37 replies to this topic

[Kate]

This might give you a laugh ...

Quote

I'd like to make a formal complaint about the treatment I've received while making queries to the DH.

A record of the correspondence is below and I still don't know what DH policy is on ecigs:




FAO
Mr Oliver Smith
Deputy Director, Tobacco and Health & Wellbeing Policy
Department of Health
Wellington House


Hi Mr Smith

Please would you have a look at this discussion and feel welcome to join in if you'd like - http://vapersnetwork...ead.php?tid=115

I'd be most grateful if you would let me know what you think would be the best way to deal with this situation.

Ecigs promise to revolutionise the habits of smokers and are considered many times safer than smoking. Please help us to keep this life saving product available and effective. Regulations could harm people by discouraging use and making a most effective device as useless as NRT.

Thanks very much
Kate ***

**********************


DE00000470531

Dear Ms ***,

Thank you for your recent email to the Department of Health about electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes). I have been asked to reply.

The Department has commissioned research through the Local Authorities Coordinators of Regulatory Services (LACORS) to test e-cigarettes to see if they comply with the law. This scientific research has found that e-cigarettes contain toxic levels of nicotine and that none of the products tested to date complies with product safety regulations. Local authority trading standards departments have accordingly been informed, and trading standards departments have already removed e-cigarettes from sale because they do not comply with product safety regulations.

Local authorities enforce the product safety regulations and the Department is working with them to protect the public from the dangers of e-cigarettes that contain toxic levels of nicotine.

E-cigarettes should not be sold as an aid to quitting smoking without authorisation from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) which, so far, has given no such authorisation.

I hope this reply is helpful.

Yours sincerely,

Cameron Gordon
Customer Service Centre


*****************************


This is my original message to DH:

FAO
Mr Oliver Smith
Deputy Director, Tobacco and Health & Wellbeing Policy
Department of Health
Wellington House


Hi Mr Smith

Please would you have a look at this discussion and feel welcome to join in if you'd like - http://vapersnetwork...ead.php?tid=115

I'd be most grateful if you would let me know what you think would be the best way to deal with this situation.

Ecigs promise to revolutionise the habits of smokers and are considered many times safer than smoking. Please help us to keep this life saving product available and effective. Regulations could harm people by discouraging use and making a most effective device as useless as NRT.

Thanks very much
Kate ***

Your reply is totally inappropriate. Please give me contact details for whoever deals with policy on electronic cigarettes.

LACORS got their measurements wrong, none of the samples contained over 7.5% by volume nicotine which is the limit set by the Poisons Act.

Thank you
Kate ***


************************************


Hi. Please could you send me contact details for the person responsible for policy on electronic cigarettes.

Thanks
Kate ***


***********************************


Dear Ms ***,

Thank you for your further email to the Department of Health about electronic cigarettes.

I have passed your original correspondence to the Department of Health’s senior policy manager for tobacco who has noted your comments, but confirmed that there is nothing to add to my previous reply.

I hope this clarifies the Department’s position on this matter.

Yours sincerely,

Cameron Gordon
Customer Service Centre


**************************************


Hi Cameron

I'd like to present objections to the letter sent to

Mr Oliver Smith
Deputy Director, Tobacco and Health & Wellbeing Policy
Department of Health
Wellington House

The Local Authorities Coordinators of Regulatory Services (LACORS), Trading Standards Institute (TSI) and The Chartered Institute of Environmental Health (CIEH) recently sent a formal letter to the Department of Health outlining changes they would like to see made to existing legislations so they includes electronic cigarettes.
http://esmokerdirect...ronic-cigarette

These bodies apparently aren't enforcing existing consumer protection laws. The Poisons Law deals with levels of toxins allowed and other laws cover product safety - traders operating outside the law should be dealt with accordingly. What is the point of more legislation if we are not protected with the ones that exist?

Their call for legislation to categorise vapour as harmful smoke is not credible and is based on uncivilised control tactics. Please confirm if the DH is considering supporting this measure.

Thank you
Kate


**********************************


Dear Mr ***, [Note that I've now grown a penis]

Thank you for your further email about e-cigarettes.

It may be helpful if I explain the context and the substance of the letter to the Department of Health from the organisations, Local Authorities Coordinators of Regulatory Services, the Trading Standards Institute and The Chartered Institute of Environmental Health.

These organisations wrote to the Department of Health in September 2009 calling for the definition of 'tobacco products' to be reviewed with a view to including e-cigarettes and similar products, or for these products to be regulated by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency in the same way that they currently regulate nicotine delivery systems. They said in their letter:

Whilst Councils can continue to apply the General Product Safety Regulations and other safety legislation to these products, in the interests of consumer protection, it is considered that further products specific controls may be required.

You may be confusing the role of these organisations and the role of local authority trading standards officers. It is local authority trading standards officers who are the statutory enforcement officers for the laws to which you refer, in particular the consumer protection laws. Consumer protection laws are being enforced by local authority trading standards officers and that is why electronic cigarettes which do not conform with the relevant regulations have been removed from sale.

I am afraid that there is nothing further that the Department of Health can say on this matter.

Yours sincerely,

Cameron Gordon
Customer Service Centre



***************************************


Dear Cameron

You said:

These organisations wrote to the Department of Health in September 2009 calling for the definition of 'tobacco products' to be reviewed with a view to including e-cigarettes and similar products, or for these products to be regulated by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency in the same way that they currently regulate nicotine delivery systems.

I'd like to know if you intend to support the request to define vapour as smoke and/or recreational vaping as medical use? Will you be calling for tobacco regulations or medical regulations to apply to ecigs? How will you make ecigs fit the definitions of either?

The MHRA do not regulate snuff or other tobacco products so if you define ecigs as tobacco then the will not be appropriate as the only nicotine delivery systems they regulate are medically proven NRTs. In fact vaping has not been proven to be an effective NRT so cannot be claimed to be a health product. As the MHRA has no jurisdiction over non-medical use any health claims made by traders should be stopped by trading standards enforcement officers.

Defining vapour as harmful smoke appears to have no purpose other than to inconvenience and stigmatise smokers who would otherwise use this less harmful alternative to smoking.

Ecigs are neither tobacco or medical products. Vaping is a recreational activity that can involve the use of nicotine. There is no second hand smoke or risk for bystanders and there are no reported adverse health effects after over three years of wide commercial availability of this product.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Kate

*********************************


Dear Ms ***,

Thank you for your further email to the Department of Health about ecigarettes.

We have answered your questions on this matter several times and have explained the Government's position. As previously stated, the Department has nothing further to add on this issue and any further correspondence you send on this matter will be logged but will not receive a reply.

I hope this clarifies the Government's position.

Yours sincerely,

Cameron Gordon

***************************************



That's a lie. You did not answer any of my questions, you pumped out propaganda. The reason I had to ask you more than once was because you didn't reply.

Thanks for nothing

[Crossbow]

Allow me to summarise..... :lol:

Quote

Dear Ms ***,
Unfortunately, you have asked a question that is not covered by our standard canned responses. Regrettably, this means we are unable to answer your question, so kindly be fobbed off with these almost appropriate canned responses. In future, please do not expect substantive responses, as we do not have any means to respond meaningfully to non standard enquiries.
Thank you for wasting your time, and helping to preserve me in my cosy civil servants job.
Yours sincerely,
Joe 'Jobsworth' Chairwarmer

[prof beard]

That about sums it up Cross :)

[Mr Darcy]

Crossbow said:

Allow me to summarise..... :lol:

very good :lol:

[Wryly]

Quote

This might give you a laugh ...

Yes, but only one like Roddy Piper's when he puts on the sunglasses in 'They Live'.

[hifistud]

Rather looks like the DoH is telling LACORS and the rest pretty much the same thing, too - ie; we don't know and we're not particularly bothered, now bugger off and let us concentrate on having a kip.

[Kate]

This

Quote

... We have answered your questions on this matter several times and have explained the Government's position...

makes me think they already know what they are going to do, and don't want to spell it out. Presumably the 'government position' is that ecigs are toxic and should be regulated by the MHRA.

[hifistud]

Or its position is that they couldn't actually give a toss at the moment, what with an election coming up and them having to sort out the non-display for fags stuff.

[Kate]

Well I'm sure the DH isn't going to let us get away with enjoying ourselves for too long. When they're not sleeping there's nothing better civil servants like than pushing people around and making life difficult. It's only the elected government that's busy, the pen pushers need to justify themselves still.

[Crossbow]

Kate said:

Well I'm sure the DH isn't going to let us get away with enjoying ourselves for too long. When they're not sleeping there's nothing better civil servants like than pushing people around and making life difficult.

Yeah, have to agree :(

[Jackie]

Yeah me too.

Talk about being told to go away and shut up, lol.

[hifistud]

As far as they are concerned, local TS depts have it all in hand, and they're happy enough with that for the moment - that's why you got the "there's nothing to add to our previous letter" reply. Classifying e-cigs as either tobacco products or medicinal products would require complex legislation - it can't be done under the aegis of a quango - and they have no time to get it passed before the election. E-cigs do not register very highly on the DH radar at the moment - which probably a good thing for the time being - so it's probably best not to stick too many needles in their toes about it until we can garner support from the really vocal outfits - smokefree, ASH, QUIT and a few others.

[Kate]

I disagree. I believe they've formed an opinion and possibly a strategy that agrees with the letter sent to them. If they are not aware of real life facts and think nobody cares they will recommend ignorant legislation. It won't be hard at all either to agree with the EU that ecigs must pass trials as medical devices before being sold. This has happened in plenty of places already and sticking our heads in the sand so they can do anything and everything will not stop them.

[hifistud]

Nobody is suggesting sticking heads in the sand, and, to put it bluntly, steaming in on the basis of your opinion of what you think they've done or are doing is unlikely to be constructive.

Had there been official policy formed on the questions you asked, they would have told you - they have to, they have no choice in the matter.

However, you can contact your MP and ask him to table a question about official policy. If s/he is anything like, he'll write (you should write, too - not email, again, they have to reply to letters) and will relay the answer back to you.

I admire your enthusiasm, I really do, but I'm sorry to say I think you're in danger of doing more harm than good. You are right in thinking that "they" can shut down sales of e-cigs at a stroke - but "they" in this case is the local TS depts, who can simply march in and close every vendor down "pending investigation". Given enough impetus, that's exactly what they'll instigate.

Now, I know that all of the vendors in the UK have worked closely with TS to keep on the right side of the law, and, so far, that's working. It's stable. That boat does not need to be rocked. While it's stable, we can prepare for what's to come - but it's no use going off half cocked.

[Crossbow]

The problem I see with that approach is that it is entirely reactive - you wait for it to go pearshaped, and then try and fix it, after the decision has already been made - an uphill struggle at the best of times. It has to be better to try and push policy in the desirable direction beforehand.

[Kate]

SubVap said:

Nobody is suggesting sticking heads in the sand, and, to put it bluntly, steaming in on the basis of your opinion of what you think they've done or are doing is unlikely to be constructive.

Had there been official policy formed on the questions you asked, they would have told you - they have to, they have no choice in the matter.

However, you can contact your MP and ask him to table a question about official policy. If s/he is anything like, he'll write (you should write, too - not email, again, they have to reply to letters) and will relay the answer back to you.

I admire your enthusiasm, I really do, but I'm sorry to say I think you're in danger of doing more harm than good. You are right in thinking that "they" can shut down sales of e-cigs at a stroke - but "they" in this case is the local TS depts, who can simply march in and close every vendor down "pending investigation". Given enough impetus, that's exactly what they'll instigate.

Now, I know that all of the vendors in the UK have worked closely with TS to keep on the right side of the law, and, so far, that's working. It's stable. That boat does not need to be rocked. While it's stable, we can prepare for what's to come - but it's no use going off half cocked.

It doesn't really matter what you think ... or me for that matter. I'll still try to get facts and still share news. You can keep your head up your arse for as long as you like but don't try to tell me what to do, your judgement is awful.

[Jackie]

Not sure I agree with your exact wording Kate...but I agree in essence that a proactive approach may well be better than a reactive one.

The problem as I see it with not 'rocking the boat' is that before we know it legislation has been passed and there's little we can do about it. I know from the Open Rights Group that proactive generally works much better - presenting your points at the ground level before it reaches parliament is generally far more effective.

[Kate]

Well the funny thing is that I'm not advocating any action at the moment, that's what Dave is talking about. I also haven't made any assumptions about the state of play like Dave has. I'm trying to gather facts so informed decisions can be made on what might be the best course of action if that's necessary.

Dave can kiss my dirty Irish arse.

[Mr Darcy]

Kate said:

Dave can kiss my dirty Irish arse.

lol...french kiss or just a peck on the cheek Kate?;)

[Kate]

Ugggg ... I was going to say slobbery toungie kissies but then I got a visual and it's making me queezy, lol.

Sorry for being crude on your forum Jackie. I guess this might be the christening for personality clashes and disagreements. I promise to try to be a good girl now. Or you can tell me off if you want but I think this little drama might be a storm in a teacup.