Just wanted to touch base here, to let anyone who cares know that I haven't died, despite my total absence over the last couple weeks:  I've had the flu!  Which took me completely by surprise, it being April and all – flu is bad enough all by itelf, but try having it when all the trees are in the middle of procreation season, spewing their yellow-green pollen EVERYWHERE.  I'm not allergic to tree pollen, but when the air is thick with it, it's hard for ANYONE to breathe; when that "anyone" also happens to be asthmatic, AND have the flu... well, it's been sounding like a TB ward around here lately.

I am somewhat on the mend; still coughing to try and clear my lungs of all the excess caused by both the flu and all this damned pollen, but definitely getting better.  Hopefully I'll soon be able to get back to lambasting the Smoke-Nazis and the Tobacco Control Cartel.
​

As you see, the rate for those teens in the US who have ever tried vaping really took off starting in 2013, reached peak, around 27%, in 2015, and then over the next 2 years, declined to a level just slightly higher than the level in 2014, roughly 21%. 

2014 is the first year for which we have data on those who either occasionally or regularly vape, and both of those rates are pretty low; "occasionally" appears to start around 6%, edges up to 7% in 2015, then drops back down to 5% and stays there at least until 2017, which is the last year for which we have data. 

For those who "regularly" vape, the rate appears to start, in 2014, at roughly 3%, rises just slightly in 2015 to around 4%, then drops back to about 3% and stays there (at least until 2017, which is the last year for which we have data).

Epidemic?  Where?  When? 

​The only one of those rates that might be said to be in "epidemic" territory is the rate for those teens who've "ever tried" vaping – from which we might draw the conclusion that Teens Like To Try New Things.  But the rates of the "occasional" and "regular" teen vapers appear to present only another very well-known fact about teens: They Don't Stick To Much Of Anything.  We have no data here for what's happened to any of those rates since 2017, but, given that the FDA has been on an utterly-mindless rampage about Juul since sometime in 2018, I'd wager that all the rates, but especially the "ever vaped" and "occasionally vape" rates, have probably climbed astronomically – because all that ranting from the FDA about Juul has almost certainly had the effect of "marketing to youth" – the very thing they accuse Juul of doing!

Right beside that, check out how the rates of teen smoking have declined since 2011 – the smallest decline being in those teens who "occasionally" smoke, at -32% -- that means 32% fewer than before 2011.  "Ever tried smoking," or those who've smoked "in past month" have declined even more dramatically, to -43% and -47%, respectively.  But the most welcome and amazing drop?  Those teens who smoke regularly – 59% fewer  than before 2011!   Naturally, Tobacco Control takes credit for that stunning decline – naturally!  But the actual fact of the matter is that Tobacco Control has done nothing different than what they've done since the '90s – except rant about Juul, marketing it to teens!

Anyone who has at least one or two functional brain cells should be able to see that vaping is the actual  agent of that truly amazing decline in teen smoking – it's the only new factor!

Let us now examine the various rates in the United Kingdom:

The age group is the same as that in the US, 11-18, but the vaping graph is slightly different, in that the data doesn't begin until 2013, and there is data all the way to 2018 – but the percentage range is far different:  in 2013, the year in which, in the US, the rate for those who've "ever tried" vaping really took off, it does the same thing in the UK, but starting at a much lower point:  4% rather than approximately 7%-8% – and the sharp climb, in the UK, goes only to 12%, not the 27% we saw in 2015 in the US.

Starting in 2013, "occasional" vaping (once a month or less) starts right at 0, climbs to 2% in 2015, and stays there, right through to 2018.  "Weekly" vaping, which might be termed "regular" vaping, doesn't start till 2014, stays flat at 1% till 2017, where it "climbs" to 2% in 2018.  

I see even less of an "epidemic" in the UK than in the US.

The chart for the decline of teen smoking in the UK is also slightly different than that same chart for the US, in that the data ends in 2016, but the pattern is similar:  the smallest decline is amongst those teens who "occasionally" smoke; a reasonable decline in the rate of those who've "tried smoking," at 19% – and a dramatic decline in "regular smoking" – a whopping 45% decline!

