255 replies to this topic

[BigSpenda]

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.

THIS IS OFF-TOPIC. I'll keep it brief.

I'm not getting at you personally, Caesarea. Many people have said this sort of thing in one thread or another. I'm getting at anybody who has said this sort of thing, on any forum, anywhere at any time.

What the fxxk is so bad about being 'patients'? I agree that it would be inconvenient to have to buy one's unflavoured nicotine-containing e-juice from the chemist. What GP in her/his right mind would not write a prescription for the stuff, if the alternative was inhaling burning carcinogens?

I've seen this 'stigma of being patients', and 'pharmaceutical label' and 'go begging to the doctor' stuff all over, and it is really cheesing me off. What is narking me off, is the thoroughly pejorative way people have, of talking about 'being a patient', as though there were some sort of stigma attached, to getting medication from the doctor. Perhaps there is, in this country, and I didn't know, because I haven't met people like that.

When anyone speaks of getting their 'drug from the chemist's', or talks of 'being a patient' as though it is a Bad Thing, I find it hurtful, thoughtless, and insensitive.

I have been legally disabled since 1994. I do my best to live as normally as I can, for me. I am as able as anybody is, in the sense that I do what my body and mind allow me to do. Do you do any differently?

The difference between us, is that I see the doctor frequently. I require medication. I live with chronic pain, and I have done, since 1994, and probably always will do. Anyone who thinks 'being a patient' is somehow a Bad Thing, is more than welcome to spend a day in my body, with my memories, and my health.

The pejoratives about being 'made into patients'... y'know, worse things could happen.

Sorry about the off-topic post, but I just HAD to say that.

Uma

[Starlight]

I'm a disabled "patient" as well, with (secondary progressive) Multiple Sclerosis and, like you Uma, I try to live the best I can with it. The "stigma" for me, re e-cigs, isn't that I'd have to get a script for it as a "medicine"; it's that it would make me feel like some kind of druggie, because the attached "stigma" would be that nicotine is "bad" (for want of a better word) for us, same as with other recreational "drugs" like for needles for heroin or whatever else.

So, yes it would "nark" me off to feel classified as a junkie of some sort. That's my view on this aspect of it and I'll be sticking to it.

[westcoast2]

The WHO Reports of expert committees and study groups 1 came out with this report EB126/37 126th Session 12 November 2009 --> http://apps.who.int/.../B126_37-en.pdf

In Section TOBACCO PRODUCT REGULATION: Report of the fifth meeting of the WHO Study Group on Tobacco Product Regulation: Durban, South Africa, 12–14 November 2008. They have a section on ENDS - Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems (e-cigs) pg 3

Quote

Electronic nicotine delivery systems: regulatory recommendations and research needs

Main recommendations
14. Electronic nicotine delivery systems that are designed for the purpose of direct nicotine delivery to the respiratory system fall within a regulatory gap in most countries, escaping regulation as drugs and avoiding the controls applicable to tobacco products. There is insufficient evidence currently to assess whether electronic nicotine delivery systems may be used to aid cessation, create or sustain addiction, or deliver constituents other than nicotine to smokers. Clinical trials, behavioural and psychological studies, and post-marketing studies at individual and population levels are needed to answer these questions. Claims for health benefits, reduced harm, or use in smoking cessation should be prohibited until they are scientifically proven. Electronic nicotine delivery systems should be regulated as nicotine delivery devices, and where this regulation is not possible, under tobacco control laws subjecting them to regulation of contents and labelling, prohibitions against public use, and restrictions on advertising, promotion, and sponsorship.

Significance for public health policies
15. Electronic nicotine delivery systems may offer a public health benefit if they promote smoking cessation, but may create public health risks if they sustain nicotine dependence by allowing nicotine intake where smoking is prohibited or if they increase initiation and transition to cigarette smoking among those who would not otherwise have used tobacco. Smokers who attempt to quit may use electronic nicotine delivery systems in place of evidence-based treatments, thereby potentially contributing to delayed smoking cessation and increased risk of smoking-attributable disease if those systems are ultimately ineffective as nicotine replacement therapy devices.

