Sign In
Create Account
I care little that there are differing opinions - we all have them and we all have the right to express them. Where I will draw the line however is at personal attacks, it's one thing to argue over an opinion, it's quite another to bring it down to a personal level. Argue with the point of view but not the person. Just so you know. :)
At this point I'm not telling anybody off - but I will if I have to. I don't like doing it, but that's my responsibility as admin. I'm hoping however this is a storm in a teacup and everyone can be adult about it. If you feel a personal insult coming on - step away from the keyboard and take a deep breath. :)
4
The Department of Health - DoH!
Started by
Kate
, Jan 15 2010 03:32 PM
#21
Posted 16 January 2010 - 03:55 PM
Jackie
-
- Administrators
-
- 6,053 posts
Cookie destroyer
- Gender:Female
- LocationHull, UK
Back to top
#22
Posted 16 January 2010 - 04:26 PM
Kate
-
- Members
-
- 2,183 posts
teh Wholey Syster
- Gender:Not Telling
- Locationteh Cloisters, UK
Yes ma'am. Personal attacks are indeed the lowest way to win an argument (but they can be fun sometimes too so hard to resist).
Apologies Dave. Love, hugs and fluffy shit.
Apologies Dave. Love, hugs and fluffy shit.
#23
Posted 16 January 2010 - 04:26 PM
prof beard
-
- Global Moderators
-
- 4,563 posts
Global Moderator
- Gender:Male
- LocationStafford
I agree entirely with what Jackie has said about "playing the ball and not the player", and will take the same line if needed... As she said - take breath before posting ;)
I won't slave for beggar's pay,
likewise gold and jewels,
but I would slave to learn the way
to sink your ship of fools
likewise gold and jewels,
but I would slave to learn the way
to sink your ship of fools
#24
Posted 16 January 2010 - 04:57 PM
westcoast2
-
- Members
-
- 406 posts
Eclectic
- Gender:Male
- LocationMiddx
I somewhat agree with SubVap in that at this stage things are fairly stable. Asking questions is all well and good, though it can stir things up and make people think about something they would not otherwise.
There are questions at the EU level and there is also a review of the smoking ban later this year. Also in the meantime TICAP are having their 2nd conference which will discuss matters relating to prohibiton (though related to smoking bans). These will raise the profile of these issues.
In the meantime being proactive or reactive is probably the wrong frame. There is a need to do both at the appropriate times.
In order to be proactive there is a need to know exactly what is wanted. What is that?
My view FWIW is to ensure vaping continues as an alternative to smoking, so that a choice is maitained. I view smoking and vaping as different with the thing in common sometimes being nicotine and, of course, the physical actions. I see little need for any restrictions akin to tobacco.
There is probably a need to restrict nicotine juice/carts being sold to under 18s, though this is already undermined by allowing under 16s to have nicotine gums/patches. Also a need for quality control on juice/carts. In the main this is covered by current legislation.
So the current framework of consumer/poisons law very much covers most of the conerns with PVs/e-cigs. The device is covered by electrical safety law and the juice by poisons law.
The issue becomes very tangled when Vaping and Smoking are seen as the same thing. Some say e-cigs maybe taxed the same as tobacco. Yet why is tobacco taxed differently? It is because of apprent health concerns. Yet (and even Judge Leon agreed) there has been no issue regarding public health in the US.
The other problem area is smoking bans. These were introduced to protect the public from the supposed effects of SHS (Second Hand Smoke). This should be a none issue for SHV (Second hand vape) as no one has come up with any study yet that shows a publc health issue.
So we hear that e-cigs will either stop people from giving up nicotine or encourage them to take up cigarettes. There does not seem to be any evidence to suggest that e-cigs encourage cigrarrette use. There is anecdotal evidence that shpws that e-cig use does encourage reduction in nicotine use either through stopping smoking cigarettes or people reducing the amount of nicotine in thier cart/juice. This btw casts doubt on the dogma that nicotine is highly addictive.
There are of course many issues involved and probably the way forward is to get organised, agree on principles and keep watching what s going on.
My concern here is that any organisation of vapers in the UK leans toward the anti-smoking type rhetoric we see in the US. This would be unfortunate. As I have said many times, Vaping, the PV or e-cig or e-gizmo or what have you should stand on its own merits, Many agree that it can in both health terms and in terms of recreational/social use.
----
There are questions at the EU level and there is also a review of the smoking ban later this year. Also in the meantime TICAP are having their 2nd conference which will discuss matters relating to prohibiton (though related to smoking bans). These will raise the profile of these issues.
In the meantime being proactive or reactive is probably the wrong frame. There is a need to do both at the appropriate times.
In order to be proactive there is a need to know exactly what is wanted. What is that?
My view FWIW is to ensure vaping continues as an alternative to smoking, so that a choice is maitained. I view smoking and vaping as different with the thing in common sometimes being nicotine and, of course, the physical actions. I see little need for any restrictions akin to tobacco.
There is probably a need to restrict nicotine juice/carts being sold to under 18s, though this is already undermined by allowing under 16s to have nicotine gums/patches. Also a need for quality control on juice/carts. In the main this is covered by current legislation.
So the current framework of consumer/poisons law very much covers most of the conerns with PVs/e-cigs. The device is covered by electrical safety law and the juice by poisons law.
The issue becomes very tangled when Vaping and Smoking are seen as the same thing. Some say e-cigs maybe taxed the same as tobacco. Yet why is tobacco taxed differently? It is because of apprent health concerns. Yet (and even Judge Leon agreed) there has been no issue regarding public health in the US.
The other problem area is smoking bans. These were introduced to protect the public from the supposed effects of SHS (Second Hand Smoke). This should be a none issue for SHV (Second hand vape) as no one has come up with any study yet that shows a publc health issue.
So we hear that e-cigs will either stop people from giving up nicotine or encourage them to take up cigarettes. There does not seem to be any evidence to suggest that e-cigs encourage cigrarrette use. There is anecdotal evidence that shpws that e-cig use does encourage reduction in nicotine use either through stopping smoking cigarettes or people reducing the amount of nicotine in thier cart/juice. This btw casts doubt on the dogma that nicotine is highly addictive.
There are of course many issues involved and probably the way forward is to get organised, agree on principles and keep watching what s going on.
My concern here is that any organisation of vapers in the UK leans toward the anti-smoking type rhetoric we see in the US. This would be unfortunate. As I have said many times, Vaping, the PV or e-cig or e-gizmo or what have you should stand on its own merits, Many agree that it can in both health terms and in terms of recreational/social use.
----
west2 - I feel like I'm diagonally parked in a parallel universe.
Vaping since November 2007 - Biggest gain, more choice.
Vaping since November 2007 - Biggest gain, more choice.
#25
Posted 16 January 2010 - 05:29 PM
Kate
-
- Members
-
- 2,183 posts
teh Wholey Syster
- Gender:Not Telling
- Locationteh Cloisters, UK
Things may appear 'stable' on the surface but decisions and policies are being formed, by people who know nothing about vaping and without our input. I know this - a birdie told me.
#26
Posted 16 January 2010 - 05:43 PM
westcoast2
-
- Members
-
- 406 posts
Eclectic
- Gender:Male
- LocationMiddx
Ok. What people? What decisions?
What processes are under way?
How do we get to know?
----
What processes are under way?
How do we get to know?
----
west2 - I feel like I'm diagonally parked in a parallel universe.
Vaping since November 2007 - Biggest gain, more choice.
Vaping since November 2007 - Biggest gain, more choice.
#27
Posted 16 January 2010 - 05:48 PM
Kate
-
- Members
-
- 2,183 posts
teh Wholey Syster
- Gender:Not Telling
- Locationteh Cloisters, UK
Can't tell, not allowed to rock the boat.
Here are your starters for ten:
http://vapersnetwork...hment.php?aid=4
http://www.europarl.... DOC XML V0//EN
Here are your starters for ten:
http://vapersnetwork...hment.php?aid=4
http://www.europarl.... DOC XML V0//EN
#28
Posted 16 January 2010 - 06:16 PM
westcoast2
-
- Members
-
- 406 posts
Eclectic
- Gender:Male
- LocationMiddx
Yes I read the EU note and replied on the legal thread about that.
The LACORS letter is similar. It points out areas where there seems to be issues and asks for clarification. They do equate tobacco with e-cigs and raise similar concerns ro rhe EU letter. LACORS also admit that e-cigs are not covered in the same way as cigs, yet why should they be? It will be interesting to see the reply, is that available?.
I thought the DoH was shifting all over the place as indicated by the replies you got. So, although questions are being asked, they are not being answered -- yet. It is the answers that will need to be addressed.
Information gathering and sharing is not 'rocking the boat'.
----
The LACORS letter is similar. It points out areas where there seems to be issues and asks for clarification. They do equate tobacco with e-cigs and raise similar concerns ro rhe EU letter. LACORS also admit that e-cigs are not covered in the same way as cigs, yet why should they be? It will be interesting to see the reply, is that available?.
I thought the DoH was shifting all over the place as indicated by the replies you got. So, although questions are being asked, they are not being answered -- yet. It is the answers that will need to be addressed.
Information gathering and sharing is not 'rocking the boat'.
----
west2 - I feel like I'm diagonally parked in a parallel universe.
Vaping since November 2007 - Biggest gain, more choice.
Vaping since November 2007 - Biggest gain, more choice.
#29
Posted 17 January 2010 - 12:58 AM
hifistud
-
- Members
-
- 4,163 posts
www.vapourtrails.tv - come visit!
- Gender:Male
- LocationSunderland-ish
Now that we've all had a little time to breath and relax, allow me to state my position.
We currently have a stable position, with, for the moment, local TS depts happy to pretty much allow vendors to police themselves. LACORS, however, in cahoots with EH and TSI have sought to have DoH reclassify e-cigs primarily for the purpose of bringing them into line with fags for indoor smoking. EH and others have issued guidance to their field operatives to help them recognise e-cigs as opposed to real fags, for the purpose of investigating complaints from public about flaunting of the smoking ban.
Note that last bit - unless a local authority receives complaints (or tip-offs) from Joe Public, they do not act in cases of smoking ban flaunting.
IF the DoH does decide that some action is necessary to get e-cigs regulated as either drug delivery devices or as fags, then they must issue a white paper - a consultation process which involves what they refer to as "stakeholders". If they issue that document today, then we have very little documented, factual scientific evidence with which to enter the argument.
Yes, we can bring together certain studies that relate to constituent parts of the whole e-cig experience, but until Laugesen's paper is published and reviewed, there is roughly the square root of bugger all we can bring to the table that conclusively supports our position. And that is the problem. Yes, we need to be proactive in gathering as much factual evidence as we can, and yes, we need to be educating folks in the voluble organisations (ASH, QUIT, SmokeFree, FOREST etc etc etc), but there's little value in starting arguments we cannot, at this time, win.
What we do need, though, is positive publicity - stories of pubs that were going to shut until the landlord introduced e-cigs, and now have a thriving clientele, that kind of thing - stories that show e-cigs as a positive benefit, not only to smokers (it's possibly not a good political move to call them/us "ex-smokers" just yet), but to non-smokers who can now share air with them in relative safety.
We also need academic studies on e-cigs in use, (the kind of thing that Laugesen has done, perhaps in more depth) from UK Universities (And yes, I'm already in the process of commissioning one), and a body of practising medics/doctors who will be happy to lend their names to the use of e-cigs.
It's probably also wise to construct a brief for anyone who is likely to be interviewed on the subject, as there are trigger phrases that it would be vastly unwise to have published at this point in time.
It might also be an idea to have a code of conduct for vendors, and an industry association. Such a body could legitimately register an interest in the ongoing LACORS led lobbying.
I strongly suspect that there has been no reply to the LACORS letter as yet - I can find no mention of a reply in Hansard, nor a question being asked that would prompt one. That doesn't mean that either has not occurred - just that Hansard has not reported it in a way that I could locate. The only recorded parliamentary discussion that I have been able to find on the subject of e-cigs left the subject more or less untouched, but open.
One final thing. When seeking information from government departments and offices, the Freedom of Information Act is your friend. Those four words open doors that otherwise appear to be marked "bugger off and shut up".
We currently have a stable position, with, for the moment, local TS depts happy to pretty much allow vendors to police themselves. LACORS, however, in cahoots with EH and TSI have sought to have DoH reclassify e-cigs primarily for the purpose of bringing them into line with fags for indoor smoking. EH and others have issued guidance to their field operatives to help them recognise e-cigs as opposed to real fags, for the purpose of investigating complaints from public about flaunting of the smoking ban.
Note that last bit - unless a local authority receives complaints (or tip-offs) from Joe Public, they do not act in cases of smoking ban flaunting.
IF the DoH does decide that some action is necessary to get e-cigs regulated as either drug delivery devices or as fags, then they must issue a white paper - a consultation process which involves what they refer to as "stakeholders". If they issue that document today, then we have very little documented, factual scientific evidence with which to enter the argument.
Yes, we can bring together certain studies that relate to constituent parts of the whole e-cig experience, but until Laugesen's paper is published and reviewed, there is roughly the square root of bugger all we can bring to the table that conclusively supports our position. And that is the problem. Yes, we need to be proactive in gathering as much factual evidence as we can, and yes, we need to be educating folks in the voluble organisations (ASH, QUIT, SmokeFree, FOREST etc etc etc), but there's little value in starting arguments we cannot, at this time, win.
What we do need, though, is positive publicity - stories of pubs that were going to shut until the landlord introduced e-cigs, and now have a thriving clientele, that kind of thing - stories that show e-cigs as a positive benefit, not only to smokers (it's possibly not a good political move to call them/us "ex-smokers" just yet), but to non-smokers who can now share air with them in relative safety.
We also need academic studies on e-cigs in use, (the kind of thing that Laugesen has done, perhaps in more depth) from UK Universities (And yes, I'm already in the process of commissioning one), and a body of practising medics/doctors who will be happy to lend their names to the use of e-cigs.
It's probably also wise to construct a brief for anyone who is likely to be interviewed on the subject, as there are trigger phrases that it would be vastly unwise to have published at this point in time.
It might also be an idea to have a code of conduct for vendors, and an industry association. Such a body could legitimately register an interest in the ongoing LACORS led lobbying.
I strongly suspect that there has been no reply to the LACORS letter as yet - I can find no mention of a reply in Hansard, nor a question being asked that would prompt one. That doesn't mean that either has not occurred - just that Hansard has not reported it in a way that I could locate. The only recorded parliamentary discussion that I have been able to find on the subject of e-cigs left the subject more or less untouched, but open.
One final thing. When seeking information from government departments and offices, the Freedom of Information Act is your friend. Those four words open doors that otherwise appear to be marked "bugger off and shut up".
Dave
E-cigs are not "quit smoking" devices - they are an alternative way to smoke, but with a much reduced risk profile. Believe this - it's true. E-cig users are NOT quitters.
E-cigs are not "quit smoking" devices - they are an alternative way to smoke, but with a much reduced risk profile. Believe this - it's true. E-cig users are NOT quitters.
#30
Posted 17 January 2010 - 01:05 AM
Kate
-
- Members
-
- 2,183 posts
teh Wholey Syster
- Gender:Not Telling
- Locationteh Cloisters, UK
Don't forget the gubment, politicians, MHRA and the EU.
What you see isn't always what you get. The claim that things are stable implies that you know what's going on in all the relevant departments and isn't what I've heard.
What you see isn't always what you get. The claim that things are stable implies that you know what's going on in all the relevant departments and isn't what I've heard.
#31
Posted 17 January 2010 - 01:06 AM
hifistud
-
- Members
-
- 4,163 posts
www.vapourtrails.tv - come visit!
- Gender:Male
- LocationSunderland-ish
Yeah, I know - I've been here before.
Dave
E-cigs are not "quit smoking" devices - they are an alternative way to smoke, but with a much reduced risk profile. Believe this - it's true. E-cig users are NOT quitters.
E-cigs are not "quit smoking" devices - they are an alternative way to smoke, but with a much reduced risk profile. Believe this - it's true. E-cig users are NOT quitters.
#32
Posted 17 January 2010 - 01:11 AM
Kate
-
- Members
-
- 2,183 posts
teh Wholey Syster
- Gender:Not Telling
- Locationteh Cloisters, UK
#33
Posted 17 January 2010 - 01:53 AM
Jackie
-
- Administrators
-
- 6,053 posts
Cookie destroyer
- Gender:Female
- LocationHull, UK
Whether or not we're all in agreement about being proactive or reactive....I think you bring up some valid points Dave.
I certainly can't see the harm in some kind of vendors code of conduct. That would be a very positive step I feel, although getting every interested vendor to agree on the terms of the code could be tricky. :)
Positive press is also something we should be seeking, and that I feel is something we certainly can help along. Even if we can't get articles published in the mainstream news agencies I'm sure there are high profile blogs at least that may be interested. The more we can get our 'stories' out there in a positive light the more it raises awareness and hence the more it would help our case I feel.
Medical professionals are also the people we should be enlightening. I think we could have quite some allies in that field, and I'm sure their voices would carry more weight than the average persons.
So...even if we don't agree on some points, perhaps we could concentrate on those we do agree on and set some positive things in motion? Just a thought. :)
I certainly can't see the harm in some kind of vendors code of conduct. That would be a very positive step I feel, although getting every interested vendor to agree on the terms of the code could be tricky. :)
Positive press is also something we should be seeking, and that I feel is something we certainly can help along. Even if we can't get articles published in the mainstream news agencies I'm sure there are high profile blogs at least that may be interested. The more we can get our 'stories' out there in a positive light the more it raises awareness and hence the more it would help our case I feel.
Medical professionals are also the people we should be enlightening. I think we could have quite some allies in that field, and I'm sure their voices would carry more weight than the average persons.
So...even if we don't agree on some points, perhaps we could concentrate on those we do agree on and set some positive things in motion? Just a thought. :)
#34
Posted 17 January 2010 - 12:57 PM
hifistud
-
- Members
-
- 4,163 posts
www.vapourtrails.tv - come visit!
- Gender:Male
- LocationSunderland-ish
No problems there. I have a meeting set up with the head nurse for MacMillan's locally - he's already very sympathetic - to discuss ways and means of promulgating the use of e-cigs in his purview - he's seen the change in my mum's condition (laryngeal cancer) since she went totally e-cig, and is very impressed. He has, though, asked for copies of or links to the body of scientific research on the topic. I've told him about Laugesen's work, but, as is likely to be so often the case, UK based is what he would prefer.
Her Consultant is also impressed, and I'm working on an informal meeting with him and his team to discuss things further - perhaps with a view to some trials.
I'm also due to meet with a number of academics to appoint the institution and leader for the academic studies in order to cement the funding.
As for Vendors, we have at least five on here - that is, at least, a start.
Her Consultant is also impressed, and I'm working on an informal meeting with him and his team to discuss things further - perhaps with a view to some trials.
I'm also due to meet with a number of academics to appoint the institution and leader for the academic studies in order to cement the funding.
As for Vendors, we have at least five on here - that is, at least, a start.
Dave
E-cigs are not "quit smoking" devices - they are an alternative way to smoke, but with a much reduced risk profile. Believe this - it's true. E-cig users are NOT quitters.
E-cigs are not "quit smoking" devices - they are an alternative way to smoke, but with a much reduced risk profile. Believe this - it's true. E-cig users are NOT quitters.
#35
Posted 17 January 2010 - 10:48 PM
andysutton
-
- Vendors
-
- 345 posts
exciting times ahead!
- Gender:Male
- LocationBristol, UK
Hi all,
Read the posts with interest. As I work in TV, I'm keen to help and am taking the first steps towards this, with everyone's blessing... I'll explain.
I'm a freelance editor, but have also directed stuff for TV. I'm keen to do something that I'm passionate about - something that I hope comes across in my Smoke2Vape videos on YT.
You can all check out my website to see what I've worked on in the past. It's:
www.andysuttoneditor.co.uk
I'm currently in very early talks with a production company that I've worked with for years. They are fair, open and honest. They also my friends... I trust them.
As with any programme, the life blood of any commission is "jeopardy" and "drama". This relies on the fact that the programme has to represent an argument - that both sides are covered and the audience is led to their opinion based on the strength and validity of the information presented - or just if they like and believe the presenter!
We would have to be prepared to present a sound argument for it, and be prepared also for the strong and government led counter arguments.
I see a documentary a lot like "Supersize me" would work well. It might sound heartless but IF a ban or re-classification of e-cigs was implemented by the Gov in the UK - that would be GREAT NEWS for a documentary of this kind - as it would generate greater "jeopardy" for the people on both sides of the story.
Anyway, this idea is at really early stages, but I'd be really interested in your ideas - people who want to be interviewed - who have a strong personal story. I can then percolate all this into the proposal which I am going to give to my producer friends in the next 2-3 weeks.
Like the documentary, we need to understand and be able to argue - through interviews with vapers - our side of our story. Long term, we also need to prepare for the fire-fight that might ensue once the film goes out on TV - or like SuperSize me - in the cinemas! It is a great responsibility - and something I'm willing to have a go at if I have support.
Anyway - on that bombshell... looking forward to your input!
Andy.
Read the posts with interest. As I work in TV, I'm keen to help and am taking the first steps towards this, with everyone's blessing... I'll explain.
I'm a freelance editor, but have also directed stuff for TV. I'm keen to do something that I'm passionate about - something that I hope comes across in my Smoke2Vape videos on YT.
You can all check out my website to see what I've worked on in the past. It's:
www.andysuttoneditor.co.uk
I'm currently in very early talks with a production company that I've worked with for years. They are fair, open and honest. They also my friends... I trust them.
As with any programme, the life blood of any commission is "jeopardy" and "drama". This relies on the fact that the programme has to represent an argument - that both sides are covered and the audience is led to their opinion based on the strength and validity of the information presented - or just if they like and believe the presenter!
We would have to be prepared to present a sound argument for it, and be prepared also for the strong and government led counter arguments.
I see a documentary a lot like "Supersize me" would work well. It might sound heartless but IF a ban or re-classification of e-cigs was implemented by the Gov in the UK - that would be GREAT NEWS for a documentary of this kind - as it would generate greater "jeopardy" for the people on both sides of the story.
Anyway, this idea is at really early stages, but I'd be really interested in your ideas - people who want to be interviewed - who have a strong personal story. I can then percolate all this into the proposal which I am going to give to my producer friends in the next 2-3 weeks.
Like the documentary, we need to understand and be able to argue - through interviews with vapers - our side of our story. Long term, we also need to prepare for the fire-fight that might ensue once the film goes out on TV - or like SuperSize me - in the cinemas! It is a great responsibility - and something I'm willing to have a go at if I have support.
Anyway - on that bombshell... looking forward to your input!
Andy.
Edited by andysutton, 17 January 2010 - 10:50 PM.
Smoke2Vape on the YouTube
and starting Vapourtopia.Comin May 2012!
@Smoke2Vape on Twitter
@Vapourtopia on Twitter
and starting Vapourtopia.Comin May 2012!
@Smoke2Vape on Twitter
@Vapourtopia on Twitter
#36
Posted 17 January 2010 - 11:18 PM
Jackie
-
- Administrators
-
- 6,053 posts
Cookie destroyer
- Gender:Female
- LocationHull, UK
Andy that sounds like a great idea and I imagine most if not all would applaud some good TV coverage. It might actually be worth starting a new thread for that project alone, as any responses might get a bit lost in this one and it does sound like a huge undertaking.
I've a feeling you're going to be a blessing to the vaping community. :)
I've a feeling you're going to be a blessing to the vaping community. :)
#37
Posted 17 January 2010 - 11:20 PM
andysutton
-
- Vendors
-
- 345 posts
exciting times ahead!
- Gender:Male
- LocationBristol, UK
Thanks Jackie! I'll set up a new thread now... :)
Here we go! :)
Here we go! :)
Smoke2Vape on the YouTube
and starting Vapourtopia.Comin May 2012!
@Smoke2Vape on Twitter
@Vapourtopia on Twitter
and starting Vapourtopia.Comin May 2012!
@Smoke2Vape on Twitter
@Vapourtopia on Twitter
#38
Posted 05 February 2010 - 11:28 AM
Kate
-
- Members
-
- 2,183 posts
teh Wholey Syster
- Gender:Not Telling
- Locationteh Cloisters, UK
The DH sent me an email today in response to my formal complaint. In case you've forgotten, here's the history:
This is their response:
and my reply:
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:
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
http://esmokerdirect....onic-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:
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
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 ***
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
http://esmokerdirect....onic-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.
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
This is their response:
Quote
Dear ***,
Thank you for your email of 15 January making a formal complaint about correspondence you have had with the Department regarding electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes).
I am sorry to read that you feel the Department has not properly explained its policy on e-cigarettes. However, having reviewed the correspondence, I am satisfied that we have responded appropriately and helpfully to your requests, although I hope you will accept my apologies that we addressed you as ‘Mr’ in one of our emails.
I am afraid that there is therefore little I can add to previous replies, other than to emphasise that the Department is not in a position to promote these products. While claims are made on the Vapers Network site that e-cigarettes are considered many times safer than smoking and that they are life saving and effective, the Department is not aware of any peer-reviewed scientific research to support such claims. We would therefore suggest that consumers exercise caution.
You may be aware that the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has recently launched a public consultation on the regulation of nicotine containing products. Further information is available on the MHRA website at:
<a href="http://www.mhra.gov.uk/Publications/Consultations/Medicinesconsultations/MLXs/CON065617">http://www.mhra.gov..../MLXs/CON065617
I appreciate that you will be disappointed with this reply, but I hope I have been able to clarify the Department’s position. If you remain unhappy, you can ask your MP to contact the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, who carries out independent investigations into complaints about Government Departments. The contact details are:
The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
MillbankTower
Millbank
London SW1P 4QP
Telephone: 0845 015 4033
Email: <a href="mailto:phso.enquiries@ombudsman.org.uk">phso.enquiries@ombudsman.org.uk</a></div>
Yours sincerely,
Dan Collier
Complaints Manager
Department of Health
Thank you for your email of 15 January making a formal complaint about correspondence you have had with the Department regarding electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes).
I am sorry to read that you feel the Department has not properly explained its policy on e-cigarettes. However, having reviewed the correspondence, I am satisfied that we have responded appropriately and helpfully to your requests, although I hope you will accept my apologies that we addressed you as ‘Mr’ in one of our emails.
I am afraid that there is therefore little I can add to previous replies, other than to emphasise that the Department is not in a position to promote these products. While claims are made on the Vapers Network site that e-cigarettes are considered many times safer than smoking and that they are life saving and effective, the Department is not aware of any peer-reviewed scientific research to support such claims. We would therefore suggest that consumers exercise caution.
You may be aware that the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has recently launched a public consultation on the regulation of nicotine containing products. Further information is available on the MHRA website at:
<a href="http://www.mhra.gov.uk/Publications/Consultations/Medicinesconsultations/MLXs/CON065617">http://www.mhra.gov..../MLXs/CON065617
I appreciate that you will be disappointed with this reply, but I hope I have been able to clarify the Department’s position. If you remain unhappy, you can ask your MP to contact the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, who carries out independent investigations into complaints about Government Departments. The contact details are:
The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
MillbankTower
Millbank
London SW1P 4QP
Telephone: 0845 015 4033
Email: <a href="mailto:phso.enquiries@ombudsman.org.uk">phso.enquiries@ombudsman.org.uk</a></div>
Yours sincerely,
Dan Collier
Complaints Manager
Department of Health
Quote
I asked what the DH policy was and had no response. Your representative did not have a rational discussion but talked about irrelevant details as you have just done. It doesn't matter what Vapers Network thinks, I asked what DH policy was and was given no answer, just junk about Lacors etc.
Who asked you to endorse vaping?
Who asked you to endorse vaping?
Edited by Kate, 05 February 2010 - 02:08 PM.
Oops ... left my name on by aksidnt
