New, pink E-cig!

[TropicalBob]

They Cant very well say that a heathier alternative to traditional tobacco is a no no.

They can, and will, tell you in a heartbeat that safe alternatives are already available in the form of nicotine patches, gums, lozenges, nasal spray, inhaler, etc. All tested and approved, at great cost. This unregulated e-smoking upstart is not needed. It will muddy waters for those enforcing "no smoking" rules. It could hook a new generation of nicotine addicts if it should somehow become fashionably 'cool'.

And, truthfully, no one knows the health impact or safety of inhaling this fluid multiple times every day. No one. We all assume it's safe, but assumptions won't garner governmental approval when the time comes.

Just how many reasons would you need to understand that government is not going to say, "Wow. We think this is healthier than smoking tobacco cigarettes, so we'll let unregulated liquids and devices made in China be sold freely in our country? And we'll gladly forego the taxes imposed on tobacco products. We want our country to have healthy smokers of addictive, poisonous liquid vaporized in a metal tube."

If you see a smooth road ahead, you must be smoking something I don't have available for my e-cigarettes. Dream on. Enjoy this ride while it lasts. I am.

 

[trog100]

Don't forget "mother" is going to be out on her neck very shortly as people are sick and tired of excessive taxation, high prices for every commodity including food and, of course, excessive nannying

i recon "mother" is gonna have more important things to worry about for quite some time.. like a collapsing economy.. people are gonna get even more sick and tired soon.. we are in for a rough ride.. but our e cigs will be safe i recon..

trog

 

[Kit]

They can, and will, tell you in a heartbeat that safe alternatives are already available in the form of nicotine patches, gums, lozenges, nasal spray, inhaler, etc. All tested and approved, at great cost. This unregulated e-smoking upstart is not needed. It will muddy waters for those enforcing "no smoking" rules. It could hook a new generation of nicotine addicts if it should somehow become fashionably 'cool'.

And, truthfully, no one knows the health impact or safety of inhaling this fluid multiple times every day. No one. We all assume it's safe, but assumptions won't garner governmental approval when the time comes.

Just how many reasons would you need to understand that government is not going to say, "Wow. We think this is healthier than smoking tobacco cigarettes, so we'll let unregulated liquids and devices made in China be sold freely in our country? And we'll gladly forego the taxes imposed on tobacco products. We want our country to have healthy smokers of addictive, poisonous liquid vaporized in a metal tube."

If you see a smooth road ahead, you must be smoking something I don't have available for my e-cigarettes. Dream on. Enjoy this ride while it lasts. I am.

How long do you reckon TB before the e-cig dream is over ?

 

[Lady Python]

True what you say TB but it's time people started standing up for themselves and stopped allowing various governments to push them around.

If the French don't like something their government does they give a very firm "Mais non, Monsieurs" and usually bring their country to a standstill or just ignore whatever it is their government has done.

Germany and Holland are also places to watch just now. Many people are fed up with their respective nanny states taking more and more control over their lives and there is the beginnings of a major backlash against this and not before time too.

People nowadays need to grow a backbone!

 

[Oliver]

Hi>>>>>The Emperor of Ice Cream... We are compiling a list of Pubs that carry the E.smoking logo and we will be adding it to our site in the future... It barely scratches the surfaces though as there are 10s of thousands of Pubs out there and to reach even 5% takes a massive amount of time and energy...But we will keep moving this initiative forwards..


Mr Darcy>>> good to see you again And i hope alls well with you.

Difficult to call IMHO what the government think of E. Smoking... They Cant very well say that a heathier alternative to traditional tobacco is a no no... But who knows.

My own thoughts are that as long as the Nicotine fluid can be passed by the correct UK based Laboratories then they dont have a leg to stand on other than sanction the E.Cig as they have with NRT. As you know this is freely available on the NHS...

I think Supersmoker have carried out independant assessments of the fluid used in their cartridges and have some very well respected proffessionals giving it the all clear... So
probably this is the ay to go, we have not quite reached this point yet but have spoken to an independant testing company for their analysis, as yet we have not committed to letting them tun tests as financially it is a big commitment...But its on the horizon...

I wish this were the case, but UK law is pretty clear on medicine and tobacco regulation. I think the relevant agencies are tolerating e-smoking for the time being since it is currently a minor part of the market.

As the law stands, e-cigarettes will have to be classified as medicinal products for them to be fully legitimate, since they contain nicotine.

Each method of medical nicotine delivery has had to go through clinical trials to demonstrate its effectiveness for cessation. The same trials will have to be carried out on e-cigs in order for them to become legitimate.

Who knows what the results of those trials would be? I'm not too hopeful. In fact, I'm deeply pessimistic about the whole thing.