Implications for the Organization’s programmes
16. WHO continues to support pharmacotherapy only where scientific studies demonstrate predicable outcomes under specified conditions and when products have been approved as safe and effective by major drug regulatory authorities. WHO strongly encourages Member States to prohibit manufacturers of electronic nicotine delivery systems from issuing claims that WHO has endorsed their products as legitimate tobacco cessation aids. Member States should ensure that the manufacturers of these products comply with all existing regulatory requirements to preclude unsubstantiated claims that may derail public health efforts in tobacco control.

Bear in mind that 'Harm Reduction' seems to be a euphemism for No Nicotine. Even if there is no SHS and fewer ingredients, unless it gets people off Nic it's not 'Harm Reduction'.

This is refered to in the MHRA risk Assement Pg14

Quote

Safety
• The WHO (Draft Abbreviated Advisory of the WHO Study Group on Tobacco Product Regulation – September 2008) recommends that electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) should be regulated as nicotine delivery systems not as tobacco products and that claims implying health benefits or reduced harm relative to cigarettes should be prohibited unless the safety of these devices when used as intended are proven scientifically to the satisfaction of regulatory authorities, as should claims that they aid smoking cessation

The full report was due in Jan 2010 but deosn't seem to be available.

(Aside: Want to know where some of the wording came for the NICE 'citizens Report' (apprently written by someone who just popped in for a caffein fix, came from? Read the Smokeless Tobacco Section in this WHO publication --> http://www.who.int/t...1/en/index.html

If I recall there was a Dr M Jarvis who presented to NICE, is this the same Dr M Jarvis who is on WHO committees?)
----

[Kate]

I hope you don't mind but I copied your post to Vapers Network, West. This is what I said about it there:

So it looks like a plan to shut down worldwide nicotine markets except the ones owned by pharm and tobacco companies. They don't know the difference between smoke and nicotine and are waging a war on addiction itself rather than the cause of harm.

[Ian]

The WHO stance certainly doesn't help us but, unless I'm mistaken, they have no more than an advisory capacity. I'm not really surprised at their position anyway given the many well-founded allegations that they are so much in bed with big pharma it's difficult to tell whose toes are whose under the duvet.

[Caesarea]

Since I share Starlight's view, I have nothing to add really here.

Best,

C.

[westcoast2]

yw Kate and you summed up the situation precisely.

Ian: Yes it is advisory. However be careful here. The FCTC is legally binding. These advisories can work there way in there. So it will be interesting to see the full report and where this goes.

I mentioned NICE (again) because of the request for 'Harm Reduction' strategy feedback comments.

It is easy to concentrate on the MHRA, but it necessary to keep up with both strands. The MHRA uses NICE as justification. Nice uses the MHRA and both refer back to the WHO.
----

[BigSpenda]

Starlight said:

I'm a disabled "patient" as well, with (secondary progressive) Multiple Sclerosis and, like you Uma, I try to live the best I can with it. The "stigma" for me, re e-cigs, isn't that I'd have to get a script for it as a "medicine"; it's that it would make me feel like some kind of druggie, because the attached "stigma" would be that nicotine is "bad" (for want of a better word) for us, same as with other recreational "drugs" like for needles for heroin or whatever else.

So, yes it would "nark" me off to feel classified as a junkie of some sort. That's my view on this aspect of it and I'll be sticking to it.

Thank you, Starlight. I understand that whole perspective much better now! That clears up a lot of confusion and bad feeling on my part. I'm sorry about your MS. I have a few close friends living with MS, and one with ME. It isn't fun. I see the difference between going the chemist's, and being labelled a 'junkie'.

Excellent post, much appreciated. There will be no more bitching on my part.

[BigSpenda]

westcoast2 said:

yw Kate and you summed up the situation precisely.

Ian: Yes it is advisory. However be careful here. The FCTC is legally binding. These advisories can work there way in there. So it will be interesting to see the full report and where this goes.

