't dictate to what adults do, but with children it's different, Stephen, because children don't make their own choices"Yet today, his leader sang a different tune.
Nolan: "Define a child, under 18 year olds?"
Burnham: "Under 18, yeah"
Nolan: "So the 16 and 17 year olds in this audience, you would tell them what they can and can't eat"
Burnham: "No, I'm not saying that actually, but never mind"
Westminster politics is so often out of touch, irrelevant and disconnected from people’s lives. It is time we brought power much closer to people. It is time the voice of young people was heard which is why we will give the vote to 16 and 17 year olds.They should be listened to; they are able to make a choice of what government they want ... just incapable of deciding for themselves if they want to eat Frosties for breakfast. Joined up politics? Or just Burnham selectively using children as tools of the state, again.
"I'm not going to try to dictate to everybody, people say nanny state"Yes, Andy, that's because everything you utter is nanny state through and through, despite you trying to pretend otherwise. Although it's encouraging that the term is becoming toxic to politicians the best way of avoiding the accusation is to grow a pair of balls and tell 'public health' extremists who give you nightmares - and force you to come out with such incoherent nonsense as you did today - to go jump off a cliff.
Those who know the history of public health will realize that the germ of nanny-state behavior has always been there. Public health started as a strange combination of fad-diet and temperance nuts along with practicing health professionals who were enlightened enough to be concerned about eliminating disease rather than just treating it. It pulled in established good works such as food facility inspection, occupational health, and vaccine campaigns, and had a legitimate scientific and institutional identity by the mid-20th century. Through several ensuing decades it was mostly legitimate, but the temperance nuts were still there.
My first encounter with that undercurrent was when I was in grad school, in a different field, writing a paper on the benefits of moderate alcohol consumption. I came across a lot of “public health” papers that insisted that the observed health benefits of alcohol consumption were not real, grasping at straws to deny overwhelming evidence. I was genuinely baffled at how people could be making such errors. It would be years later before I realized that they were simply lying because that is what you do in “public health” when the facts do not support your preferences about how people should behave.This denial of the scientifically-proven benefits of moderate drinking, I don't need to remind you, is just as prevalent today.
The real scandal here is not that one self-important think-tank was unwilling to get rid of its president over grossly unprofessional behavior (though that is a scandal), but that “public health” rallied around him. Here is a supposed adult who publicly said “fuck you” to members of the public who he is supposed to care about (he did not use that exact phrase as far as I know, but actually did use other words that I would not type into this blog). The people he attacked were disagreeing with him almost entirely in a polite and professional way. And yet I have not seen one single statement along the lines of “this is a real shame because I respected Aston for years, but for the credibility of public health, he has got to go.” Not one sign of remorse from the institutions of public health. Instead, I have seen a number of public health academics and other supposedly respectable professionals actively speaking up in his defense. These communications represented (and in some cases, basically explicitly stated) the attitude that “public health” does not owe the public any consideration at all.
Put another way, public health stopped being about health when they started denying the health benefits of THR or alcohol. Then they stopped being about the public when the decided that it was not a problem that the public hates them for what they are doing.And on 'public health' emphasis on longevity over general welfare:
We observed how sharply this contrasted with the implicit objective function in almost every public health policy discussion, which is basically “maximize longevity at any expense, and everything else be damned.” The economists who study medical care at least interject into this the caveat that some financial expenditures are too much to pay for the tiny bit of extra longevity they provide. But to the public health people, all other costs and benefits are trumped by the one objective. Economists’ objective function, we agreed, was not quite right, but at least it was generally defensible. The public health view, on the other hand, was utterly absurd. No one wants to live their life according to such an objective. Not even close. And therefore there is no possible way to justify it as an ethical goal for public policy.
Because their underlying ethic — one that has never been accepted by any society and is impossible to defend as an ethical rule based on any moral system or empirical observation — is that the only objective is keeping all these bodies “pure” and walking around as long as possible. This roughly describes the goal of many a computer game, but it is not the actual preference of any people nor of any free society. Indeed, if you asked the people in public health who are capable of understanding the question (which is a minority, but not a tiny minority), “what is the underlying ethic or objective function you are working in pursuit of,” approximately none of them would articulate this absurdity. If you articulated it to them, most would agree it is absurd. Yet they would turn around and continue to make pronouncements and recommendations based on exactly that implicit objective function. They do not even realize they are implicitly basing their professional lives on an indefensible ethic because their professional culture denies them the language to question it and few are intellectual and honest enough to think beyond their profession.Do go read the whole thing here, it's a real eye-opener.
