There are feedback loops and I'm concerned. Jumped on UK petitions as I could; the whole mess is rather worrisome (makes one think of Faust). Options 1 and 2 seem the only legislatively viable ones and both mean heaps of trouble.
Yes tarheeldan they have worded that very slyly to make us think there is no Option 3. They say Option 3. Do Nothing and allow these Unregulated products containing nicotine that have not been assessed for safety, quality and efficacy to remain on the market.
What they don't say is that these Devices are already Regulated in the UK by Trading Standards and the Poisons Act.
What the MHRA mean is "these Unregulated products containing nicotine that have not been assessed for safety, quality and efficacy" by THEM The MHRA.
UK people where confused as well but now everyone is choosing Option 3 Do Nothing and are asking who gave this Quango the authority to try to Regulate E-Cigs. They are on shaky ground and will be challenged. If Option 2 is used it means that E-cig Retailers and Manufacturers will have a year to get their Products "assessed for safety, quality and efficacy" by
June 2010 which will cost a fortune and cannot be done in a Year anyway. Even if one could do it , it would be Licensed as a Medicine. Which it is not.
Only one company is playing ball (or should i say selling out) and voting Option 2 and that is Intellicig whose aim is to make their E-Liquid all no-Nic anyway.(they allege.) Some users think their Liquid is about as effective as no-Nic as it is.
btw. If you wan't to know why the MHRA are doing this download and read this PDF.
http://www.mhra.gov.uk/home/idcplg?...068577&RevisionSelectionMethod=LatestReleased
Nicorette aka Johnson and Johnson aka GlaxoKlineSmith Major Shareholder in Phillip Morris.
Big Pharma Is also Big Tobacco.