So, the truth....

[djs]

Because my post on another thread is unlikely to get much attention, I hope it's OK to start another thread.

The MRHA have published the individuals and companies that expressed

"(your) views on whether to bring all nicotine containing products (NCPs) – with the exception of tobacco and tobacco products - within the medicines licensing regime. This would require all currently unlicensed NCPs on the market, such as electronic cigarettes containing nicotine and nicotine gels, to apply to the MHRA for a medicines marketing authorisation (MA)."

Option 1 was a 21-day ban.
Option 2 was to regulate with 1 year
Option 3 was to do nothing.


Here's what is published....
Yes to option 1 - ONLY IMPERIAL TOBACCO - no surprise.

Yes to option 2 – regulate with 1 year (or longer) to comply

Eagle Electronic Cigarettes (920)
CN Creative Ltd (intellicig) (1055)
Envape Ltd (1064)
Nicocigs Ltd (1071)

Yes to some form of regulation/tighter control but do not remove from the market

E-Lites (654)

What these comapnies have decided to do is SUPPORT the dismantling of the current status quo in favour of medicinal regulation.


and then option 3.

NCP importer (589)
Retailer of electronic cigarettes (611)
Oksmokey (657)
NJOY (1048)
ECigarette Direct and Gower Enterprises (1052)
The Electronic Cigarette Company/Totally Wicked E-Liquid (1053)
E Cig.co.uk (1056)
NUCIG (1058)
Confidential response (1069)
Smart Smoker(1070)
e-cigs.co.uk (1073)
Manufacturer (1089)
Rebelflag (1118)
Life Style Innovation Ltd (1122)
E cigarette retailer (1192)
Mirage Cigarettes Ltd (1214)


What this means in simple terms is the 4 UK e-cig brands WANT the market shut down, and want the full medicines thing to happen.
and E-Lites - shame on you. ???

Time for an unequivocal BOYCOT I think, not that any of us were likely to be using those brands any time soon.

[Blownupdolly]

And that is why I have questioned several times that Elites have been at the forefront of media coverage WITH ECITA

It didnt sit well with me.

[djs]

Jun 16, 2013 22:08:54 GMT Blownupdolly said:

And that is why I have questioned several times that Elites have been at the forefront of media coverage WITH ECITA

It didnt sit well with me.

Me neither. The thing is, some brands will want "just enough" regulation to stop us buying liquid etc.

Thankfully, the 4 main culprits of this total Judas behaviour are not in ECITA. If they were, I dread to think....it would be the end I suspect.

[Blownupdolly]

I didnt know that. Thanks for enlightening me. Another good reason to distance ourselves from the word ECIG.

[chykensa]

djs - what are the figures in brackets after each company's name please?
Andy

[Postmodern Smoking]

chykensa the figures in brackets are the MHRA reply reference number. Replies, that weren't marked as confidential, are available here at the MHRA website.

[ChillerVapes]

Jun 16, 2013 22:18:16 GMT Blownupdolly said:

I didnt know that. Thanks for enlightening me. Another good reason to distance ourselves from the word ECIG.

Can I ask what we should call them? I get asked 'what the hell is that' by the public quite a lot lol

[matt1988]

PV, personal vaporiser

[Deleted]

What you all need to take into consideration is that these responses were based on the original consultation from 2010. They are not based on what's happened recently.

[Blownupdolly]

Jun 17, 2013 9:46:03 GMT @mp2012 said:

What you all need to take into consideration is that these responses were based on the original consultation from 2010. They are not based on what's happened recently.

Are you saying that the likes of Elites and the others are no longer in favour of dismantling to medicinal regulations as stated in the OP?

[Deleted]

Jun 17, 2013 9:58:38 GMT Blownupdolly said:

Jun 17, 2013 9:46:03 GMT @mp2012 said:

What you all need to take into consideration is that these responses were based on the original consultation from 2010. They are not based on what's happened recently.