1. Make the health and protection of the public your prime concern
1.1 The interests of the public are paramount: put them before your own interests and those of any colleague or organisation... but then public health is about regulating others, isn't it? Regulations on their own behaviour can obviously be ignored at will.
@Johnrashton47 Return soon! I appreciate your opinions - even if blunt, they're honest & realistic, (bloody Ecigs are a daft idea).
— Isitaboutabike? (@Isitaboutabike) September 16, 2014
I am currently receiving a lot if abuse from e cigarette addicts.Tells you all you want to know.
— John Ashton (@Johnrashton47) September 3, 2014
I am 36 now. This means, that for 2/3rds of my life, I was a ‘dirty smoker’. Something that society was at pains to remind me about on a daily basis, with my freedom to smoke being restricted more and more. I am sure I was not the only smoker to feel utterly sickened to read news articles condemning adoptive parents for smoking, that they should be prevented from giving love and security to a vulnerable child, all because they enjoyed a cigarette. As a parent, this strikes a bit of fear into you. Will they condemn parents that smoke? Will they one day say my children should be taken away from me cos I go into the garden to have a ciggy?
But it was nastier than that. They ran adverts about horrible tobacco guzzling parents, so that all of society could hate me a little bit more, as the adverts on the tellybox had told them what an appalling mother I was.
The public at large already sneered at me, customers at my workplace would comment on my habit, tell me it would ruin my skin, age me or how it made me look ugly. Really personal stuff, and insulting too. I did not know these people, who were they to tell me that I was ugly because I smoked? I wish I were kidding, but I used to get these comments with relative frequency. If they could think of nothing particularly personal, they would settle with ‘Bad for you, that’ as though somehow I must just have missed the adverts, posters, flyers, billboards, comments etc and was happily thinking I was replacing one of my 5 a day with some tobacco leaves. So I was stupid, too.
To recap – I was stupid, ugly, will be ugly, a bad mother and society thought I stank.
Then when the smoking ban came into affect, by which time I had switched to rollies, I would stand at work and roll myself a ciggy before going outside for a break. I remember catching a woman looking at me as I fashioned a perfectly cylindrical tube of ‘I am going outside so you lot can stop clicking your damn fingers at me for service’ to see such a look of disgust on her face that it really took me back for a moment. I had never had a stranger look at me like that before. Pure unadulterated loathing for me rolling a ciggie. I probably could have chopped out a line of coke, or rolled up my sleeve to tap for a vein and not been looked at like I was just then.
Post the 2007 ban, things just got worse in terms of how ppl treated me. The adverts got more aggressive, the second hand smoke messages got more aggressive. So now rather than just being ugly, smelly, stupid and a bad parent I was also dangerous.
If you are not a vaper or smoker and are reading this, imagine for just one second, what that must be like? To spend 2/3rds of your life being treated like this, looked at in this way. Remember that poor woman who ignited her oxygen tube with a lighter? Seek it out – look at the comments and see what the public thinks of smokers. The vitriol and hatred is something to behold. A poor woman made a horrible mistake whilst still under the effects of a general anaesthetic and what did the public say? She deserved it. Why?
Because she was a smoker.In Ashton's world, this is perfectly acceptable. And in Ashton's world, when Lorien switched to e-cigs, she is still fair game, just as she is still fair game for all his public health colleagues with their equally closed minds.
The public is highly diverse – including elements that are raucous, bawdy, profane, satirical, sarcastic, insulting and so on. To complain about them as a public health professional is like sailors complaining about the weather, or politicians complaining about the electorate. They are the subject of your profession – get used to them, and learn to engage without becoming pompous and aggressive. If you think you can defend your professional failings by finding examples of people being rude to you or about you, then you misunderstand your role. So please don’t try this as a defence, it will only bring you more shame and further opprobrium ... Public health is a gritty business, not about the provision of happy-clappy advice to a peasantry grateful for wisdom and awed by your status. If that is how you think, you’re in the wrong job.... but you won't hear anyone in 'public health' taking heed of it.
