It's started in the UK
- Thread starter Imperator
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I don't believe this is anything new. The MHRA public consultation started us down this path some time ago. I am personally in favor of specific regulation for electronic cigarettes, my concern surrounds how it is introduced and what steps are taken to limit the impact on both vendors and the products end users.
My issue with the options in the previous consultation mostly surrounded the aggressive timetable and lack of transparency of the licencing process.
Poorly thought through, heavy handed and quickly introduced legislation will do a great deal of harm.
Just my $0.02
My issue with the options in the previous consultation mostly surrounded the aggressive timetable and lack of transparency of the licencing process.
Poorly thought through, heavy handed and quickly introduced legislation will do a great deal of harm.
Just my $0.02
What specific regulation are you in favour of? Are you sure this isn't just a back door for chemical companies to make things "approved" so they can put their rubbish in? I haven't taken part in the consultation so I don't know what you know...I'm just worried and very sceptical.
Currently e-cigarette products are mainly self regulated by the industry; in the UK government entities such as trading standards enforce more generic regulations such as CHIP (Chemicals Hazard Information and packaging for Supply Regulations 2009) to the packaging of e-liquids as one example.
By specific I mean specific regulation to the electronic cigarette devices and associated liquids themselves.
My concern; and essentially what was alluded to in the article you posted was the MHRA trying to categorize electronic cigarettes as drug delivery devices and therefore theoretically requiring them to undergo the same level of scrutiny as new cancer drugs.
By specific I mean specific regulation to the electronic cigarette devices and associated liquids themselves.
My concern; and essentially what was alluded to in the article you posted was the MHRA trying to categorize electronic cigarettes as drug delivery devices and therefore theoretically requiring them to undergo the same level of scrutiny as new cancer drugs.
Got you. Sounds like that would kill the mod industry and that would suck. The devices themselves need to be left alone and should just be subject to electrical regulations.
You might be interested in the full background to all this on the ECCA site, for example on this page:
UK Situation - 2
UK Situation - 2
Thanks for that link rolygate, that is a very interesting and informative site, one I shall be keeping an eye on.
If I have read the documents correctly, the pharmaceutical industry is trying to ban e cigarettes because they won't make any money out of treating smoking related diseases!
If that is true, then they are a disgrace to the human race. I am astonished at what some people will do in the pursuit of money!
It's just business, nothing more.
If I make a product that depends for its sales on people being sick, then I need to promote that product as efficiently as possible. There is nothing wrong about this as it's a good thing and the only solution.
When there are so many people, so ill, that sales become a vast money machine that shifts billions of pounds, employs hundreds of people here (and thousands abroad), and keeps me in absolute luxury - then it really doesn't matter about any corporate sense of ethics because even if I wanted to stop selling those drugs I can't. Too much depends on it. And, since I also sell the antibiotics that save the lives of the children, no one will believe that I can do any wrong.
Then along comes a competing product that will take 50% off my sales. What do I do - accept it because it will reduce smoking-related sickness and death by 50%? Or fight to maintain my sales? Easy - I fight like hell to keep my market share. Luckily I am expert at manipulating naive medics and buying favour in government. In fact I own parts of it due to my incredibly efficient new corruption mechanism that can't be stopped: the revolving door staff trick.
My staff go to work in the government department, and their staff come to work for me. In the end they're the same people. On top of that I have a real neat kicker: I offer government employees a job at three times their current salary in five years time (or even a nominal board appointment or non-executive directorship that requires no work whatsoever) - as long as they play ball. It's a winner: no offshore bank accounts, no bungs, no paper trail. Best of all it's entirely legal. I can't lose.
In the end, I own the crucial part of government that affects me, and that I can also use to shut down competitors. For an outlay of a few million, I save £1 billion worth of sales and kill off any rivals. It's a magic system and every night before going to bed I give thanks to the god of blind stupidity and greed, whoever that is.
------------
If you don't believe a word of this, then closely compare the parliamentary replies from the Department of Business and the Department of Health, then tell me I'm wrong.
If I make a product that depends for its sales on people being sick, then I need to promote that product as efficiently as possible. There is nothing wrong about this as it's a good thing and the only solution.
When there are so many people, so ill, that sales become a vast money machine that shifts billions of pounds, employs hundreds of people here (and thousands abroad), and keeps me in absolute luxury - then it really doesn't matter about any corporate sense of ethics because even if I wanted to stop selling those drugs I can't. Too much depends on it. And, since I also sell the antibiotics that save the lives of the children, no one will believe that I can do any wrong.
Then along comes a competing product that will take 50% off my sales. What do I do - accept it because it will reduce smoking-related sickness and death by 50%? Or fight to maintain my sales? Easy - I fight like hell to keep my market share. Luckily I am expert at manipulating naive medics and buying favour in government. In fact I own parts of it due to my incredibly efficient new corruption mechanism that can't be stopped: the revolving door staff trick.
My staff go to work in the government department, and their staff come to work for me. In the end they're the same people. On top of that I have a real neat kicker: I offer government employees a job at three times their current salary in five years time (or even a nominal board appointment or non-executive directorship that requires no work whatsoever) - as long as they play ball. It's a winner: no offshore bank accounts, no bungs, no paper trail. Best of all it's entirely legal. I can't lose.
