The UK government seems to be looking favorably on e-cigarettes in this Gaurdian article: Try smokeless nicotine cigarettes, says government | Society | The Guardian
Try smokeless nicotine cigarettes, says government UK
- Thread starter gavin
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
This is an extraordinary article, one that I would scarcely have believed I'd see in the mainstream media even six month's ago.
If the article is truly to be believed it would seem that a paradigm shift has truly occurred amongst UK health authorities, although one that has been in the making for two years since the royal college of physicians report.
Please spread this around as much as possible on the forum and with your friends and legal representatives!
SJ
If the article is truly to be believed it would seem that a paradigm shift has truly occurred amongst UK health authorities, although one that has been in the making for two years since the royal college of physicians report.
Please spread this around as much as possible on the forum and with your friends and legal representatives!
SJ
I didn't quite believe it either after all the stuff I've been reading in the past month. I was looking to see if it was from The Onion, or something like that.
The 2007 Report, "Harm Reduction in Nicotine Addiction: Helping People Who Can't Quit" may have been the turning point where tobacco Harm Reduction is concerned. The report can be downloaded here. http://www.tobaccoprogram.org/pdf/4fc74817-64c5-4105-951e-38239b09c5db.pdf
The members of the Royal College "get it."
P.S. Sir Roland Gate left an excellent comment.
Last edited:
Yep E. 
This is a government think tank who probably have no influence on the Department of Health, who do what they are told to by pharma, who pay the bills. The DoH will try to ban e-cigs in 2013. In any case you could interpret this statement to mean anything, including the licensing of e-cigs as pharmaceuticals. As this is about to happen for at least one model, it is not unexpected.
Dave Dorn suggested the timing of this is also interesting, as Nicoventures and others are about to come to market. Probably right. At first glance this looks encouraging - very encouraging - but as you peel away the layers, it looks more and more like a willing journo publishing something produced by people who know their friends are about to market a pharma-licensed e-cig.
Sorry, but UK politics/money is very, very slick, and a simple explanation is not generally going to be accurate, attractive as it may be. Could be I'm just an old cynic but I doubt it.
This is a government think tank who probably have no influence on the Department of Health, who do what they are told to by pharma, who pay the bills. The DoH will try to ban e-cigs in 2013. In any case you could interpret this statement to mean anything, including the licensing of e-cigs as pharmaceuticals. As this is about to happen for at least one model, it is not unexpected.
Dave Dorn suggested the timing of this is also interesting, as Nicoventures and others are about to come to market. Probably right. At first glance this looks encouraging - very encouraging - but as you peel away the layers, it looks more and more like a willing journo publishing something produced by people who know their friends are about to market a pharma-licensed e-cig.
Sorry, but UK politics/money is very, very slick, and a simple explanation is not generally going to be accurate, attractive as it may be. Could be I'm just an old cynic but I doubt it.
Roly
I was going to say that the fact that the article appeared in The Grauniad was a tad suspicious, but non-UK readers might not have understood such suspicion without knowing which side of the political divide that paper falls upon.
I was going to say that the fact that the article appeared in The Grauniad was a tad suspicious, but non-UK readers might not have understood such suspicion without knowing which side of the political divide that paper falls upon.
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 67
I agree with SmokeyJoe about this policy paradigm shift advocated by the UK Behavioral Insight Team.
I posted this and the full 31 page report (see pages 7 & 8) at Legislative News (as that's the appropriate forum) at
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...s-nicotine-cigarettes-says-uk-government.html
We need to spread this news far and wide, as it will make many public health and anti tobacco folks worldwide reassess their abstinence-only anti-harm-reduction tobacco-prohibition policies. It should also be widely cited to oppose and refute policies and propaganda by e-cigarette prohibitionists.
I posted this and the full 31 page report (see pages 7 & 8) at Legislative News (as that's the appropriate forum) at
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...s-nicotine-cigarettes-says-uk-government.html
We need to spread this news far and wide, as it will make many public health and anti tobacco folks worldwide reassess their abstinence-only anti-harm-reduction tobacco-prohibition policies. It should also be widely cited to oppose and refute policies and propaganda by e-cigarette prohibitionists.
Funny, that was my opinion too. I started reading the comments and replying to some of them. Then the ANTZ came in there with their propaganda rhetoric, I made one last comment and had enough.
Not all of the commenters were ANTZ. I think some of them are ordinary citizens, new to the topic and don't know what we know about nicotine and relatives risks of tobacco products. And then there are the bitter quitters. Those who are now in a permanent emotional black fog due to chemical imbalances that nicotine used to keep under control.
Not in the big news, but presence of a reflection on that Guardian article on a site like Forbes.com may provide some confidence that the blockage against tobacco harm reduction and e-cigarettes will not be enduring: E-Cigarettes Should Be Promoted, Not Banned
A shortened version of The Guardian article was also repeated on Daily Mail.
A shortened version of The Guardian article was also repeated on Daily Mail.
The first comment left on the Daily Mail article:
Read more: Fancy lighting up but without the smoke? Puff on a smokeless nicotine cigarette, says the government | Mail Online
Hey, great work on the part of The Netherlands! (<-sarcasm) They managed to convince smokers to continue lighting up. There should be a crime called "Criminally Stupid." And I'm not talking about the duped smokers. I'm talking about the "scientists" who publish such incredible lies, believing that what they are saying will convince smokers to give up the habit. Kyran is the evidence that it doesn't work. They play a deadly game.
You have to keep in mind that cigarette smokers save their governments a lot of money. What happens to their long-term planning when thousands, tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of smokers suddenly throw away the cigarettes for an e-cig and don't die when they're supposed to? How many more man-years of Social Security, medical care, pensions will suddenly need to be paid? When they want to tax the heck out of us, government shills talk about how much smoking costs our societies, but the truth is that smokers who die on time provide a net gain. When we picked up those first cigs as teenagers, we were volunteering to take one for the team. Now we're ungraciously reneging on our promise to die right after we stop paying taxes and get ready to collect them. Of course governments are in a tizzy, and willing to say and do whatever it takes to keep people smoking.
I expect those nudgers will find themselves reorganized into quiet desk jobs, far away from any public fora.
I expect those nudgers will find themselves reorganized into quiet desk jobs, far away from any public fora.
What ever the motives and effect that the article will or will not have, I am thrilled to see this viewpoint in print. The comment, "As with seatbelts and the smoking ban," likening smokeless cigarettes to these lifesaving measures is especially gratifying.
Can someone please quote me the part of the B.I.T. report that mentions e-cigarettes? I can't see any reference to them.
All I see are references to 'fine vapour mist', the MHRA / DoH, and 'new' programs that feature pharma products plus support. Such programs are not new, they already exist, and they don't work.
Read this:
ECCA News
All I see are references to 'fine vapour mist', the MHRA / DoH, and 'new' programs that feature pharma products plus support. Such programs are not new, they already exist, and they don't work.
Read this:
ECCA News
They didn't use the term e-cigarettes, but that's a fairly accurate description of how they work. The Tobacco Control journal editor insists on calling them ENDS (Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems.). At least the B.I.T. didn't use that term. And then we have a whole boat-load of folks in this forum who prefer the term Personal Vaporizer.
I think for publicity purposes we can capitalize on the fact that the report recommends products that work in the way described, for the purpose described.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