"At least 13, 14 times a day [an average smoker] gets their pack out; they put it on the table; and the pack symbolises something. It's really important, it's about the smoker's identity"Smokers can't be allowed to enjoy an identity, now can they? This is the whole point of plain packaging which tobacco control will make sure politicians hear little of. Instead the entire campaign has said nothing else but children, children, children. But when boasting amongst themselves on the ESRC YouTube channel (comments banned, natch), and elsewhere (see a preening rundown of dirty tricks prior to the smoking ban here) we get something more truthful.
"At the time that the last government - Labour government - was in power, and they were consulting on the next steps in tobacco control, at that time there was a big fightback from the industry and so the government sort of said "well, we're interested in this but we want more evidence". And that's where research like Olivia's became so crucial, because they needed the evidence to take that next step"While it's very kind of Arnott to admit what we all know, that plain packs was a rent-seeking policy promoted to government before evidence had been produced to justify it, do you - for even a twinkling moment - believe that this 'evidence'-gathering exercise was ever going to come back to government and say, "you know what, we've found that plain packs isn't useful at all, so forget we ever mentioned it".
Well, I'm not the first to research this topic, and given the results I will be presenting, I could have chosen to go directly to some high profile publication relating to marketing and packaging, health psychology or tobacco control, where the research would almost certainly not have been reviewed by those with any expertise in eye-movements and visual attention. And here’s the point, submitting research to peer review, when you know that the “peers” reviewing are not equipped to detect errors or omissions from the submission is, in my opinion, second only to the falsification of dataBut not only is Maynard's research held up as the pinnacle of integrity and scrupulous scientific standards in tobacco control circles, it also gets a gong. The true eye-tracking expert however - who came to a different conclusion to Maynard - will, of course, be entirely ignored and get nothing.
None of this concerns the head of Milefield Primary School, who self-righteously proclaims that "We have got to work towards what's best for our children". The clear implication is that parents have not got their children’s best interests at heart, that they are unfit to feed their own offspring, and that schools exist to protect kids from their parents. Her use of the proprietorial term "our children" – rather than "the children" or "our pupils" – is telling. She uses the term to imply ownership by her institution, perhaps even by the nation, but when Adam and Claire Martin, who have moved their three kids to a different school as a result of the ban, say that they "don't need somebody to tell us what our children should be eating", the word "our" is literal, meaningful and should be deserving of respect.It is strongly reminiscent of this shrill and unhinged performance by Sonia Poulton - broadcast to the nation in the summer of 2012 on Radio 5 Live - as she laid down her plans for requisitioning the nation's children to justify why she is entitled to interfere in the lives of other parents.
We used to have a few of these prodnoses dotted around, but they're everywhere now. Self-aggrandising, aloof, condescending of others, and entirely dismissive of choices different from their own.
Put this latest over-wrought moral panic to one side for a minute. Let's instead try to investigate why we have an army of shrieking curtain-twitchers who insist on getting involved in everyone else's life as well as their own.
Now that's something that government should be doing if it cared for society, instead of encouraging the most objectionable to forcibly dictate their own personal gripes on the rest of us ... as they seem to do at every turn nowadays.The same can safely be said of the lunatics at Milefield Primary School in Barnsley, and I reckon my illustration from back then works very well for their nasty policy too.
The fact remains that a ham sandwich at lunchtime is not, and never will be, a child protection issue.Quite.
|Click to enlarge|
Additionally, there is the widespread public health annoyance that anyone is allowed to be anonymous online and that - as such - they must surely be paid shills. This not only further emphasises that they really don't understand how this internet thing has naturally developed since the 90s but also reveals the underlying tyrannical modern public health mindset.
It's a facet of the tyrant for centuries that anonymity unnerves the dictatorial. If you have a solid case that can be backed up with unshakeable evidence, anonymity is nothing to be scared of, but public health haven't enjoyed that position for over a decade now.
Instead, as Ashton has shown, the modus operandum for public health now solely consists of attacking the man not the ball. How on Earth can they do that if those opposing them can't be investigated and intimidated, eh?And, indeed, dismissed as complainants thus avoiding the need to address the matter properly. It is a tactic that has always helped them avoid debate, so why not to deflect attention from a PR disaster too? Why should it matter to the FPH who is complaining? Surely the only thing that they should be addressing is the content of the complaint.
51. The budget approved by the COP at its fourth session was US$ 14 902 000 (of which VAC accounted for US$ 9 107 000). This amount, however, should be adjusted by US$ 1 188 000, the amount that was identified as the extrabudgetary component of funds necessary or convening the fifth session of the INB4 and which was met by the in-kind contribution of the European Union (by covering the travel and conference service costs of the session).That's $1.188 million of your taxes being spent to prop up a movement which - as I've mentioned before - is incapable of living within its means.
New EU sanctions against Russia will take effect on Friday, blocking loans for five big state banks and curbing EU business with oil and defence firms.
The aim is to keep pressure on Russia over its role in the Ukraine crisis.Pah! What do the massed ranks of the tobacco control industry care about that, eh? It pales into insignificance when there's an exciting and free sightseeing tour of Moscow on offer for delegates.
Speaking at a conference, organised by the European Public Health Alliance (EPHA) on Friday (5 September) Peter Rice, chair of the Scottish Health Action on Alcohol Problems (SHAAP), argued for the MUP [minimum alcohol pricing] policy, which sets a 'floor price' below which alcohol cannot be sold, based on the amount of alcohol contained in the product. MUP will particularly benefit harmful drinkers on low incomes in terms of improved health and well-being, he said.For "benefit", read "impose a form of price prohibition on".
"Tackling price is the most effective and cost-effective way of tackling the issue. It will affect the whole population" ... the chair of SHAAP added.Hold on, say that again?
"It will affect the whole population"But, but, this is not what we have been told before. It was supposedly brilliantly targeted to just those who abuse alcohol (only if they're poor, that is), not the rest of us!
90% of population 'would be unaffected' by minimum alcohol price
Lead author Professor Nick Sheron said: ‘Setting a minimum unit price for alcohol is an almost perfect alcohol policy because it targets cheap booze bought by very heavy drinkers and leaves moderate drinkers completely unaffected.’So what is the truth? Will no-one be affected or everyone be affected. That's quite a large margin of error, isn't it? It's almost as if - I dunno - they're making it up as they go along.
David Davies (Monmouth, Conservative)
To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many serious health events have been recorded per thousand (a) e-cigarette users, (b) users of nicotine replacement therapies and (c) users of the Champix form of varenicline in the last year.Apparently, this is covered by the MHRA who, as we know, have studied e-cigs so closely that they're certain that all models currently on the market must be banned in 2016.
Jane Ellison (The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health; Battersea, Conservative)
The following table shows the total number of serious UK spontaneous ‘suspected’ ADR reports received by the MHRA between 23 July 2013 and 22 July 2014 broken down for E-Cigarettes, Nicotine Replacement Therapies (excluding E-Cigarettes) and Varenicline:
Total Serious ReportsFive. That's it. Just five.
Nicotine Replacement therapy 75
Public health chiefs have accused e-cigarette users of a campaign of online abuse, saying that junior scientists are being scared away from research by explicit attacks from “vapers” on Twitter.
Professor John Ashton, president of the Faculty of Public Health, is facing an official complaint after he retaliated, calling one vaper a “c***” and another an “onanist”.
Professor Ashton was called a “c***”, “asshole” and “jizzweasel” over the weekend for supporting the WHO, while one vaper complained: “I was blocked before I could even take the time to find a fitting insult.”Retaliated?
I very much regret my choice of language to describe some vapers on Saturday evening and any offence caused.I am taking a break from twitter
— John Ashton (@Johnrashton47) September 8, 2014
Our worry is that they maybe helping a lot of smokers to just perpetuate the habit because it means they can maybe smoke in places where they wouldn't normally be able to smoke and they can keep it going and perhaps lose their urge to give up because they're a pretty good way of getting the nicotine hit.
