59 replies to this topic

[hifistud]

Kate said:

My understanding is that the Poisons Act 1972 covers nicotine products, including pesticides up to 7.5% without license. Presumably the MHRA will have to remove nicotine from the provisions of that act if they want full control of it ... maybe. ??

Have a look at http://www.pesticide...ovals.asp?id=56 where it looks like it applies only to pesticides - which is kinda sensible, since up until now there's been no other use for Nicotine either pure or in solution outside of Pharma and Pesticides.

Quote

Linking hardware with nicotine by name or claim might also prove to be a mistake, if nicotine goes down then the linked hardware goes with it.

Agreed. And that would include starter packs that have nic-bearing carts in them.

[hifistud]

Kate said:

Marketing claims are regulated, if you make any you'll be liable to prove what you say. If you're not selling you can say whatever you like. As soon as traders make health statements the MHRA is obliged to make sure they're correct and the related products are regulated properly. In theory if you don't make unproven, unregulated health statements then they can't touch you.

That theory only stands until and if they get their proposals through - their proposal is to bring NCPs under the MHRA banner whether claims are made or not. Their rationale is that there is a measurable pharmacological effect on the human body. This is made very clear in the consultation document.


By their reasoning, however, they must also bring cigarettes, snuff, and other tobacco products under their wing. The logic is inescapable.

[Kate]

Claims can legally define products and their purpose, there's no getting away from it, claims are what gives the MHRA their teeth in this case. In theory they won't be able to regulate nicotine without an act of parliament unless health claims are made.


The Poisons Act doesn't just cover agricultural use of nicotine, it doesn't have to specify the intended purpose as far as I can see. Poisonous substances are also covered by the Medicines Act and that's what the MHRA is hoping to use to claim nicotine.

http://www.opsi.gov....a_19720066_en_1

http://www.opsi.gov....a_19680067_en_1

[trog100]

in theory kate they can and will do as they like as long as long they can get away with it... exactly what they can get away with in this day and age is still open to question...:)

was it some american statesman that said "its my job to govern you its your job to make sure i do it well".. i think we failed at our job long ago..

you are doing a good job keep it up as long as you can..

trog

[Kate]

Thanks Trog, I know about the 'theory' thing and don't believe for one minute they'll play by the rules. I think we've (UK folk) got the best chance of stopping the trend of shutting down nicotine markets though and I'm going to make sure the bastards earn their money.

There's no need for us to all agree on how to approach this either, approaching the problem from all angles is probably the most effective way to deal with it.

[trog100]

the meaning does get lost in the words Kate..

i am going to be cheeky here and go back to the beginning..

what are "they" trying to do...

they are effectively trying to ban e cigs by bringing them under the medical umbrella..

why are "they" trying to do it this way...

they see it as an easy option.. whilst still appearing to be good guys and looking after public health needs..

we just need to try and give them sh-t.. in short make them go away and think things out properly..

how we do it dosnt really matter.. what does matter is giving them sh-t in any way we can.. give them enough and they will go away for a rethink....


trog

Edited by trog100, 21 February 2010 - 03:09 PM.

[prof beard]

trog is right - basically, if between now and 4th May we can get enough "noise" of all sorts going, we stand a chance... I still think they were expecting for this to slide through largely unnoticed.

Although I have little or no faith in politicians, contacting as many MPs as possible will help - because, on the run-up to an election, they will all be trying to "look good", if they get the sense that there are a number of people bothered about all this they will ask questions etc - not because they care particulary, but because they will need to seen as "responsive". If the MHRA get the idea the boat is rocking, they may look for a smoother path.

I have written my MHRA response which as well as making a case, points out the weaknesses in their procedures and research, compliance with regulatory guidelines, contradictions in the context of "harm reduction" etc etc. I'm not just sending it to the MHRA, but all regional MPs, Mandleson's office, MPs with axes to grind and so forth...

[Kate]

This is the plan for nicotine - tobacco and pharm monopoly, no room for recreational use. This is what is ingrained in health campaigners, control organisations and anybody else involved with smoking and health.







Nobody has even considered the possibility of nicotine having a non-tobacco/non-medical classification until ecigs came along and what we are facing is inappropriate regulation to reconcile the overall tobacco control plan.

What we're trying to do is swim against this mighty tide and claim our own place for nicotine but 'they' don't listen easily and have the power to wipe us out - that's happened in lots of countries already.

Prof, is there any chance of you posting your MHRA response for us, I'd love to see what you've said? Pleez :)

[prof beard]

I'll post a version of it up once I've sent it in - probably tomorrow or Tuesday - I'll need time to anonymise it.

[Kate]

Ok, thank you many much :)

[Ochso Kube]

Found this . from a consultation document on the Dept of Health website.

Document type: Consultation paper
Author: Department of Health
Published date: 31 May 2008
Product number: 287904
Gateway reference: 9874
Pages: 110
Copyright holder: Crown

5.10 Among the consequences of the smokefree law coming into force across the UK has been the appearance on the market of allegedly ‘safer’ cigarette substitutes. These have ranged from new smokeless tobacco products to inhalers and electronic cigarettes. Most are manufactured abroad and sold over the internet.

5.11 If manufacturers claim that their product will help people to quit smoking, their product will be considered a medicine and therefore they must apply for a licence from the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Authority (MHRA). However, if no such claims are made
explicitly in the packaging or marketing, these products remain largely unregulated.


So would it be this that the advisory comes from ?

[hifistud]

I suspect so - but the report of that consultation makes no specific mention of NCPs or e-cigs at all. Moreover, it is since the adoption of the report that the MHRA has, it thinks, acquired the ability to extend its remit to cover all NCPs.

[Kate]

They're bluffing Dave, they don't have authority, that kind of power grab needs to go through parliament.

Don't believe what they've presented in the NCP consultation, it's a mess.

[hifistud]

I tend to agree, Kate - I don't think they can go there without an SI to allow it - which is one of the questions my MP bloke is asking.

[Ochso Kube]

With reference to the advisory.

Shouldn't a discalimer saying something along the lines of their devices / liquids shouldnt be used or are not suitable with the liquids / devices who make health claims .

Just a thought.

Found an interesting link about an MP exposing the MHRA ( dated 20/12/09) and that the Dept of health does not govern them ( Mhra). and that the CEO worked for Glaxo. for 27 years. Opened my eyes any how.

Maybe getting that MP on board who appears to have a dislike about the mhra, may be another option.

[deewal]

Could you post that link Ochso or send it to me in a PM might be better. Just check to see if the MP has'nt commited suicide using a penknife and 4 paracetamol tablets since then.

[Crossbow]

This page is chock full of alarming MHRA links, including to Paul Flynn MP, who expresses concern that the pharmaceutical industry appears to own the MHRA.......

[Silver Vaper]

Hi all,

i've just posted this on the footer of all my website pages:

WARNING: Electronic cigarettes and the use of our products will not cure a smoker's addiction to nicotine. While both tobacco and electronic cigarettes deliver nicotine to the user, our products are not intended to be used as a therapeutic alternative to, or replacement for tobacco. They are not marketed, sold or intended to be used as an aid to stopping smoking. If you want to take steps to give up smoking or cut down the quantity of cigarettes you currently smoke, we recommend you consult your health care provider to discuss options which may include NRT (Nicotine Replacement Therapy) or a nicotine harm reduction programme. Please Note: We are not a pharmaceutical company and we do not produce or sell medical products. OUR PRODUCTS ARE INTENDED FOR RECREATIONAL USE ONLY. WARNING: OUR PRODUCTS CONTAIN NICOTINE. KEEP OUT OF REACH AND SIGHT OF CHILDREN AND ANIMALS. NOT FOR SALE TO, OR FOR USE BY, ANYONE UNDER 18 YEARS OLD

Not sure if it will make any difference, but think it is worthwhile to establish the fact that this is stated before any decision that may place recreational use outside the jurisdiction of the Monstrously Hypocritical Regulatory Asses.

Silver

[deewal]

Crossbow said:

This page is chock full of alarming MHRA links, including to Paul Flynn MP, who expresses concern that the pharmaceutical industry appears to own the MHRA.......

Paul Flynn say's

Quote

It’s a surprise to many that regulation of drugs is not governed by the Department of Health. It was effectively ‘privatised’ and handed over to a body now named the MHRA and entirely financed by the Pharmas. Its present chief executive worked for 27 years at GlaxoSmithKline. Regulators and industry are intimately intertwined.

I'm working on it. The aformentioned chief executive is doing a good job of hiding his tracks from the Public gaze.
Paul Flynn may be a good person to approach. He is anti smoking but he is also very anti Graft. I'm looking for the best way to approach him. I'me not very good at letter writing though having just read the way you demolished Perfectionist :) you may be able to come up with something Crossbow ?
I'm compiling a list of Names who have a big axe to grind with the MHRA along with Articles etc. It is getting very long. Should i commit suicide with a penknife and 4 Paracetamol, suffer a heart attack, get struck by lightning etc you will know where to look.
It might be an idea to make our communications concerning Evidence more private by using PM's.

[Crossbow]

:lol:
Well, if we wanted to hugely upset Paul Flynn, I'd be the man for the job. Writing him a nice letter, not so much :lol: