MHRA Findings

[Bjorn Toulouse]

I take it we have all had the e-mail from Mr Cropper.

So from this I take it City Hall has taken a sencible approach to this thing of ours?

Or what did i miss?

 

[Perfectionist]

I'm curious, what did the genius that is Jason (come a) Cropper have to say in the email ??

 

[Bjorn Toulouse]

Basicly it was a summery of the findings of the meating in June. E cigs should be treated more like cigs than drugs with respect to retail.

It also noted the difference between stopping smoking and finding a recreational alternative.

The proposed ban was reported to be put back for at least a year.

Websites could not claim the the product to be healthy.

CHIP complience ,,..........

From what I read the future is grey.

The other thing that cropped up (pardon the pun) was that users would simply purchace from abroad, so it would be prudent for safty reasons to encourage users to purchace from the UK.

 

[Perfectionist]

Basicly it was a summery of the findings of the meating in June. E cigs should be treated more like cigs than drugs with respect to retail.

Yes, they should remain being simply "Electronic Cigarettes" - the last thing we need is some genius deciding they should be "Electronic Nicotine Inhalers" as that would obviously give e-cigs the image/perception of being in the "medicinal" category ...... oh wait, Totally too late ......

It also noted the difference between stopping smoking and finding a recreational alternative.

Yes, they should only be sold in "recreational" outlets like pubs, clubs, newsagents etc ...... the last thing we need is for e-cigs to be sold in places like Pharmacies ...... oh wait, too Intelli-late ......

The proposed ban was reported to be put back for at least a year.

I thought there is some kind of judgement being made in September this year?

Websites could not claim the the product to be healthy.

Yes, having websites scaremongering by saying that Chinese juice is "risky" (even though for a long while, these very same websites were quite happily selling Chinese juice themselves!) is no doubt gonna give the Anti-vaping mofos even more ammunition ......

From what I read the future is grey.

The future would be much brighter ...... if we had smarter vendors and consumers ......

The other thing that cropped up (pardon the pun) was that users would simply purchace from abroad, so it would be prudent for safty reasons to encourage users to purchace from the UK.

This is my worry - with certain well-meaning but inexperienced and unqualified "do-gooders" running around saying that people would just buy from abroad (and that these goods would be "risky") ...... it may well give them the excuse to (eventually) put restrictions on imports, you know, just like they treat Cigarettes ......

 

[deewal]

oh wait, Totally too late ......

the Anti-Vaping mofos

what no dude ?

Your really Snake from The Simpsons are'nt you ?

 

[rolygate]

Perfectionist - This is my worry - with certain well-meaning but inexperienced and unqualified "do-gooders" running around saying that people would just buy from abroad (and that these goods would be "risky") ...... it may well give them the excuse to (eventually) put restrictions on imports, you know, just like they treat Cigarettes ......

I am a pessimist and think that MHRA will go ahead, after a re-write of their impact assessment. I don't believe that other government departments have been sufficiently alerted to the problems MHRA will cause many of them if the ban goes ahead. Of course, I look forward to being pleasantly surprised by common sense winning the day, but government departments are not noted for this.

If banned, ecigarette products then become, in their eyes, unlicensed medicines. Such items can be freely imported and used in consumer quantities, ie by post, as there are no laws that prohibit their import or use by consumers.

It is not clear whether imports of an individual type of 'medicine' could be blocked, or if all 'unlicensed medicines' would need to be blocked. It may be that to stop one product type only it would have to be classified as a dangerous or illegal drug, which seems an unlikely possibility even for the inhabitants of Fantasy Towers. If all such medicines were to be blocked, the law would need to be altered.

If this were to happen, there would be resistance from other groups apart from ourselves, and costs to other government departments would be significant. There would be a cascade effect of costs to other government agencies all down the line, none of which would be borne by MHRA.

This being the case, we would have a reasonable chance of objecting successfully to such a development. RPC for example must be aware of this possibility. It would cause a significant budget impact to Customs & Excise, and might eventually be a major budgetary item for them. Staff at import post offices will have to be increased for example; accomodation and facilities would need to be increased; equipment costs will increase; and legal costs will increase.

