Found this from Rebbecca Taylor MEP from 15th April

[andyb2]

www.libdemvoice.org/rebecca-taylor-mep-writeselectronic-cigarettes-no-smoke-but-lots-of-fiery-debate-34106.html

Make of it as you will -seems she has some positive and also some negative aspects

[matt1988]

To me that's a balanced argument and very similar to what ECITA are trying to achieve. I think it's just the flavours I don't agree with. I only vape mint (so far) but I still want the ability of vaping different flavours, and many many members do vape many flavours.

Now vaping in a public space, I presume that is the same as analogues? Which in itself isn't necessary, but you can understand why they would want to introduce it, and in the grand scheme of things wouldn't be too bad.

And as far as regulations, I feel that again what ECITA are trying to achieve is what is needed, light touch, but make it illegal to sell to minors, a little more testing, and no adverts before the watershed and magazines aimed at children (obviously). Now the majority of those are already being self-regulated but just make it official.

And with the "may harm your health" warnings. I guess the way EU are going, there will be health warnings on crisps, cream cakes and fast food restaurants.

Anyway that's my 2 pence worth. Feel free to disagree

[MarkS]

Rebecca has listened to us vapers to an extent, but she still cannot get the word "denormalisation" out of her head. Which basically for mean translates to "discrimination" whether that be towards vapers or smokers.

The thing is whether we like it or not I think the only way this will progress is via compromise. We shouldn't have to because so far we have the facts and all Brussels have is conjecture.

They have never let facts get in the way of legislation in the past though. You only have to look at the Snus debate to see that.

Even ASH do not think electronic cigarettes should be subject to the restrictions of the smoking ban, because it will stop people switching to electronic cigarettes. If they have to go outside to use one, then many will just have a normal cigarette instead. Also by making electronic cigarette users have to use shelters and spaces along with smokers, they will be subjected to the passive toxins of tobacco smoke. Thus you will not share the same rights as a non-smoker who does not have to be subjected to them.

I'm sure she means well but her obvious prejudice towards smokers is clouding her judgement of vapers.

[hgvroy]

And again this quote keeps popping up and it really annoys me

"long term health impacts are not yet fully understood"

But hey keep on smoking until we find out

[Kbee]

Picking up on the flavours bit - if they did decide that vendors couldn't sell flavours (only tobacco and menthol) could we buy unflavoured juices in our preferred nic content and then buy flavourings to add to it?

Obviously the important bit is the mg per ml of nicotine and hopefully this is the area that they will see sense in. The vast majority of vapers use juice that is higher than 4mg. But adding my own flavouring is a compromise that I could accept.

[Ron]

Apr 17, 2013 11:50:25 GMT Kbee said:

Picking up on the flavours bit - if they did decide that vendors couldn't sell flavours (only tobacco and menthol) could we buy unflavoured juices in our preferred nic content and then buy flavourings to add to it?

The danger there is it would drop an already low nic content

[Kbee]

Apr 17, 2013 11:54:52 GMT Ron said:

Apr 17, 2013 11:50:25 GMT Kbee said:

Picking up on the flavours bit - if they did decide that vendors couldn't sell flavours (only tobacco and menthol) could we buy unflavoured juices in our preferred nic content and then buy flavourings to add to it?

The danger there is it would drop an already low nic content

Just edited while you were posting

[MarkS]

Apr 17, 2013 11:50:25 GMT Kbee said:

Picking up on the flavours bit - if they did decide that vendors couldn't sell flavours (only tobacco and menthol) could we buy unflavoured juices in our preferred nic content and then buy flavourings to add to it?

Obviously the important bit is the mg per ml of nicotine and hopefully this is the area that they will see sense in. The vast majority of vapers use juice that is higher than 4mg. But adding my own flavouring is a compromise that I could accept.

That is exactly the loop hole that will be used if they did ban any pre-flavoured juice being sold.
Flavourings in your ecig are nothing more than food flavourings and they cannot ban those.
So a vendor would see plain nic juice to the required strength (taking into consideration the dilution) and a separate bottle of flavouring to add. Although they just wouldn't say the flavouring is to add to the nic juice.

Anyone can sell food flavourings.

that's why it's so ridiculous to even try and ban them. Rebecca is coming around but for me is more concerned with how it looks, rather than what it is.
she has been provided with all the facts, but is scared for her political career to admit completely that the EU have this all wrong.

[Jen]

Isn't all this 'don't know about long term effects, sales to children etc.' stuff all about how it might look and covering their own behinds? I mean, it's not exactly based in evidence, is it?

[MarkS]

Apr 17, 2013 15:34:20 GMT Jen said:

Isn't all this 'don't know about long term effects, sales to children etc.' stuff all about how it might look and covering their own behinds? I mean, it's not exactly based in evidence, is it?

I personally would like to know how long, long term is. E-cigarettes have been available worldwide for 8 years now and I've not seen anyone claiming death or terminal illness from the use of them.

Dr Farsalinos was saying that drugs on the market undergo testing for around 2 years and are then released on sale or prescription to the public.

The long term effects of them are then determined via their long term use. That argument never stops them being released in the first place.

Electronic cigarettes have already been out in the world for 8 years, with those taking up their use doubling year on year. We have already had the test group. Us!

Whilst normal cigarettes remain on the shelves in every newsagent, supermarket and high street, none of their arguments are valid if they are actually based around Health concerns.

[Jen]

Apr 17, 2013 16:00:49 GMT MarkS said:

Apr 17, 2013 15:34:20 GMT Jen said:

Isn't all this 'don't know about long term effects, sales to children etc.' stuff all about how it might look and covering their own behinds? I mean, it's not exactly based in evidence, is it?

I personally would like to know how long, long term is. E-cigarettes have been available worldwide for 8 years now and I've not seen anyone claiming death or terminal illness from the use of them.

Dr Farsalinos was saying that drugs on the market undergo testing for around 2 years and are then released on sale or prescription to the public.

The long term effects of them are then determined via their long term use. That argument never stops them being released in the first place.

Electronic cigarettes have already been out in the world for 8 years, with those taking up their use doubling year on year. We have already had the test group. Us!

Whilst normal cigarettes remain on the shelves in every newsagent, supermarket and high street, none of their arguments are valid if they are actually based around Health concerns.

I think that's a very good and salient point - especially if they're trying to treat them like medicines (which they shouldn't). I believe that long term is generally around 20 years, such as here. However, you can also find references to long-term drug studies lasting 18 months and a year. I would have thought 8 years was a starting point at the very least!

[collie2011]

The EU needs to fund some unbiased research to find out the truth before they ban something they know nothing about and have no reason to ban. How they can ban something with no proper evidence is beyond me, but oh yes I forgot, they think they can play god!

Sent from my Nexus 7 using proboards