In the UK they also throw in a metric for "ex-smoker," and that rate has also declined, but I have no idea what that means in this context, and since there is nothing in the US data to which it might be compared, for our current purpose that decline in "ex-smoker" rates is rather meaningless.  It may well be the only decline for which Tobacco Control can legitimately take, or share, credit; over the long term, from the '90s to 2016, if there were fewer smokers, there would automatically be fewer ex-smokers.

One naturally wonders at the differences, slight as they are, between the two sets of data, the US and UK.  In the UK, vaping/e-cigarettes are well-accepted by UK Public Health, and endorsed by their Stop Smoking Services as a highly viable and valuable tool for smoking cessation.  Contrast that eminently-rational approach, to the many and varied lies about vaping disseminated by Public Health in the US, including the FDA, the CDC, any charlatan with a diploma-mill MD, and even a few total fakers who have NO relevant degree whatsoever (such as that sexual predator Stanton Glantz, with his PhD in mechanical engineering!) – even when looking at the statistics illustrated above, the "public health" idiots in the US are unable to see it as any sort of useful addition to smoking cessation!

Or, perhaps they see it plainly enough, but simply wish to discourage anyone – even teens! – from quitting smoking, so as to continue capitalizing on disease and death.  As I've noted in The INFAMOUS Master Settlement Agreement, there is big money in selling death, and without that money, those incompetently-governed states which have gambled against their own cititizens by selling Tobacco Bonds will surely go broke, exposing that incompetence and malfeasance; the criminals responsible just can't be having that.

I think the difference in the vaping rates is actually explained quite easily.  When I was in high school, in the '70s, it was far easier for teens to acquire marijuana, than alcohol – buying alcohol required being at least 18 (at that time), but, as I've noted many times, those selling pot don't ask for IDs.  The highly-regulated substance, alcohol, was nearly impossible to get, unless one at least looked to be old enough, but the completely unregulated (by virtue of being illegal!) substance(s) were extremely easy to access – a ten-year-old could easily acquire marijuana, if he or she had the cash. 

I think the same exact situation is in play, with vaping: in the UK, vaping is very well-regulated, accepted as part of smoking cessation, and for the most part, acceptable to society, but because of that rational and probably-strict regulation, it's probably much harder for a minor to get hold of vaping hardware and eliquid than in the US, where the "official" attitude to vaping is ignorant and mostly negative, and there is little-to-no regulation at all – even the ridiculous "deeming" of e-cigarettes as "tobacco products" is, at this point, more threat and intention than present reality.  Which means that anyone in the US with an eye to profit could acquire and then sell to minors any vaping hardware or eliquid those minors desired – and the mere fact that minors aren't supposed to have those items is plenty of reason for those minors to go to great lengths to acquire them:  vaping is the "forbidden fruit," and most teens love that!  When you add all the "marketing to youth" that the FDA has been doing with the constant wild-eyed drivel about Juul, it's absolutely clear why there are so many more teens vaping in the US than in the UK – though still not at any level that might be described as "epidemic."

Another factor may also have some bearing on all this.  In the UK, where vaping is socially acceptable for smoking cessation, it's completely accepted that one factor which makes vaping superior to smoking is the huge variety of flavors available, or possible, for vaping.  In the US, all these dimwits so up-in-arms about teen vaping can think of nothing better to do than "ban flavors" – because the tasty flavors "make vaping attractive to youth."  They can't seem to wrap their minuscule minds around the fact that the many tasty flavors make vaping attractive to anybody – despite the many available tasty flavors of alcohol (which don't seem to be in any danger of being banned)!  This deranged preoccupation with flavors makes it crystal clear that the Puritan mindset of many in the US is absolutely inferior to the laissez faire attitudes in the United Kingdom:  prohibition doesn't work, has never worked, and creates crime – such as those profiteers of all-things-vape, mentioned above.

Many vapers may have suspected that all the FDA's noise about a "youth vaping epidemic" was exactly that: noise, but had no real information to back up that suspicion.  The data presented above make it very obvious:  there simply is no "youth vaping epidemic," no matter how earnestly the FDA may wish for one, or even diligently attempt to create  one.​

Notice the vast difference in the decline of "regular" smoking in Australia?  That country bans the use of nicotine in vaping – you can buy vape hardware, you can even buy eliquid, but if you want nicotine, you have to import it, and there are some rather stringent rules about that importation – so not nearly as many people have been able to make a complete transition from smoking to vaping.  And while nicotine is not truly addictive, it can definitely smoothe out some of the rough spots, for those in early-cessation.  I suspect that a flavor ban, in the US, might have a similar if not even more drastic effect on the efficacy of vaping for smoking cessation, since most adult vapers do vape something that tastes better than stinkweed. 