So although it may be possible for government to block imports, laws would need changing and costs would be significant. Since the MHRA project was presumably designed to earn money, as there are no negative public health implications to allowing ecigarette sales, only benefits, then presumably the entire foundation of their project is destroyed if the process actually costs a great deal of money. Since the costs will be borne by other government agencies, and not the MHRA, one might expect some objections.

The only other possible basis for the MHRA action would be to protect the income of pharmaceutical companies. Presumably this would indicate corruption so it cannot be a possibility.

 

[Perfectionist]

I am a pessimist and think that MHRA will go ahead, after a re-write of their impact assessment.

I don't think that is pessimistic at all - it's realistic! I thought I was the only one who didn't wear rose-tinted glasses around here - pleased to meet ya dude!

I don't believe that other government departments have been sufficiently alerted to the problems MHRA will cause many of them if the ban goes ahead.

The problems would be minimal because there are so few Vapers in the UK - Bans have already been implemented in other countries with negligible repercussions ......

Of course, I look forward to being pleasantly surprised by common sense winning the day, but government departments are not noted for this.

Has the Government EVER shown common sense in ANYTHING? However in this case it's much worse - a lack of common sense PLUS the (overwhelming) influence of huge and powerful Corporate interests ......

If banned, ecigarette products then become, in their eyes, unlicensed medicines. Such items can be freely imported and used in consumer quantities, ie by post, as there are no laws that prohibit their import or use by consumers.

True ...... so far ...... but things can always change, especially when Tax Revenue is at risk!

It is not clear whether imports of an individual type of 'medicine' could be blocked, or if all 'unlicensed medicines' would need to be blocked.

There is nothing stopping them creating a whole new category for E-cigs and in particular E-juice - or they could just extend/amend the present legislation against Cigarettes ...... where there's a will (and Billions at stake!) there's a way ......

It may be that to stop one product type only it would have to be classified as a dangerous or illegal drug

With enough Corporate pressure and widespread Media manipulation, plus a steady stream of monumental and utterly foolish "own goals" by Vendors - this is a very real possibility.

Out of curiosity, why did Ebay ban the sale of e-cigs? Was it anything to do with them being deemed dangerous?

which seems an unlikely possibility even for the inhabitants of Fantasy Towers.

I disagree dude, Tobacco and Pharma are as big as the Oil or Arms industries - anything is possible ......

If all such medicines were to be blocked, the law would need to be altered.

Which could easily be done if they wanted ......

If this were to happen, there would be resistance from other groups apart from ourselves

Not if it was undertaken in a very "targeted" manner, and with the support of far more/larger Anti-Vaping groups ......

and costs to other government departments would be significant. There would be a cascade effect of costs to other government agencies all down the line, none of which would be borne by MHRA.

Dude, the MHRA is merely the messenger boy! The increase in Government costs would be negligible in comparison to lost Tobacco Duties and Corporate Taxes ......

This being the case, we would have a reasonable chance of objecting successfully to such a development.

Only if Vapers numbered in the Millions instead of just a few Thousand ......

RPC for example must be aware of this possibility.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the RPC (despite calling itself independent) is on the Government payroll ...... and even if it is genuinely "independent" still plays only an "advisory" role with absolutely no powers of redress ......

It would cause a significant budget impact to Customs & Excise, and might eventually be a major budgetary item for them. Staff at import post offices will have to be increased for example; accomodation and facilities would need to be increased; equipment costs will increase; and legal costs will increase.

Not necessarily bro, these departments already deal with Alcohol/Tobacco/Narcotics/etc smuggling worth Billions ...... adding E-liquid to their remit would be a minuscule percentage increase of their workload. Besides, HMRC would love an excuse to bump up their budget!

So although it may be possible for government to block imports, laws would need changing and costs would be significant.

If they feel the need to do it, they can and will - it's up to the Vaping community to make sure we don't give them any motivation to proceed ...... so far, I see the exact opposite happening ......

Since the MHRA project was presumably designed to earn money, as there are no negative public health implications to allowing ecigarette sales, only benefits, then presumably the entire foundation of their project is destroyed if the process actually costs a great deal of money.

Do you really believe this bro? The action of the MHRA is (the first of many!) attempts to nip Vaping in the bud, in order to maintain the status-quo ....... it goes much deeper than just one Government department trying to extort a few grand from the E-cig industry ......

Since the costs will be borne by other government agencies, and not the MHRA, one might expect some objections.

I sincerely hope you are right dude!

My fear is that the UK may well be used to set an example - many of the biggest Tobacco and Pharmaceutical companies are headquartered here as are some of the most powerful investment firms in the world, who all have a vested interest in continuing the profitability of cigarettes! (particularly during a Recession!)

They probably just want to ban the sale of E-cigs (like has successfully been achieved in other countries) but given enough "provocation" and indeed, the right "excuses" they could very well decide to push it one step further ......

The only other possible basis for the MHRA action would be to protect the income of pharmaceutical companies. Presumably this would indicate corruption so it cannot be a possibility.

Seriously, you truly think corruption is not a possibility - why?

 

[Perfectionist]

what no dude ?

Your really Snake from The Simpsons are'nt you ?

And you're really PillBox from Totally Overpriced aren't you ...... dude !

(Note the correct spelling and punctuation there Jason - Doh ! )

 

[Abe]

Can't find the delete button

 

[deewal]

And you're really PillBox from Totally Overpriced aren't you ...... dude !

(Note the correct spelling and punctuation there Jason - Doh ! )

Who wrote your answers for you in your response to rolygate ? Sounds very like Intellicig dogma.
How's business Dave. Not so good huh ?
Oh hang on. Your the troll who was banned from UK Vapers are you not ?
For doing exactly what your doing here but also for being very rude to the Members.
Good going. You've really got to be a bad troll to get banned from there.

 

[rolygate]

Perfectionist - The problems would be minimal because there are so few Vapers in the UK - Bans have already been implemented in other countries with negligible repercussions ......

Yes, I agree with you. At first, of course this is correct. Then, as e-cigarette use grows, users eventually reach a critical mass and problems begin for the government. In the previous cases that I am aware of, government was forced to perform a U-turn and the law/regulation was overturned. A government cannot live with a situation in which a law is ignored by large numbers of people. Laws only work because the vast majority support them; if this is not the case, the laws are changed.

Eventually, any restrictions on ecigs would have to be removed since it would become a voting issue. Once you have half a million people who are prepared to vote on an issue then it's a foregone conclusion what will happen.

Admittedly, this takes years - my estimation is four years. But government is always defeated in this situation. What happens is this: costs rise for departments other than the agency that introduced the ban. In addition, colleagues in government come under pressure. The result is that, sooner or later, colleagues put a gun to the head of the agency responsible and say, "Fix it - or else".

In a previous case of this type, the government agency responsible was dissolved due to their perceived incompetence, and their work transferred to another government department - if memory serves. So this process is not without risk for the initiating agency.

Of course, people tend to forget their history and have to relive it.

I think if the MHRA initiated a ban, it would create exponential growth in ecigarette use as it would create a tremendously effective fashion icon. If use is not illegal, then people would be happy to use an ecig as a symbol of resistance to government interference. After all, once you see Kate Dross with one stuck in her gob there will be no stopping it.

As I've already said, trying to stop ecigs is like standing in front of a tsunami, for a government agency. They might do OK for a while but the backlash will be severe and painful. There is a limit to how far a government can clamp down on the population in order to protect the income of certain corporations, and all the signs are that trying to extinguish ecigs will be a step too far.

In the end there will just be too many ecig users to maintain any ban - the question is simply how long. Three years is too short, five is probably too long, so four years looks a good guess.