Are you saying that the likes of Elites and the others are no longer in favour of dismantling to medicinal regulations as stated in the OP?

Yes that's what I am saying.

[Blownupdolly]

Jun 17, 2013 10:07:59 GMT @mp2012 said:

Jun 17, 2013 9:58:38 GMT Blownupdolly said:

Are you saying that the likes of Elites and the others are no longer in favour of dismantling to medicinal regulations as stated in the OP?

Yes that's what I am saying.

Do you know if and where any of them have stated this publicly so we can read it?

[djs]

Jun 17, 2013 10:07:59 GMT @mp2012 said:

Jun 17, 2013 9:58:38 GMT Blownupdolly said:

Are you saying that the likes of Elites and the others are no longer in favour of dismantling to medicinal regulations as stated in the OP?

Yes that's what I am saying.

Some comfort I guess. It does seem strange that any company would support the "medicine" proposal.

There is one company out of the top 4 that appears to not even sell e-cigs from a website....merely offering a "trial" e-cig....and we know where that can lead sometimes.

E-Lites are a big and powerful brand now. I would rather have them onboard than not. However, it's still a mystery to me that they charge more than *double* (sometimes triple) the rest of the other market contenders. I wonder if they know just how much their pricing structure is driving a huge wedge between themselves and the consumer? Even the "kids" on the street are now shunning the product.

If they were one of the few products left in 2016 (albeit adapted maybe?), I can't see many people who had their finger's burned once returning to the brand.
I wouldn't return, even with a brand spanking new product with full approval/license.

[doodlebug]

The MHRA first published this numptiness in February 2010 - and this is what eventually led to ECITA's formation. It was not until June 4th 2010 that there was a stakeholder's meeting, which is where I first met with a larger group of vendors, including Mike Ryan from E-lites. I had already had some contact with Jean Rasbridge of Gower Enterprises, and Michiel Carmel of Vapestick, but this was the first time this nascent industry was gathered together in one place.

It is really important to understand what was happening at that time: these business owners - who led the way for the growth of this entire industry in the UK - were operating in a climate of fear (sound familiar?) because the MHRA had threatened to remove every single ecig product from the market within 21 days. That was their preferred option.

It is also important to remember that ECITA didn't exist. It is true that Simon Christou, from Liberro, and I had discussed the concept, and had decided to suggest it to the group at the meeting on June 4th, but for all those vendors, there was no apparent hope. Many had taken legal advice; many had looked very hard at medicinal licensing, with a view to trying to pin down what the hell they would have to do to be able to keep selling their products. Also, bear in mind that, back then, these were not huge, successful businesses. These were very small businesses, just starting out and trying to find their feet. And feed their families.

This is the reality of what they were facing, and - just as we have seen recently - the media were very much against them, too.

The fact that E-lites' response to the consultation was formulated in that way would have been down to the advice they had received from their legal teams who would probably have said 'cover your bets', or words to that effect.

Before the stakeholders' meeting with the MHRA on 4th June 2010, there was a separate meeting, at a separate location, where all these industry members got together. I was then employed by Simon Christou (whose company was then ecigs.co.uk, before becoming Liberro) as an Industry Consultant, and I attended that meeting on his behalf. As he and I had discussed, I put our proposal to that group.

Despite some significant initial difficulties in getting ECITA established, our founding members pulled it together and got behind the programme: do whatever it takes to ensure that ecigs are NEVER medicalised and that they stay in the hands of the people who need and want them, properly regulated for safety and quality.

In reality, I think it speaks volumes that E-lites were prepared to immediately get so strongly behind this idea, since it ran contrary to the advice they had received, but they were immediate and forceful supporters, and have never looked back.

I don't like cig-a-likes, and I wouldn't want to use them regularly. Obviously not! I'm a vaper! However, as someone with a very real and personal interest in public health with particular regard to tobacco-related disease and death, I absolutely believe that there is an important role for those products which allow smokers to make the transition to vaping as comfortably and familiarly as possible. I agree with all the arguments about puff counts - they are a nonsense - but my business is legal compliance. As long as they are not breaking the law, my opinion is broadly irrelevant.

I am not trying to stir anything up, but thought some historical fact might be useful in this instance.

Happy vaping, one and all,

Katherine

[Blownupdolly]

Jun 17, 2013 11:08:10 GMT doodlebug said:

The MHRA first published this numptiness in February 2010 - and this is what eventually led to ECITA's formation. It was not until June 4th 2010 that there was a stakeholder's meeting, which is where I first met with a larger group of vendors, including Mike Ryan from E-lites. I had already had some contact with Jean Rasbridge of Gower Enterprises, and Michiel Carmel of Vapestick, but this was the first time this nascent industry was gathered together in one place.

It is really important to understand what was happening at that time: these business owners - who led the way for the growth of this entire industry in the UK - were operating in a climate of fear (sound familiar?) because the MHRA had threatened to remove every single ecig product from the market within 21 days. That was their preferred option.

It is also important to remember that ECITA didn't exist. It is true that Simon Christou, from Liberro, and I had discussed the concept, and had decided to suggest it to the group at the meeting on June 4th, but for all those vendors, there was no apparent hope. Many had taken legal advice; many had looked very hard at medicinal licensing, with a view to trying to pin down what the hell they would have to do to be able to keep selling their products. Also, bear in mind that, back then, these were not huge, successful businesses. These were very small businesses, just starting out and trying to find their feet. And feed their families.

This is the reality of what they were facing, and - just as we have seen recently - the media were very much against them, too.

The fact that E-lites' response to the consultation was formulated in that way would have been down to the advice they had received from their legal teams who would probably have said 'cover your bets', or words to that effect.

Before the stakeholders' meeting with the MHRA on 4th June 2010, there was a separate meeting, at a separate location, where all these industry members got together. I was then employed by Simon Christou (whose company was then ecigs.co.uk, before becoming Liberro) as an Industry Consultant, and I attended that meeting on his behalf. As he and I had discussed, I put our proposal to that group.

Despite some significant initial difficulties in getting ECITA established, our founding members pulled it together and got behind the programme: do whatever it takes to ensure that ecigs are NEVER medicalised and that they stay in the hands of the people who need and want them, properly regulated for safety and quality.

In reality, I think it speaks volumes that E-lites were prepared to immediately get so strongly behind this idea, since it ran contrary to the advice they had received, but they were immediate and forceful supporters, and have never looked back.

I don't like cig-a-likes, and I wouldn't want to use them regularly. Obviously not! I'm a vaper! However, as someone with a very real and personal interest in public health with particular regard to tobacco-related disease and death, I absolutely believe that there is an important role for those products which allow smokers to make the transition to vaping as comfortably and familiarly as possible. I agree with all the arguments about puff counts - they are a nonsense - but my business is legal compliance. As long as they are not breaking the law, my opinion is broadly irrelevant.

I am not trying to stir anything up, but thought some historical fact might be useful in this instance.

Happy vaping, one and all,

Katherine

Hello Katherine! Hope you are well.

I was going to email you later today.

Thanks for explaining what happened back then as I suspect most of us weren't around then so have no clue about it.

One of my biggest concerns right now is that because the cigalikes are the focal of the media attention ATM, the vast majority of the public (who know nothing of the vastly superior devices most of us use) believe cigalikes are the only alternative to smoking. Also, the only pictures of proposed regulated devices that may be produced by pharma or tobacco company's, seem to also appear very much like cigarettes. As you are well aware, there is a huge difference between them and what most of us use.

My other big concern is that we, the consumer, have little or no voice in all this right now. You and your colleagues appear to be doing a great job on behalf of your vendors and retailers as a trade association, but we little people as customers have no voice in the fight. What can we do? Who can we turn to? ECCA appears not to want to get involved politically.

Thanks for posting Katherine. You saved me writing the email