Right To Vape

See:

http://www.mhra.gov.uk/Publications/Consultations/Medicinesconsultations/MLXs/CON065617

A calm, but sizeable response to this is needed I think.

Prof Beard, I read the basic, statement and we really need to spend some time determining the whether this is good or bad. My first reaction is that it would insure quality control of the e-liquid, but as with most things first reaction are not the best course of action. We are being fired upon from so many fronts, that it is hard to determine which fires to put out first.

I would be nice if someone volunteer to spend some time researching the pros and cons of this move by the government. There is a bunch of work for willing workers.

It is a potential mega disaster.   As it stands e-cigs as a UK market could be extinct by 21st June as it is clear they are assuming "option 1" in the consultation document is going to be the outcome.   I'm working with the UK Vapers, TW and Liberty Flights forums on the usual "public" stuff, will be sending a personal reply to the request for public consultation in my Professorial capacity (remember I'm a "Professor" not a "professor") and am also doing other stuff I can't say on a widely accessible forum yet.

Prof Beard, I am really glad to hear someone is working  on the situation, we have some on going stuff, that needs most of our attention right now. Like i say there are too many fires and not enough fireman.

People are going to wake up one morning and their e-cigs are going to be black market products. They really need to help work to keep the e-cig legal. They think the Judge's ruling was the end, well it was not and the fight  continues. The UK folks thought they were safe, well no one will be safe as long as there are anti's in this world.

I'm in a bit of rush, could someone lift the content of link below and do something with it on here please?


http://ukvapers.com/showthread.php?t=446

This is what Jackie posted on UKVapers:

Just stopping in for a quick hello and to give you this (which I did post at ECF and VF): 

www.e-cig.org/pdfs/pml_submission_to_dh_consultation_on_future_of_tobacco_control.pdf

I found a very interesting paper written by Philip Morris Limited in 2008, presented to the UK Department of Health

This was presented to the DH in early September of 2008 and if you cite the grand timeline... a week or so later the WHO made their statement regarding not marketing the ecig as a smoking cessation device. According to the July 2009 PR from US FDA, they apparently became "aware" of the electronic cigarette in July of 2007.

Page 42 is the first mention of the ecig and you will also find:

8.25. Our [Philip Morris's] support of pharmaceutical regulation for products such as electronic cigarettes is not intended to place unreasonable or undue regulatory burdens on the marketing of legitimate smoking cessation products or products that have the potential to offer consumers safer alternatives to cigarettes. However, it is not tenable to permit products that deliver nicotine – whether marketed with or without claims - to be sold without any regulatory oversight. page 46.

They then go on to blab about how regulations on snuss should be lifted. It is very clear that their intentions are to make available any product they produce, but not allow a competitive industry into ANY of their markets. Period.

Very interesting read! I don't know if any of this will help in the UK fight, but it certainly does put into perspective where the DH might just be coming up with their ideas... cough cough... big tobacco perhaps?

I have forwarded this on to several anti-smoking, yet pro-tobacco harm reductionists and they were lets say, shocked, as they had never seen this document before. Interesting what you can find on the good ole interweb eh?

Just fixing the links in Jackie/Beard/Taz repost above:

DH "Smokefree Future" Initiative

MHRA Public consultation (MLX 364): The regulation of nicotine containing products

MHRA „Consultation Letter“


There's also active discussion about this in this thread on UKvapers

And Kate has set up a subforum at VapersNetwork, too.

Thanks all - so much to do so little time

Prof Beard, you got that right.

Hi Folks,

I appreciate I've been out of the "scene" for a while (I've recently moved to a different country, lots of stress, learning a new language, etc.) but I thought I should show my face, especially now.

There have been some interesting points raised in this "consultation" letter...

It is interesting to note that big pharma are involved, especially as the makers of the "inhalator" have applied for an extension to their licence... It does make me wonder. I don't know who is best placed to coordinate this, but it may be an to idea to volunteer samples to the MHRA for testing of TSNA's content versus a control, namely an "inhalator", by the LGC (Laboratory of the Government Chemists. The Head Office is in Teddington, Middx). By getting them to do it (even if it means payment), and getting these tests carried out simultaneously by "accredited labs", this will help ensure full impartiality and raise alarm bells if the MHRA attempt to "do an FDA". This blatant omission to include the control was a fundamental flaw in the FDA's test methods, which is now being used as a cosh to batter the the e-cig industry with in the UK. The TSNA’s the FDA found were merely comparable with those found in licenced OTC NRT products, and no more. The FDA could not quote exact figures because these TSNA’s were only present at detectable, rather than quantifiable levels. It's like finding a needle in a haystack and then claiming that the whole thing is awash with them. As it happens, these carcinogens are to be expected anyway, as the nicotine itself has been extracted from tobacco...but they are in a whole magnitude of difference to those found in cigarettes. Interestingly, the FDA did not test the control product (the Inhalator) for these same compounds. Now I'm incredibly apologetic if this sounds like cynicism, but I am left wondering why? Was this an accidental oversight on their part? If so, it was a blatantly big one. Had a private company submitted such a study to the MHRA, they would have had their knuckles rapped for failing to disclose all pertinent information. As it transpires, the FDA were asking the wrong questions, or someone somewhere was attempting to pull strings in order to justify a ban... In fact they looked bloody hard to find a reason and made their decision on very flimsy evidence and/or deliberate omission of data. Either way, from the tone of the letter, it's appears as if a group of people have already made up their minds about what they are going to do next and they are now simply in the process of going through the motions. I'm sorry but, to me, this whole thing stinks to high heaven...

