[Crossbow]

Funnily enough, one of the first orders I got from China were described as aromatherapy oils on the custom declaration :lol:

[westcoast2]

Quote

But what matters most is that people show how vaping has helped them and how the wrong regulation could damage them and others.

With all due respect, if this line is taken, it will enhance the medicinal case. The use of the word 'help' begs the question how? and the further questions about efficacy.

If the aim is for the recreational use of e-cigs then a case must be made for it. The interim Judgement by Judge Leon notes that had any health claims been made then the order most likely would not have been given in favour of SE/Njoy.

In the US it was argued they are functionaly equivalent to tobacco products, an alternative to smoking. It seems that choice is not on the cards here. However it could help.

I have always tried to argue that the e-cig should have a category of its own outside both the medicnal and tobacco frameworks. That is dfifcult to progress though.

Replies need careful consideration. The MHRA consultation ends on the 17th March, so there is some (limited) time.
----

This post has been edited by westcoast2: 01 February 2010 - 10:04 PM

[Kate]

I read that the testimonials about quitting were used by the FDA to call ecigs medical devices. The balancing argument was that they didn't treat addiction, rather swapped habits.

We may need to be careful to present our right to make our own decisions, to be protected with appropriate regulation rather than having to rely on the black market and question why nicotine is being monopolised but not caffeine for example. Keeping out of the cessation argument is the way to go I think and the petition is specifically worded to say vaping is not smoking, tobacco use or a medical treatment. That might give some ideas for content for letters.

Don't let them claim vaping as cessation, NRT, tobacco or smoking if you can, we need appropriate regulation, not stupid stuff that doesn't work and will cost the NHS billions.

[Crossbow]

About the only way to pitch ecigs is as reduced harm non tobacco cigarettes - this is always going to have some level of implied health claim.
If it's just a nicotine delivery device, then it's unapproved NRT.
If its functionally equivalent to a cigarette, then there is no niche for it since if it doesn't offer harm reduction vs smoking, then a ban harms no one and allowing them helps no one.

[westcoast2]

Quote

Don't let them claim vaping as cessation, NRT, tobacco or smoking if you can, we need appropriate regulation, not stupid stuff

I agree with that :)

[Kate]

Crossbow said:

... If it's just a nicotine delivery device, then it's unapproved NRT.
If its functionally equivalent to a cigarette, then there is no niche for it since if it doesn't offer harm reduction vs smoking, then a ban harms no one and allowing them helps no one.

No, nicotine is not NRT ... yet. That's what they want to make it.

Vaping is a habit that nicotine addicts enjoy that happens to keep us off tobacco and as an innovative product needs a regulatory category of its own - not to be shoehorned into medical or tobacco definitions.

The issue is about regulation of nicotine, that's why I'm saying to maximise the comparison with caffeine or other stimulants, they have the same properties.

[smokindeuce]

Kate said:

I read that the testimonials about quitting were used by the FDA to call ecigs medical devices. The balancing argument was that they didn't treat addiction, rather swapped habits.

We may need to be careful to present our right to make our own decisions, to be protected with appropriate regulation rather than having to rely on the black market and question why nicotine is being monopolised but not caffeine for example. Keeping out of the cessation argument is the way to go I think and the petition is specifically worded to say vaping is not smoking, tobacco use or a medical treatment. That might give some ideas for content for letters.

Don't let them claim vaping as cessation, NRT, tobacco or smoking if you can, we need appropriate regulation, not stupid stuff that doesn't work and will cost the NHS billions.

One single, well worded email sent to the powers that be might be a good initial strategy. It will also ensure that the people who haven't got time to put together a letter will have no excuses...

I wasn't thinking 'black market', as such..... more: a powerful revolutionary uprising of the people to surge into and take control of all government buildings and behead all our objecting leaders..... okay I'm a romantic old fool I know... :lol::mumbles:

[westcoast2]

Quote

If its functionally equivalent to a cigarette, then there is no niche for it since if it doesn't offer harm reduction vs smoking, then a ban harms no one and allowing them helps no one.

I understand the implied claims. There are other claims that do not inolve the medicalization of the device. There is the zero exposure to SHS, there is also the inherent safety of the device itself. This type of harm reduction is not the same as NRT.

If medicalization comes, then efficacy is in play. Despite other potetntial benefits, the e-cig would become just another quit device. According to the reports a quit device of last resort.

