I think we could use some separation perhaps?

[Ancient Hermit]

Hi Folks,

I saw a clip of some doctor on a breakfast show, it was Phil Schofield interviewing Linda Robson I think, and the doctor agreed with the idea of e-cigs, but expressed some concern over some of the products coming from China, and the quality being a bit suspect.

That is probably the perception a lot of folk could have if they see it mentioned often enough, and it seems to me maybe we should seek to distance Vaping from the average e-cig alike otherwise in legislating those, we get vaping thrown into the same category.

It may be that if we are a moving target in that way then we should or at least could be a bit harder to hit.

One or two MEPs are making encouraging noises about it all, and I wonder if that could be helpful in their attempts to lever the thing apart, in that there is an issue of what exactly people are trying to legislate for.

I could see the case for legislating the medicinal big tobacco e-gigs into a safer zone, but as long as that is not the same as vaping then we may come out of this better than we otherwise could.

I mean, we don't all have lights on the end of our devices, and then there are other appearance issues that might just cloud the issue in our favour too.
The distancing could make us less obvious as a target for the anti e-cig brigade is all I am thinking. Not a truly bad thing I'd guess? ???

[Blownupdolly]

Aug 14, 2013 18:11:42 GMT Ancient Hermit said:

Hi Folks,

I saw a clip of some doctor on a breakfast show, it was Phil Schofield interviewing Linda Robson I think, and the doctor agreed with the idea of e-cigs, but expressed some concern over some of the products coming from China, and the quality being a bit suspect.

That is probably the perception a lot of folk could have if they see it mentioned often enough, and it seems to me maybe we should seek to distance Vaping from the average e-cig alike otherwise in legislating those, we get vaping thrown into the same category.

It may be that if we are a moving target in that way then we should or at least could be a bit harder to hit.

One or two MEPs are making encouraging noises about it all, and I wonder if that could be helpful in their attempts to lever the thing apart, in that there is an issue of what exactly people are trying to legislate for.

I could see the case for legislating the medicinal big tobacco e-gigs into a safer zone, but as long as that is not the same as vaping then we may come out of this better than we otherwise could.

I mean, we don't all have lights on the end of our devices, and then there are other appearance issues that might just cloud the issue in our favour too.
The distancing could make us less obvious as a target for the anti e-cig brigade is all I am thinking. Not a truly bad thing I'd guess? ???

I have been saying similar things for months. But I am a daft old bird and don't get listened to. I agree about the Chinese factor too. Lets be honest, most of us buy their stuff, but the quality and standards can often be less than acceptable at times.

[Ancient Hermit]

At the very least it could mean their debates would have to take much longer if the beast they fear suddenly had two heads and both need working on separately. It could spin out a few years longer given the way they go about things too!

[markm]

The MHRA really are not quite that daft - they are targeting
"nicotine containing products" which covers
EVERYTHING.........and as Mr Mean says: "NONE SHALL PASS"
in true Monty Python style - we need t cut their arms and legs off
and they will still insist they can stop us!

[Ancient Hermit]

Aug 14, 2013 19:26:16 GMT markm said:

The MHRA really are not quite that daft - they are targeting
"nicotine containing products" which covers
EVERYTHING.........and as Mr Mean says: "NONE SHALL PASS"
in true Monty Python style - we need t cut their arms and legs off
and they will still insist they can stop us!

Well, we then sit back and let it all happen? Is that really the best we can do? If it is, then we deserve to lose.

I still reckon we should get more debate out into the media, and with more to haggle over, then the press can do what they do best, attempt to ridicule the authorities, either individually or as a whole.

It is the "silly season" right now, and it seems there's not enough questioning getting out there given we have an open goal sort of time right now. When there is such a gap then why not plan to use it to our advantage?  ???

[djs]

Aug 14, 2013 19:37:02 GMT Ancient Hermit said:

Well, we then sit back and let it all happen? Is that really the best we can do? If it is, then we deserve to lose.

I still reckon we should get more debate out into the media, and with more to haggle over, then the press can do what they do best, attempt to ridicule the authorities, either individually or as a whole.

It is the "silly season" right now, and it seems there's not enough questioning getting out there given we have an open goal sort of time right now. When there is such a gap then why not plan to use it to our advantage?  ???

Many of us have been working madly to do what we can to stop the nonsense. Unless I am very wrong, you may not be entirely aware of all the activity/campaigning going on.

The problem is "they" want to turn all nicotine containing products into products that require a license. That means everything. Making a distinction between cig-a-likes and vaping makes no practical difference at this stage.

[Ancient Hermit]

Aug 14, 2013 19:58:14 GMT djs said:

Aug 14, 2013 19:37:02 GMT Ancient Hermit said:

Well, we then sit back and let it all happen? Is that really the best we can do? If it is, then we deserve to lose.

I still reckon we should get more debate out into the media, and with more to haggle over, then the press can do what they do best, attempt to ridicule the authorities, either individually or as a whole.

It is the "silly season" right now, and it seems there's not enough questioning getting out there given we have an open goal sort of time right now. When there is such a gap then why not plan to use it to our advantage?  ???

Many of us have been working madly to do what we can to stop the nonsense. Unless I am very wrong, you may not be entirely aware of all the activity/campaigning going on.

The problem is "they" want to turn all nicotine containing products into products that require a license. That means everything. Making a distinction between cig-a-likes and vaping makes no practical difference at this stage.

ok, I'm all ears, what have I missed then? ???

[lal]

The benefit I can see to regulation is that GPs will then be able to prescribe e-cigs for smoking cessation. How can they then be banned in places? Can you be banned from taking a prescribed medication??

[markm]

Well it has been suggested that people should contact local press to inform them
How it will affect you. Then there is the war committee launched by vapour trails TV
And the ecig save lives website and stickers. In us CASAA have just published a very useful
Report that collates all the known ecig research and makes it digestible
By the lay person. There is the Linda Mckavern show and tell clip, to take to your local MP
And or MEP so that they can get an idea of how I'll informed the lady really is.
Shall I go on?

[markm]

Aug 14, 2013 20:29:06 GMT lal said:

The benefit I can see to regulation is that GPs will then be able to prescribe e-cigs for smoking cessation. How can they then be banned in places? Can you be banned from taking a prescribed medication??

Let me explain, the process of regulation will result in ALL ecig s being withdrawn from sale.
your gp can write you all the scripts you like, there will not be ny ecig s available ANYWHERE!

[lal]

We'll see. But I don't think you are right.

[markm]

Take a look at the MHRA statement on YouTube, Jeremy Mean reiterated the
Same point to a House of Lords committee a couple of weeks later.
Nothing on the market today is good enough.........

[dreamylittledream]

To be fair that doesn't mean that some one (big pharma/tobacco) won't develop an 'ecig' that 'is' good enough to meet regulation if and when it comes into force (in fact one there if a clear prescription based buck in it I'll eat my hat if they don't).

The residual argument that this isn't a medical product but an alternative way of consuming an already legal drug is of course not addressed by this in the slightest

[markm]

Aug 14, 2013 20:54:11 GMT dreamylittledream said:

To be fair that doesn't mean that some one (big pharma/tobacco) won't develop an 'ecig' that 'is' good enough to meet regulation if and when it comes into force (in fact one there if a clear prescription based buck in it I'll eat my hat if they don't).

The residual argument that this isn't a medical product but an alternative way of consuming an already legal drug is of course not addressed by this in the slightest

There is one in development, they have spent over 2million pounds so far,  it's still not been passed.
its only been undergoing test for just over two years!
now as the sme criteria will be applied to every element  come 2016, there jut isn't enough time or money
avalilblemto make the deadline.
mke no mistake, there will not be ny exits viable come 206 should the MHRA getsit wy.

[lal]

Really stupid question, but if ALL nicotine containing products are to be regulated, where does that leave tobacco? (Or do they explicitly exclude tobacco?)