Intellicig response to HM Government proposals

[Toby]

Maybe we're getting closer to the answer here...

You (John) do not use e-liquid for recreational purposes; but many people do...

So (thinking aloud here), I wonder if there is any way it could be regulated under 2 different brackets?

One as a medicine; a quit-smoking treatment. And another for those that enjoy the intake of nicotine, in whatever method they choose to take it?

 

[Shining Wit]

No disrespect intended towards your company and employees, of course John...

I have respect for every single e-cig company on the planet, except for ones that have dubious ethics.

And that's the problem. People are starting to wonder whether Intellicig have dubious ethics.

Obviously you want to stay in business; obviously you want to have success. I don't think anybody would want to deny you that.
But that's why I'm talking about the principles...

How can e-liquid be referred to, and regulated as a medicine, when clearly it is not?

Why should e-liquid be included, and proposed to be regulated (and possibly banned) as an NCP (Nicotine Containing Product), when tobacco is not?

This is why I am on about principles. If the 2 questions are not dealt with, and answered satisfatorily by the MHRA, then we are being lied to; and anyone who assists them in that is complicit in their deceit.

And that goes against my moral sensibility.

With all due respect Toby, your rhetoric and 'emotional blackmail' do not do you justice.
This is not a simple case of black and white and that is why it is frustrating for you if you do not have a 'yes/no' answer. If you spent a few days researching the subject of tobacco and why it is allowed to be sold at all, then looked at all of the interested parties and saw who pays the piper then you would realise who calls the tune. This doesn't just apply to tobacco, it's the way so many things are in the world. That world is one based on capitalism (sometimes referred to as free enterprise) which we have helped to create. Unfair? Of course it's unfair! Immoral? Yes, sometimes it's immoral, but it's the world we have to live in.

One thing I will not accept is you trying to imply that my principles are flawed because I don't agree with you and that by choosing what I believe to be the best course of action and showing loyalty to our staff, customers and ethos that I am guilty of deceit. That's a very shallow attack on myself and I resent it. I have spent a lifetime standing up and fighting for the socialist principles that were first taught to me by one of the finest politicians of our time, Barbara Castle, when I was 10 years old. I have stood on picket lines, I have joined with thousands of others at anti-racist events, I have lobbied MPs relentlessly, I was a union shop steward in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, I have given a huge amount of my time and effort for numerous causes, but it has ALWAYS been my freedom to choose which causes I give my support to. I have paid my dues so please leave out the accusations.
John.

 

[westcoast2]

Because it cured me of a 42 year addiction.
Because it does have an effect on metabolism.
Because it could be marketed as a quit smoking product.
Because the stringent regulations would lessen the chances of some amateur mixing liquid in their kitchen/garage making a mistake and causing illness or worse. Such an incident could have the whole 'unregulated' industry closed down completely.
Because we believe that it is the best way to secure our future.

Thank you for this reply. To sum up you believe e-juice to be a medicine for curing 'people who smoke' from an 'addiction'?

I understand your belief that it 'cured' you. This is not evidence that it did though and it is not evidence that can be genralised without clinical trials
.
Many things have an affect on metabolsim (caffeine for example) yet are not regulated as medicines.

Stringent regulations operate in many areas of business, the food industry for example, where products are not regulated as medicines. This still does not mean that errors do not occur. Iatogenic death is one of the major causes of death in the US.

Amateur mixing. This is a concern. You clearly do not believe that e-juice itself will be available as it is now. So many who like to mix their own will no longer be able to. How many cases have their been of people misusing e-juice and what were the consequences?

You again use the somewhat emotive term 'unregulated', when it is clearly not 'unregulated' more likely it is 'under regulated'.

I understand that you believe the future of the e-cig is as a quit smoking device (or NRT) this clearly means that it can not be seen seen as an alternative to smoking and therefore becomes part of a nicotine elimination strategy rather than the harm reduction strategy you said you supported.

Since your vew is that it is a 'quit' smoking medicine, my questions about presentation made earlier still apply.

You have given some reasons for regulation as a medicine though no evidence of therapeutic benefit. There are some valid concerns that could still be addressed outside the medicinal framework though.

Why is the alcohol regulation framework inapproriate?
-----

 

[Toby]

... I have paid my dues so please leave out the accusations.
John.

Well, we're all entitled to our opinion, of course John.

I wouldn't say I am making direct accusations per se, partly because I do (sort of) see where you're coming from...