This is exactly the reason that so many in the US wish to totally destroy vaping:  vaping really does assist smoking cessation, better than anything that has come before.  To many, human lives and health matter far  less than money; if vaping is destroyed, all those who have invested in the disease and death of smoking, whether Big Tobacco, Big Pharma, or the Tobacco Control Cartel, can continue making obscene profits. 

To know where the most grotesque and diseased corruption lies... just look at who's opposed to vaping.  There is no "youth vaping epidemic" – just some dishonest, desperate bureaucrats terrified that their gravy train is coming to an end, and their corruption exposed.

Speaking as someone who is now a non-smoker, I certainly agree with most other non-smokers, that cigarette smoke smells quite foul, most of the time ─ although when a cigarette is first lit, the scent can sometimes still beckon to me like turkey on Thanksgiving Day, and I obviously can’t afford to find that smell appealing.  

However the plain fact of the matter is that secondhand smoke is not dangerous, to most people. Take careful note of that last sentence:  I did not say that secondhand tobacco smoke is never harmful to anyone, I said it’s not dangerous to most people, by which I mean, healthy people without any problems with their breathing or their lungs, particularly in any situation in which there is good ventilation.  In 57, nearly 58 years of life, I have in fact personally known three individuals who were actually, and rather severely, affected by secondhand smoke:

   1.  My son, as a child, who suffered pneumonia at the age of 5 and recurring bouts of bronchitis thereafter; 

   2.  An old boyfriend, who was asthmatic and allergic to tobacco and its smoke
          (and at the time I knew him, public smoking was still the norm, with few exceptions);

   3.  One of my uncles, who suffered rather severe emphysema.

In the case of my son, I do have to accept at least part of the blame, since I still smoked indoors from the time he was born until he was nine years old ─ because at least 80% of adults smoked in all the houses I lived in or visited as a child, and nobody suffered because of it, so I had no particular reason to believe that smoking around my own son could harm him.  What finally woke me up was my realization of how many days of school he was missing, due to this or that respiratory problem -- colds, coughs, wheezing, etc.  When I finally took my smoking outdoors, his respiratory health improved tremendously, so it’s clear that he actually was negatively affected by secondhand smoke -- when living in a small apartment with someone who smokes three packs or more a day, there’s not nearly enough ventilation to keep the air clear.

The other two cases, the old boyfriend and the uncle, were individuals whose breathing was already compromised, and thus any steady exposure to secondhand smoke caused them a severe problem, especially if there was inadequate ventilation.

But Tobacco Control would have the world believe that every human being on the planet is as sensitive to secondhand smoke as those three people… and it’s just not true.  

If it really were true, then no one who was born before 1980 would be alive today -- we’d all have perished from exposure to secondhand smoke before we ever grew to adulthood.  In fact, if any of this histrionic disinformation about secondhand smoke were true, those of us born between 1960 and 1980 would never have been born, because our parents would have expired before they were old enough to procreate!

A little more than 20 years ago, my husband and I had finally established sufficient credit to be able to finance a late-model used car, rather than having to pay cash for a junker that might or might not last another thousand miles.  After we paid on that car for a couple years, my husband started mentioning things that included the phrase “after we pay off the car.” But I got to thinking on that, mainly that the car was now two years older than when we bought it, when it was already several years old, and after paying it off, it would be still older, and thus would be more and more prone to requiring expensive repairs. So I broached the idea that we really needed not to pay it off, but rather, in a couple years when it started needing this or that repair, to simply trade it in for another, slightly newer vehicle.

For anyone who’s ever had to live paycheck-to-paycheck, this logic is unassailable: if you’re paying X amount of dollars each month for a car, and then pay it off, you will find some other use for that X amount of dollars.  Then when you truly require a newer vehicle… you won’t have any budget for that “new” car payment.  