I don't know where we stand legally, but point 14 of their paper is of particular interest to me. I quote, "all products that contain Nicotine which appreciably affect metabolism in normal usage may be within medicines legislation in terms of pharmacological action". Now, to my very simple mind, doesn't this include cigarettes by default? It may beg the question, why are cigarettes not included within the scope of this initiative? Cigarettes are, after all, a crude drug delivery device. That could be a pivotal point with which to launch a legal class action to highlight this blatant hypocrisy. Ultimately, the reason why the cigarettes are outside of this "scope" is down to one major point. There is a reciprocal arrangement between the tobacco companies and the government... and it all revolves around revenue. There is no other justifiable reason to disclude them otherwise. Whatever happens, the big companies and the MHRA stand to "gain". The big companies (pharma or tobacco), by wiping out the competition, and the MHRA with an assured source of revenue from inspections. Of course, the big companies can afford this, whereas the smaller firms will struggle, however ethically minded they are. In either case, if the MHRA are keen on supporting reduced harm, they seriously need to revise their figures for inspections. That, at least, would be a step forward and would sort out the wheat from the chaff. Regulation is a good idea, if only kept within reasonable boundaries, such as ensuring that a facility is clean, raw materials are of a suitable quality, and manufacturing operatives are well-trained and observe good occupational hygiene. Anything else, when being compared with a "devil stick", is excessive because we'd all take Zyban or Champix if we really wanted to stop imbibing Nicotine!

I also find it interesting that the paper implies that they want everyone to be smoke free, but I read that as a veiled "We want everyone to be Nicotine free". Where on earth did they get the idea that all "Vapers" are using e-cigs in order to be free of Nicotine? I don't drink, but that doesn't mean I have the right to impose my teetotality on others. Such an attack on our civil liberties and freedom of choice goes beyond the pale, especially when Nicotine is not a drug that is directly linked with inciting violence, or other psychologically disturbing behaviour (although, "withdrawal might"!!!  ). Are they going to ban coffee next, or tea? Sadly, this appears to be very much a case of those in power wishing to maintain it and imposing their will over us...

Personally though, I think "we" will win through. I can't put my finger on the reasons why I feel so strongly about this but, collectively, I believe there is enough momentum and righteous indignation to pull together to stop the "rot". It's about time, as we've been slaves to our governments, banks and large industries for far too long... Speaking from the heart, I feel this will only be achieved by a  "class action" though. We have to remember who we are fighting against... entrenched establishments who will tell us black is white, and protest that it is so, even when they've been found out with their pants around their ankles or caught red-handed with their fingers in the cash register! This letter, is such an example, it is incredibly ill-informed if it places all its weight behind the FDA's "evidence"... or whitewash, which describes it more accurately.

And, what is our "honourable" government going to do if we all decide to flout the ban? Send us to prison for illegal drug possession, or for being in possession of an unlicenced "medicine"? At best, all they will do is to ensure that vaping is driven underground, along with a proliferation of imports from overseas, which will undermine further those who are trying to do their best to raise the bar of this fledgling industry without charging exorbitant amounts of money for doing so. Will customs open every package to check? It's either that, or we shall see the re-emergence of e-cigs manufactured by the "big boys" in a few years time at a much inflated price. Now that... that is a distinct possibility...

I apologise for venting my spleen, but it's the same-old, same-old by those who simply wish to control our every movement...

Perhaps it might be an idea if all of us forum members in the UK stump up a tenner each for a good solicitor and barrister??? By my estimation, with 20,000 vapers on line, £200,000 could soon be raised. Njoy succeeded in beating the FDA, so I can't see why we can't do the same here... It's just a thought.

With bright blessings to you all  

I thought is was almost a sneak attack, no warning of any kind. I was  totaly shocked and that link Lacey post was not a surprise. BT and BP are sharing the spoils. Most people are serial quitters so both win, and the e-cigarettes is a threat to their dividing the spoils up. Nicotine works the same in the body whether you get it from tobacco, NRT or e-cigarette. NRT just don't work good.

We should get prepared for any emergency. This fight will go on for years.

Can anyone who has credible UK research experience (current or past) at an academic (PhD, Academics, Profs etc) or professional level pleases send me a pm. I have "an angle" to the MHRA consultation which needs such people. Doesn't matter what field it is in.

If you need someone to just look up medical research, I will be glad to help.

Taz - is the people I'm after not the research, but thanks for the offer