[smokindeuce]

prof beard said:

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...

That's a good point Prof.... now who's looking desperate in the polls - Lib Dems spring to mind. :smoke:

What I would like to see is electronic cigarettes being labelled in two categories.

This would mean that one option would be to have a clinically trialled single product which is available by prescription... something simple, easy to use - probably something like a cartomiser style ecig would fit the bill. The NHS would be able to mark up the little carto's no end and make a mighty fine killing for themselves...

Then as a secondary bill, I would like to see products that are smoking alternatives.... have to still be regulated and safety checked (CHIP, CE, ROHS), but are available as 'leisure' products... much like they are now but with affirmation from the powers that be.

For me, I've never liked the stigma attached to NRT's - I smoked because I enjoyed it - not because I wanted to feel like a druggy getting a clinical prescription fix. Getting a nanny state prescription for something that is supposed to be pleasurable really doesn't gel for me and defeats the purpose altogether. A big fat expensive turn off.

In fact I'd go far as to say that if electronic cigarettes were only available on the NHS, I'd sooner go back to smoking... and I'm sure there are a lot of people out there that would feel the same. :shocked:

I mean they've bloody sat on the fence for far too long in my book - if - they do decide to now make these prescription only.... :angry:

[smokindeuce]

Rusty said:

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.

+1000 - Kate's a star for sure! :)

Another thing is why do they think they can regulate nicotine (which let's face is pretty similar to caffeine) when there are all manner of supposedly 'legal highs' cum head shop type paraphenalia which is probably massively more potent and dangerous but goes by completely unchecked it would seem?? :frown:

I'd hazard a guess: it's all about the money...

[Jackie]

I've absolutely no doubt that it's all about the money, they couldn't give a flying fig about anyone's health that's for sure.

Totally agree on supporting Vapers Network, Kate is a blessing to us all. However I'm not sure she intended that place to be an activist group as such, but I'm sure she'll put me right if I've got that wrong. :)

[Caesarea]

Such bad news. Don't want us to be classed as patients! Have only just felt that we had won free of one stigma!

Hope we can do something - but what?

C.

[Kate]

Hey, thanks for the kind words.

Vapers Network is whatever we want it to be as long as it's non-commercial and preferably as democratic as possible.

I'm more than happy to support a UK group with whatever resources are needed. I'd like the main forum and website to continue to be internationally friendly but we could have a UK sub forum or something, even a members only group if that's thought necessary.

So yeah, please make use of VN, that's what it's there for and you're all most welcome to make yourselves at home.

[Jackie]

That's great Kate, thanks for the clarification. :)

[Ian]

Maybe not all about the money, but that's bound to be a big factor you can be sure. Tobacco and pharma are two of the most powerful lobbyists on the planet and they both have a vested interest in this. Pharma will pick up a very nice addition to its NRT portfolio and tobacco will see a much slower erosion of its market due to the increase in price that pharma will inevitably add to e-cigs.

Then, you've got the government. We all know how much revenue tobacco generates for them and they really don't give a sh*t how many of the electorate die due to smoking related illness - they simply can't afford the hole in their coffers that a significant reduction in smoking would produce.

The real worry for me, thinking about it, is the speed with which this could be put into effect. I suspect the legal process for classifying a substance as controlled is not much more than a few rubber stamps. I'd love to be corrected, but I don't think they need to take this to debate in the commons or anything like that.

Anyway, we shall see. In the meantime I'm going into survivalist mode and have just ordered enough juice to last me close to 2 years at current rate of consumption. I reckon most everything else will be readily obtainable. Even the juice may remain accessible if my belief that importing of healthcare/pharmaceutical products for personal use is legal. However, I'm not taking the chance. It's not treally that big a risk anyway as the cost to me is less than a months expenditure on analogs and I know I'll use the juice without any problems.

[smokindeuce]

Caesarea said:

Such bad news. Don't want us to be classed as patients! Have only just felt that we had won free of one stigma!

Hope we can do something - but what?

C.

That's exactly it.... I'm sure that the vast majority of people switch to ecigs as a pleasurable alternative to smoking in the hope that they will hopefully - in time - be proven safer than cigarettes. Okay we could do with knowing this fact sooner rather than later, but so far, general concensus is looking very positive.

So a two tier regulation would be perfect... big pharma does their clinical trials to prove the benefits and the rest can continue as we have done all along: selling smoking alternatives.

