NHS Survey

[Angela]

Thanks for clarifying that.

The thing is, I am really concerned about them being classified as a NRT and the 'regulation' that will entail. I beleive we are far better off continuing on the road that everyone currently seems to be going down in the UK (and by that I mean all the relvant bodies/groups) - ie that of 'harm reduction'. For once, it would seem that just about everyone is signing the same tune (including the PV users)... and long may it continue!

[kinabaloo]

Propylene Glycol is a potent (and safe) germicide

"In one experiment, sick children in a convelescent's home were subjected to bacterial levels of propylene glycol. During the first year of the experiment, children in the control wards (i.e. those with no propylene glycol) suffered 100 infections. Children in the wards with propylene glycol suffered just five."

http://www.ajph.org/cgi/reprint/34/6/578.pdf

If PG is not already used in hospitals and GP surgeries, it should be.

See also this great piece in Time:

"The researchers found that the propylene glycol itself was a potent germicide. One part of glycol in 2,000,000 parts of air would—within a few seconds—kill concentrations of air-suspended pneumococci, streptococci and other bacteria numbering millions to the cubic foot."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...932876,00.html

Nicotine as anti-inflammatory agent may protect against the ravages of flu

Not a great article as a whole, but an easy read and with some good points that are backed by research :

http://diseases-viruses.suite101.com...tory_h1n1_cure

[hifistud]

Ah, well, MHRA is party to the "Harm Reduction" document produced by the tobacco advisory group of the Royal College of Physicians under HMG's purview, in which they call for general recognition of HR as a desirable concept, although still with the ultimate aim of tobacco cessation (a not altogether undesirable objective, all things considered). brochure and full text here

ASH has also called for MHRA to extend licensing for Theraputic Nicotine to include temporary and harm reduction usage, for longer term maintenance and so forth - again, with a view to getting folks off smokes, essentially.

Inevitably, there will be controls imposed on PVs and (more particularly) e-juices. This is most likely to happen as use reaches or approaches critical mass, and the financial implications for duty and taxation approach compromise - the two go hand in hand: as e-cig usage increases, cigarette usage will decline. Initially, it's likely to be "legitimate" smokers who seek the reduced cost benefits as well as the decreased cancer risk - although there will be a fair proportion of "imported under the radar" users who will switch as HMRC tightens its grip on ad-hoc smuggling and major illicit importations (the financial implications are huge for the treasury).

That's the point at which tax questions will be asked, and controls will link in with them. If we are ahead of the game, with consumer-led (and MHRA) controls already in place, we might avoid draconian taxation - the argument will already have been won with respect to health and reduced drain on NHS resources.

Originally Posted by Angela

Thanks for clarifying that.

The thing is, I am really concerned about them being classified as a NRT and the 'regulation' that will entail. I beleive we are far better off continuing on the road that everyone currently seems to be going down in the UK (and by that I mean all the relvant bodies/groups) - ie that of 'harm reduction'. For once, it would seem that just about everyone is signing the same tune (including the PV users)... and long may it continue!