If you never pay off a vehicle, but simply trade it in when repairs on it become a regular feature, you never face that total lack of budget.  

Your new vehicle will almost certainly cost more than the last, and because of that higher price and probable higher interest rates, your new car payment will be higher than the last, but for the most part, you already have a budget for a car payment, simply by virtue of already having a monthly car payment.

Though my husband and myself both have a little college education, neither of us has a college degree... yet we were able to figure out the elementary logic of maintaining a vehicle budget, in order to always have a vehicle we can depend on.  

Which begs the question:  with all the fancy college degrees represented by our lawmakers, how could they not see that putting a “sin tax” on cigarettes was a seriously bad idea?

The supposed reason for “sin taxes,” on any products, is to discourage the use of those products.  But smoking may well be the most profound addiction ever known to man, so those who are addicted are going to always find the money to purchase cigarettes somewhere, somehow -- I many times bought cigarettes rather than food, if that was the only way I could afford to smoke; my husband rolled pennies on a regular basis, to get me one more pack on the day before payday -- I’ve even smoked butts from public ashtrays, when public ashtrays existed.  

And for years, decades, greedy politicians could count on this sin tax cash cow.  After all, financial experts told them that since smoking is an addictive habit, increasing the price of tobacco products would do little to curb the number of sales made -- smokers will do whatever they have to do, to keep smoking.

But what happens if people do start quitting smoking in hitherto-unprecedented numbers?  You mean to tell me that NO ONE ever wondered that, or asked it out loud?  Wasn’t the supposed PURPOSE of that sin tax to encourage people to quit smoking?  Wasn’t that what Tobacco Control told you?  No one thought it might be prudent to put some of that sin tax money, and MSA money, into a just-in-case trust? Just on the off-chance, you know, that people ever did start quitting smoking in droves… after you found a use for all that sin tax money... and now are addicted to it.  

How is it possible that two working-class people without a college degree between them could figure out something this elementary, and our lawmakers could not?  What’s that? You didn’t think smokers would ever really quit?  But didn’t you say… it wasn’t really a tax, because smokers chose to smoke?

Now, more and more of us are choosing not to smoke -- which is what you said you wanted, when you passed all those sin taxes, year after year after year.  And since we’re choosing to do that with something actually effective, rather than Big Pharma’s useless NRT, we’re opting out of the Murder Game as well.

Hoist by your own petard, are you?


Or maybe it’s Tobacco Control’s petard -- they keep SAYING they want people to quit smoking.  Since they’re finally getting what they want, get Tobacco Free Kids, or the Robert W Johnson Foundation, or one of the other Big Pharma-funded Tobacco Control entities to bail out the various governments -- they’ve certainly got the money, and since people are quitting smoking without needing the busybody prodding of those foundations, they won’t need to spend so much money on PSAs… or bribing lawmakers to make war on smokers.

But they might tell you that their funding source -- Big Pharma -- is LOSING money, since people aren’t buying so much of that useless NRT.  And that may be true, but still… a hundred billion here or there is a drop in the bucket to Big Pharma and Tobacco Control -- they could bail out every state government AND the federal government with many millions left over.

But they won’t do that.  They’d rather spend those hundreds of billions to promote junk science and the charlatans who fabricate it, to convince the lawmakers that vaping is just as bad as smoking -- which it certainly is not.  

The real issue isn’t really that people are quitting smoking, which is what they’ve said for over thirty years is their goal.  Tobacco Control is largely funded by Big Pharma, so the fact that people are actually quitting smoking -- yet not using the worthless pharmaceutical NRT -- well, they just can’t be having THAT!  Smokers are escaping their persecution, vilification, and demonization, which already annoys them -- AND those former smokers are doing it in a way that’s almost totally pain-free, which is even more annoying… and then they keep vaping, because they’re actually enjoying themselves -- HORRORS!  

But the truly intolerable part, for Tobacco Control, is that all these quitters of smoking aren’t making them rich by using the utterly worthless pharmaceutical NRT.  So the governments that have been Tobacco Control’s flunkies for thirty years won’t get any sympathy from Tobacco Control. I’m pretty sure that Tobacco Control will tell the governments to go whistle.

Maybe Big Pharma can create a “patch” for sin tax addiction -- but be sure to tell them that they should make this patch effective.

​