I suppose they are more like philosophical questions, because ethics stem ultimately from the sensibility of the subjective party.
And it does seem there are (and always will be) quandaries and compromises in ethics, when referring to capitalism, and also to proposed regulation.

But (referring back to the MHRA), we are still in the proposal stage.

And I would hate to let people down, about such an important and revolutionary issue as this, while still in the proposal stage...

(And also concerning the potential global repercussions too).

 

[Shining Wit]

Thank you for this reply. To sum up you believe e-juice to be a medicine for curing 'people who smoke' from an 'addition'?

I understand your belief that it 'cured' you. This is not evidence that it did though and it is not evidence that can be genralised without clinical trials
.
Many things have an affect on metabolsim (caffeine for example) yet are not regulated as medicines.

Stringent regulations operate in many areas of business, the food industry for example, where products are not regulated as medicines. This still does not mean that errors do not occur. Iatogenic death is one of the major causes of death in the US.

Amateur mixing. This is a concern. You clearly do not believe that e-juice itself will be available as it is now. So many who like to mix their own will no longer be able to. How many cases have their been of people misusing e-juice and what were the consequences?

You again use the somewhat emotive term 'unregulated', when it is clearly not 'unregulated' more likely it is 'under regulated'.

I understand that you believe the future of the e-cig is as a quit smoking device (or NRT) this clearly means that it can not be seen seen as an alternative to smoking and therefore becomes part of a nicotine elimination strategy rather than the harm reduction strategy you said you supported.

Since your vew is that it is a 'quit' smoking medicine, my questions about presentation made earlier still applies.

You have given some reasons for regulation as a medicine though no evidence of therapeutic benefit. There are some valid concerns that could still be addressed outside the medicinal framework though.

Why is the alcohol regulation framework inapproriate?
-----

I'm sorry but I have so much other work to do that answering so many similar questions will have to wait.
What I will say is that you are trying to convince the wrong people - I'm not drafting the regulations. You should be putting all of your efforts into either persuading the MHRA to change its collective mind, or challenging the legality of their proposals in the courts. That is your right as a UK citizen and no-one is denying that. Go for it and good luck, sincerely I wish you well, I just choose to go in a different direction.
John.

 

[exogenesis]

With Option 2:

what happens to Ecopure consumable products after July 2011,
are you saying you think you can get them approved for this use by then,
or somehow can last long enough as a company until you can get
them officially studied & approved ?

 

[Shining Wit]

With Option 2:

what happens to Ecopure consumable products after July 2011,
are you saying you think you can get them approved for this use by then,
or somehow can last long enough as a company until you can get
them officially studied & approved ?

Well yes, why else would we be looking at option 2?
John.

 

[Tinkerbell]

Well yes, why else would we be looking at option 2?
John.

I seem to read conflicting info daily. As a consumer I admit to utter confusion. Are you saying that under option 2 you are confident that your product will continue in the form you currently sell? By that, I mean as bottled eliquid?

 

[Shining Wit]

I seem to read conflicting info daily. As a consumer I admit to utter confusion. Are you saying that under option 2 you are confident that your product will continue in the form you currently sell? By that, I mean as bottled eliquid?

Yes, option 2 allows a period (initially 12 months) for companies to submit their application for MA.

Option 2 – Whether products containing nicotine should be considered by the Agency to be medicinal products by function and, if so, whether a notice should be issued to manufacturers that all marketing must cease by a certain date e.g. June 2011. After this date enforcement action would be taken against manufacturers not holding an MA for any such product on the market. This would effectively allow manufacturers a year from the end of public consultation to produce relevant evidence to support an application for an MA, submit it to the MHRA for approval and get the newly licensed products on to the market.

 

[ckc]

John, When i read this it gives an example date of 12 months,June 2011 but in reality they could make it 3 months if they wanted couldn't they?

 

[Shining Wit]

John, When i read this it gives an example date of 12 months,June 2011 but in reality they could make it 3 months if they wanted couldn't they?

The time limit would have to be realistic and 3 months would test even J&J!
John.

 

[exogenesis]

exogenesis
With Option 2:

what happens to Ecopure consumable products after July 2011,
are you saying you think you can get them approved for this use by then,
or somehow can last long enough as a company until you can get
them officially studied & approved ?

Well yes, why else would we be looking at option 2?
John.

Seriously ??

Surely there's not only the nicotine levels & flavourings (even if only menthol or maltol) to consider,
but also the PG/VG exposure levels and any heat by-products of everything.

