Next. I've C&P'd a lot of the info from Kate's posts - minus most duplications of my above links.
1st February was a big day in the UK for the future of smoking alternatives. It was announced that only tobacco companies will be able to sell recreational nicotine. This will take the very effective electronic cigarettes out of the hands of citizens and shelve the idea until pharmaceutical companies bother to reinvent something that works for a change. Since their interests lie in keeping people addicted (their dependent and now captive market) that seems unlikely - or at least not before many many lives are destroyed first. Keeping people smoking seems to be the name of the game, novel reduced harm options for people who enjoy nicotine will be wiped out.
The UK Department of Health and MHRA announced that nicotine is to be allowed only from tobacco or medical products.
www.dh.gov.uk/dr_consum_dh/groups....t/dh_111748.pdfPublic consultation (MLX 364): The regulation of nicotine containing products.http://www.mhra.gov.uk/Publications/Cons..../MLXs/CON065617
This is another public health disaster by the government. The lessons from banning Swedish snus have not been learned - it's the least harmful tobacco product, banned in the EU but not in Sweden - where they have the lowest harm rate from smoking in the world. It's possible that banning snus has stopped 50% of people from finding an acceptable smoking alternative (compare with the failure rate of 95% for NRT).
"... If these [electronic cigarettes] are so good, why aren't governments and anti-smoking groups supporting them?
"We do not know for sure. There does not seem to be a concerted effort to block these products in most countries, though that remains a possibility. Regulatory agencies have a legitimate responsibility to help make sure the products are pure and contain what they say. This creates a challenge in the current environment. Groups that are truly anti-smoking should embrace any alternative, but those that are more interested in making life difficult for smokers or nicotine users do not like these products because they could make nicotine users more comfortable.
"Whenever government regulatory agencies are confronted with a new product, they need to find the proper category to put it into, and then make sure it complies with the standards associated with that category. In this case, even though nicotine is widely available in many forms, it is still important to make sure the products do not contain any hidden toxins, that they function properly (e.g., cannot accidentally deliver an overdose), and so forth. In this case, the waters have been muddied by the claims that it helps people quit smoking. Whether or not it does is not the concern of the agency, but when such a claim is made, the claim needs to be proven (and that means more than anecdotes).
"In some sense, the situation is absurd because someone could introduce another harmful product that was part of an already established category. Governments typically worry more about hypothetical new risks than clear old risks.
"Some commentators have suggested that governments are so used to tax revenues that if electronic cigarettes became more popular they could threaten this income. This is not an absurd concern, given the current economic conditions and given that governments have been raising
tobacco taxes to make up shortfalls in other areas. We can only hope that if that is the plan, that they keep the taxes lower than on tobacco products because the last thing you want to do is make people choose traditional cigarettes because they are cheaper.
"However you do hear official spokespersons from both government, NGOs and anti-tobacco agencies making statements that either betray ignorance of where the harm in smoking comes from, or statements that are ideological rather than concerned with health.
"You might hear that e-cigarettes are dangerous because they deliver nicotine which they say is a poison. See our nicotine FAQ for why this has little basis. You also hear people say that these just keep people smoking. That may sound like a health statement but it is simply expressing an opinion that no one should smoke, not even if it is entirely safe. This statement ignores the public health harm reduction principle that we should do all we can to protect the health of those who choose to smoke, and part of that protection involves educating people about the comparative risks of these products and in promoting the safer options. Or you might hear that this will lead people to smoking. This makes little sense since it is much easier to obtain traditional cigarettes, and what you hear most from people who enjoy these, is that apart from being able to smoke inside again, they feel they are making a healthier choice.
"We like to think that those against will realize that e-cigarettes (and smokeless tobacco) remove all that second hand smoke they are so worried about, and also remove the health risks associated with nicotine use. How can you argue with that?
"At the very least, we hope that anyone who has doubts about these products will realize that the elimination of second hand smoke and a likely reduction in health risk will mean that governments will eventually come to approve them. Anti-nicotine extremists, on the other hand, might stay with their goal of trying to punish smokers rather than offer them good alternatives..."
There is now no point in innovation and development of effective smoking alternatives, they won't be allowed on the market for anyone but the big pharm and tobacco monopolies but they would be acting against their vested interests if they actually helped people. Prices will rise because of the cornering of the market and lack of competition. Presumably the NHS/taxpayers will be expected to pay through the nose again for any nicotine products even though simple standards and product regulation would make this a safe consumer product that people could buy and maintain cheaply if allowed.
Currently, recreational nicotine is regulated by the following legislation:
CHIP - the Chemicals (Hazard Information and Packaging for Supply) Regulations 2009
The Poisons Act 1972
CE certification requirements
The General Product Safety Regulations 2005
A law similar to the Intoxicating Substances (Supply) Act 1985 would address the valid concerns of young people gaining access to toxic and addictive substances.
If enforced these regulations would ensure a decent level of safety and protection for consumers. In fact, Trading Standards officers want to close the market because it's troublesome for them to do their jobs. Instead of working towards simple standards that would measure acceptable levels of contamination, toxins and ingredients they prefer to ban the product completely making sure that effective and enjoyable nicotine is only available as smoked tobacco.
By removing these regulations the MHRA will be removing all protection for people who use unlicensed nicotine products, the black market is far more risky. There isn't even a valid argument that unlicensed nicotine products have not been found effective at treating addiction (even if that's what they were sold for) when all approved nicotine products prolong and encourage addiction.
"... the Department of Health routinely uses misleading statements to promote Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) products as its preferred method of treatment for smoking cessation. This promotion is a very costly exercise ...
“The use of NHS treatments makes almost no difference at all to quitting success. A recent study published in the British Medical Journal(8) has also documented the long-term success rate of NRT at a mere 1.6 per cent. The whole exercise is futile as well as being enormously expensive.”
“We are exposing a systematic and deliberate policy to seriously mislead the public over the true effectiveness of these services. The actual extent of long term failure was being quietly covered up - which we now know from the Borland report is 94 per cent failure at 12 months - whilst four-week results were shamelessly promoted, even including published 'success rates' as high as 90 per cent. Since they knew that to be the exact opposite of the real outcomes, this is a fraudulent misappropriation of hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money. NRT simply doesn't work.”
Nicotine has not been shown to cure or treat anything, removing it from the provisions of the Poisons Act will highlight the fallacy that the MHRA (funded by pharmaceutical companies and rife with conflicting interests) is interested in public health. Nicotine has only recreational use in spite of the fact that some nicotine products are given licenses to prolong addiction.
The signatories of this petition illustrate the value and effectiveness of keeping affordable and attractive alternatives to smoke on the open market - thousands of improved lives. -
www.petitiononline.com/vaping/petition.htmlIf they are to be disregarded with hypothetical and artificially inflated risks for the sake of pharmaceutical industry profit it will be a wasted opportunity to solve the smoke problem for millions. Understanding the real risks and opportunities of keeping nicotine properly regulated and available on the open market should surely be a priority before removing yet another freedom or harming public health and happiness in blatant support of private profit.
Kate B