An even bigger worry is that they might be recruiting a whole lot of young people because they are being marketed at young people with fruit flavours and bubble gum flavours.Long term readers here will remember Maryon-Davis for his bizarre claim in 2009 to be "a libertarian by nature", just before reeling off his 'libertarian' credentials on the BBC.
Is the government 'nannying' us too much? Is it trying too hard to micro-manage our health? I say firmly - no.
I see an increasing acceptance that we, all of us, need not only more information and guidance from government, but also more legislation to save us from ourselves.
We need to press for more legislation to improve and protect health and well-being. We need a big stick to curb the worst excesses of the various commercial interests who shape our lifestyle. We've been largely successful with the tobacco industry, and now it's time to shift the focus onto alcohol and junk-food.
What next? I would like to see a ban on smoking in cars with a child on board and a ban on displays of cigarettes in shops. I would like to see a real hike in tax on alcohol and a ban on deep price-cuts for booze. I would like to see a wider ban on junk-food adverts around TV programmes watched largely by children.
I would like to see a whole raft of other legislation for health.Despite his obvious libertarian tendencies, I don't think he's going to object too much to more state interference with e-cigs, do you?
|Click to enlarge|
Many critics of WHO’s position are from the harm reduction community and see e-cigarettes as a useful contributor to tobacco control efforts. But these critics seem unable to decide whether e-cigarettes are a short term medical aid to quitting smoking or a consumer good, to be used in the long term.Why decide when they offer both?
Images aimed at young people are reminiscent of those previously used by the tobacco and alcohol industries.He seems very certain of that assertion. Another health pro who was present at e-cig company board meetings where they discussed ensnaring kids, perhaps? Or is he talking about adults under 30?
Stanton Glantz, professor of medicine at the Center for Tobacco Control, University of California San Francisco, says “there is no justification for reintroducing these toxins indoors after we spent 30 years getting rid of them"Quoting aircraft engineers is e-cig control 101, it seems.
The tobacco industry’s integration with e-cigarette manufacturers is not altruistic.This is true, they fall into the category of acting in self-interest as per Adam Smith's invisible hand. Ashton and his colleagues, however, receive no pay whatsoever and do their bansturbating for nothing but love.
Many, seemingly well informed, people appear willing to suspend disbelief about the tobacco industry’s goodwill. This issue is as much about commercial politics as science. Let us get the science right by making sure all vested interests are in the open, as we seek to improve the public’s health.Good idea. Because with the pharma-funded WHO's dream Moscow city break fast approaching - and with the FPH's dogged resistance to any evidence-based positivity about e-cigs - it would be interesting to discuss further the 'independent financial arrangements' of the FPH and their members, not to mention the ideological anti-business agenda of far-left ideologue John Ashton.
Public health chiefs have accused e-cigarette users of a campaign of online abuse, saying that junior scientists are being scared away from research by explicit attacks from “vapers” on Twitter.Not all bad then? Considering the shocking quality of most tobacco control 'research' so far on e-cigs, I'd say they're the very last people who should be conducting any.
Professor Ashton and the Faculty of Public Health declined to comment ...Very wise seeing as they have a disciplinary to conduct.
... but Professor Martin McKee, from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, who is another critic of e-cigarettes, said: “If you say anything, they get you within minutes, there’s so many of them."So many of them that they become a problem for the likes of McKee, yet still no evidence of any of them quitting smoking with e-cigs according to the junk scientists of public health.
David Davies (Monmouth, Conservative)
To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is on the definition of e-cigarettes as tobacco products under the terms of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.
Jane Ellison (The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health; Battersea, Conservative)
Electronic cigarettes are not defined as tobacco products under the World Health Organisation (WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. The regulation of e-cigarettes, is however, scheduled for discussion at the sixth session of the Conference of the Parties to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control on 13–18 October 2014.It would appear to be an extremely well worded question from Davies (whose stance on e-cigs I have no clue) which winkles out a fundamental aspect all but forgotten in the debate over EU and WHO pronouncements on e-cigs.
@Olddodderer Our CEO will be attending. I'm sure other will too @DHgovuk @PHE_uk
— ASH (@ASH_LDN) September 1, 2014