 

[aseeryl]

I may be wrong, but it seems to me that commentary, perhaps more so on the US websites, would welcome some form of regulation of the hardware and consumables to ensure high manufacturing standards, consistency and safety of inhalable components (juice).

To do this, short of a ban, would be costly but would, perhaps, pull more analogue smokers into the fold. This is already being done by some Chinese and other manufacturers, but an official imprimatur would work wonders.

Numbers of e-smokers are not high enough to worry the revenue, and the authorities might prefer this to remain a minority sport. If the, hopefully, to be disbanded "fake charity" evangelists get publicity (ASH etc), even if for no other reason than to maintain their raison d'etre, as well as their onanistic control-freak fantasies, then an unwilling government may have to be seen to be doing "something". Very Nulab but the current bunch may not be as susceptible.

 

[Perfectionist]

Yes, I agree with you. At first, of course this is correct. Then, as e-cigarette use grows, users eventually reach a critical mass and problems begin for the government.

Abso-freakin-lutely !! The BEST way to help Vaping is to increase our numbers - signing petitions and arguing with bureaucrats is at best a pointless waste of time and at worst, just asking for more attention to be given to shutting Vaping down ...... I've been giving Starter Kits away to every Smoker I know, talking to everyone I see standing outside a Pub or Restaurant with a ..., Vaping at work, at the Cinema, on a Plane/Train etc etc ...... "Internet Activism" has very little impact, we all need to get out in to the real world and "convert" people personally !!

In the previous cases that I am aware of, government was forced to perform a U-turn and the law/regulation was overturned. A government cannot live with a situation in which a law is ignored by large numbers of people. Laws only work because the vast majority support them; if this is not the case, the laws are changed.

This is fanciful and indeed quite naive thinking dude ...... the vast majority of the country would love our Soldiers to come back home, to bring back the Death Penalty, to scrap Speeding Cameras, to bring back Student Grants, legalise Weed, decrease Fuel Duty etc etc etc etc ...... whether the vast majority are For or Against something does not necessarily translate in to Government Policy ...... and whenever an issue has massive financial implications, you can bet that whatever preserves the economic agenda is what will always prevail ......

Eventually, any restrictions on ecigs would have to be removed since it would become a voting issue. Once you have half a million people who are prepared to vote on an issue then it's a foregone conclusion what will happen.

Further to your point above, if your "majority rule" hypothesis is correct then Vaping will still struggle as the vast majority of the population are Non-Smokers/Vapers ...... this majority can very easily be manipulated to side against Vaping, so we could end up with 500,000 voting For E-cigs but 5,000,000 voting Against ......

Admittedly, this takes years - my estimation is four years. But government is always defeated in this situation. What happens is this: costs rise for departments other than the agency that introduced the ban. In addition, colleagues in government come under pressure. The result is that, sooner or later, colleagues put a gun to the head of the agency responsible and say, "Fix it - or else".

I do believe E-cigs will eventually become legitimised and mainstream - but like I said before, the rise in departmental costs are minimal whereas the loss in revenues is massive, not to mention the pressure to maintain things as they are is much greater than the pressure to introduce change …… it’ll happen but I reckon 4 years is being extremely optimistic ……. But I hope you’re right dude !!

In a previous case of this type, the government agency responsible was dissolved due to their perceived incompetence, and their work transferred to another government department - if memory serves. So this process is not without risk for the initiating agency.

Got a link to this case? Was there opposition from Trillion Dollar Corporate sharks?

Of course, people tend to forget their history and have to relive it.

Vapers need time to grow in number …… and time to let a new breed/generation of Politicians/Corporate Executives take over from the old guard ......

I think if the MHRA initiated a ban, it would create exponential growth in ecigarette use as it would create a tremendously effective fashion icon. If use is not illegal, then people would be happy to use an ecig as a symbol of resistance to government interference. After all, once you see Kate Dross with one stuck in her gob there will be no stopping it.