Comparison with caffein is useful.
-----

This post has been edited by westcoast2: 01 February 2010 - 10:32 PM

[Crossbow]

westcoast2 said:

I understand the implied claims. There are other claims that do not inolve the medicalization of the device. There is the zero exposure to SHS, there is also the inherent safety of the device itself. This type of harm reduction is not the same as NRT.

If medicalization comes, then efficacy is in play. Despite other potetntial benefits, the e-cig would become just another quit device. According to the reports a quit device of last resort.
-----

Thats pretty much the point I was trying to make. Ecigs are a way of 'smoking' without the demonstratable harm caused by inhaling and distributing smoke, not a way of getting a nicotine fix.

[smokindeuce]

westcoast2 said:

I understand the implied claims. There are other claims that do not inolve the medicalization of the device. There is the zero exposure to SHS, there is also the inherent safety of the device itself. This type of harm reduction is not the same as NRT.

If medicalization comes, then efficacy is in play. Despite other potetntial benefits, the e-cig would become just another quit device. According to the reports a quit device of last resort.

Comparison with caffein is useful.
-----

The one thing that stands between the caffeine vs nicotine argument is the toxic label which has 'prescription' written all over it.

[Rusty]

My thoughts entirely Crossbow :)

[smokindeuce]

Crossbow said:

Thats pretty much the point I was trying to make. Ecigs are a way of 'smoking' without the demonstratable harm caused by inhaling and distributing smoke, not a way of getting a nicotine fix.

Yes, and you would assume that zero nicotine liquids would have to fall into a category of their own....

[Crossbow]

Indeed. Funny how theres never any comment on those from the powers that be....

[westcoast2]

Quote

Thats pretty much the point I was trying to make. Ecigs are a way of 'smoking' without the demonstratable harm caused by inhaling and distributing smoke, not a way of getting a nicotine fix.

Yes, I misunderstood the point.
----

[smokindeuce]

If cigarettes can co-exist with NRT's, then surely so too could ecigs with appropriate taxation/regulation....

I mean in theory, if the nicotine in e-liquid is plant derived, does that not classify it a tobacco product? Furthermore, could this not be a route in to classifying it in the same way as cigarettes?

While not ideal, it would still be a better fate than the pharma route IMO....

This post has been edited by smokindeuce: 01 February 2010 - 10:53 PM

[prof beard]

We mustn't be disingenuous about this, anyone with eyes to see (or a screen reader) can go through all the forums and see umpty-nine posts about how people are delighted that e-cigs have enabled them to stop smoking, how they feel so much healthier etc etc. The BIG difference (that is also visible from the forums) is that the vast majority of these people have no intention of giving up nicotine.

I wanted to give up smoking because it was going to kill me NOT because I wanted to break my addiction to nicotine - I'm perfectly happy with my addiction.

I see vaping as "responsible nicotine use" - a bit like responsible drinking - which I also enjoy...

To the extent I am no longer pumping carbon monoxide and 4000 chemicals into myself , vaping HAS "helped me" - it is helped me enjoy nicotine with reduced risk...

This post has been edited by prof beard: 01 February 2010 - 10:56 PM

[Rusty]

Yep - RESPONSIBLE nicotine use - that is the thing!

[Kate]

As an adult UK citizen I believe I should have access to properly regulated nicotine liquid up to 7.5% (that's the limit set by the Poisons Act) without being labelled as a junkie or patient.

I don't have to have a prescription to buy and drink caffeine and the higher concentration of toxicity of nicotine simply means more careful regulation, not a ban or unreasonable restriction of my habit.

Vaping is a habit apart and we have got to sell it that way. The fact that it helps people quit smoking is secondary to the fact that they have simply swapped habits, not been cured.

[Ian]

smokindeuce said:

If cigarettes can co-exist with NRT's, then surely so too could ecigs with appropriate taxation/regulation....

For me, that's not much more attractive than an outright ban. I'm pretty sure any regulation would likely put an end to loose juice and refilling our own carts. That on it's own puts ecigs not far off analogs in terms of cost. Add on taxation and you pretty much kill off any cost benefits, perhaps even make it a more expensive option. For some, the health benefits would be worth the premium but for many, especially those who have yet to dip their toes in the water, it would be a complete turn-off.

[Kate]

There are monopoly issues here as well as improper regulation of a recreational substance. Why would a capitalist society want to cut out innovative product development, price competition and freedom from the harm of smoking for millions?