The M Word

In the book, Orwell argues powerfully against the control of language, because those who tell you what words you can and can’t use are automatically dictating how you communicate. Through the censorship of words or by changing their meanings, Newspeak replaces English and thereby limits the opportunity of the individual to express or formulate thought. The endgame for “The Party” is that no one would be able to question its absolute power because they would no longer have the words to do so.

Taking the notion to an extreme end of the spectrum, Chomsky says “if we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.”

On Vaping forums we will happily debate the potential dangers related to coils oxidising and what may be released into the lungs. We will discuss the nature of wicks and the likelihood of particulates finding their way down to our alveoli. But mention the M-word and the ban hammer will loom large.

“Smoke inhalation delivers damaging carcinogens and an onslaught of other damaging materials directly through the bronchial tree and into the lungs. The most immediate effect is the irritation of the windpipe, but long-term exposure to any source of hot smoke is unnatural and very hard on the lungs” – not my words but those of Royal Queen Seeds. Something so strikingly similar to any number of vaping-related forum posts and yet this doesn’t relate to tobacco discussion, it belongs to a comment about the combustion of a different leaf entirely. A leaf consider so taboo for vape-talk I’ve even made up an image through the imaginative use of nettle leaves.

If we are so keen to ensure that others have the opportunity to use nicotine in a manner accepted to be orders of magnitude safer than through smoking then why is it we spurn any direct reference to Mary Jane? When people using traditional means to access cannabinoids are opening themselves up to combustion products (88% of the smoke compared to 95% pure through vaporising) shouldn’t we be more welcoming to these vapers? These are purely rhetorical questions; I am not a user and have no vested interest.

“I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write.” ~ Voltaire

Clearly, we are comparing something that is legal (albeit with impending restrictions) to something illegal in most countries but exceptions apply and the technology is the aspect of interest. A reason given online would go along the lines of ‘we are at an important juncture in the formation of legislation and could do without the association to illegal substances.

The response ought to be: but if the argument is about health promotion and harm reduction then surely this transcends legality of substance in the wider interests of society? If we support the idea of vaping for a healthier population and lower costs on the health service infrastructure then should this be restricted only to those who vape the substance we agree with?

Vaping does not encourage people to smoke, the discussion of vaping does not draw people who do not smoke into vaping and, by extension, talking about the use of Maui Wowie in vaporisers will not culminate with lines of new people outside late-night snack shops.

The rights and wrongs of this topic will never be debated in our forums, we will continue to allow ourselves to be censored, which can only be doubleplusbad.

“Take away the right to say “****” and you take away the right to say “**** the government.”  ~Lenny Bruce