killjoys in puritans that's how the tobacco industry described the anti-smoking lobby during the height to the smoking battle in the late 1970s a tobacco Institute spokesperson in a scathing attack said that anti smokers are a small but vocal core of neo prohibitionists essentially a joyless tribe you want to manage everyone else's life certainly this stinging critique of its enemies was in the tobacco industry self-interest but how far off was it and could the same be said today of the public health movement and its war on vaping after what seemed to be a quiet summer across Canada many vapors continued to suffer in Quebec prohibitionist regulations have shut down online sales within the province allowing tobacco enforcement to demand access in order to search the homes of individuals operating home-based mail-order businesses if a suspicious quantity of vapor product is found it could be seized as tobacco contraband the Quebec provincial government is also stifling freedom of speech banning retailers and their employees from sharing news stories articles and medical research about vaping with customers but Quebec is not alone Alberta Health Services is also stifling speech barring its health care workers from answering questions about vaping or recommending vaping as a safer alternative to smoking joining us today to discuss some of the motivations behind the public health crusade to ban vaping is Chris Snowden author of the highly acclaimed book velvet glove iron fist which is a detailed history of the anti-smoking movement beginning as far back as 1604 with King James the first of England and in 1604 James published an assault on smokers and smoking a counter blast against tobacco why did he write the carter baizen work where did this stand against tobacco come from do we know I suspect that it was not much more than he hated the smell of it the words think appears 12 times encounter plaster would smell appears five times I think he might have come as a real shock to him when he moved down from it I Scotland how much smoke was going on foreign observers at the time commented how amazed they are people smoking everywhere in theaters and the streets and the shops and in the bars you didn't have smoking like this really anywhere else in the world Chris thanks again for coming on the show your work really is impressive here's my copy of velvet glove iron fist with all of its dog ears please tell her audience why is it did you write this book you have books about the tobacco industry you have books about tobacco pairs of products and all this kind of thing there wasn't a single volume just about the anti-smoking people not about the industry or the users whatever but just about the people who were trying to vanish you you've got it with alcohol you got it with drugs we didn't have a little backhoe so I second it all the money to write that book do you find there are similarities between all of the Prohibition movements the same people who are after tobacco they're the same people who are active maybe knew the same people after sugar and an alcohol but they just now call it a public health movement Chris why do you think some jurisdictions have been able to ban vaping so easily if you look at how long it took to get smoking bans how gradually was into workplaces and ends of bars and clubs and now in some places about doors that was a huge effort and it encountered a lot of resistance rightly so in my opinion but with vaping bans they're just act on them it just tacks on and nobody asked about it partly because people are so used to being bossed around really by the government and that smoking bans were a big precedent in that respect but it seems perfectly natural just to apply it to vaping without anybody really saying that it in the bad view you know ii have a but no one really makes that case very much but there's any health hazard if it's not as you say the health hazards chris then what do you think is behind the vaping bans I think there's a strong moral element amongst some and not all other people who become any case these things because I don't think a lot of them would've been well suited to the anti-saloon League and Nancy cigarette League and all these organizations from 100 years ago so public health has a bad case of moral superiority then yeah it's exactly they feel completely morally justified in what they're doing they don't think essentially that people are actually enjoying the things that they are doing they don't think that they have a true preference for what they're doing they think in some way they're being manipulated usually by industry or possibly their peers Chris you mentioned the industry I've often thought there might be a bias against vaping because the vaping industry blew what's so fast and a lot of people are making a lot of money off of it yeah I think I'm all of these people think making money is morally suspect to start with it's the main money from a drug I've made money from something that is risky going healthy I think is totally unacceptable to them you're not going to be a free market right along if you're in public health the whole thing about public health is industry is to blame for people's decisions right nobody really wants to do these things they're being manipulated by industry they thought we have to destroy the industry they have to take over the packaging we have to decide how much things cost we have to bang the advertising all the main leaders of capitalism are enacted into them so you're not going to find many free-market capitalists who are very keen on public health Chris you hold a pretty decided opinion about public health was going after the movement part of the intent of the book well it doesn't being a message there you know I am a free-market liberal I don't basically like being told what to do for my own good the second time when I first got the idea around the book I'd really wasn't expecting it to turn out the way it did I wasn't planning on going after them as you say I just thought it would be an interesting and maybe slightly quirky story about some very eccentric people but I just found with the later part of the story you know from the 90s really then there was so much so so many lies being told and so much manipulation of the evidence and the truth and it was kind of difficult to remain neutral on that becomea stuff so yeah I mean when you read though the globe I've clearly picked a side there's no there's no getting around from there you try and present the facts as as objectively as you can but you know there's no way I can pretend into two not disagree with people like stuntin glance or Simon Chapman and the people you want to see is bullies me Chris just so our audience knows who you're referencing Simon Chapman is a professor in public health at the University of Sydney he's an acclaimed anti-smoking advocate and a vocal campaigner against these cigarettes Stanton glance who you also mentioned should be very familiar to our viewers quite simply he's the man who beat Big Tobacco often called a Crusader of the anti tobacco movement Glantz is also a vocal vaping critic bolstered by his own research conducted at the center for tobacco control research and education at the University of California San Francisco for which he is the director Chris you use Chapman and glances examples of a public health bully why the most kind of coercive paternalist they just don't seem they just don't seem to appreciate then some people just want to live their lives in a different way they attack individuals whether they be smokers on vapors using the pretext that they're actually attacking industry but they're not so they actually think they're liberating people that's when you have a real problem when you have a journalist to completely disregard what people actually say they want to do and disregard but what they actually are doing and it gives people the sense that they have that high moral ground and then everybody who disagrees with them as either deluded or compromised Chris as you know there are big players like public health England and the Royal College of Physicians that have come out in support of vaping for harm reduction survey pers just hope for more health authorities to do the same why do we have to hope that these people will kinda stick their thumbs up rather than down it is great the public of England have come out and said that you know we think that these cigarettes a 95 percent safer than vaping and we encourage them but what what if they had said the opposite and I think we shake quite easily could've done it done their review a couple of years earlier they would have said this looks like a gateway we don't want it we don't really encourage you why why is it any wonder we have to be told what to do with these people in the first place who are they from where do they get their authority who voted them in finally Chris what do you think the future holds for vaping I'm very very confident vaping thing and I am in a way quite pleased that some of these Public Health dinosaurs have put their name on the record time and time and time again to spread this information about vaping because I'm absolutely convinced that we will look back in they're not very distant future and it will be universally agreed that vaping was a good thing well that's it for this edition of reg watch before you head off please like us on Facebook and don't forget to follow us on Twitter for Regulator watch com I bread Stafford


  1. Very well expressed and presented! Thank you, Brent, and thank you, Christopher Snowden for cutting through a lot of the peripheral bullshit to get to the real heart of the problem. Heart disease and lung cancer etc. aren't the only pathologies in the war against tobacco. Some of tobacco's alleged opponents have their own diseases, with self-righteousness not least among them.

  2. I think there's a lot more corruption than just a moral element.

  3. Excellent Thank you 👍👍

  4. great work Reg watch.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *