[westcoast2]

To answer my own question at [ame]http://ukvapers.com/...read.php?p=6595[/ame]

e-cigs are included in HMG 'Smoke Free future' Tobacco Control Strategy.

For those interested it is here --> http://www.dh.gov.uk...t/dh_111748.pdf

Nicotine delivery will be regulated as a medicine. Not sure of the implications for all this. One thing they do throw in is that new Nicotine delivery systems can not encourage smoking tobacco cigarettes. There are also plenty of nods to BigP.

The one glaring thing for me on quitting is that they say 'cold turkey' has the lowest chance of success. The evidence seems to suggest that this is simply untrue. Anyways.....
------

[andysutton]

I also notice that they say the NHS saves £380 million a year just on the "decline" in smoking. Imagine the savings if the 8m people who smoke - vaped.

Perhaps this is the line we should take with the viral video that is being discussed. Big numbers, big impact...

The irony is, as we all know, for something we all know works so well - the government want them banned...

The bit I saw:

4.35 We believe that these actions will
encourage innovation in the use, design and
marketing of nicotine delivery medicines.
However, over the past year, we have already
seen the emergence of many different forms of
nicotine delivery systems, including e-cigarettes
and nicotine hand gels. These products
are unregulated and their safety remains
undetermined.

The key is the safety, if we or a large medical research group can prove safety - then it's over. BUT,as i'm sure others have pointed out, how safe is ANYTHING?! Booze? Before they can BAN anything like e-cigs - they must first PROVE that they are unsafe, and no study yet proves it either way.

Anyone know a vaping lawyer?


Andy

This post has been edited by andysutton: 01 February 2010 - 04:34 PM

[Jackie]

I don't think they've said they want them banned as yet, but it seems as though heavy regulation is a possibility and none of us want that. We are in danger of things going down a prescription only route, especially if the government side with the pharma companies which lets face it is a likelihood.

I haven't had time to digest that document fully as yet however.

[Ian]

Specifically with reference to the bit about MHRA regualting ALL nicotine products, is this just a proposal at the moment or has the decision already been legally made? If it's been formally approved, when is it likely to come into effect?

What I'm getting at is, is it now time for me to order up 5 litres of juice or can I stand to for the moment?

[Kate]

This document is about forcing a 'smoke free future'. We must absolutely distance ourselves from smoke I think. Vapour is not within their logical path of action because it's not smoking and doesn't involve tobacco.

Linking nicotine with smoking is not a good sign and we're going to have our work cut out keeping non-medical nicotine legal for general availability.

If they are going to restrict nicotine availability to medical use then we need to point out the public health disaster from banning Swedish snus and the crushing of innovative and effective products to protect the ineffective, expensive and mind controlling pharm industry drugs.

[westcoast2]

Quote

Specifically with reference to the bit about MHRA regualting ALL nicotine products, is this just a proposal at the moment or has the decision already been legally made? If it's been formally approved, when is it likely to come into effect?

The MHRA has put this out for public 'consultation' from today --> http://www.mhra.gov..../MLXs/CON065617

Option 1 and 2 refer to making all Nicotine products, medicinal products
Option 3 Do nothing.

MHRA Prefered option 1.

What's the difference between 1 and 2? Well 1 is immediate and 2 gives a year to comply.

Some choice and btw Vapers would become 'patients' and e-cigs effectively a form of NRT.
----

[Kate]

This is the bit in the DH document that takes nicotine off the open market and gives it to pharm and tobacco companies. It's in their interests to keep us smoking and taking ineffective NRTs so innovation will be stopped -

Quote

... 4.36 Given the pharmacological action of
nicotine, the Government will create a level
playing field by regulating all products that
contain nicotine (apart from tobacco, which is
regulated by specific tobacco legislation) under
medicines safety legislation. This will mean that
any producer of a nicotine-containing product
or nicotine delivery medicine will need to meet
certain requirements for safety, quality and
efficacy, in order to protect the public. ..

[prof beard]

A calm and reasoned, but sizeable response is needed to this public consultation. If they are serious about "harm reduction" they need to understand that getting this wrong could harm a lot of people - mainly us!

This post has been edited by prof beard: 01 February 2010 - 05:55 PM

[Kate]

These are against recreational nicotine too:

Quote

In October 2009, NICE’s Citizens Council met for three days to discuss smoking and harm reduction and to provide a report for NICE. The Council’s report of their meeting is available below. The report will be presented to the NICE Board in May 2010.
In the meantime, NICE would welcome any comments on the report. If you would like to make a comment, please do so by completing the short form below and e-mailing it to Clifford Middleton, R&D Project Manager at clifford.middleton@nice.org.uk. Without prior agreement, only comments submitted in this way will be considered. Anyone to whom this presents difficulties should contact Clifford to discuss an alternative way of submitting comments....

http://www.nice.org....onToComment.jsp

I think 1st Feb may be support smoking and pharm companies profits day.

[Kate]

Well we have NICE, MHRA and the DH all saying the same thing on the same day.

Calm is not my immediate feeling but I'm sure somebody can come up with a plan to save teh wurld. Fingers crossed.

[Jackie]

Kate said:

Calm is not my immediate feeling

Mine either! I can seriously see us heading down either the prescription only or banning route. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm worried...

[Kate]

andysutton said:

... The key is the safety, if we or a large medical research group can prove safety - then it's over. BUT,as i'm sure others have pointed out, how safe is ANYTHING?! Booze? Before they can BAN anything like e-cigs - they must first PROVE that they are unsafe, and no study yet proves it either way.

Anyone know a vaping lawyer?


Andy

What does 'safe' mean?

http://vapersnetwork...ead.php?tid=164

[Rusty]

I'm just speachless!

[Ian]

Rusty said:

I'm just speachless!

That'll be a first :)

[prof beard]

Can I remind everyone that there is an election coming - pouinting out to those who will be seeking election that not supporting us over this will result in a lack of vote might help - we are not electorially significant in mass terms but every vote counts...

[Concupiscible]

prof beard said:

- we are not electorially significant in mass terms but every vote counts...

Whilst I agree wholeheartedly with that principal - in realistic terms we are not significant in any way. Having participated in huge high profile demonstrations in the past I am aware of that insignificance quite keenly.

Smokers are generally despised by the GP - the smoking ban and the foxhunting ban were both easily passed because in the main it a) does not effect the GP in a negative way if they are not directly involved and b) most of them despise or abhor the notion of it or c) because of a) they couldn't give a toss.
Even though a great many of us are ex smokers, I know that we are perceived as smokers still, usually disparagingly and with a disappointed look at our weakness. There will not be much public sympathy for this cause - unless it is having an impact on them personally.

It is a scary thought to any of us that this may stop - I worry not only for my health but that of the smokers in my family whose need is even greater than mine.

The onus really is on the big suppliers - this is going to effect them immensely - to start rallying.

The sad thing is that "we" are all in no way in control - the banking debacle proved that - I sat in the middle of an ocean waiting for the revolution - it never came. I'm a fighter, and I hazard a good guess that many others here are, however, one man does not an army make. I know Kate has been criticised for her liaison with ASH, and whilst I understand the wariness behind such criticism this is the kind of support we are going to need if these regulations are an actuality.

Now I'm going to go and teach the neighbourhood kids how to be a nicotine mule!

[Jackie]

I agree that the average person won't give a flying fig about us, we're very much in a minority. Smokers won't care because they mostly just care about being able to smoke, and non-smokers won't care because they've been conditioned to hate anybody that's ever been near a cigarette! I think heroine addicts actually get more sympathy than we would (not that they don't deserve it, but there is a certain irony there).

I'll say it again, I'm worried! Maybe it is time for us to form some kind of formal group to (try to) stick up for our rights? Or at the very least a website with information.

[Rusty]

I think the Vapers Network needs to be promoted. We all need to back Kate up in the stirling work she has done and continues to do - time to unite.

[Concupiscible]

I agree with you both.
The worst that can happen is that they'll make a musical about us.

[Concupiscible]

On second thoughts... what we really need is for Apple to make an e-cig. That way we'd have public support in the bag... they'll buy 'em in droves.