twitter: @rolygate

Vapers - How To Vote

A listing of which parties to vote for or avoid if you want to support freedom of access to safer alternatives to smoking, such as ecigs.

A brief analysis reveals that left-wing parties will ban ecigs; right-wing parties will either ignore them or react to economic pressures and this may include strict regulation; centre parties are split but tend to act according to political pressure and convenience; and pro-freedom parties will support ecigs (but are generally too small to govern).

In general it would be impossible to swing left-wing parties even with significant voter numbers pressing for liberalisation of ecigs, so that voters are better off voting strategically for pro-freedom parties in local elections, and right or centre parties in national elections. This is because, in general, the small parties can gain seats in local government but not in national government, and the most important principle is to keep the left out of government unless you wish to be forced to smoke.

Compact and condensed
This material is clearly a simplification of the issues - it cannot, realistically, be anything else. In broad brush terms it is correct: the left will attempt to ban ecigs and settle for rigid restrictions if challenged, and the right may restrict them according to financial pressures balanced against a desire to avoid repression and big government. It applies to parties and not representatives: there are honest people in all parties who will courageously resist pressure to take the expedient and profitable option at the expense of public health.

UK

See the article here:
http://www.ecigarette-politics.com/uk-politics-and-ecigs.html

Scotland

How to vote in the Scottish Independence Referendum
The Scottish National Party are a socialist party who will do their best to shut down ecigs. If Scotland becomes independent and the SNP win the election, you can say goodbye to ecigs - you will be forced to smoke. Since it is likely that the SNP will win in any Scotland-only election, voting for independence is the same as voting to see ecigs banned.

USA

The Democrats are the furthest left of the two main parties and are considered the 'left wing' of US politics (they are centre/right by European standards). Left-wing parties support removal of consumer choice and forcing people to conform to a socialist standard, which means removal of the right to choice; support of centre control; support of giant corporations and removal or restriction of small business in order to make government easier; rigid control of consumer choice, for economic and ideological purposes; support of extreme political and health ideology despite the harm it does to individuals.

Democrats support an unrestricted FDA and CDC, and the giving of more power and money to these organisations. The FDA works to protect pharmaceutical industry income (which automatically means banning or restricting ecigs), and the CDC is the property of the loony left, who all work to ban THR, automatically protecting smoking as a result. Under free rule by the Democrats, ecigs would be banned; only pressure from outside allows ecigs to survive in any form. If you want to see ecigs restricted to the point of a de facto ban, then vote Democrat.

Unfortunately, there isn't much of a choice for US voters: the only valid choice is the Republican party, who may not appeal to most voters - who are, realistically, mostly central in nature. GOP is the best choice for US vapers but there is no guaranteed path to minimal oppression of those seeking safer alternatives to smoking among the major US parties, as is true in most places.

Germany

CDU (conservatives, current ruling party) - fairly vaping friendly, believe in freedom for consumers. Likely to bow to economic pressures though, like most centre/right parties. Usually, economic pressure = restricting ecigs.

FDP (free-market liberals) - fairly vaping friendly, believe in freedom for consumers.

Piraten (Pirate Party) - very vaping friendly but too small to make a difference.

SPD (socialists) - hostile to vaping, nanny state party.

Greens (hardline socialists) - absolutely hostile to vaping, ultra nanny state party.

Linke (far left) - ecig policy unknown, but very likely to be hostile. A small party, not a serious contender.

Strategy
Vote FDP or CDU, whichever has the best chance of winning the seat against the SPD. Don't split the vote and risk the SDP winning. In local elections, vote Piraten or FDP.

Belgium

MR, Mouvement Réformateur (liberals) - believed to be vaping-friendly. F Ries MEP has been particularly helpful.

VLD (Flanders equivalent of MR) - anti-ecigs, so don't vote VLD.

The Socialist, Ecologist, and Conservative parties, on both sides of the country, i.e. the French speaking and Dutch speaking parts of Belgium, plus the NVA (Flanders Nationalists) are all against vaping.

Strategy
Vote MR where possible.

EU

The EU is the most successful large-scale corruptocracy in the world. Its purpose is to exclude democracy from affecting any process or decision, in order to benefit the governments and large industries who it exists to protect; the entire system is built around the need to exclude citizens from affecting policy.

If MEPs react to citizen pressure and vote against a pre-agreed policy, deals can be done in closed committees (called the Council and the Trilogue) to ensure that the policy goes ahead independent of what MEPs want.

The EU has already tried to ban ecigs but failed because it used medicalisation as the method, which was strongly rejected by MEPs and would also have been rejected by the courts. Because of the strength of the opposition, and the likelihood of reversal at law, a Plan B approach has been taken: it is now using a tobacco product classification as its fallback method, which by classing vaping as tobacco use, and thus part of the problem instead of in reality the solution to smoking, will allow it to implement a 90% ban over time.

