Hopefully it won't come to that Ruby. Have a look at the proposals from the Royal College of Physicians that TBob has linked. As Leaford says they are aware that damage reduction is important for smokers and aren't (yet) proposing a ban on nicotine for non-medical use. Hopefully they will view esmoking favourably when it comes to their attention.
Nicotine regulation: UK future
- Thread starter TropicalBob
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I hope for sensible regulation Brenda, I think there are hazards with nicotine that should be minimised. What the powers that be think is sensible is anybody's guess though and I worry that you may be right. Nicotine has bad connections and is likely to suffer a bit of a knee jerk reaction from some official quarters.
I wish that I had the same faith Kate. I just simply do not trust the powers that be.
The Royal College of Physicians are in bed with the large Pharm. company's and many of the Physicians have a vested interest in the Pharm. company's by way of directorships etc. It will not be in their interests to allow people to buy nicotine privately to e-smoke as there will not be as many products required to help smokers quit. ie. Less profits.
If all cigarette smokers changed to e-smoking then the treasury would lose a fortune. Therefore the Government must either decide to ban e-cig nicotine and keep the Pharm. and tobacco company's happy. Or to regulate and tax it's supply to keep the taxpayer and themselves happy and upset the Pharm and tobacco industries.
They are caught between a 'rock and a hard place'
It's good that the Government are squirming on the e-cig issue, but I expect that in the end they will find a way to stop us using an untaxed and unregulated form of nicotine.
One example of our leaders stealth was to publish the fact that cigarettes brought from outside the EEC contained dangerous levels of chemicals not present in EEC ciggies. Perhaps it was because they were a lot cheaper !!!
Forever the cynic
Brenda
The Royal College of Physicians are in bed with the large Pharm. company's and many of the Physicians have a vested interest in the Pharm. company's by way of directorships etc. It will not be in their interests to allow people to buy nicotine privately to e-smoke as there will not be as many products required to help smokers quit. ie. Less profits.
If all cigarette smokers changed to e-smoking then the treasury would lose a fortune. Therefore the Government must either decide to ban e-cig nicotine and keep the Pharm. and tobacco company's happy. Or to regulate and tax it's supply to keep the taxpayer and themselves happy and upset the Pharm and tobacco industries.
They are caught between a 'rock and a hard place'
It's good that the Government are squirming on the e-cig issue, but I expect that in the end they will find a way to stop us using an untaxed and unregulated form of nicotine.
One example of our leaders stealth was to publish the fact that cigarettes brought from outside the EEC contained dangerous levels of chemicals not present in EEC ciggies. Perhaps it was because they were a lot cheaper !!!
Forever the cynic
Brenda
I think the way we will go eventually is going to be much in the genre of the way snus was banned , but I am a pessimist by nature.
I agree so much with you Kate that we just don't know the dangers of e-smoking yet - we only know it has to be safer than cigarettes. And we do need to know.
But losing profits can quickly create a bias. And bias can twist facts with ease.
Independant studies (if we'd be lucky enough to get them which I very much doubt) I would trust. But government related studies I would distrust every time due to heavily vested interests allround.
I agree so much with you Kate that we just don't know the dangers of e-smoking yet - we only know it has to be safer than cigarettes. And we do need to know.
But losing profits can quickly create a bias. And bias can twist facts with ease.
Independant studies (if we'd be lucky enough to get them which I very much doubt) I would trust. But government related studies I would distrust every time due to heavily vested interests allround.
Damage reduction? WTH does that mean really?
Its Political speak
Meaningless
Its in there to show "We Care, about Your Plight" They are Compasionate of others, see how much we care, we can send them pamphlets and educate the masses on the new Utopia that Can Be yours, if only you quit ALL nicotine products NOW.
BTW, we need to tax it 300% and we will need government grants of a billion to do all this, oh and we need to raise the income and sales tax as well, for rehabilitation centers and re-education centers for the unwashed masses.
It is A Government report, full of half truths, BS, outright lies, misinturperated data for their own needs, and anything they want it to mean. If they are cought in a lie, they just make up something new, and see if its believed.
"It is for the Public good" "It will save on Health care" "It will save the children"
All meaning less
Its Political speak
Meaningless
Its in there to show "We Care, about Your Plight" They are Compasionate of others, see how much we care, we can send them pamphlets and educate the masses on the new Utopia that Can Be yours, if only you quit ALL nicotine products NOW.
BTW, we need to tax it 300% and we will need government grants of a billion to do all this, oh and we need to raise the income and sales tax as well, for rehabilitation centers and re-education centers for the unwashed masses.
It is A Government report, full of half truths, BS, outright lies, misinturperated data for their own needs, and anything they want it to mean. If they are cought in a lie, they just make up something new, and see if its believed.
"It is for the Public good" "It will save on Health care" "It will save the children"
All meaning less
Now that i think of it, I could probably post a dozen studies that say second hand smoke is completly harmless, or less harmful, then the average city air on any given day.
and CERTAINLY better then the air at this years Olympics
So, having an independant study, Can, also be useless.
"You Can't Fight City Hall"
and CERTAINLY better then the air at this years Olympics
So, having an independant study, Can, also be useless.
"You Can't Fight City Hall"
I cant believe that they have overlooked this for so long. I also think it will be regulated and taxed. The best chance we have is it will be pharmacy controlled and sold as a quit smoking product. I think some EU countries are all ready doing this. I think it says on the sedansa site that this is the case in Austria. Although I would not be surprised if big tobacco try to get some of the action. It would be nice just to go to the supermarket to pickup some carts. But I wont be holding my breath for that, as the joy police still might get it banned. But if it can be proved to be much better than smoking then we have some hope. Just my opinion.
Last edited:
Mmmmm....just look at the WHO's outrage and the other posts about e-cigs today.
How long till the UK jumps on it as big news and our goverment starts their killjoy ?
I'm hoping the suppliers will start to think very creatively and that they'll fight any new developments that threaten their business. Going to have to get smart fast.
How long till the UK jumps on it as big news and our goverment starts their killjoy ?
I'm hoping the suppliers will start to think very creatively and that they'll fight any new developments that threaten their business. Going to have to get smart fast.
The Department of Health 'Consultation on the future of tobacco control' can be viewed here - http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publication...?IdcService=GET_FILE&dID=167555&Rendition=Web
Among other things it says:
...
The health impacts of smoking are also largely unrelated to nicotine. People smoke to get nicotine but they die from emissions from smoking tobacco, particularly the tar and carbon monoxide. It may therefore be possible to find new ways to reduce the risk to smokers who are unwilling or unable to break their addiction to nicotine.
...
If manufacturers claim that their product will help people to quit smoking, their product will be considered a medicine and therefore they must apply for a licence from the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Authority (MHRA). However, if no such claims are made explicitly in the packaging or marketing, these products remain largely unregulated.
...
Medicinal nicotine and the alternative nicotine products currently on the market are known to deliver nicotine more slowly than cigarettes. There is considerable scope for developing faster‑delivery nicotine products, research into which would be encouraged by the Government. For those who have made repeated unsuccessful quit attempts, making such products more affordable and easily available may present a solution.
...
More recently, electronic cigarettes have begun to appear on the market across Europe. While resembling cigarettes, most of these products do not appear to contain tobacco, simply providing a dose of nicotine, which is inhaled as water vapour. Because most e-cigarettes do not make health claims, they currently are not required to be sold under any form of licence.
Among other things it says:
...
The health impacts of smoking are also largely unrelated to nicotine. People smoke to get nicotine but they die from emissions from smoking tobacco, particularly the tar and carbon monoxide. It may therefore be possible to find new ways to reduce the risk to smokers who are unwilling or unable to break their addiction to nicotine.
...
If manufacturers claim that their product will help people to quit smoking, their product will be considered a medicine and therefore they must apply for a licence from the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Authority (MHRA). However, if no such claims are made explicitly in the packaging or marketing, these products remain largely unregulated.
...
Medicinal nicotine and the alternative nicotine products currently on the market are known to deliver nicotine more slowly than cigarettes. There is considerable scope for developing faster‑delivery nicotine products, research into which would be encouraged by the Government. For those who have made repeated unsuccessful quit attempts, making such products more affordable and easily available may present a solution.
...
More recently, electronic cigarettes have begun to appear on the market across Europe. While resembling cigarettes, most of these products do not appear to contain tobacco, simply providing a dose of nicotine, which is inhaled as water vapour. Because most e-cigarettes do not make health claims, they currently are not required to be sold under any form of licence.
That's great - thanks for posting it Kate.
It's a nice one for our sellers too. I just read another thread on here that had trading standards trying to muscle around with some of the sellers - maybe keeping this on them would chill the trading standards people out a little.
It looks positive.
It's a nice one for our sellers too. I just read another thread on here that had trading standards trying to muscle around with some of the sellers - maybe keeping this on them would chill the trading standards people out a little.
It looks positive.
I think we will find that we are lucky in the UK because there is an unregulated category esmoking can slip into at the moment. It can be classed as an alternative nicotine product rather than a tobacco product or medicinal product. That means that, for now, we avoid tobacco bans and the regulation required for medicines. It's just a matter of time before regulations catch up with alternative nicotine products so we need to keep trying to make it as safe as possible.
It's possible that the Royal College of Physicians and the Department of Health will be sympathetic to damage reduction techniques in the UK and will not back heavy taxation when regulation comes into force. They say they want to encourage alternatives to cigarettes by keeping the price of the alternatives low in comparison with cigs.
Other countries haven't got the same categories and are faced with bans or proof of health status (which we currently don't have).
It's possible that the Royal College of Physicians and the Department of Health will be sympathetic to damage reduction techniques in the UK and will not back heavy taxation when regulation comes into force. They say they want to encourage alternatives to cigarettes by keeping the price of the alternatives low in comparison with cigs.
Other countries haven't got the same categories and are faced with bans or proof of health status (which we currently don't have).
I read today that the U.S. Congress is so busy trying to save the world from The Great Depression that it won't act on bills to give FDA further authority to regulate tobacco and/or nicotine. The longer e-smoking avoids government inquiry, the better the chances of amassing harm reduction studies to show the benefits of what we do.
I bet the Senators and Congressmen are so angry that they actually have to do some REAL WORK.....it's horrible!
It sounds like the UK authorities are taking action now and are stopping a lot of dodgy practices like claiming to be smoking cessation therapy and inadequate handling of nicotine.
If trading standards are the only regulatory body involved then I think vendors will have to comply with COSHH (control of substances hazardous to health) HSE - Control of substances hazardous to health (COSHH) HSE - Publications: Free leaflets - Chemicals , CHIP (Chemicals (Hazard Information and Packaging for Supply) Regulations) HSE - Chemicals (hazard information and packaging for supply) http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg350.pdf and the Health and Safety at Work Act Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 ? legislation explained.
When/if esmoking is being regulated for smoking cessation therapy then MHRA (Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Agency) MHRA ? Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency - Home page and NICE (National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence) Technology appraisals will become involved.
It may be that, if the Department of Health and the Royal College of Physicians get their way, then we will have a new regulatory authority to deal with tobacco and nicotine. They will look at non-medical nicotine and may decide it has to meet medical criteria to be approved for use.
If trading standards are the only regulatory body involved then I think vendors will have to comply with COSHH (control of substances hazardous to health) HSE - Control of substances hazardous to health (COSHH) HSE - Publications: Free leaflets - Chemicals , CHIP (Chemicals (Hazard Information and Packaging for Supply) Regulations) HSE - Chemicals (hazard information and packaging for supply) http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg350.pdf and the Health and Safety at Work Act Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 ? legislation explained.
When/if esmoking is being regulated for smoking cessation therapy then MHRA (Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Agency) MHRA ? Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency - Home page and NICE (National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence) Technology appraisals will become involved.
It may be that, if the Department of Health and the Royal College of Physicians get their way, then we will have a new regulatory authority to deal with tobacco and nicotine. They will look at non-medical nicotine and may decide it has to meet medical criteria to be approved for use.
Hello all,
I have been reading the posts and am still baffled by the possible regulation.
I am not selling the product and have been using the e-cig for a few weeks.
Is it just the cartridges that are under scrutiny or the whole device.
Surely any shop can sell a battery and an atomiser ? So presumably it must be the cartridge ? If the cartridges were sold 'empty' and a person decided to fill them up at home with a home made liquid of glycerin without any nicotine, what is the problem.
Come to that what is the problem if the user wants to make their own mixture that does contain nicotine ?
I am totally baffled by the so called legailty of all this and would really appreciate any help understanding it all.
If I put some mixture that does not contain nicotine into my e-cig then is that o.k.. Can the sellers sell cartridges that are nicotine free
Thanks
Bro
I have been reading the posts and am still baffled by the possible regulation.
I am not selling the product and have been using the e-cig for a few weeks.
Is it just the cartridges that are under scrutiny or the whole device.
Surely any shop can sell a battery and an atomiser ? So presumably it must be the cartridge ? If the cartridges were sold 'empty' and a person decided to fill them up at home with a home made liquid of glycerin without any nicotine, what is the problem.
Come to that what is the problem if the user wants to make their own mixture that does contain nicotine ?
I am totally baffled by the so called legailty of all this and would really appreciate any help understanding it all.
If I put some mixture that does not contain nicotine into my e-cig then is that o.k.. Can the sellers sell cartridges that are nicotine free
Thanks
Bro
Hi Bro, welcome to the forum.
The only regulations I've heard being enforced in the UK are trading and health and safety laws. Individuals are not restricted from obtaining and using nicotine. One day there may be legislation but for now we can do what we like.
The only regulations I've heard being enforced in the UK are trading and health and safety laws. Individuals are not restricted from obtaining and using nicotine. One day there may be legislation but for now we can do what we like.
Thanks Kate,
I had been reading about the fella that had stock confiscated and after re-reading the posts it does say that it was trading standards that were involved.
I use my e-cig most everywhere and apart from a few strange looks I find myself recommending the product to the inquisitive.
I would be happy to see the ingredients of the cartridges subjected to scrutiny as the melamine scare in the babies milk in China is a good example of unscrupulous manufacturers.
I don't think the government would be happy to just regulate the quality of the cartridges, they would definitely want to be able to get some revenue. The pharmaceutical companies will be lobbying to get the cartridges banned (unless they were the sole manufacturers) as the usual NRT would not be so much in demand. The tobacco companies would like the cartridges banned as they would lose sales.
As our government have their pockets lined from both, then a ban would be in the governments favour. Unless of course they could make enough in tax from the cartridges as the bribes they receive from the pharms and the tobacco industry.
What a muddle !!
There are so many different angles to the advent of the e-cig.
Bro
I had been reading about the fella that had stock confiscated and after re-reading the posts it does say that it was trading standards that were involved.
I use my e-cig most everywhere and apart from a few strange looks I find myself recommending the product to the inquisitive.
I would be happy to see the ingredients of the cartridges subjected to scrutiny as the melamine scare in the babies milk in China is a good example of unscrupulous manufacturers.
I don't think the government would be happy to just regulate the quality of the cartridges, they would definitely want to be able to get some revenue. The pharmaceutical companies will be lobbying to get the cartridges banned (unless they were the sole manufacturers) as the usual NRT would not be so much in demand. The tobacco companies would like the cartridges banned as they would lose sales.
As our government have their pockets lined from both, then a ban would be in the governments favour. Unless of course they could make enough in tax from the cartridges as the bribes they receive from the pharms and the tobacco industry.
What a muddle !!
There are so many different angles to the advent of the e-cig.
Bro
- Status
