I'm a user only. Not a member of the ECA. Just want to keep vaping unimpeded by unnecessary regulation.
As such, I am just sharing my thoughts.
Shouldn't all the nicotine devices, gum, inhalers, patches, be labled this way. I mean a strong legal argument seems very possible.
While 'smoking cessation' really is more suited to vaping, as nicotine is a removable component.
Just thinking on the run and outloud.
This sounds like good news on the face of it. If this were happening here, I'd be paranoid enough to think that this was just the enemy studying out defenses. Still, I agree with lonercom here. This group of "Industry Professionals" really seem the have their .... together.08 June 2010, 16:34
UK E-Cig Companies Join Forces at MHRA Meeting
The Medical Health Regulatory Authority (MHRA) which is responsible for regulating all medical products in the UK, have held their first meeting to discuss document MLX364. This proposes implementing licensing restrictions on the sale of Electronic Nicotine Devices, which are commonly referred to as Electronic Cigarettes.
On the 4th of June 2010, the 10 employees of the MHRA met with 25 industry professionals, including Katherine Welch, a director of The Electronic Cigarette Company, a leading online retailer of Electronic Cigarettes in the UK. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the options proposed by the MHRA with industry representatives.
The Industry informed the MHRA that;
- We are already regulated by Trading Standards/LACORS, and have conformed with all regulations. The Industry has self regulated with nicotine fluid testing to ensure quality and safety. The MHRA seemed unaware of this.
- The Electronic Cigarette did not fall within the remit of the MHRA, as Electronic cigarettes are not medical devices, and none of the traders present sold them as such.
- The industry representatives repeatedly stated that e-cigs do not fall under the remit of the MHRA, there are no known negatives to using electronic cigarettes, no record of harm from their use and no research to suggest they are harmful.
- The MHRA admitted their lack of knowledge regarding the e-cig industry, and appeared on face value to be open to information, knowledge and opinion given by the industry.
- Worryingly the MHRA did not have, nor appeared to know of required clinical information regarding levels of nicotine necessary for a product to be classed as NRT, thus leaving the industry none the wiser as to some of the statements in MLX 364 that claim justification for further regulation.
- Further meetings are to be held with the MHRA and health professionals to discuss further proposed regulation of the industry. It was expressed that these meetings should not be biased, and that people present should be aware that the electronic cigarette industry is already regulated by LACORS.
The most promising result of the day was that e-cigarette representatives agreed to form a UK trade body to continue to improve on self-regulation. It was agreed that they should work together to fund lobbying, legal advice, and self-imposed sane and sustainable controls such as a unified strategy for correct practice in packaging, marketing and materials testing.
This in itself is something of a victory since it has compelled the trade to work together in the face of an outside threat.
It was also pointed out to the MHRA that over regulation would force this industry underground, where little or no control of quality or safety would be possible, thereby endangering the public, and achieving the complete opposite of MHRA's remit which is to safeguard the publics health.
Pitting yourself against well funded and organized anti-smoking fanatics is another matter.
Last edited by bassnut; 06-09-2010 at 04:41 AM.
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Interestingly, in the UK, ASH is not opposed to PVs
The FDA believes that the only way to achieve lasting smoking cessation is to make people give up using nicotine. This is why the dose of nicotine in the FDA's so-called replacement products is well below a level that most smokers would find acceptable as a replacement for smoking and why the products are only approved for short-term use. The idea behind these products is to wean the user totally off nicotine.
The vast majority (by that I mean 90 to 93%) of smokers who do manage to stop using nicotine via the FDA-approved nicotine products eventually go back to using nicotine at the level that allowed them to maintain normal mood and cognitive functioning--i.e., they begin smoking again.
The FDA knew back in 1995 that higher doses work better. This study describes the success rate with a 44 mg. nicotine patch. "We conclude that 44 mg per 24-h nicotine patch therapy in heavy smokers is safe, tolerable, and without significant adverse events." So why is the highest FDA-approved dose less than half that--only 21 mg?
This study shows that nicotine maintenance therapy (continuing to use medicinal nicotine products beyond the recommended weaning date) results in significantly lower relapse rates. But "the benefits of sustained dosing may persist only as long as dosing continues." Translation, as long as you insist that at some point the former smokers must give up nicotine, the relapse rate will go up after that. And yet, the FDA refuses to approve longer perioods of using the medicinal nicotine products--and it certainly does not seem prone to approving indefinite use of the products.
As we have seen from the FDA's attitude toward electronic cigarettes, being able to stop smoking does not equate to "smoking cessation" in their book. You must achieve your smoking cessation via total nicotine abstinence.
---- Support CASAA -http://www.casaa.org/Donate_LKWE.html ---