The most likely scenario that I can envisage is suppliers will be able to sell the devices, but users will have to import their own nicotine supplies, exactly the same set up as with drug paraphernalia (in the UK that is).

The e-cig would go from being the brave new hope of responsible harm reduction to being sat on the market stall with the bongs and pipes and oddly shaped cigarette papers.

The only hope is in harm reduction being taken seriously as a public health strategy. There have been numerous attempts to get this to happen, but the main problem is that HR is pretty unpalatable to the public as a whole since addiction issues tend to be viewed with a pretty unsympathetic eye.

I considered the e-cig logo strategy a long while back as a campaigning idea, but changed my mind when I realized how counterproductive it would actually be. One must remember that the public at large is strongly in favour of the tobacco ban (roughly 2 thirds). Seeing the logo in pubs is not very likely to get non-smokers sympathetic to the cause, but quite likely to cause a reaction against e-smoking.

I realise that for a commercial enterprise it would be a pretty tempting, and relatively easy way of getting some short term publicity/notoriety and perhaps there is enough public awareness of e-cigs now that it could have some limited positive impact - I couldn't say with any certainty, but I do suspect that it is still too soon.

IMO the real work has to be done via a top-down approach. Medical professionals, public health experts, MPs etc etc must be educated about the great benefits of e-smoking as a harm reduction strategy.

So that is where we should organise......

 

[Oliver]

True what you say TB but it's time people started standing up for themselves and stopped allowing various governments to push them around.

If the French don't like something their government does they give a very firm "Mais non, Monsieurs" and usually bring their country to a standstill or just ignore whatever it is their government has done.

Germany and Holland are also places to watch just now. Many people are fed up with their respective nanny states taking more and more control over their lives and there is the beginnings of a major backlash against this and not before time too.

People nowadays need to grow a backbone!

I hear you LP, but you know full well that the majority of the public is now firmly opposed to smokers. The "mass uprising" idea can't happen because the mass is against the issue at hand!

Perhaps if truckers felt passionately about e-cigs they could block our ports a la France. Otherwise, we nicotine users must not kid ourselves that we have much sympathy.

Again, we are in the right on this one. Logically, the harm reduction benefits of e-cig technology are tremendous - we just have to be tactical and get the right kind of support.

 

[Oliver]

Oh, and what TB said!

 

[Lady Python]

Not wanting to burst your bubble here SmokeyJoe but had to laugh when I saw where you got the statement "strongly in favour of the tobacco ban" from - ASH's website no less, the biggest cheats and liars on the planet!

Now where do you think they got that from? It wasn't you or me or the public in general.

They got that through a survey they conducted some time ago which they passed off as being from the "general public" but in fact was made up from ASH representatives themselves, CRUK and the medical profession.

The general public WAS NEVER ASKED if they wanted a ban or not.

Independent polls run by both national and local newspapers, when asking if people are in favour of the smoking ban or against the smoking ban have overwhelmingly been AGAINST the smoking ban. ASH and the government however choose to completely ignore public opinion.

That is not democratic. That is dictorial.

Also, in Nu Labour's election manifesto in 1997 they advocated a partial ban, not a blanket ban. They lied and cheated to the public.

It's also worth mentioning that Deborah Arnott of ASH was quoted as saying that SHS was "...a confidence trick". That statement is very well documented and showed ASH up for the cheats and liars that they are.

Every study that has been done that's backed smoking bans have been funded by the big pharmaceuticals to give the results they want. Other studies that have been done that shows the SHS debate for what it is, a myth has either been rubbished or buried. However, learned scientists and many doctors are getting fed up with the junk science that's being spouted by the likes of ASH and other anti-smoking groups and are distancing themselves (rightly) from it and also countermanding these.

More recently ASH has been trumpeting how wonderful the smoking ban is. Try telling that to the thousands who have lost their livelihoods, who are about to lose their livelihoods and the millions of people, both smokers and non-smokers who have had their social lives completely ruined by these zealots. Try telling that to our elderly people who are thrown out in the bitter cold and wet just because they are smokers. Many of these people who fought to keep this country free and fought for our civil liberties which the likes of ASH et al are hell bent on destroying.

It is a wise saying "To be forewarned is to be forearmed" and if you want to see e-cigs being successful and not going the way tobacco cigs are, then it would be very wise to learn everything you can about the anti-smoking lobby and how deviously it works.

 

[Oliver]

Not wanting to burst your bubble here SmokeyJoe but had to laugh when I saw where you got the statement "strongly in favour of the tobacco ban" from - ASH's website no less, the biggest cheats and liars on the planet!

Now where do you think they got that from? It wasn't you or me or the public in general.

They got that through a survey they conducted some time ago which they passed off as being from the "general public" but in fact was made up from ASH representatives themselves, CRUK and the medical profession.

The general public WAS NEVER ASKED if they wanted a ban or not.

My bubble remains intact...although it was probably a mistake for me to link to ASH given the controversy that surrounds them, but all my points still stand.

Also, please look at their page again. All their research is sourced -

1] Smoking related behaviour and attitudes 2007. ONS, 2008. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/smoke0608.pdf [2] YouGov poll. Key findings of the survey are available at: http://www.ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_684.pdf
Total sample size was 3,329 adults. Fieldwork was undertaken between 20th - 25th February 2008. The survey was carried out online. The figures have been weighted and are representative of all GB adults (aged 18 ). The study was a collaboration between ASH, ASH Scotland and ASH Wales. The sample size for the England data was 1056.

So that is data from office of national statistics Statistics Authority and a YouGov poll that ASH commissioned. Nothing of the sort that you allege.


All the polls that I have seen show that the public is overwhelmingly in favour of the ban.

If you could show me some polls that show otherwise I would, of course, love to see them.

 

[Oliver]

In any case, I don't want to be drawn into a discussion over the rights and wrongs of the smoking ban. It's done now and it won't be reversed.

This site is about e-smoking.

It is a wise saying "To be forewarned is to be forearmed" and if you want to see e-cigs being successful and not going the way tobacco cigs are, then it would be very wise to learn everything you can about the anti-smoking lobby and how deviously it works.

As it happens, I haven't seen anything by ASH on e-cigarettes.

Might it not be a good idea to try to convince them of the benefits of e-cig technology?

Have a look at their harm-reduction page: http://www.ash.org.uk/ash_1qh94yfn.htm

One way of reducing the harm caused by tobacco may be to facilitate the switch from smoked tobacco products to the use of ‘clean’, non-tobacco, nicotine products.

That, at least, looks like they are reading from the same page as us on e-cigarettes.

 

[trog100]

harm reduction.. choosing the lesser evil.. okay for existing smokers.. but the turkish statement seems to about sum it up.. we have no intention of banning this product simply to regulate it and remove any dangers of addiction.. in other word make it safe.. and for us.. useless..

as for harm reduction.. for an existing smoker yes.. for a possible new nicotine addict no..they will simple say more harm is being caused by the new product addicted more people.. harm reduction is a weak argument..

let me throw in an idea.. a smokers license.. e cig or any cig.. only addicted smokers get one.. only existing smokers can buy tobacco or addictive e liquid..

your local GP hands them out.. he can charge a deterrent fee of say a £100 for doing so.. he makes money and only real addicts pay it.. the fee being the thing of real importance not the doctors opinion..

okay there will be a black market but some say its the oil that lubricates the gears the legit market needs to function.. governments know this as well..

license the buyer not the sellor.. harm reduction works and no more kids get addicted.. or at least everyone one can think so and be happy..

trog

 

[TropicalBob]

A license was proposed not long ago for British smokers, but an e-cig license is a novel approach. It would offset taxation revenue lost from real tobacco products and could police to some extent underage use. I like it.

The smoking bans would obviously remain, however. A license would legitimize the devices, not the public practice. Worth talking about, for sure. Otherwise, people can carry torches and march through the streets, and that will result only in .. a ban on smoking torches.

 

[trog100]

the key is the way its done bob.. no millions wasted letting the bureaucrats run it.. grease the doctors palm enough and hey presto he does it all..

its not about the smoking ban.. just a counter argument to the "more addicts" thing..

i am by nature a "fixer" bob.. i can "fix" things.. keep all parties concerned happy.. not many people have the talent.. those that have get rich and are real devious .......s who use their talent to further their one ends.. i use it every so often when i have to..

trog

 

[pillbox38]

Harm reduction has to be the way forwards for Electronic Smoking...Everyone knows that it would be better in an ideal world if the use of nicotine became obsolete..

In the 60s tobacco companies encouraged sweet makers to manufacture and promote the candy cigarette so the children who ate them developed a psychological link to a cigarette (all be it at the time a candy one) being an enjoyable experience.

That type of practice is pretty despicable, but it went on, the governments hypocrasy is laughable... They take approx £6.2 billion in tax revenues from tobacco products on one hand and on the other they extol the virtues of creating a smoking free society.

As it appears to me and im sure the vast majority of the UK public, the smoking ban was a knee jerk reaction and totally un-thought out.. If they had seriously wanted to action their lip service policy of ridding The UKs vulnerable society members from the scourge of tobacco it would have been banned outright and made an illegal substance.. This of course would never happen for a multitude of reasons, the biggest being the revenue generation that tobacco smoking creates.

So we have a half hearted decision that has wiped out the civil libertys of the nations smokers... I know second hand smoking etc etc etc...

I for one dont want to be part of a nanny state and to be instructed at every juncture what i can and cannot do, same as many smokers i have smoked heaviliy for 3/4 of my life... Why cant i enjoy a coffee in a coffee shop with other smokers???

