Another Reply

[Karma]

Sounds like a plan Ash, good luck

[Deleted]

The problem is , is they are already working under false information , they don't understand the comparable quantities that we use compared to NRT or Cigs .

All they see are big numbers that say 36 MG 48 MG 24 MG etc and they think these numbers are off the scale without trying to learn . They take it as Red from the "experts"

[Banky]

I think the one who talks about the 48mg ecig, was under the influence of Buckfast.

[Karma]

Jan 17, 2013 19:39:54 GMT Banky said:

I think the one who talks about the 48mg ecig, was under the influence of Buckfast.

Buckfast ??? if the SNP get their way on minimum pricing for alcohol, it won't make much of a difference to the price of Bucky ???

Sorry, wrong thread

[Deleted]

Jan 17, 2013 19:38:37 GMT @storm said:

The problem is , is they are already working under false information , they don't understand the comparable quantities that we use compared to NRT or Cigs .

All they see are big numbers that say 36 MG 48 MG 24 MG etc and they think these numbers are off the scale without trying to learn . They take it as Red from the "experts"

Agreed which is why we need to educate people ... my email exchanges do not give me the impression anyone is reading the content. Most of the replies I've had have come from their assistants who have probably skim-read the email and then appended the stock response in reply

[Karma]

Just to clarify, I'm 'liking posts' because I agree not because I like what's going on

[djs]

I am beginning to think that *some* people (MEPs etc.) are getting the wrong end of the stick.

The hardware part of e-cigs will obviously not be banned, unless someone comes up with a remarkable reason.
Liquid under 4mg/ml (some are saying 2mg?) will not be banned. Therefore e-cigs will not be banned.

OK. So, the difficulty seems to be in "understanding" the net effect of the proposed legislation.

The way I see it; (correct me if I'm wrong, or have misunderstood)
If anything over 4mg/ml needs to be regulated as a being a) a medicine (?) and b) a safe alternative with positive benefits provable in some way, then someone, somewhere will need to get the approval. One case of "approval" might open up the path for all e-liquids to be in with a chance of mass approval/license.

Trouble is - how long? who can afford it? (Big corporations, probably already in the Nicotine business)....and then the most scary - how much would we all have to pay? You can bet your life that if one company had a license (or something) we would suddenly find e-liquid priced at "cigarette" levels.....£15+ for 10ml?, with a proportion going to the tax man.

People talking about 45mg liquid "per unit" are going to be scared of e-liquid (I don't necessarily blame them) but the reality isn't so bad. There is over 100mg of nicotine in certain packs of fags before smoking.

It is feasible that vaping 2ml of 36mg or 45mg juice isn't any more than 40 ciggies....

[Karma]

So, what if a couple of UK vendors get medical endorsement for 54mg or even just 36mg unflavoured nicotine juice. Then we could just buy our favourite flavours to mix?

[Banky]

I dont recall what party was in office when Nicorette, got the contract to supply the NHS with their products
to issue to patients to help them to stop smoking.

So to me it stands to reason who will lose a hell of a lot of money if ecigs are to get the go a head and have no sanctions. What this government are proposing is ludicrous and they are the ones, who are in collude with this company.

[djs]

Jan 17, 2013 19:57:11 GMT Karma said:

So, what if a couple of UK vendors get medical endorsement for 54mg or even just 36mg unflavoured nicotine juice. Then we could just buy our favourite flavours to mix?

I am hoping something along these lines might be in the mix of ideas.
But that's only going to happen unless the "people" working on the exact legislation actually start to appreciate the predicament.

If it could be accepted in principle that vapers should be able to source plain nicotine liquid (subject to certain caveats) then all the "side-issues" that everybody is getting their knickers in a twist about (kids, excessive unintentional nicotine intake etc.) could be laid to rest.

It would mean the end of high street/shopping mall e-cigs. It would also act as a huge deterrent to all but the most committed of vapers.

...then again, there is a place called cloud-cuckoo land....

It did cross my mind that e-liquid and e-cigs under 4mg could be left "as is" and nicotine liquid could be sold through pharmacies. That would work. It would slow vaping uptake down colossally, which is a shame.

I'd accept it as a last resort.

[Deleted]

I wonder if it would be feasible for a bunch of vendors to get together to maybe apply for a joint licence .. Lets face it their will be some serious cost to it , hmmm lets just watch this space :S

[vereybowring]

I am have also received the uneducated replies from Labour MEP's.

When I have the time I am going to reply with a carefully worded response for them as their "We can't really do anything right now." and "They aren't banning them." sections are really getting on my nerves as it just shows a lack of proper research and understanding on their part. If they have received lots of correspondence on the matter you'd think they'd make more effort to find out what's happening.
It has also has been said we need to track down what idiot has come up with this stock reply for them and beat them with an information stick.

[Deleted]

And they wonder why they lost the last election !!! they can't even respond to their grass roots voters with an ounce of their own individual common sense !!!

[Karma]

Is the 'monster raving lunatic party' still around?

If so, probably the most sensible party to give your vote to >

[Banky]

Jan 17, 2013 21:02:13 GMT Karma said:

Is the 'monster raving lunatic party' still around?

If so, probably the most sensible party to give your vote to >

Yep and its called the Tory Party.