Ever since I tried an early heat-not-burn device when I attended the Global Forum on Nicotine (GFN) I have tried to keep an eye on the developing technology. At the end of the day, it’s really a simplistic concept. Instead of setting fire to loose-leaf tobacco wrapped in a slow-burning paper, it’s simply heated in a not too dissimilar way that an e-cig heats e-liquid.

As with the now popular e-cigarette, heat-not-burn didn’t exactly get off to a rip-roaring start. The device we recognise as an e-cig today is due to commercial viability, whether Hon Lik found the original 1963 patent and based his work on that, or came up with a different approach altogether is neither here nor there. The early devices didn’t take the market by storm, and neither did the early HnB products.

It is that time of year where all roads lead to a large, taxpayer-funded shindig of tobacco control troughers, hangers-on, activists and prodnoses. This time, the World Conference on Tobacco or Health (WCTOH) heads to Cape Town to discuss the latest “science”, policies, ideas and general authoritarian principles associated with tobacco control.

Interestingly, the UK felt it necessary to send 35 delegates to the conference, all funded by the taxpayer (natch) to the tune of £250,000. Naturally, the usual suspects are there to talk about the various policies that are considered to be “successful” in driving down the smoking rate.

If like me, you call “bullshit” whenever a news article claims that “e-cigs are as bad as smoking”, you’ve probably been playing the same game of bullshit bingo as I have.

Trouble is, I never seem to win anything.

The latest headlines, generated by a dodgy press release naturally, to spread like wildfire is, of course, all about “toxic metals” found in the liquid and aerosol. Naturally, when I first saw the headline, I uttered the now infamous phrase: “I call bullshit”.

As noted in 2006, ahead of the free vote to ban smoking in public spaces:

It is essential that campaigners create the impression of inevitable success. Campaigning of this kind is literally a confidence trick: the appearance of confidence both creates confidence and demoralises the opposition.

They “knew” they were going to win, and thus were confident in securing the votes for their “next logical step” in the war on smokers.

In somewhat of a surprising move, the American Cancer Society has quietly updated its position statement on electronic cigarettes. I say quietly because there is no mention of this update on any of the social media channels, nor was there any special press release or blog post on their website.

Naturally, doing that makes me a tad suspicious.

Considering that, earlier this year they issued a press release in response to the National Academies of Science Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) report - which I still need to write about. You would, therefore, think that, given that the report likely spurred this position update, they would issue something to herald it. But no.

To borrow from Andrew Allison, once upon a time private property rights were highly valued. As long as it was legal, what consenting adults did was no-one else’s business. With the March of the Puritans, however, there are umpteen state-funded Quangos, sock-puppets and Government busybodies poking their noses in where it is decidedly unwelcome.

As reported by the Halifax Courier last week:

Calderdale taxi drivers and passengers face vaping ban in cabs

This week saw another release of the CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) with more information on ‘Reasons for Electronic Cigarette Use Among Middle and High School Students’.

Given that Scott Gottlieb made a big thing in his speech about youth, it is hardly surprising the route that this is going to take.

https://twitter.com/SGottliebFDA/status/964236004549971969

Those figures are, in fact, accurate. At least as far as the survey data goes. Remember, this is from the National Youth Tobacco Survey. As previously mentioned, the NYTS did change its questions on e-cig use which, unsurprisingly, led to a “shocking rise” in the use of said product.

Two surprising pieces of news appeared in my timeline this week. First, the Czech Republic are planning to reverse parts, if not all of the smoking ban. Secondly, Austria are planning to do the exact same thing.

Naturally, this has prompted a lot of screaming from the usual suspects, labelling the proposed reversals as “a public health disaster”.

Smoking has been banned indoors in restaurants and pubs, as well as many other enclosed spaces, since May 31, 2017. Similar laws are common across the European Union.

Isn’t that the saying? Instead, the Mayor of Greater Manchester; one Andy Burnham, is looking to make Greater Manchester “the first City Region in Europe to make smoking history.”.

Not sure how well that is going to work sunshine.

Y’see, on the eve of the ten-year anniversary of the most illiberal and damaging legislation which saw an accelerated decline of the British Pub, Mr Burnham wanted to drive down the smoking rates in Greater Manchester ‘faster and further than achieved anywhere else’:

Or in the words of Simon Clark, creeping prohibition. Which is exactly what it is.

Bexleyheath town centre could become the first London Borough to implement smokefree zone

Time, and time again we see councils doing mad stunts like this. Bristol, of course, did it with voluntary bans in two town squares. Wales then banned smoking on a series of beaches. Swansea held a consultation (subsequently ignored, natch), Sheffield has done it, and of course, various NHS hospitals are banning smoking anywhere on their grounds, and finally, Birmingham Children’s Hospital proposed enforcing a smoke-free zone for nearby roads outside their grounds.