I mentioned NICE (again) because of the request for 'Harm Reduction' strategy feedback comments.

It is easy to concentrate on the MHRA, but it necessary to keep up with both strands. The MHRA uses NICE as justification. Nice uses the MHRA and both refer back to the WHO.
----

Where do users of zero-nicotine vapour fall? Are we 'addicts', too? If so, to what, precisely? These arguments all have the same fatal flaw:

Nicotine use in personal vapour inhalation devices is optional!

They started out as a better, safer, healthier (or less unhealthy, if one is part of the Medical Establishment) alternative to smoking. They've grown well past that, now, and I cannot see how They can regulate any e-juice that does not contain nicotine.

Has anyone seen this topic addressed anywhere? It's one of the foundations of my argument that personal vapourisers are neither 'a tobacco product', nor any sort of 'medical product', but rather, a strictly recreational product, for adult users. They may, or may not choose to use the non-carcinogenic additive of nicotine, but that is irrelevant to the purpose of the product, which is as a source of pleasure, via the inhalation of flavoured vapour. By much the same reasoning, that adult users may or may not choose to add gin, to their tonic-water, it's a bit daft to go around regulating the tonic-water; my point is that the use nicotine is a choice, not an inherent part of the function of the vapouriser.

That's where the question of civil liberties comes in. Do adults in the UK, who have the freedom to choose to smoke themselves into their graves; to drink themselves to death; to eat nothing but meat and cheese and die of hardened arteries; not have the right to choose to use nicotine, if they wish? If not, why not?

I know all of you who switched from smoking to vaping see it differently from me. I think I am onto something here. All feedback welcome.

I need to do something mindless, like watch the animation while I run a full defrag on my hard-drive. My brain is just not in gear.

*wibble*

Uma

[Crossbow]

There hasn't been any mention anywhere of regulating zero nic vaping, as far as I can see.
It must be because while nicotine is safe, and vaping is safe, vaping nicotine is dangerous they can't find any excuse to interfere with it.

[hifistud]

Well, they can't because it's not an unlicensed NCP. What are they going to do? Take all the glycerine and flavourings off the shelves at every Asda and Morrisons (other massive places filled with all kinds of stuff that's bad for you also exist)?

No, no - now I'm beginning to wonder what vaped caffeine will be like...

[jigtg]

nic vs. nicless

[BigSpenda]

Crossbow said:

There hasn't been any mention anywhere of regulating zero nic vaping, as far as I can see.
It must be because while nicotine is safe, and vaping is safe, vaping nicotine is dangerous they can't find any excuse to interfere with it.

True, but The Ban seems to extend to all of the merchandise, unless I'm misreading -- which is entirely possible. My brain's gone to mush reading all those bloomin' nonsensical documents. Was there something in there about regulating celery, because it can be lifted with one's hand, up to one's mouth, with additives in? If not, there probably should be.

Vaping caffeine. Now there's a thought whose time has come. Where does one get pharma-grade caffeine? Has it been tested on animals? Has it been proven carcinogenic to smoke crushed coffee beans? If so, we might have a whole new industry, just waiting to be regulated!

Cynical? Moi?

No, just stoned off my arse on legal, over-the-counter, Extra-Strength Flu medication. I've been less binned after four large margeritas!

Uma

[eciggyman]

Has anyone any idea how many vapers are in the UK? Currently there are 3,844 signatures on the petition. I'm assuming these signatures are all ex-smokers. Assuming once again they all smoked the average of one and a half packs a day, that represents over a twelve month period, a loss in revenue from taxation for the government of £9,821,420. That's one hell of a lot of money from such a small number of people!

[hifistud]

Conservative estimate?? Somewhere between 100k and 200k.

[ArenqueRojo]

I have responded to the NICE invitation. It is over 1200 words so a bit much for a post here but if anyone is collecting these, there is a Word copy here: http://tinyurl.com/yk6m9lc
Patrick