Labour MP reply

[Deleted]

I'll try and type it - tis only a page... wouldn't meet me - quoted some of the labour party in Europe's stance as follows

As e-cigarettes are a relatively new product they are regulated differently in each EU country. Some countries allow e-cigarettes to be sold without any regulation at all. Others have banned the sale of e-cigarettes. As the UK is part of the EU's internal market it is important that we harmonise the way we deal with this product, otherwise consumers could be buying unregulated products which do not conform to basic safety standards, either within their own country, or by easily purchasing it over the internet from a neighbouring country.

The European Commission has proposed that all 'nicotine containing products' with more than 2mg per unit should not be classed as tobacco products. Instead, under the Commission's proposals, nearly all e-cigarettes will need to get authorisation as a pharmaceutical product, in the same way as nicotine patches, sprays and gums.

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. 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.

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

Whilst we do not have 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.

The Commission proposal is not final and there will be many months of negotiations by the European Parliament, as well as health ministers from the UK and other EU countries, before the legislation is agreed. During this time Labour MEPs will be looking carefully at all of the measures and trying to find the best way to ensure that we effectively reduce smoking rates in the UK and across Europe.

Made my blood boil so have just spammed half the planet and sent him this back..

Dear Mr Doran,

Many thanks for taking the the time to get back to me on this highly emotive and controversial issue. However, I feel that the position of the Labour Group in the European parliament and thus your position (seeing as you have not agreed to meet me nor take this further for me to discuss the issue) is just lip service at best and pharmaceutical propoganderous defamatory slander to the whole e-cig community at worse...

So let me take apart the lies bit by bit (From my wee bit of knowledge)

E-cigs in the UK do conform to basic safety standards if they come from mainstream suppliers which can be found on all the major forums. Whilst i appreciate the dangers of any tom, dick or harry setting up shop as an e-cig supplier an e-cig is basically a torch (in components) with an e-cig connector on top. This is not complicated science to make. As it is also most of the major enthusiast brands of e-cig (joytech, provari etc) come from china (the provari actually comes from the USA) so the equipment and the safety of that is not the problem. What is the problem is that of black market e-liquid if this EU legislation were to come into force. Currently you can buy perfectly legal and perfectly safe UK made e-liquid. In a nutshell, if e-liquid were to go black market thanks to EU legislation then people will die! Where as now e-cigs provide life and an alternative to smoking. Ban e-liquid and someone or some folk will die. It's as simple as that.

(paragraph 2 & 3)....I am concerned if e-cigs were to be made into a pharmaceutical product as this means a few things - less choice in terms of what we can or cannot use; higher costs for the user and that money going to the fat cats of the pharmaceutical industry. Which just proves what this legislation is really about - 'them' the pharmaceuticals as oppose to 'us' the general public. They are years behind with their progress on this issue. I do not want a pharmaceutical £30 a cartridge or whatever the inflated price be, e-cig when I know it cost about 10p to produce!!!

And you call this is 'balance'...profits over people? You're worse than the tories!!! As for saying nicotine is addictive. I've known a few folk who've actually failed to use e-cigs as an alternative to smoking as there are lots of other addictive carcinogens in e-cigs other than nicotine in e-cigs. I also know that nicotine is no worse than coffee in terms of it's dangers and also addict qualities and can be found in the humble tomato. So is the EU and the labour group in europe also proposing that all coffee and tomatoes (and a few other veg I forget) be regulated as 'pharmaceutical products' because they are highly addictive and could lead us to worse dangers? Talk about nanny state!!!.

As for stating someone who 'tries e-cigs could be much more likely to go on to smoke regular cigarettes' - what planet are you on? Facts and figures please? The only people that I know that have tried the e-cig are folk trying to quit smoking. So why use reverse psychology here and slander? What have you to gain? My vote to go anywhere but labour next election and that of my friends and family or just more bribes from someone?

The last sentence of paragraph 3 - argh can you not see my blood pressure rising? E-cigs contain propylene glycol (found in asthma inhalers etc), common vegetable glycerine, and food flavourings in addition to nicotine. None of these are known to be harmful when inhaled. So please go away and do your research!!!

(concluding paragraphs)..

We may only have 'hearsay evidence and common sense' (and of course the e-cig community and thousands if not more healthier and happier people) in favour of e-cigs but I for one can quite categorically say that I've not had a chest infection since I've been on the e-cig and I was getting one every 2 - 3 months. Unlike pharmaceutical NRT which is too low a dose initially, I am not getting psychotic withdrawals from reducing my nicotine too fast (yes initially I probably was on 48mg of nicotine per e-cig for the first 8 weeks if not more but then I was a 70 plus smoker a day. I could take it. I reduced after 8 weeks because I was in control and I wasn't being pressurised) and both my GP and hospital consultant have been supporting me though alas not the smoking cessation nurses ...which is so distressing

So in conclusion a 'cautious approach' can only mean one thing - you, the labour group in Europe believe the pharmaceuticals stance on e-cigs (public - in private I'm sure it's just about profits over people) and are listening to them rather than representing your constituents..Then you wonder why turn out at national, european and local polls are so low and the trust and respect for politicians in this country is in the quagmire it's in

I look forward to hearing from you shortly Mr Doran

[giles]

The guy probably didn't read your first letter, doubt very much if he'll get past the first paragraph of your second. Still, I didn't even get this standard letter from the Labour MEP I wrote to (probably because I told him not to send it ???)

I understand your frustration, but I don't think that that is the way to do it. I think we need to find someone in the labour group who will actually meet someone.

[djs]

I hate that particular reply. It's just ludicrous.

People get all concerned about the 48mg business, but they don't really get what that is, do they?

A pack of full strength cigarettes contains 200 milligrams of nicotine unsmoked. A pack of these a day will yield somewhere in the region of 20mg. BUT, what I didn't realise until recently was that yield is estimated by machine reading. 48mg juice is not "far more" than regular cigarettes whether you consider the nicotine content before or after inhalation.

I'm convinced that folk are getting confused into thinking somehow 48mg equates to a) one vaping session and b) that somehow selling 48mg is irresponsible, whereas cigarettes are not so. (??)

and as a good few on here have pointed out, certain NRT products used up to the maximum dose can "yield" almost 100mg a day...if that's safe for health, where's the issue? There isn't one.

[Anne (fuzzy)]

"e-cigarettes have the potential to be a helpful way to help somebody quit smoking"

Wrong, e cigarettes aren't for qutting smoking, they're a smoking alternative.

"someone who tries e-cigs could be much more likely to go on to smoke regular cigarettes"

Umm, no, that's the wrong way round.

What an idiot.

[hgvroy]

All I can say is "wow" that is some reply jo #icon_welldone#

[thundercat]

I love the reply but am concerned that it will invoke a defiant reaction. It could however invoke an involved investigation on the part of the mp( ha..only joking)

Softly softly catchy monkey?? Someone said it but I forgot who.

Andy

[Clutter]

Nah, tell the oily gits how it is. Passion & outrage won't hurt. Might shake the complacent bastards up a bit.

Nice one Jane

[stitch]

"I've known a few folk who've actually failed to use e-cigs as an alternative to smoking as there are lots of other addictive carcinogens in e-cigs other than nicotine in e-cigs."

eeek

[Deleted]

Thought that was a well known fact stitch

Tis not so much the nicotine in cigs that makes them addictive as the 101 other nasty alkaloids.....

Now to take on paypal (MP is going to love me - not!!!)....Paypal fraudulent transaction that paypal won't reimburse

Another story

Jane

[Banky]

Good on ya Jane, To me it's about time someone started to let MPs know how
the e-cig community really feel. That was a heart felt and honest letter,
and I hope he reply's back to you but I sincerely doubt he will.

We need to stand up to the bureaucrats and stop pussy footing around, There will be
a black market for our e-liquid and god only knows what that will contain.
and do to someone's health, the politician's walk about with their heads up there arses they
put up the tax on cigarettes and knew what crap the hand rolling tobacco contained,
and the same crap that was in a pack of cigs.

#icon_welldone#

[lordbarby]

I had a reply for the Leader of the Labour MEPs- guess what? The letter was identical, word for word!. What a coincidence!

As for " 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" What gobs----! E Cigs are designed to get people off real cigs, not the other way round!!

[stitch]

I mean I think that's a typo "carcinogens in e-cigs " i hope so anyway or Ive missed something

[kibbster]

I haven't even had a reply for my MP yet and I've written to him twice.
Even a bad response would give me some ammunition, but nothing yet.

Was planning to go over his head anyway and write to my MEPs but it'd have been nice to know that my "tax dollars" were being put to some use with MPs

[djs]

Does anyone know why some replies are now quoting 2mg/ml as the threshold amount?

I got a fairly decent letter from the House of Commons yesterday, from my local MP, and he had some interesting comments. He said liquid under 2mg/ml will need to carry a warning and anything else (above) needs the "medicinal" treatment. 2mg or 4mg is irrelevant, but I thought it was 4mg?

[kibbster]

Jan 30, 2013 16:02:22 GMT djs said:

He said liquid under 2mg/ml will need to carry a warning

Warning of what?

"Warning: This product is low in nicotine it will have no ill effect on you whatsoever and just waste your money.
You might as well smoke a kipper for all the good this will do you"