But only having the option to feel like a dependent misfit dictated by a nanny state is not the way forward IMO.

[Rusty]

A sub forum would be great if you can arrange it Jackie. Can UKV members get behind the Petition thread on ECF - to wake up our US cousins - please :)

http://www.e-cigaret...s-petition.html

Thanks

[prof beard]

This is a public consultation. I intend to respond to it personally, in a considered way but also stressing how I feel about the issue in personal terms (its my health at stake). These sort of consultations often get very little response. (I imagine that is what "they" are expecting - this is probably seen as something that be "slipped in" without too much fuss). They can ignore all sorts of protests, petitions, etc but they can't ignore stuff sent as respond to a public consultation - at least they have to acknowledge they have had the responses and they become a matter of public record. That could be useful as evidence if things get difficult - they can be forced to explain why responses have been ignored/discounted etc. Also FOI means they have to reveal how many of what sort of response they have had.

Organisations are useful (to organise people) - but organisational responses (except from "established" organisations of course) are easy to dismiss as "unrepresentative" - hundreds of individual (and distinct) responses are harder to dismiss.

[Rusty]

I will respond personally as well Prof - I hope others will join us.

[westcoast2]

Quote

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.

These proposals are inline with what ASH have been saying.

Deborah Arnott is Director of ASH and a member of the NICE Programme Development Group on smoking cessation and a Board member of No Smoking Day and the Framework Convention Alliance (FCTC)

This is no criticism of Kate. Surely ASH would have known about these consultations when she wrote to them?

The wariness expressed was about ASH, whose statements have been consistant with the MHRA proposed regulatory framework for (medicinal) nicotine. It also likely that ASH had a lot of input to these proposed regulations.
----

[Jackie]

I plan to personally respond as well. Maybe we could get more people doing that if we had some kind of 'form' letter(s) for people to use? In my experience the least effort required the more participation is likely. :)

I'm not the person to do it however, I'm fairly good with words but not brilliant where this kind of thing is concerned.

[Kate]

Yes, it's too much of a struggle to form an organisation quickly and would be of limited use. We can co-ordinate our individual efforts though and the important thing is good communication.

I've made us a sub forum at VN - http://vapersnetwork...play.php?fid=43

For now I've called it the UK support group but that can be changed easily.

Please drop in if you can, thanks.

It's not a problem about ASH, West and Con, I'm pretty suspicious myself and have been fobbed off quite a bit now by people who must have known what was to be presented. I'm still going to see if we can get any help from them but won't be holding my breath.

[smokindeuce]

In actual fact, I can't see it really being a problem at all... I'll just have to change the wording slightly..... get your dildos, flashlights, batteries, heating elements and aromatherapy oils here.... :lol:

EDIT: Oh and gas driven walkie talkies.... :whoohoo:

This post has been edited by smokindeuce: 01 February 2010 - 09:45 PM

[prof beard]

Jackie said:

I plan to personally respond as well. Maybe we could get more people doing that if we had some kind of 'form' letter(s) for people to use? In my experience the least effort required the more participation is likely. :)

I'm not the person to do it however, I'm fairly good with words but not brilliant where this kind of thing is concerned.

Where possible, an individually worded response is best but a guide/skeleton wording for those who find this sort of thing hard could be a help. But what matters most is that people show how vaping has helped them and how the wrong regulation could damage them and others.

[Jackie]

:lol:

Probably the devices won't be a problem, but the nic liquids will...

[Jackie]

prof beard said:

Where possible, an individually worded response is best but a guide/skeleton wording for those who find this sort of thing hard could be a help. But what matters most is that people show how vaping has helped them and how the wrong regulation could damage them and others.

Noted, thanks. :)

I'll get a letter written up in the morning I think, and post it off too. I won't hold my breath but you never know, if they get a lot of letters it might make them at least think twice.

[smokindeuce]

I think a generic email sent by as many users as possible to the powers that be would be a good first step.... this keeps it simple, but representative.

I seem to remember a while ago there was a round robin email that was sent in great numbers to Arnold Schwarzneger around the time that California were considering a ban.... soon after he announced a liberal approach with ecigs.

[smokindeuce]

Jackie said:

:lol:

Probably the devices won't be a problem, but the nic liquids will...

LOL - no one would have to know that the aromatherapy oils were in fact spiked with nicotine.... :tongue2: