Nicotine regulation: UK future

[TropicalBob]

As of now, Big Tobacco and Big Pharmaceutical are not concerned about us. Wall Street has estimated that only 1% of real cigarette smokers would switch to e-cigs no matter the availability. On this forum, we only see the successes. The failures don't post; they just say it was a stupid idea and go back to cigs.

When and if either of these giants feels e-smoking is a pest, we will face this:

1. Big Tobacco will say "You tax our products at a ridiculous level, yet let these yokels puff nicotine without taxation. How come? Level the competitive playing field and let's see how many users choose vapor over smoke." And Congressmen will pay attention to that argument, to our never-ending sorrow.

2. Big Pharmaceutical will say "You made us spend millions of dollars in research over many years before you approved our NRT products -- and then by prescription only at first. It cost us dearly. Level the playing field by demanding no less from this Chinese upstarts." And Congressmen will pay attention, again to our never-ending sorrow.

Neither giant seems inclined to enter the race here. No American process could match the economies of the Chinese production. And buying unknowns from China to rebrand and resell is not especially appealing to giants accustomed to lawsuits from unhappy users of their products. Big Pharma has its products, approved and ready sell at a $14-billion per year level by 2010. Big Tobacco is snapping up smokeless tobacco manufacturers, because it has no interest in making electronic stuff. It has tobacco farmers beckoning and huge investments in tobacco processing.

We need to fly under the radar as long as we can, complete clinical studies, self-regulate in liquid production and warning labels as Pillbox is doing, and stop calling these "quit smoking" devices or NRT products.

Let the sleeping dogs lie a little longer .. if we can and if no one disturbs them by tweaking a nose. It might only take one ugly comment on a show like "60 Minutes" to awaken the beasts. Shhhh.

And be far more concerned about a sudden interest from "health" groups who see unknown hazards from our devices, our exhalations of second-hand nicotine, our public appearance of despised "smoking" in banned areas, and our appeal to young people who otherwise might never take up a nasty addiction. Add Big Government to your list. It needs more and more taxes - now more than ever. Let us hope it doesn't take note of this new product that looks remarkably like a cigarette, yet has no special taxes applied to its sale.

[jigtg]

As of now, Big Tobacco and Big Pharmaceutical are not concerned about us. Wall Street has estimated that only 1% of real cigarette smokers would switch to e-cigs no matter the availability. On this forum, we only see the successes. The failures don't post; they just say it was a stupid idea and go back to cigs.

When and if either of these giants feels e-smoking is a pest, we will face this:

1. Big Tobacco will say "You tax our products at a ridiculous level, yet let these yokels puff nicotine without taxation. How come? Level the competitive playing field and let's see how many users choose vapor over smoke." And Congressmen will pay attention to that argument, to our never-ending sorrow.

2. Big Pharmaceutical will say "You made us spend millions of dollars in research over many years before you approved our NRT products -- and then by prescription only at first. It cost us dearly. Level the playing field by demanding no less from this Chinese upstarts." And Congressmen will pay attention, again to our never-ending sorrow.

Neither giant seems inclined to enter the race here. No American process could match the economies of the Chinese production. And buying unknowns from China to rebrand and resell is not especially appealing to giants accustomed to lawsuits from unhappy users of their products. Big Pharma has its products, approved and ready sell at a $14-billion per year level by 2010. Big Tobacco is snapping up smokeless tobacco manufacturers, because it has no interest in making electronic stuff. It has tobacco farmers beckoning and huge investments in tobacco processing.

We need to fly under the radar as long as we can, complete clinical studies, self-regulate in liquid production and warning labels as Pillbox is doing, and stop calling these "quit smoking" devices or NRT products.

Let the sleeping dogs lie a little longer .. if we can and if no one disturbs them by tweaking a nose. It might only take one ugly comment on a show like "60 Minutes" to awaken the beasts. Shhhh.

And be far more concerned about a sudden interest from "health" groups who see unknown hazards from our devices, our exhalations of second-hand nicotine, our public appearance of despised "smoking" in banned areas, and our appeal to young people who otherwise might never take up a nasty addiction. Add Big Government to your list. It needs more and more taxes - now more than ever. Let us hope it doesn't take note of this new product that looks remarkably like a cigarette, yet has no special taxes applied to its sale.

Nice thing about this little world of our is that sanity usually wins although it might take some time. I believe tobacco taxes are based on the fact that smoking causes extra burden to the public heath care. Since e-cigs will probably cause much less damage to health than cigs, e-cigs should not be taxed like cigs.

I don't see Big Pharmaceutical having part in this nor do I see how they could possibly compete with existing products that will eventually get tested for safety. If acquiring these devices becomes too difficult, people are going to skip the legal path and smuggle devices into country. There are plenty of laws that no one really takes seriously. Here we have a law that says you can get a fine for driving bike without wearing a helmet. Guess how many actually takes this law seriously?

E-puffing has already reached its critical mass and there is no authority in the world that could stop e-cigs from spreading anymore. There will always be a way to make vapor containing nic and that quarantees e-cigs will eventually win. To me the outcome is already clear, what remains to be answered is when this process ends. And ending this process means getting those few bad apples out of the basket. Good battle will speed up the process. If manufacturers think they are ready, go and pick a fight so we get this thing over with.

I'm not really worried about waking the dog. If it wakes too early, it brings us nothing good. If too late, it is going to wake up more angry. You cannot control media nor what people do or think so it really doesn't matter what you or I do.

