1st Response Back, not Good

[Karma]

Thanks Hifi!

I did specifically ask in my first e-mail where the vote would go and reasons for the vote!

I can't see any scientific reason for Glenis's vote ???

[hifistud]

There aren't any - it's either ideological or due to ignorance. As Clive Bates has said in his guide, we need to keep everything on point and ask for specific action - and keep on asking for it. The more of their time we take up, the more they have to listen to us and the more they become convinced that votes may be affected. So, more hands to the pump. We're effectively setting up a mass lobbying group here, and it needs as many folks to get involved as is humanly possible.

It's also worth remembering that it's an innate reaction of the left to control, the right to support a free market, and the centre to actually weigh the pros and cons. We have to present a compelling case to parties of the left in order to persuade a large enough number that they need to adopt a centre ground policy on it to make a difference.

[Karma]

Yep, Hifi, all the Scottish members on this forum need to answer that cr*p e-mail that we all have/will received !

[hifistud]

Indeed - we need to become the vocal minority, and make as much noise as possible, everywhere we can. This is way too important to just sit back and wait for others to act on our behalf.

There's a list here of MEPs sitting on the ENVI committee which will be looking at this - perhaps w should be making representations to all of them:

docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AsUiRXHmFDladHQxa2pVbFJwRWVYR0l1YmlaM3g4X0E#gid=0

[Anne (fuzzy)]

If I was replying to that standard email from the Scottish MEP's, I would quote and challenge every uneducated comment they've made, particularly the repetitive sentences with 'quit smoking, smoking cessation, giving up smoking' etc. in them.
They don't seem to have a clue what the purpose of e cigs are.
Though it's probably don't care more like.

[izan]

Funny, we all know the best route.

TAX.

That is the only reason destructive drugs like tobacco and alcohol are still legal.
It is all about the MONEY!!!!!

I

[kibbster]

"Of course there is a balance to strike. On one hand e-cigarettes have the
potential to be a helpful way to help somebody quit smoking entirely and
greatly improve their health. On the other hand e-cigarettes currently can
contain up to 48mg of nicotine - far more than a regular cigarette, making
them highly addictive. As nicotine is the drug that makes cigarettes
addictive, somebody that tries e-cigarettes could be much more likely to go
on to smoke regular cigarettes."

Hold the press!!!
Nicotine is addictive!?!
Oh no what have I been doing the last 27 years being addicted to a drug!?!

Seriously... that's actually an argument is it?


"Furthermore, there is no evidence that
e-cigarettes are safe, and it is concerning that they are being marketed as
a 'healthy' alternative to smoking."

The lack of evidence that it's safe is not evidence to the country.

"Currently we do not have any conclusive evidence either that e-cigarettes
are helpful for giving up smoking, or that they encourage it."

...

...

"While we do not have this scientific evidence to rely on I think it is
wise to have a cautious approach to e-cigarettes. If they are
effective in helping people to stop smoking, then it is appropriate that
they are regulated in the same way as other smoking cessation tools, such as
nicotine patches."

no, no, no, no, no....
>

Are they Daily Fail readers?
They seem to be regurgitating the same shit that that rag publishes.
Next e-cigs will be funding terrorism and turning people into paedophiles.

[kibbster]

I've said it before and I'll say it again....

I am not giving up smoking.
I may be an ex-smoker but I haven't given anything up.
If I was giving up smoking I'd have stopped taking nicotine.

What the hell do e-cigs and vaping have to do with giving up the addiction to smoking?

[kibbster]

Jan 11, 2013 23:49:45 GMT hifistud said:

And then I'd be asking everyone else in their constituency to do likewise, and write to the local press telling them that their local MEP/MP/MSP supports the premature deaths of hundred of thousands of smokers by their unwillingness to quash this idiotic prohibitionist agenda.

The spiteful part of me loves this idea
The sensible side of me thinks we "might" not win many friends if we accuse MPs of murder...

I think spiteful side of me will win this one

[hifistud]

The idea is to give the local press the kind of headlines that they know will sell papers, have people listening to radio shows and so on. Both Clive Bates and Michael Siegel have nice little soundbites (quotes) which say as much - that this proposal will ultimately be the cause of hundreds of thousands of people dying prematurely if it goes through - so using one of those just might get a lot of publicity. And, let's face it, it's true, and no MP/MEP/MSP is going to want to be branded a killer (I'd stop short of murderer in the first instance).

[booblay]

Forward this to the dumb greedy bastards:

www.ecigarettedirect.co.uk/extra-info/e-cigarette-safety-report.pdf

And might I add that these MPS know EXACTLY what they're doing. They know e-cigs are safe. This is 100% about money. It always is.

[hgvroy]

what makes my blood boil about this reply is, these are the people who are deciding the future of e cigs and it is blatantly obvious that they know absolutely nothing about them - this quote for example


"On the other hand e-cigarettes currently can
contain up to 48mg of nicotine - far more than a regular cigarette, making
them highly addictive."

This guy must think that there is some kind of look a like e cig that contains 48mg of nicotine,
unbelievable absolutely unbelievable

Than there is this -

"Furthermore, there is no evidence that
e-cigarettes are safe,"

Erm sorry but there is, and more importantly there is no evidence that they are unsafe.

And another -

"As nicotine is the drug that makes cigarettes
addictive, somebody that tries e-cigarettes could be much more likely to go
on to smoke regular cigarettes"

Sorry again, the normal route is that they will try the market leader in nicotine delivery first off,
the market leader being a CIGARETTE, and just as an aside, imagine a vulnerable teenager having a toot of Dave D's 48mg RY4555444 in his super duper Provarlavatubesilverbullet, it would blow his bloody head off and he would never go near a chrome tube again.

[talisman]

Wouldn't worry me if they banned vaping as-long as they ban smoking aswell. If regulations are introduced and/or e-cig prices increase i will quit anyway.

[Karma]

Jan 12, 2013 19:09:11 GMT talisman said:

Wouldn't worry me if they banned vaping as-long as they ban smoking aswell. If regulations are introduced and/or e-cig prices increase i will quit anyway.

I won't be quitting vaping as the alternative is to go back to cigs

I do agree though that if they want to ban vaping as we know it, which has not been proven dangerous, then all tobacco sales should be banned!

[hifistud]

Jan 12, 2013 19:09:11 GMT talisman said:

Wouldn't worry me if they banned vaping as-long as they ban smoking aswell. If regulations are introduced and/or e-cig prices increase i will quit anyway.

In which case, they win and we lose. But, rest assured, smoking will never be banned.