Im not asking a non smoker to join me, i am also not whining that i cannot smoke in their coffee shop... An old point i know..

But this leads on to the E. Cigarette, and getting my nicotine fix in a way that does not need burning tobacco to provide it.

What other reason than it has not been sanctioned by clinical trials, is the difference in using it than using nicorette??

To argue i am still mimicing the smokers action falls down when you remember the white dummy the NHS provide, you insert a nicotine capsule and suck for your fix.....Very similar???? I would say so.

As a harm reduction device for current smokers it has no equal.

I cannot see why a non-smoker would want to use it or why it would create new addicts.. Super smoker i feel are on the right path....Manufacture and produce your own fluid, pass it through UK recognised testing facilitys and market it for what it is a Quit smoking device or a beat the smoking ban legally product..

 

[TropicalBob]

But it's also about shifting costs. These things WILL be regulated (if they're allowed at all). I don't think there's any question for anyone not wearing rose-colored glasses. And who will pay the costs of regulating? The taxpayers? Hardly. Their message to smokers is always "quit or die." And we don't care which you choose. Your smoking stinks, and so do you.

But .. if e-smokers were to purchase a license, as we must for fishing or hunting, then license fees could go to regulatory costs. On purchase, there'd be a user fee, not a tax, applied to the products. That would go to regulatory costs, as well.

No greasing doctors' palms, or anything so cheesy. Just a straight-up "if you want to use it, you'll pay for it." That's worth arguing when matters come before individual governments for hearing.

BTW: Did you notice a Jamie post not long ago that a proposal has been made for a national registry of smokers? Sounds like gun control, but it's for smokers. I guess insurance companies would be thrilled to have an authoritarian list.

 

[trog100]

bob my words were used in semi jest.. please do not abuse my intent and meaning..

cost will be a major factor in any control system.. bureaucracy always spends a tenner to save a quid.. the cost of introducing the smokers license will stop it every coming into being.. letting the doctors make some money for doing it all isnt cheesy its clever..

i know the way it all works bob.. making money is one motivator.. for a civil servants on a fixed income.. its his day to day work load.. the best idea in the world will be rejected if the guy thinks it means more work for him..

as for the UK government.. well its in major financial trouble.. no way on this planet will it accept anything new that money has to be found for..

they will always take what they think is the easy option.. in this case its at first ignore the product and hope it goes away.. if it dosnt its try and ban it..

things are not as they seem bob.. cheese and corruption is part of the real world.. so is taking the cheapest and easiest way out of any problem..

trog

 

[Lady Python]

(Groan). Anything that ASH and the government are involved in will be biased towards the ban.

Seriously SmokeyJoe, everyone who wants to keep e-cigs free of similar legislation (i.e. bans, taxes etc.) really does need to research all they can both about the likes of ASH and, more importantly the honest scientists and doctors who are just as fed up with them as we are. Many don't like their good name being brought into disrepute because of the antis' junk science and false statistics.

This link to a blog by Dr Siegal, an anti-smoker makes very interesting reading. He knows the anti-smoking lobby have gone too far. Also very interesting are some of the comments.

Worth reading.

http://tinyurl.com/6gmg6o

 

[TropicalBob]

Let's keep this about e-smoking.

Far from belittling your idea, Trog, I was supporting it. Any hint of payoffs to doctors, etc., is an insult to Dr. Loi, Dr. Laugesen and other honest researchers, that's all. They want harm reduction. They want to save lives. And we want the same end result; you have proposed a good way to get there. It's nothing to jest about. Tell me any other way that looks attractive.

Bask, my friend, in the admiration of your idea for something that just might work. Don't drag this into the gutter of graft. Hold it high as a pay-for-the-privilege cost.

 

[Lady Python]

Let's keep this about e-smoking.

This IS about e-smoking TB. If e-smokers don't learn from what's happened to tobacco smokers and learn the workings of the anti-smoking (and indeed anti-anything) movement then sooner, rather than later e-smoking will be banned too.

E-smokers cannot afford to bury their heads in the sand and think that the anti-brigade won't try and ban e-cigs, because they will. They have an obsessive loathing of anything that remotely looks like a cigarette. I do believe if they had their way, white pens would be banned!

I reiterate.

TO BE FOREWARNED IS TO BE FOREARMED

 

[TropicalBob]

Of course, there will be opposition. But nothing about your desire to bring back less restrictive cigarette smoking is applicable to the introduction of the new product we're supporting here. The cigarette battle is over. Lost.

Let's try hard now to focus on alternatives for hardcore nic addicts, of which I'm one. You want to fight tobacco opponents. Fine. Just not here. Trog has a good idea. Let's address it for flaws or additions.