In the end, I own the crucial part of government that affects me, and that I can also use to shut down competitors. For an outlay of a few million, I save £1 billion worth of sales and kill off any rivals. It's a magic system and every night before going to bed I give thanks to the god of blind stupidity and greed, whoever that is.
------------
If you don't believe a word of this, then closely compare the parliamentary replies from the Department of Business and the Department of Health, then tell me I'm wrong.
Hit the nail on the head, Rolygate.
Government will go side with the burning sticks companies, because of the money they get from taxation.
(though I bet they'll bring in taxes, no doubt.) The government won't care that they will save millions on treating smokers for cancer, and all the other related problems.
I think that if there was serious worry on the part of the government, they would have stepped on all the named, or branded, or suchlike, e-cig companies that are already selling openly. It's only when they see the money they make from tax reduce, methinks, they will start turning the thumbscrews.
It's all cloak and dagger stuff, behind closed government doors...
Government will go side with the burning sticks companies, because of the money they get from taxation.
(though I bet they'll bring in taxes, no doubt.) The government won't care that they will save millions on treating smokers for cancer, and all the other related problems.
I think that if there was serious worry on the part of the government, they would have stepped on all the named, or branded, or suchlike, e-cig companies that are already selling openly. It's only when they see the money they make from tax reduce, methinks, they will start turning the thumbscrews.
It's all cloak and dagger stuff, behind closed government doors...
But wouldn't it save the government loads of money in the long run in health care costs? I think they're far too short termist on this issue. They only care about their term in office.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
No, the government does not pay health care costs, we do, through taxation! If we carried on smoking, we would also pay with our lives.
They would not be too happy about paying out for pensions either, if we lived longer.
As rolygate pointed out, it's just business, money is their only concern!
This is sad, very sad. In our society, I believe this has become accepted as normal, which is absolutely terrible. Its like finding a cure to cancer, but keeping it a secret because you make bank on chemotherapy, truly disgusting indeed.
The problem is that they make a lot more in tax and and savings from tobacco sales than they have to spend on healthcare for smokers; plus some may get 'personal benefits'.
- Annual tax revenue on tobacco sales is £12.7 billion this year
- Add to that, estimated savings of £10 billion annually for savings due to smokers dying early (pensions etc.)
Total: ~£23 billion gain from smoking in 2012
- Minus the healthcare costs for treating sick smokers this year = £2.7 billion
Net gain = about £20 billion
+ tax revenue from pharmaceutical sales
+ income tax from pharma employees
Tobacco sales are a major moneymaker for government. In fact people buy their cigarettes from the government, in effect, since government is a 90% stakeholder in the sale (86% in terms of the revenue alone, over 90% when savings are factored in).
Now cut all that by 50%, which is the estimated market share that e-cigarettes will eventually take. It's not just pharma that will feel the pain, the Treasury will be hurting even more.
Last edited:
Despicable. I'm even more concerned about what's happening in America though, because even if things get hot here regarding vaping, we could always import mods and juices from there. But if things go wrong in both countries there'll be no hope.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
The government could possibly claw some money back into it's coffers via some form of taxation of nicotine liquids - which, to be honest, would be a fair sacrifice - as in the long term, people aren't ingesting all the nasty tobacco chemicals, and it should still be cheaper than regular smoking.
Maybe some kind of balance could be found, eventually. It's easier to fight when you have equal footing with someone, than if they have the powerful high ground. (though, obviously, they don't have any of the moral high ground)
Maybe some kind of balance could be found, eventually. It's easier to fight when you have equal footing with someone, than if they have the powerful high ground. (though, obviously, they don't have any of the moral high ground)
Sorry, chunkmeister, I have to disagree. We already pay a disgusting rate of tax through stealth, somewhere between 60 & 70%.
I understand the level of taxation on tobacco as it is very harmful and the cost alone may put a lot of people off. It would be similar to 50% of people giving up alcohol to drink water, and then the government placing the tax on water to make up for the shortfall.
Besides, it is easy to tax tobacco because it is not easily obtainable whereas the ingredients to make juice would be far easier, this would create a thriving black market.
Vaping is (as far as we know) virtually harmless to ourselves and others, why should we have to be penalised for it just because the government cannot force a terrible habit upon us!
Hehe - It's fine to disagree - I guess the point I'm trying to put across is that, if government loses all the tax from smokers, they have to find it from somewhere else. (They have little option). It's either that, or our key services will be threatened with cuts. (I've been on a government pay freeze for a few years - I know - it hits hard, especially with future cuts that are being considered.).
If, however, the government can offset this with *some* taxation, they may be more likely to consider e-cigs.
I don't agree with your alcohol / water analogy. Most people drink alcohol because they enjoy it.
A far larger proportion of people smoke because they're addicted to it, as opposed to enjoying it.
Though, if only they tried, they'd enjoy vaping fare more!
- That's not to say people aren't addicted to alcohol - that's not what I'm inferring - alcohol addiction is a reality too...
On the black market point.. we've already got a thriving black market in cigarettes and tobacco products.
I agree on the point that, in most of the sense, vaping is virtually harmless, but on the other hand, nicotine liquid is a toxic, concentrated poison, which when handled, does deserve far more respect than analog sticks.
So... I see no incentive at all for the government to encourage or look into e-cigs, because they'll loose billions in revenue.
Suggestions?
- Status
Similar threads
