UK ASH on e-cigs

[trog100]

NRT in the UK has always been about getting people off nicotine.. nicotine and smoking are the same word to them.. nicotine in approved NRT devices is at a very low level its never been intended as a safer replacement source simply a means of weening people off their nicotine/smoking addiction..

the fact these people are talking safer deliver is a big change.. before they would never condone another addictive method of getting people off of the tobbaco smoking habit.. now they are..

it means they have realized e cigs are here to stay.. a safer deliver system does exist and they have to learn how to live with it in their framework..

they could have got many people off smoking years ago simply by allowing inhalers with more nicotine in them.. they chose not to... i think the chinese have forced their hand on this one.. done the job they should have done years ago..

accepting a safer alternative for people to feed their nicotine addiction.. i see this as a major change.. they have never talked safer alternatives before.. now they are..

trog

 

[westcoast2]

ASH seem to market NRT's because they are proven through clinical trials, so even if they believed E-Cigs to be better they couldn't 'market' them.

I think they are after following the Royal College of Physicans recommendations with the new Nicotine Reg Framework which would put E-Cigs in a good position as a safer source of Nicotine.

ASH (UK) are a 'charity'. Their adherence to NRT when other methods have been shown to be more effective is strange. Going cold turkey seems to be more effective as does the Allen Carr method. It seems odd that ASH (UK) are not advocating these.

It is also of concern that ASH (UK) makes recommendations on prescribing drugs such as Champix without at least giving an advisory. The FDA has decided that Champix requires a blackbox warning. The ASH (UK) guidelines for professionals do not seem to contain any warnings. --> http://www.ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_447.pdf

Dr Michael Siegel also calls for a reassement of NRT --> The Rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary: IN MY VIEW: Effectiveness of Nicotine Replacement Therapy Needs to Be Re-Examined He notes "A number of recent studies indicate that spontaneous quit attempts, usually conducted without the assistance of NRT, are more effective than planned quit attempts which commonly use NRT."

Surley a charity interested in smoking and health would be interested in these results and conveying them to people who smoke?

My understanding of the RCP is that they only want medicinal nicotine available. This would be more towards the nicotrol inhaler than an e-cig. ASH (UK) do seem to support a harm reduction strategy, though this seems to be linked to pharmaceuticals.
----

 

[kristin]

No, I disagree - they have to hedge their bets to a degree with the way things stand at the moment (imagine if they recommended them and then some awful test results came in?) but what they are saying is that they could well be a viable alternative for smokers who do not want to give up nicotine or who find it to difficult to do so (ie, as a harm reduction alternative to analogs).

How much more support from this type of organisation (at this point in time with the information available) could anyone realisticly hope for than:-

"Therefore, e-cigarettes, which deliver nicotine without the harmful toxins found in tobacco smoke, are likely to be a safer alternative to smoking. In addition, e-cigarettes reduce secondhand smoke exposure since they do not produce smoke."


They have gone on to say, for those wishing to give up (as opposed to harm reduction) they should sill go via the tried and tested routes.

Many vapers have complained that e-cigs don't deliver enough nicotine for them, so why is it wong for them to say that this may be a problem? (They haven't suggested that they might entice children or be a gateway to real cigarettes or any of the other rubbish that has been spouted elsewhere)

They have also given useful information saying that the MHRA has ruled that they are NOT medical devices (so we don't have the drug/drug delivery device issue that you have with the FDA in the US) and that the Royal College of Physicians is pro-harm reducion as well.

At least we know that, so long as decent test result keep coming out, the UK has backing of all relevant organisations.

I guess the negatives stood out more for me and I'm afraid that is what a lot of anti-PV groups would latch onto. You make good points and I should focus more on the positives - thanks for taking the time to point them out to me!

 

[Angela]

It's amazing how different people can read the same thing and come to such varied conclusions though, isn't it?

 

[KickASH]

Thanks for posting this Boom! This is a huge victory and pretty telling.

 

[kristin]

It's amazing how different people can read the same thing and come to such varied conclusions though, isn't it?

Yes, and my thanks to Trog100, as well. Knowing what their previous stance was put things in perspective.

 

[westcoast2]

NRT in the UK has always been about getting people off nicotine.. nicotine and smoking are the same word to them.. nicotine in approved NRT devices is at a very low level its never been intended as a safer replacement source simply a means of weening people off their nicotine/smoking addiction..

the fact these people are talking safer deliver is a big change.. before they would never condone another addictive method of getting people off of the tobbaco smoking habit.. now they are..

it means they have realized e cigs are here to stay.. a safer deliver system does exist and they have to learn how to live with it in their framework..

trog

You may find the report by the Tobacco advisory committee of the Royal College of Physicians entitled 'Harm Reduction In Nicotine Addiction' (2007) interesting --> http://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/pubs/contents/bbc2aedc-87f7-4117-9ada-d7cdb21d9291.pdf

They do discuss alternative delivery systems including safer alternative delivery methods. One key recommendation is

Harm reduction in smoking can be achieved by providing smokers with safer sources of nicotine that are acceptable and effective cigarette substitutes.

And another key recommendation is

The development of new, more effective, more acceptable and user-friendly medicinal nicotine substitutes for smoking needs to be encouraged.

This report also contains the basis for the ASH (UK) framework.
----

 

[yvilla]

It's amazing how different people can read the same thing and come to such varied conclusions though, isn't it?

It is amazing to me too, Angela! For example, take me and Sun - reading the various pleadings and supplemental briefs in the SE & Njoy vs FDA case, and even the relevant caselaw such as Brown - our takes on the legal merits of that case are so extremely different one would think we are reading different matters entirely.

 

[trog100]

You may find the report by the Tobacco advisory committee of the Royal College of Physicians entitled 'Harm Reduction In Nicotine Addiction' (2007) interesting --> http://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/pubs/contents/bbc2aedc-87f7-4117-9ada-d7cdb21d9291.pdf

They do discuss alternative delivery systems including safer alternative delivery methods. One key recommendation is
And another key recommendation is
This report also contains the basis for the ASH (UK) framework.
----

idont think it would have moved beyond talk until the chinese helped things along.. now i think it has too.. the harm reduction method is there and thousands of people are using it.. the american problem is different if its a drug it cant be sold without FDA approval..

out lot have to take the positive action of coming out and banning it.. which means our lot can ignore it.. our best hope..

its a lot easier to ignore something than officially approve it.. which is what the FDA seem to be in position of having to do..

it would have to be medicinal for our lot to have to do this.. a social drug is okay unless they say it isnt.. no drug social or medicinal seems okay in the US without FDA approval....

trog

 

[Angela]

It is amazing to me too, Angela! For example, take me and Sun - reading the various pleadings and supplemental briefs in the SE & Njoy vs FDA case, and even the relevant caselaw such as Brown - our takes on the legal merits of that case are so extremely different one would think we are reading different matters entirely.

Yes... I follow that with great interest and (having a legal background myself - although in UK property law) I find some interpretations quite strange to my way of thinking. Still, if everything was cut and dried with no different interpretations, nowhere would have much of a legal system at all!

 

[ckc]

The news seems to be spreading.

E-Cigarette: Anti-Tobacco Advocates’ Dream Come True? | Stop smoking