If you don't get mired in the first two I'd personally predict the regulation acceptance
process is going to a lot more protracted than you hope just on the last ones.

Even if you are 'ahead of the game' in terms of nicotine purity & minimal flavours,
you're still going to get clobbered time-wise on excessive red-tape on the acceptance of the 'whole package'.

Unless you're backed by willling significant financiers to see you though, you'll have a lot of
time during which you're selling nothing & still have an uncertain outcome.

SE are fighting a win or bust due to FDA stock siezure, you seem to be
willingly going to lock-down without a shot being fired (so far).

Don't want to sound pessimistic, cos we all want e-cigs to exist in the future,
but surely a concerted front is needed, from big & small suppliers.

Why do we think options 1, 2 & 3 are the exclusive options,
just cos they're the only ones tabled at this moment ?


I want to have a future where a/some very high quality (UK) e-liquids exist,
if only as an option, can't see why consultation can't extend the options more realistically,
i.e don't throw in the towel just yet (unless you have some cunning plan?).

 

[Shining Wit]

Seriously ??

Surely there's not only the nicotine levels & flavourings (even if only menthol or maltol) to consider,
but also the PG/VG exposure levels and any heat by-products of everything.

If you don't get mired in the first two I'd personally predict the regulation acceptance
process is going to a lot more protracted than you hope just on the last ones.

Even if you are 'ahead of the game' in terms of nicotine purity & minimal flavours,
you're still going to get clobbered time-wise on excessive red-tape on the acceptance of the 'whole package'.

Unless you're backed by willling significant financiers to see you though, you'll have a lot of
time during which you're selling nothing & still have an uncertain outcome.

SE are fighting a win or bust due to FDA stock siezure, you seem to be
willingly going to lock-down without a shot being fired (so far).

Don't want to sound pessimistic, cos we all want e-cigs to exist in the future,
but surely a concerted front is needed, from big & small suppliers.

Why do we think options 1, 2 & 3 are the exclusive options,
just cos they're the only ones tabled at this moment ?


I want to have a future where a/some very high quality (UK) e-liquids exist,
if only as an option, can't see why consultation can't extend the options more realistically,
i.e don't throw in the towel just yet (unless you have some cunning plan?).

You haven't got a full and accurate assessment of the situation. You need to do a lot of research and reading and hire someone to help.
John.

PS Please don't ask me for that full assessment

 

[chief druid]

sounds political to me *run away!!!*

 

[hifistud]

It took J&J seven years to get the Nicorette an MA. If Intellicig throw in the towel now, don't expect to see any nic bearing juice on the market for an awful long time. I've run the scenarios, and it's true to say that first to market in a MA required world gets to rule the roost and rake in all the profits. Go figure.

That was also a good time to test my theory that nicotine is not the biggest obstacle
that has to be overcome if you want to 'give up'.
I went zero that day and the following day and the next and next until, after a week, I felt physically and psychologically free from the grip of nicotine.
What was amazing, and almost made me feel like I had been cheated, was that I had absolutely no bad withdrawal symptoms. I did have a zero nic ecig that satisfied any cravings I had and I still use it but nowhere near as much.
It's a theory that will be tested during our clinical trials and I am eagerly looking forward to the results.

My bold...

So, they're under way?? NRT here we come... USA will follow.

Be afraid, vapers, be very afraid. You are being sold down the river.

 

[moog]

On this reckoning there won't be any need for nic juice only no nic....sounds to me John you could be selling yourself down the river too. Most vendors can get hold of the hardware and although the evo is a nice little device there are far more popular ones on the market and no nic juice will be easy to make ourselves legally....

 

[Shining Wit]

On this reckoning there won't be any need for nic juice only no nic....sounds to me John you could be selling yourself down the river too. Most vendors can get hold of the hardware and although the evo is a nice little device there are far more popular ones on the market and no nic juice will be easy to make ourselves legally....

Yep, it sounds like we are. Thanks for pointing that out, we never would have thought of it

Our thinking and planning goes much broader and deeper than most of our critics seem to think. How have we achieved what we have already if we don't know what we are doing?

How much do you spend on ecigs? Do your suppliers make zero profit and pass the savings on to you because they think it's a good cause?

We have studied the options and implications and are sure we have made the best decision for us, maybe not for the 'freedom posse' but for the future of our company and they pay my wages. It's not difficult to work out, you can either play at it or you can do it for real.

