Cacuqecig
VU Vendor
VU Vendor
Bronze Contributor
Member For 3 Years
Member For 2 Years
Member For 1 Year
On Vaping and Government Hypocrisy
That most governments are hypocritical is neither a false accusation nor an overstatement, but is a time-tested truth which has been the most prominent characteristic of any form of government in all habitable parts of Earth since Day One. That most people are aware of the hypocrisy of governments and their numerous well-used tricks is neither a wild fantasy nor an exaggeration of the level of enlightenment of the public, but is a humble assumption of the existence of human reason and of a person's ability to discern right and wrong.
Let us leave out the tedious laws and regulations that certain governments have enacted and authorized for the restriction of vaping and proceed directly to the discussion of how this act of restriction bespeaks hypocrisy on the part of the government.
Firstly, governments claim that the restriction on vaping is justified on the grounds of public health, which is not an outright lie but does not speak the truth either. Indeed, vaping may cause potential harmful effects, as anything might, but that doesn't warrant it being singled out and most vehemently persecuted, especially when the treatment it received is compared with that of tobacco products the adverse effects on health of which far exceed that of vaping.
Secondly, the discouragement vaping received has in fact, if anyone with half a brain would use it well, to do with big tobacco revenues. Put it in this way. Big Tobaccos make big money and pay big taxes, which the government likes and wishes to stay the same. Things have been going well for one hundred years while everyone has what they want, and then came E-cigarettes, the ultimate threat to tobaccos, the doomsman, the one thing that could ruin all the hard-earned prestige and privileges of tobaccos. What would the Big Tobacco, the vulnerable Rex, the endangered lion and eagle do? Of course it spends money and lobbies; of course some politicians are visited and resources are employed; of course interests are exchanged and pacts are signed. And of course, the victim is E-cigarette-related companies which are considerably less established, politically weak, and which contribute far less financially to interested parties. Governments have, in this case, no doubt, favored the side who offers to put more gold in their coffers, though on academic journals and morning news alike another story is being told.
I think it is permissible that a government restricts or prohibits anything which it deems harmful to the public according to the laws of nature and of reason; it is even acceptable when a government forbids something that may be injurious to its political position or financial interests, as long as it is honest enough to admit and declare so. But when a government does the latter and claims the former, its action establishes dishonesty and cries out Hypocrisy. Like the U.S. government who went for the oil claimed that violations on another country's sovereignty and territorial integrity are just actions of liberation. Like Mr. Winston Churchill who starved 2million souls in Bengal justified his decision on the grounds of policy and his "wishes" for a speedy termination of the war---we all know his opinion of the "primitive Indian people who are in dire need of British rules and British civilization".
In the case of restrictions on vaping carried out by governments, be it FDA regulations in the U.S., or the TPD vaping laws in Europe, or many other bans and prohibitions in other countries, hypocrisy is committed in that the governments put restrictions on vaping for political and financial reasons while claiming their decisions are made on the grounds of public health. The incongruity between what was done and what's being said clearly demonstrates the prominent presence of hypocrisy.
That most governments are hypocritical is neither a false accusation nor an overstatement, but is a time-tested truth which has been the most prominent characteristic of any form of government in all habitable parts of Earth since Day One. That most people are aware of the hypocrisy of governments and their numerous well-used tricks is neither a wild fantasy nor an exaggeration of the level of enlightenment of the public, but is a humble assumption of the existence of human reason and of a person's ability to discern right and wrong.
Let us leave out the tedious laws and regulations that certain governments have enacted and authorized for the restriction of vaping and proceed directly to the discussion of how this act of restriction bespeaks hypocrisy on the part of the government.
Firstly, governments claim that the restriction on vaping is justified on the grounds of public health, which is not an outright lie but does not speak the truth either. Indeed, vaping may cause potential harmful effects, as anything might, but that doesn't warrant it being singled out and most vehemently persecuted, especially when the treatment it received is compared with that of tobacco products the adverse effects on health of which far exceed that of vaping.
Secondly, the discouragement vaping received has in fact, if anyone with half a brain would use it well, to do with big tobacco revenues. Put it in this way. Big Tobaccos make big money and pay big taxes, which the government likes and wishes to stay the same. Things have been going well for one hundred years while everyone has what they want, and then came E-cigarettes, the ultimate threat to tobaccos, the doomsman, the one thing that could ruin all the hard-earned prestige and privileges of tobaccos. What would the Big Tobacco, the vulnerable Rex, the endangered lion and eagle do? Of course it spends money and lobbies; of course some politicians are visited and resources are employed; of course interests are exchanged and pacts are signed. And of course, the victim is E-cigarette-related companies which are considerably less established, politically weak, and which contribute far less financially to interested parties. Governments have, in this case, no doubt, favored the side who offers to put more gold in their coffers, though on academic journals and morning news alike another story is being told.
I think it is permissible that a government restricts or prohibits anything which it deems harmful to the public according to the laws of nature and of reason; it is even acceptable when a government forbids something that may be injurious to its political position or financial interests, as long as it is honest enough to admit and declare so. But when a government does the latter and claims the former, its action establishes dishonesty and cries out Hypocrisy. Like the U.S. government who went for the oil claimed that violations on another country's sovereignty and territorial integrity are just actions of liberation. Like Mr. Winston Churchill who starved 2million souls in Bengal justified his decision on the grounds of policy and his "wishes" for a speedy termination of the war---we all know his opinion of the "primitive Indian people who are in dire need of British rules and British civilization".
In the case of restrictions on vaping carried out by governments, be it FDA regulations in the U.S., or the TPD vaping laws in Europe, or many other bans and prohibitions in other countries, hypocrisy is committed in that the governments put restrictions on vaping for political and financial reasons while claiming their decisions are made on the grounds of public health. The incongruity between what was done and what's being said clearly demonstrates the prominent presence of hypocrisy.
