UK Government: "E-Cigarettes Are Safer But We Will Ban Them Anyway..."

[jpargana]

The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) is still trying to ban e-cigarettes, ignoring the recent EU vote NOT to ban e-cigarettes.

(You can read the full article here: w w w . ecigarettedirect. co. uk/ ashtray-blog/2013/10/uk-government-ecig-ban.html?awt_l=Bw.UY&awt_m=IpOLZomuXE8Eb4)

Here's just a glimpse ot what 'they' say:

"...they [the e-cigs] offer 'the cigarette experience'. Rituals such as having something to hold are very important in addiction... E-cigarettes may help some people more than standard NRT." (Jeremy Mean from the MHRA)

"... In comparison to tobacco products they are safer by several orders of magnitude." (Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) UK)

"ASH’s own research shows vaping is not a gateway to smoking for adults or children"


So far, so good, right? So, what is the excuse now? Why does Jeremy Mean wants to ban e-cigarettes?


"Our tests show that different products vary in how much nicotine they deliver... So some products may not help people regulate their nicotine cravings."

(I have to wonder... were those tests just as junk-scientifically accurate as the previous ones ?)


Let me just show you the last sentence of the article:

"Meanwhile, many vapers suspect that the real reason is to protect the pharmaceutical industry which subsidises the MHRA, provides their staff and pays ongoing fees to MHRA staff members."

(Well, I am certainly one of those vapers...!)


Heads up, people!

This is not about the "obnoxious"/"disrespectful" vaper being responsible for incoming bans. (I'm not saying I support that kind of approach).
Nor is it about becoming an overly respectful vaper ("self-loathing vaper") in an attempt to prevent incoming bans. (I do not support that approach either).

To be blunt and to the point, greed is causing incoming bans. And the greedy belong to organizations that were supposed to be concerned about our health, but instead are willing to take the e-cigs from us, just to keep the money lining their pockets.

First, "The e-cig can actually be more dangerous than tobacco".
Then, "It may be safer than tobacco, but no-one knows what's in there".
Then, "It is safer than tobacco, but it is a gateway to youth smoking".
Then, "It renormalises smoking"
Now, "We are concerned because products vary in how much nicotine they deliver"... (How is that even an health concern to the bystander, BTW ??)

Those people will use just about any excuse or lie to protect their revenue... even if it is at the expense of our health... which they were bound to protect.

 

[Ken_A]

You make an assumption that these people in the MHRA and the FDA are "bound to protect" the average person. They are not. They are there to regulate products.
Take a look at approved medicines. Then look REALLY closely. Side effects that would make your grandfather's grandfather bleed in his grave.

The only one that is "bound to protect" you is you.
The outcry in the UK needs to be so profound, loud, and expressive that "they" will accept the will of the people.

 

[JulesXsmokr]

It's not just vaping with nicotine that's being the object of corporate greed and gov't. intervention. Our whole life depends on what our gov'ts. will let have us have, and how they chose to sell it to us..
Gotta vote responsibly, and "YELL AT" the ones who are continuing to be a part of the problem and not trying to solve it..
-- or is that an old saying of a by-gone era...?

 

[soba1]

Lol the cartels in Mexico are just chompin at the bit.....................................

 

[Mohamed]

Lol the cartels in Mexico are just chompin at the bit.....................................

Just like everything else that they have banned. When you got something that the people want someone is going to find a way to sell it to you.

I think the analogy my economic professor used was "see this pencil" It's worth about 10 cents. Say that it and all similar devices were banned. It's still available though only now it costs $1,000. If you come from a society where $10 is a weeks pay there are going to be some that will risk jail time to try and sell you that pencil regardless of the consequences.

It's due to the extreme profit margin that was created due to the ban.

 

[rico942]

Lol the cartels in Mexico are just chompin at the bit.....................................

I've wondered about this myself, living in San Diego right across the border from Tijuana ...

You don't see e-cigs in the stores in TJ for two reasons. Technically there is a federal law banning the sale of e-cigs (so I've been told), but then Mexico passed an indoor smoking ban some time ago that is routinely ignored. There just doesn't seem to be a reliable supply chain in place yet ...

Also, smoking has never been "denormalized" in Mexico. Such a high percentage of the population smokes that any Glantz-style campaign would be met with laughter and ridicule ...

I have noticed that some young people in Tijuana are getting PVs and juice somewhere, presumably at swap meets from cross-border vendors ...

I do believe that a ban or punitive taxation on vaping supplies in the US would certainly be an opportunity for certain well established organizations in Mexico to profit from such misguided and destructive policies ...

 

[mooreted]

Since I could turn a flashlight into a PV and make my own juice I don't see how they're going to be very effective. People will just get around it. It's deplorable the way regulations work, but they can't really stop us.



Sent from my easy chair using brainwaves.

 

[jpargana]

(...)
The only one that is "bound to protect" you is you.
(...)

Very true. The thing is, we tried to protect ourselves by changing to the e-cig. And yet, it seems those 'health' organizations are bound not to let us do it...


Oh, the irony !!

 

[soba1]

Just like everything else that they have banned. When you got something that the people want someone is going to find a way to sell it to you.

I think the analogy my economic professor used was "see this pencil" It's worth about 10 cents. Say that it and all similar devices were banned. It's still available though only now it costs $1,000. If you come from a society where $10 is a weeks pay there are going to be some that will risk jail time to try and sell you that pencil regardless of the consequences.

It's due to the extreme profit margin that was created due to the ban.

Where there is a void someone will be there to fill it. I know the powers that be have to realize this

I've wondered about this myself, living in San Diego right across the border from Tijuana ...

You don't see e-cigs in the stores in TJ for two reasons. Technically there is a federal law banning the sale of e-cigs (so I've been told), but then Mexico passed an indoor smoking ban some time ago that is routinely ignored. There just doesn't seem to be a reliable supply chain in place yet ...

Also, smoking has never been "denormalized" in Mexico. Such a high percentage of the population smokes that any Glantz-style campaign would be met with laughter and ridicule ...

I have noticed that some young people in Tijuana are getting PVs and juice somewhere, presumably at swap meets from cross-border vendors ...

I do believe that a ban or punitive taxation on vaping supplies in the US would certainly be an opportunity for certain well established organizations in Mexico to profit from such misguided and destructive policies ...

Oh count on that.........................................

 

[Anjaffm]

Chris Snowden's blog shows a nice destription of the MHRA's eagerness to get their hands on "regulating" e-cigarettes:

http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/e-cigarette-summit.html

The star of the show was Jeremy Mean of the MHRA. He constantly reminded me of Ronald Reagan's maxim that the nine most terrifying words in the English language are "I'm from the government and I'm here to help". He was as eager as a puppy dog to start regulating e-cigarettes as medicines and when he showed you his photos of the Athlete's Foot cream and skin lotions that are his usual stock-in-trade you could see why. Finally, he was going to get a chance to regulate something that isn't a medicine.

E-cigarettes are so obviously not medicines that I was impressed by Mean's ability to keep a straight face while claiming the contrary. He and Arnott are confident that the heavy hand of government regulation is just what is needed to bring innovation, excellence and efficiency to the e-cigarette industry.

I am sceptical about this claim to say the least, but it is a proposition that can be tested if, in five years time, medically regulated e-cigarettes have dominated the market at the expense of un-(medically)-regulated products.

The only way to carry out this test is to do what I see as the obvious solution: make companies go through medical regulation if they want to make medicinal claims (eg. "this is a proven smoking-cessation aid") and leave companies alone if they want to market their products as recreational devices.

What the MHRA conveniently neglects to mention is that it costs a great amount of money to have a product registered and approved as a medicine. Money that fills the coffers of the MHRA - and thus of the government.

This is not about health. This is about money.
Never mind if a lot of vapers go back to tobacco cigarettes. Never mind if the only MHRA-approved e-cigs will be sad, overpriced little products produced by Big Pharma and Big Tobacco (the only companies with the kind of money to get such approval) - sad little thingies that work as "well" as the current NRT's. Because they are not supposed to work. Same as current NTR's.

Never mind all that. The government will get money. And the MHRA will get money too, from their buddies at Big Pharma, as a little "thank you" for destroying the competition. - Never mind a few human lives. Who cares about those anyway?

 

[NiNi]

Now, "We are concerned because products vary in how much nicotine they deliver"...

OMG. Why don't they try looking at the package the cigalike came in or the bottle of ejuice, duh, it says right on it: 6/12/18/24mg nic or any other mg %. Of course products vary in their nic delivery and their label states it. It's not Rocket Science!

They make it sound like there's going to be crazy variances of 10 or more mgs nic...........PULEEZE, Are they stuck on stupid?????

 

[NiNi]

Where there is a void someone will be there to fill it. I know the powers that be have to realize this


Oh count on that.........................................

ROFL! I can just see Border Patrol pulling over an SUV with contraband ejuice! LOL! The Cartel's are hurting, their main corridor for the US here in Arizona is rapidly being nailed shut, Arizona will probably pass "Legalization" of one of the Cartel's cash cows in 2014 so their enforced servitude of kidnap victims to "mule" that particular product will be obsolete. The prices will go down, making it far less lucrative. Maybe the future for them lies in pirating more oil from the Mexican pipelines and undercutting the Middle East suppliers? There are more people going South BACK over the Border than coming North..........I think we're seeing the Twilight of Mexican Cartels and corrupt Federales.
If someone wants to do the math Pounds to Gallons (Lbs Gal) Converter..........1 gallon of propylene glycol is 8.055821 pounds, let's just say 8 lbs. The average mule is carrying 50 lbs of burlap encased dry product........he/she would only be able to carry a little over 6 gallons of e-juice (apprx 50 lbs), and then the Cartels would have to come up with some way to actually contain the stuff. Sounds like more trouble than it's worth.
Just my with friends in BP and Law Enforcement. Heck, there are drones patrolling the Az Border and Sheriff Joe is launching his own drones to cover 2 counties with the highest trafficking routes.
I honestly don't think it will happen.

 

[soba1]

So I will just drive over and get it myself.
There will always be a way

 

[second2none]

The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) is still trying to ban e-cigarettes, ignoring the recent EU vote NOT to ban e-cigarettes.

(You can read the full article here: w w w . ecigarettedirect. co. uk/ ashtray-blog/2013/10/uk-government-ecig-ban.html?awt_l=Bw.UY&awt_m=IpOLZomuXE8Eb4)

Here's just a glimpse ot what 'they' say:

"...they [the e-cigs] offer 'the cigarette experience'. Rituals such as having something to hold are very important in addiction... E-cigarettes may help some people more than standard NRT." (Jeremy Mean from the MHRA)

"... In comparison to tobacco products they are safer by several orders of magnitude." (Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) UK)

"ASH’s own research shows vaping is not a gateway to smoking for adults or children"


So far, so good, right? So, what is the excuse now? Why does Jeremy Mean wants to ban e-cigarettes?


"Our tests show that different products vary in how much nicotine they deliver... So some products may not help people regulate their nicotine cravings."

(I have to wonder... were those tests just as junk-scientifically accurate as the previous ones ?)


Let me just show you the last sentence of the article:

"Meanwhile, many vapers suspect that the real reason is to protect the pharmaceutical industry which subsidises the MHRA, provides their staff and pays ongoing fees to MHRA staff members."

(Well, I am certainly one of those vapers...!)


Heads up, people!

This is not about the "obnoxious"/"disrespectful" vaper being responsible for incoming bans. (I'm not saying I support that kind of approach).
Nor is it about becoming an overly respectful vaper ("self-loathing vaper") in an attempt to prevent incoming bans. (I do not support that approach either).

To be blunt and to the point, greed is causing incoming bans. And the greedy belong to organizations that were supposed to be concerned about our health, but instead are willing to take the e-cigs from us, just to keep the money lining their pockets.

First, "The e-cig can actually be more dangerous than tobacco".
Then, "It may be safer than tobacco, but no-one knows what's in there".
Then, "It is safer than tobacco, but it is a gateway to youth smoking".
Then, "It renormalises smoking"
Now, "We are concerned because products vary in how much nicotine they deliver"... (How is that even an health concern to the bystander, BTW ??)

Those people will use just about any excuse or lie to protect their revenue... even if it is at the expense of our health... which they were bound to protect.

What they really want to say is "We don't know how we can tax it"

 

[generic mutant]

OMG. Why don't they try looking at the package the cigalike came in or the bottle of ejuice, duh, it says right on it: 6/12/18/24mg nic or any other mg %. Of course products vary in their nic delivery and their label states it. It's not Rocket Science!

They make it sound like there's going to be crazy variances of 10 or more mgs nic...........PULEEZE, Are they stuck on stupid?????

I'm guessing what they mean is that things are mislabelled or vary from specification uncomfortably often, and that it is (at least presently) hard to guess how efficiently it gets to the bloodstream with different delivery mechanisms / techniques.

The second objection isn't really convincing - people self-regulate their nicotine consumption.

The first has weight though.

 

[Penn]

...This is not about the "obnoxious"/"disrespectful" vaper being responsible for incoming bans. (I'm not saying I support that kind of approach).
Nor is it about becoming an overly respectful vaper ("self-loathing vaper") in an attempt to prevent incoming bans. (I do not support that approach either)....

You are mixing two separate concerns.

The mentality of being respectful (which isn't always self-loathing) and speaking against obnoxious vapers is more of not giving ammunition for bans in public places.

Most of what you are approaching is banning of sales.

I know some of us have realized all out sales bans aren't going to happen in the States. Granted, there will be some who want to start small with public bans before going after the sales bans, however what is still more of a concern (to me) is restrictions, not sales bans.

I do not see why UK is still going for this when last I heard of news there it seemed the UK was against the proposed EU ban, at least for a few years, so research could be done.

 

[Criticalmass]

It is always about money. They could care less about people. It is about lining their pockets. If they wanted to help they'd legalize a lot of stuff and that would bankrupt the cartels. It is getting pretty bad when cigarettes become a commodity on the black market... outside of prison anyway.

 

[stevegmu]

I haven't found any news articles- actual news articles, not blog posts, saying the UK is going to ban e-nic. Seems they may be included in the smoking ban in public places, but no outright ban.

 

[jpargana]

I haven't found any news articles- actual news articles, not blog posts, saying the UK is going to ban e-nic. Seems they may be included in the smoking ban in public places, but no outright ban.

You can find the link at the end of the blog article

w w w .telegraph. co. uk/health/dietandfitness/10376090/E-cigarettes-all-you-need-to-know.html


From that article:

"However, there is a problem with quality control – which is why the MHRA wants to see e-cigarettes regulated as medicine. This should come into effect in 2016, although without a Europe-wide initiative the UK may act unilaterally."

And also:

"This is precisely why they need regulating as medicines, so that they are not sold to under-18s or targeted at non-smokers"

(BS, BTW: tobacco cigarettes are not medicines, and there are already laws to prevent it's sale to under-aged people)

Well, back to topic: regulating (irrationally) the e-cig as medicines is actually a ban, for all practical purposes... that was, I believe, our battle when we fought back the EU initiative earlier...

 

[Vaslovik]

It's not just about the revenues, although I'm sure that's a major part of it. It's also about the fact that nothing so needs reforming or regulating as OTHER PEOPLE'S HABITS. We saw that with Prohibition, and we all know how well that worked out.