Cross your fingers - might be publicity!

[Chrissie]

Brilliant choice of video's there Jaki

And some excellent info in that thread @ UKvapers.

[Chrissie]

Lolli, I know you said you aren't very techie & don't know how to copy & paste. So would it help if I collate any info posted in this thread & then send it to you via email so you can just print it all off or even forward the email to the BBC reporter? That way he will be able to click on the links himself.

[lolli]

Chrissie - Oh yes please - that will be great - THANK YOU
I will PM you my e mail addy.
Would like to send some stuff thro today & any more can go Mon Tues.

*waves to
Scylla, Keef, Pixie, Jacki, Lilac - thanks for support guys.
I

[Chrissie]

OK Lolli & if it's ok with you can I use your other thread to start collating stuff on? If so it would be best if I locked it & just kept reopening it to post updates on.

Lol hope that makes sense

[Chrissie]

Lolli, I posted all the links I've collated so far on your other thread & I've emailed them to you as well.

[Marjorie Mitchell]

The very best of lucl Loll. I'm sure you will do great. Don't forget, we're all rooting for you.

Marj.

[kate]

Blimey, this is exciting, I hope I can help.

Some stuff from me in blue below:

Feb 28, 2010 0:56:12 GMT lolli said:

PLEASE HELP

Ok - this is for everyone tomorrow (ooops today!)

I have promised to send to a lovely reporter (BBC regional radio):-

Official proposals for ban (gov doc?)

www.mhra.gov.uk/Publications/Consultations/Medicinesconsultations/MLXs/CON065617



Evidence that ALTHOUGH NOT A HEALTH AID e cigs lead to cessation or reduction of smoking cigarettes.

Testimonials are the only evidence we have at the moment. Plenty on petitions.


Links to forums

vapersnetwork.org/node/9


Accurate e cig info

vapersnetwork.org/node/8


List of retailers

ukvapers.com/showthread.php?t=68

And anything else you guys can think of please!

I also want to send him a copy of that BIG petition that has thousands of signatures WITH COMMENTS as well

www.thepetitionsite.com/1/keep-life-saving-electronic-cigarettes-available#signatures

www.petitiononline.com/vaping/petition.html


Please bear in mind when replying, I'm not good on computers & not technically minded.

HAVING RECEIVED & RESEARCHED THE ABOVE -

- we will meet up & I'll demonstrate my 901 & 510 in action!

- then he really wants to do a "LIVE radio interview"

(TRULY breaking into a cold sweat at the thought - it's called fear!!!!)

- after that I'm not sure where it will all lead.

ALL THIS IS SUBJECT TO HIM GAINING THE APPROVAL OF THE RADIO STATION

Any help with the above much appreciated.

Hectic days Sun, Mon, Tues but will whiz back soon as I can.

Off to bed now I'm schmazzled !!!

Oh the info needs to reach him tues morning.

Anything else I can help with just let me know. Good luck with it Lolipop, I hope it goes well and you have fun.

[Chrissie]

Thanks Kate

[kate]

I don't know if this is helpful or not but it's what I've been sending to MPs and such:



Hi

1st February was a big day in the UK for the future of smoking alternatives. It was announced that only tobacco companies will be able to sell recreational nicotine. This will take the very effective electronic cigarettes out of the hands of citizens and shelve the idea until pharmaceutical companies bother to reinvent something that works for a change. Since their interests lie in keeping people addicted (their dependent and now captive market) that seems unlikely - or at least not before many many lives are destroyed first. Keeping people smoking seems to be the name of the game, novel reduced harm options for people who enjoy nicotine will be wiped out.

The UK Department of Health and MHRA announced that nicotine is to be allowed only from tobacco or medical products.
www.dh.gov.uk/dr_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@en/@ps/documents/digitalasset/dh_111748.pdf
Public consultation (MLX 364): The regulation of nicotine containing products.www.mhra.gov.uk/Publications/Consultations/Medicinesconsultations/MLXs/CON065617

This is another public health disaster by the government. The lessons from banning Swedish snus have not been learned - it's the least harmful tobacco product, banned in the EU but not in Sweden - where they have the lowest harm rate from smoking in the world. It's possible that banning snus has stopped 50% of people from finding an acceptable smoking alternative (compare with the failure rate of 95% for NRT).