It is easy to conclude that a tobacco product classification was the aim all along, since the people in control must have known that medicalisation would fail at law. Therefore the current solution was most likely the original goal, cleverly achieved by misdirection.

The EU's mission, in this area, is to protect tobacco tax revenues and pharmaceutical industry income, by banning or restricting THR as far as possible. Of course, this must be done by protecting smoking - by forcing citizens to smoke, by means of removing all other options. There is only one solution to this because the corruption is endemic: vote to leave the EU. By staying in the EU and accepting their protection of smoking, a country voluntarily accepts laws that kill tens of thousands of its citizens annually, and is complicit in the arrangement. This agenda is created by those who run the show, and will be supported most strongly by Socialist MEPs.

The Health Commissioner becomes fabulously wealthy, which should indicate some of the problems in this area. It certainly has nothing to do with public health: it's all about protecting government tax revenues, reducing government costs (limiting the number of citizens that governments need to support in old age), and protecting pharma - who control all aspects of health policy with an iron grip. The huge revenues from drugs sold to treat the sickness created by and multiplied by smoking must be protected at all costs. There are vast revenues from chemotherapy, CVD and COPD drugs and so on, but it is likely even these are outweighed by the huge boost to general drug sales that smoking creates: in diabetes, blood pressure and cholesterol drug sales for example (a smoker is 40% more likely to be a diabetic, and this escalation applies across the board).

Pharma will never let THR destroy such immense revenues, since they comprise around 15% of its annual gross. Annual pharmaceutical industry global sales are forecast as $1.1 trillion for 2014 [1], so we can easily see the amount at stake here: THR is a greater threat to pharma income than the abolition of war, flood and famine combined, and the cost of unrestricted THR to pharma would eventually be greater than $100 billion annually, perhaps even double this. This is what they are fighting so hard - and so successfully - to protect. The destruction of smoking equals huge losses to the pharmaceutical industry: a situation they cannot possibly countenance.

The EU will do as they are instructed and paid to, and protect smoking. Since no tobacco control measures work once the 20% Prevalence Rule operates (for example, the number of smokers in the UK actually rose between 2008 and 2013), and thus only THR can eliminate smoking: it means that THR must be blocked at all costs.

The Snus ban is the prime example of this: it has killed hundreds of thousands of EU citizens by preventing access to safer tobacco products.

The EU is a fascinating example of a highly-successful new political system: a combination of almost neo-Stalinist control of the population (left-wing totalitarian control of such power and rigidity that tens of thousands of lives are sacrificed to maintain control), along with the  propaganda machine required to maintain the appearance of greater good; combined with maximum commercial exploitation, and run for the financial benefit of groups of governments and major industry. In common with most power systems, it is also beneficial for those individuals at the top, who can amass vast personal fortunes.

As yet there is no name for this new system, combining the 'best' of the old ultra-left and right in a new and super-powerful federated system that virtually removes the threat of democracy: central decisions are more or less immune to democratic pressure from the population. 'Neo-communist' is probably the closest we can get until someone coins something better.

It is the perfect solution for nations since they can avoid the danger of democracy at home by assigning policy to a centralised power that is immune to it. It is the perfect solution for giant industries because they can eliminate interlopers who provide a better or cheaper or healthier alternative - and nobody wants that.

Voting considerations for ecig users

Above are listed the the worst parties to vote for: if they achieve power then it is guaranteed that tens of millions of easily preventable deaths will occur. Keep in mind that Prof Britton has made it clear that five million lives would be saved just among those alive today in a small country such as the UK if all smokers switched to ecigs, and no one has challenged him on this.

Of course, voters probably have many reasons for voting / not voting for any given party. People have many and varied reasons for voting for their choice, the most common being that they prefer to vote left if they feel social support policies are the most important factor for them, and right if they feel commercial / individual freedom, jobs and the economy are more important.

You could also take the view that the black market will probably allow you to survive and stay healthy. This is the 'I'm All Right Jack' option: because you know that you'll probably be able to survive by buying on the black market, it's OK if all the other smokers who won't be able to switch just go ahead and die. Many will probably take this view: they will vote on other issues and ignore the ecig factor because they know they will probably be able to stay healthy by buying on the black market.

A moment's thought will tell you that such people are no better than the paid prohibitionists listed above. Vapers should do the right thing and vote to remove oppression, at least, as far as it is possible for them to do.


Please tell us about voting choices in your country - thank you. See: Contact Us page.

 



---------------------------

Notes

[1] http://www.imshealth.com/portal/site/ims/menuitem.d248e29c86589c9c30e81c033208c22a/?vgnextoid=4b8c410b6c718210VgnVCM100000ed152ca2RCRD
[please rebuild this link by removing the spaces]

 

 


created 2013-08-02