If the argument is about whether or not Nicotine liquid can be classed as a medicine, who is going to fund the legal campaign to challenge that in the courts? Do you think big P will allow that to happen or can you not see that they would protract any such challenge whatever way they could and bleed the challengers dry?
How much are you going to contribute with no guarantee of getting it back?

John.

 

[Shining Wit]

Seriously ??

Surely there's not only the nicotine levels & flavourings (even if only menthol or maltol) to consider,
but also the PG/VG exposure levels and any heat by-products of everything.
Yes that is correct.

If you don't get mired in the first two I'd personally predict the regulation acceptance
process is going to a lot more protracted than you hope just on the last ones.
It's your prerogative to sit on the sidelines and make predictions.

Even if you are 'ahead of the game' in terms of nicotine purity & minimal flavours,
you're still going to get clobbered time-wise on excessive red-tape on the acceptance of the 'whole package'.
So what should we do, give up because you say so?

Unless you're backed by willling significant financiers to see you though, you'll have a lot of
time during which you're selling nothing & still have an uncertain outcome.
It's begining to sound like we made a big mistake then.

SE are fighting a win or bust due to FDA stock siezure, you seem to be
willingly going to lock-down without a shot being fired (so far).
That's your interpretation.

Don't want to sound pessimistic, cos we all want e-cigs to exist in the future,
but surely a concerted front is needed, from big & small suppliers.
So where is it?

Why do we think options 1, 2 & 3 are the exclusive options,
just cos they're the only ones tabled at this moment ?
You're making assumptions again and including yourself in the collective 'we'. You tell us.

I want to have a future where a/some very high quality (UK) e-liquids exist,
if only as an option, can't see why consultation can't extend the options more realistically,
i.e don't throw in the towel just yet (unless you have some cunning plan?).
What towel, we aim to survive and are doing our utmost to do so.

Where is this big campaign and the huge fund required to make the challenge?
John.

 

[Shining Wit]

Well, we're all entitled to our opinion, of course John.

I wouldn't say I am making direct accusations per se, partly because I do (sort of) see where you're coming from...

I suppose they are more like philosophical questions, because ethics stem ultimately from the sensibility of the subjective party.
And it does seem there are (and always will be) quandaries and compromises in ethics, when referring to capitalism, and also to proposed regulation.
How much are you making from your ecig business and is that your only income?

But (referring back to the MHRA), we are still in the proposal stage.
Do you really think that proposal means proposal?

And I would hate to let people down, about such an important and revolutionary issue as this, while still in the proposal stage...

(And also concerning the potential global repercussions too).

Just for your information Toby (and other suppliers), I have no objection to you posting on our supplier forum here although you are supposed to ask permission first according to the Supplier Rules - not proposals
So long as it is civil all are welcome but it is courteous to ask.
John.

 

[mre5674]

Hey John,

I have had only wonderful communication with you in the past year and a half, and it doesn't take a genius to have seen the careful planning and tactics practiced by your personal and company efforts. No disrespect to the forum, but emotions have no power in big business. Most suppliers (even with the best intentions) are nothing more than wholesale purchasers reselling to the public at a sizable markup.

Unfortunately, we do not live in a world that supports where most of these emotional responses are coming from. Intellicig is obviously a very smart comp. and will rightly deserve the place in line that they achieved through their hard work, re-invested dollars, and savvy. From all the other posts that I've read, where are you with regards to organizing a Revolution? lol - That s--t didn't work in the 60's and it's certainly not going to work now. This is potentially an immensely HUGE Industry, and you can't fault a company like Intellicig for doing it right! I wish for many things, but there are things I am unwilling to spend my time on (as one only has so many places they can put their passion and focus). Point being is, that it takes more than wishful thinking to get anything done in this world! If our health is NOT the obvious main concern, with regards to both the U.S. and U.K. "Health Organizations" then they are fine with us going back to smoking or using any of their other CRAP products currently generating billions of dollars. As I do like EcoPure, it is not my favorite liquid, but I would gladly enjoy it daily if they were to successfully stake their claim. Next, any other companies serious about investing in research and building more than just an image and brand would have a fighting chance. Anyhow, there is so much injustice and sadistic practices on behalf of Government, it's naive to think that a coalition is anything more than a waste of time.

Vote numero dos - Personally I think it's the best decision, and will undoubtably set precedence for the States. Yes, it is the lesser of two evils, but I do believe it will be either this or go f---k yourselves...Best of luck John! Business is business, and I believe your heart is in the right place. I hope you retain the ear you've always had to the streets when you do become one of the big shots ; )

Regards - Mr.e