"... Currently, snus is banned in all EU countries except Sweden. While it cannot be proven that the availability of snus would reduce smoking prevalence in other EU countries, our study shows that snus use has had a profound effect on smoking among Swedish men. It also reveals that 274,000 smoking-attributable deaths would be avoided if all men in all EU countries had the smoking prevalence of men in Sweden.

"In 2008, an article in the prestigious medical journal Lancet argued that “…the absence of effective harm reduction options for smokers is perverse, unjust, and acts against the rights and best interests of smokers and the public health.” Our study clearly shows that, snus has the potential to help the EU avoid 274,000 smoking-related deaths every year..."

rodutobaccotruth.blogspot.com/2009/08/smoking-in-european-union-how-swede-it.html

"New Zealand Researchers have published clinical trial results demonstrating that snus is a better cigarette substitute than nicotine gum...

It is refreshing to learn of a health organization that places a higher priority on finding solutions to smoking than on tormenting tobacco companies and users. ..."

rodutobaccotruth.blogspot.com/2010/02/clinical-trial-evidence-snus-is.html


The message is very clear - we're to quit or die, no alternatives. People are dying by the million.

"... If these [electronic cigarettes] are so good, why aren't governments and anti-smoking groups supporting them?

"We do not know for sure. There does not seem to be a concerted effort to block these products in most countries, though that remains a possibility. Regulatory agencies have a legitimate responsibility to help make sure the products are pure and contain what they say. This creates a challenge in the current environment. Groups that are truly anti-smoking should embrace any alternative, but those that are more interested in making life difficult for smokers or nicotine users do not like these products because they could make nicotine users more comfortable.

"Whenever government regulatory agencies are confronted with a new product, they need to find the proper category to put it into, and then make sure it complies with the standards associated with that category. In this case, even though nicotine is widely available in many forms, it is still important to make sure the products do not contain any hidden toxins, that they function properly (e.g., cannot accidentally deliver an overdose), and so forth. In this case, the waters have been muddied by the claims that it helps people quit smoking. Whether or not it does is not the concern of the agency, but when such a claim is made, the claim needs to be proven (and that means more than anecdotes).

"In some sense, the situation is absurd because someone could introduce another harmful product that was part of an already established category. Governments typically worry more about hypothetical new risks than clear old risks.

"Some commentators have suggested that governments are so used to tax revenues that if electronic cigarettes became more popular they could threaten this income. This is not an absurd concern, given the current economic conditions and given that governments have been raising tobacco taxes to make up shortfalls in other areas. We can only hope that if that is the plan, that they keep the taxes lower than on tobacco products because the last thing you want to do is make people choose traditional cigarettes because they are cheaper.

"However you do hear official spokespersons from both government, NGOs and anti-tobacco agencies making statements that either betray ignorance of where the harm in smoking comes from, or statements that are ideological rather than concerned with health.

"You might hear that e-cigarettes are dangerous because they deliver nicotine which they say is a poison. See our nicotine FAQ for why this has little basis. You also hear people say that these just keep people smoking. That may sound like a health statement but it is simply expressing an opinion that no one should smoke, not even if it is entirely safe. This statement ignores the public health harm reduction principle that we should do all we can to protect the health of those who choose to smoke, and part of that protection involves educating people about the comparative risks of these products and in promoting the safer options. Or you might hear that this will lead people to smoking. This makes little sense since it is much easier to obtain traditional cigarettes, and what you hear most from people who enjoy these, is that apart from being able to smoke inside again, they feel they are making a healthier choice.

"We like to think that those against will realize that e-cigarettes (and smokeless tobacco) remove all that second hand smoke they are so worried about, and also remove the health risks associated with nicotine use. How can you argue with that?

"At the very least, we hope that anyone who has doubts about these products will realize that the elimination of second hand smoke and a likely reduction in health risk will mean that governments will eventually come to approve them. Anti-nicotine extremists, on the other hand, might stay with their goal of trying to punish smokers rather than offer them good alternatives..."

www.tobaccoharmreduction.org/faq/ecigs.htm


There is now no point in innovation and development of effective smoking alternatives, they won't be allowed on the market for anyone but the big pharm and tobacco monopolies but they would be acting against their vested interests if they actually helped people. Prices will rise because of the cornering of the market and lack of competition. Presumably the NHS/taxpayers will be expected to pay through the nose again for any nicotine products even though simple standards and product regulation would make this a safe consumer product that people could buy and maintain cheaply if allowed.

Currently, recreational nicotine is regulated by the following legislation:
CHIP - the Chemicals (Hazard Information and Packaging for Supply) Regulations 2009
The Poisons Act 1972
CE certification requirements
The General Product Safety Regulations 2005

A law similar to the Intoxicating Substances (Supply) Act 1985 would address the valid concerns of young people gaining access to toxic and addictive substances.

If enforced these regulations would ensure a decent level of safety and protection for consumers. In fact, Trading Standards officers want to close the market because it's troublesome for them to do their jobs. Instead of working towards simple standards that would measure acceptable levels of contamination, toxins and ingredients they prefer to ban the product completely making sure that effective and enjoyable nicotine is only available as smoked tobacco.

By removing these regulations the MHRA will be removing all protection for people who use unlicensed nicotine products, the black market is far more risky. There isn't even a valid argument that unlicensed nicotine products have not been found effective at treating addiction (even if that's what they were sold for) when all approved nicotine products prolong and encourage addiction.

"... the Department of Health routinely uses misleading statements to promote Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) products as its preferred method of treatment for smoking cessation. This promotion is a very costly exercise ...

“The use of NHS treatments makes almost no difference at all to quitting success. A recent study published in the British Medical Journal(8) has also documented the long-term success rate of NRT at a mere 1.6 per cent. The whole exercise is futile as well as being enormously expensive.”

“We are exposing a systematic and deliberate policy to seriously mislead the public over the true effectiveness of these services. The actual extent of long term failure was being quietly covered up - which we now know from the Borland report is 94 per cent failure at 12 months - whilst four-week results were shamelessly promoted, even including published 'success rates' as high as 90 per cent. Since they knew that to be the exact opposite of the real outcomes, this is a fraudulent misappropriation of hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money. NRT simply doesn't work.”

www.prlog.org/10280006-nrt-studies-destroy-four-times-more-likely-to-quit-with-nhs-claim.html


Nicotine has not been shown to cure or treat anything, removing it from the provisions of the Poisons Act will highlight the fallacy that the MHRA (funded by pharmaceutical companies and rife with conflicting interests) is interested in public health. Nicotine has only recreational use in spite of the fact that some nicotine products are given licenses to prolong addiction.

The signatories of this petition illustrate the value and effectiveness of keeping affordable and attractive alternatives to smoke on the open market - thousands of improved lives. - www.petitiononline.com/vaping/petition.html

If they are to be disregarded with hypothetical and artificially inflated risks for the sake of pharmaceutical industry profit it will be a wasted opportunity to solve the smoke problem for millions. Understanding the real risks and opportunities of keeping nicotine properly regulated and available on the open market should surely be a priority before removing yet another freedom or harming public health and happiness in blatant support of private profit.


Kate B

[lolli]

Wow - this is fab!!!!!!! Chrissie Kate thanks so much

Chrissie can you send all Kates links/info to my e mail so I can forward on - don't want to send the same links twice though, but some are different ones.

[Chrissie]

Some really fantastic info there Kate - thank you

Lolli, I'm more than happy to send all of Kates links/info to you via email. