MHRA needs more time

[MarkS]

www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/business/industries/health/article3733372.ece

You need to subscribe to The Times to see the full article, but the fist few paragraphs you can read give you an idea of what it is about.

The MHRA are basically saying they need another 18 months to come to a decision regarding electronic cigarettes.

Which is a plus.

[lobeydosser]

18 more months of stocking up on Nic Base.

I'll need to find room for 3 more chest freezers at this rate!!!!!

[matt1988]

I don't like the picture associated with the article though. Maybe it's just me...

[MarkS]

Apr 8, 2013 9:42:03 GMT lobeydosser said:

18 more months of stocking up on Nic Base.

I'll need to find room for 3 more chest freezers at this rate!!!!!

Not necessarily so lobey.

The EU could still vote for Medical classification this year regardless.

This delay is a plus, but it doesn't mean we can rest on our laurels.

[hgvroy]

They are probably waiting to see what pearls of wisdom the EU finally settle on, then in 18 months time come up with something similar

[matt1988]

Can the UK government override the EU government? Or would they have to leave the EU for that to happen?

[MarkS]

Some governments ignore EU directives Matt.

For example when I was skiing in Austria last year I was freely able to smoke cigarettes inside restaurants and bars in the designated smoking areas.

[lordbarby]

Apr 8, 2013 11:15:09 GMT matt1988 said:

Can the UK government override the EU government? Or would they have to leave the EU for that to happen?

If its inconsistent with UK national law. EU Govts have three years to implement EU Directives or face fines

[lobeydosser]

I get the distinct impression that British Agencies are waiting to see how quickly E-cigs and their supporting businesses catch on in this country before making any decisions as to how they will regulate the industry.

In otherwords, any industry that reduces the smoking population and therefore reduces health spending, while upping the potential tax income, has to be a good thing from a government point of view.

So they will do the one thing that they have always done, sit on the fence right up until the have to sh*t or get off the potty.

[kibbster]

It's not a secret that the MHRA still hadn't done anything since three years ago when they said the same thing, so it's no surprise they need more time.
It could be a good thing unless they are into harm reduction then it would be nice to have them on our side.

Still an abstinence is better than a finding against us.

[donov6]

Such a sad reality that they will try everything to ruin this for us just because they don't want people to stop smoking because it makes far too much money for them, just puts in to perspective how corrupt gorvernments are.

I know for one if this happens I will be becoming a fully fledged drug dealer. Haha

[alanfinal]

One argument I always stay out of because I just don't know the figures is,the government are making lots of tax money out of smoking,against the cost of treating smoking related illness

[matt1988]

Apr 9, 2013 10:06:12 GMT alanfinal said:

One argument I always stay out of because I just don't know the figures is,the government are making lots of tax money out of smoking,against the cost of treating smoking related illness

Yeh I have seen figures equating to the same scenario.

[giles]

The figures aren't that complicated. The government/taxpayer makes a loss from smoking in the short term. The tax revenue is less than the extra NHS cost plus the cost of time off work due to smoking-related illness. In the long term the government/taxpayer makes a profit from smoking because smokers die sooner and so cost less in pensions.

In practice the government decided a long time ago that it would try to reduce the number of smokers. If you are of a cynical turn of mind you might think that this decision represented a victory of the Pharma lobby over the tobacco lobby. Whatever, policy hasn't changed since. It isn't party-political.

I don't think that current political opposition to ecigs has anything to do with tax revenue. I think it has a lot to do with pharma company revenue - pharma makes a lot out of the gums and patches, much of it subsidised by government, and so spends a lot of money worrying politicians with scare stories about ecigs and funding slanted "research".

[lobeydosser]

Plus ofcourse, Big Pharma know that the Gums & Patches don't work.
They do get people off smoking, but as the WHO report, over 90% of ex-smokers are back on the cigarettes within two years and so Big Pharma make even more money because folks are having to repeatedly buy their products to attempt to stop smoking again and again.

What really gets up BP's noses is that Vaping and E-cigs are a permanent way of stopping smoking cigarettes and that is something that none of their pills and potions have even come close to achieving.