[TropicalBob]

The present generation of e-smoking devices is not the future of smoking.

These are often shoddy, unreliable products that require far too much attention to be attractive to a mass market of smokers. They are "not ready for prime time." But, left to evolve, these devices will get better and better, until they eventually approach the convenience and reliability of tobacco products. Surely, no one believes that is the case today.

We're all sold on this. I am. There is no way I want to lose by Janty Kissbox and liquids. No way. But just read some public comment accompanying press accounts to understand that the public is NOT sold on these. The longer we avoid the wrath of forces far bigger than us, the better. We are not a done deal -- either way.

[Kate]

I've heard back from the woman from ASH and she said it's ok to publish her email, so here is what she said:

Dear Kate,

First let me say that I agree that "electronic cigarettes" could take
off in a big way and I am as pleased about that as you are. Nicotine is
one of the least harmful components in tobacco but it is the one that
gives most of the pleasure. Far from campaigning against this kind of
product, we have been campaigning for some time for products that give
smokers the rewards they seek from smoking without the harm they cause
themselves and those around them.

I don't know how you feel about the evidence on secondhand smoke but the
scientific and medical consensus is that it is harmful. At the very
least it causes asthma attacks in people with asthma (Asthma UK estimate
that there are around 4 million adults with asthma in the country) but
there is also good evidence that it has a role in cot deaths, in causing
asthma in childhood and most recently, in triggering heart attacks in
adults. One of the great things about these new nicotine products is
that they don't involve smoke.

We've been campaigning for the last couple of years on a simple design
change to cigarettes that will make them go out if they are left
unsmoked and so reduce fire risk somewhat. At the moment almost all
cigarettes in the UK are manufactured in such a way as to ensure that
they will burn their full length. That is good for the tobacco
manufacturers but I can't see how it helps smokers. At best it wastes
your cigarette and at worst it could cause a fire and smoking related
fires are the largest cause of domestic fire deaths in the UK. Smokers
and their families are of course, most at risk particularly those who
live in over-crowded housing. We've been campaigning for "reduced
ignition propensity" cigarettes as they are called, but I agree, the
E-cigarette is safer still as it has no burning end.

We have long been of the view that smokers who are required not to smoke
(mostly in the interest of others) should get society's support in
return. One way to do that is to make it easier for them to stick by
this new law by making safer nicotine products like the E-cigarette more
widely available. This has led some to suggest that we get financial
support from the pharmaceutical industry. That's not true. In fact,
current Nicotine Replacement Therapy is designed and marketed to help
smokers quit, that is fine for smokers who want to quit but smokers who
don't want to quit need something different. A patch can take an hour to
take effect and lasts all day, that might help a smoker who is on a long
haul flight (or one who wants to get through Christmas day with the kids
without going out into the cold for a cigarette) but it doesn't help
with the need for a quick fix in the pub or while taking the kids to
school in the morning. For these smokers, stronger, faster acting
products are needed. Some argue that these are more addictive than the
existing products but, let's face it, they are still less addictive (and
much less harmful) than cigarettes. Pubs and bingo halls could find a
lot of merit in selling these products in vending machines or behind the
bar.

The generally accepted rule is that we should be free to do what we like
as long as it doesn't harm others. The reason the "smokefree debate"
turned out the way it did was because increasingly people recognise that
smoking harms those around us. The same cannot be said of these products
but at the moment they are pretty expensive and not a choice that is
open to poorer smokers. ASH would like to see the price of safer
nicotine products fall so that they are within every smoker's reach.

Finally, as I said above, smokers who replace an occasional cigarette
with one of these products are reducing the harm they cause themselves
from smoking. Who knows, some might even decide that they can quit
completely after all - and that the nicotine products can help them.
Naturally, I would see that as a bonus.

As you rightly state in your email, as an independent charity we cannot
be seen to endorse these products but we are watching their growth of
use with interest.

Kind regards,
Rebecca

Rebecca Kingdom-Kruszewski
Web Manger

Action on Smoking and Health
First Floor
144-145 Shoreditch High Street
London E1 6JE
T: 0207 739 5902

[ismoke]

Hello Kate

When did they write this to you as this is a rehash of a letter I have already seen - it was written many months ago.

[Kate]

Hi Ismoke, that email was sent to me on 8.10.08.

[ismoke]

Thanks Kate. This is clearly something that they have already considered, because although it is not word for word, it is remarkably close. Of course, ASH have been aware of electronic cigarettes for some time so this should not be a surprise.

I was surprised to see, a few weeks ago, the comments from Deborah Arnott, particularly as her colleague Rebecca Kingdom-Kruszewski wrote what she did, which tends to support he product and from the date of the letter I have seen it was written in July.

[ismoke]

Just tried to post the link, but since this is post #15, I cannot.

Yet.

[ismoke]

Now I can.

This is where I saw it.

Puffin Nicotine Indoor Products: Ash speak with us

I have no idea who this company is, save for what is available on the website.

[Kate]

Thanks for the link, I'll have a look.

I guess the problem for ASH is that they might want esmoking to be successful but they can't endorse an unproven and mostly untested product. That makes it hard when they are asked to comment on esmoking, they can't say 'do it' yet they know it's possibly the best smoking alternative. They are sort of stuck looking unfriendly to the opportunity of a novel smoking alternative until there is proof to ease health and safety concerns.