Damn right dude! The hysteria over this Ban and the clueless and incompetent tomfoolery going on to "fight" it (orchestrated by a small group of self-appointed leaders) is utterly bemusing! A Ban would actually INCREASE awareness and usage of E-cigs (as long as they don’t restrict imports as well, like they did in Brazil) ...... for the most part, the only people to lose out if the MHRA (or whoever else they throw at Vaping) get their way will be the Vendors, not the Vapers ……

As I've already said, trying to stop ecigs is like standing in front of a tsunami, for a government agency. They might do OK for a while but the backlash will be severe and painful. There is a limit to how far a government can clamp down on the population in order to protect the income of certain corporations, and all the signs are that trying to extinguish E-cigs will be a step too far.

Yes, E-cigs are going to win in the end, but in my opinion it'll take at least a decade and conversion of almost half the Smokers in the country …….

In the end there will just be too many ecig users to maintain any ban - the question is simply how long. Three years is too short, five is probably too long, so four years looks a good guess.

Agreed, but like I said, I think it'll take a much longer dude ...... unless of course, the Tobacco Industry jumps on the E-cig bandwagon themselves, which I see as being very likely in the future. In fact I remember reading something on ECF about Phillip Morris sniffing around Ruyan with a view to buying them ......

 

[rolygate]

Quote:
In a previous case of this type, the government agency responsible was dissolved due to their perceived incompetence, and their work transferred to another government department - if memory serves. So this process is not without risk for the initiating agency.
Got a link to this case? Was there opposition from Trillion Dollar Corporate sharks?

Back in the 70s, before the Net. A government department tried to ban public access to radio. They were defeated in the end, probably by less than 200,000 radio users, and the law was changed. Back then it counted as a major defeat for government, and trying to enforce the law had cost a pile of money. The dept. responsible, the Home Office Radio Licensing Dept., was dissolved and their workload was transferred to the DTI, which formed a new Radio Regulatory Division I think. Not entirely sure about the names and sequence of events because it was a few years back, but that was the gist of it. As you say, though, there was no opposition from large corporates.


ps- I had to move your last post, geezer (sorry I mean dude), as things were going a bit OT. Go out the back on the cobbles with your pal... in the UK Dump thread

 

[Perfectionist]

I may be wrong, but it seems to me that commentary, perhaps more so on the US websites, would welcome some form of regulation of the hardware and consumables to ensure high manufacturing standards, consistency and safety of inhalable components (juice).

To do this, short of a ban, would be costly but would, perhaps, pull more analogue smokers into the fold. This is already being done by some Chinese and other manufacturers, but an official imprimatur would work wonders.

Agreed! Indeed the public normally cry out for Regulation in almost everything and blame the Government for a lack of regulation when things go wrong ......

Numbers of e-smokers are not high enough to worry the revenue, and the authorities might prefer this to remain a minority sport.

Absolutely! If we had stayed nice and quiet - they wouldn't have been all that bothered ......

If the, hopefully, to be disbanded "fake charity" evangelists get publicity (ASH etc), even if for no other reason than to maintain their raison d'etre, as well as their onanistic control-freak fantasies, then an unwilling government may have to be seen to be doing "something". Very Nulab but the current bunch may not be as susceptible.

True, bureaucrats always try to justify their existence by meddling in public affairs ...... the "softly softly" approach using very diplomatic negotioation is often enough to appease them ...... whereas kicking up a fuss is like waving a red flag at a bull ......

 

[Perfectionist]

Back in the 70s, before the Net. A government department tried to ban public access to radio. They were defeated in the end, probably by less than 200,000 radio users, and the law was changed. Back then it counted as a major defeat for government, and trying to enforce the law had cost a pile of money. The dept. responsible, the Home Office Radio Licensing Dept., was dissolved and their workload was transferred to the DTI, which formed a new Radio Regulatory Division I think. Not entirely sure about the names and sequence of events because it was a few years back, but that was the gist of it. As you say, though, there was no opposition from large corporates.

Ah yes, I remember reading about that on your other thread dude ...... in 40 years is this the ONLY example of Government backing down? Please say there are others because if anything, it actually reinforces the argument that "the powers that be" pretty much always get their way ......

In fact, in my lifetime I can only think of one occasion where they didn't - the Poll Tax ...... Government did eventually make a U-turn back then, but it took countless people rioting in the streets and a change of political leadership ...... I have a funny feeling that there won't be the same reaction if they decide to Ban E-cigs ......

ps- I had to move your last post, geezer (sorry I mean dude), as things were going a bit OT. Go out the back on the cobbles with your pal... in the UK Dump thread

About time too geez !! As well as moving my replies to DeeTroll, perhaps you could also move the actual, Totally irrelevant, posts by him too ...... this thread is too interesting to be hijacked by the worst Vendor in the UK

 

[rolygate]

Perf. - .....in 40 years is this the ONLY example of Government backing down? Please say there are others because if anything, it actually reinforces the argument that "the powers that be" pretty much always get their way.

Mainly, I'm thinking here about a consumer product that is widely popular and which everyone knows there are no negatives to. It just seems to me that if government try to ban something of that nature, it won't wash. Unfortunately as you say there is only one UK example. Otherwise, yes, gov't gets what it wants.

There are several things on a very large scale that that worked/work the same way, such as alcohol in the US and cigarettes universally. Cigs kill 100,000-plus here a year but they are protected for two reasons: there would be a revolt if they were banned, and they pay for half the national support services. Ecigs will take that slot eventually, just a question of time.

In any case it's impossible to stop the supply of something for which there is a demand.

 

[Bjorn Toulouse]

Well government backing down.....mmmm Poll tax? Only after riots in London, the glasgow riots 3 years earlyer got no press and scotland was after all "the testing ground" mmmm I wonder if Mr cammeron will follow in maggies footsteps with that idea?

In scotland the new drink laws have been over turned, Another u turn was the proposed ban on Buckfast.
(personaly I wish that was banned)

I think because the preasent government is only interested in lining there farthers pockets that e cigs will be pretty far down the adgenda.

Im not too sure publicity is a good thing. How meny people would need to vape before we had a voice?

Again using the poll tax as an example, 4 million scots against the poll tax and governments response? fcuk you.

Only once it was being imposed on the south and there were 20-30 million people against it did they listen.

perhaps it would be better to be insignificant to them.

 

[rolygate]

Bjorn Toulouse - Perhaps it would be better to be insignificant to them.

This is true. When you're so small that you're under the radar, you are comparatively safe. When your user base is so large they can't crush you, you are safe.

Somewhere on the growth graph between the two, you get a media profile and that's when you are vulnerable. That is where we are right now.

 

[Perfectionist]

Mainly, I'm thinking here about a consumer product that is widely popular and which everyone knows there are no negatives to.

I wouldn't call just a few thousand users, as being widely popular dude - and we don't really know if Vaping is completely safe until some long-term studies have been done ....... what we do know is that it can't be any worse than Smoking (we hope!)

It just seems to me that if government try to ban something of that nature, it won't wash.

It has with Weed !!

Unfortunately as you say there is only one UK example. Otherwise, yes, gov't gets what it wants.

Yup, or to be even more specific, Big Business and Big Money gets what it wants ......

There are several things on a very large scale that that worked/work the same way, such as alcohol in the US and cigarettes universally. Cigs kill 100,000-plus here a year but they are protected for two reasons: there would be a revolt if they were banned, and they pay for half the national support services. Ecigs will take that slot eventually, just a question of time.

True, which is why the Tobacco Companies will do everything they can to hurt/kill Vaping - for them it's a matter of survival and self-preservation ......

In any case it's impossible to stop the supply of something for which there is a demand.

True, but like Narcotics has shown, they most definitely can try ......

This is true. When you're so small that you're under the radar, you are comparatively safe. When your user base is so large they can't crush you, you are safe.

Somewhere on the growth graph between the two, you get a media profile and that's when you are vulnerable. That is where we are right now.

Very well put dude - keeping a low profile and not doing anything to draw negative attention ...... while gradually building up our numbers and goodwill, would have been a far better approach ......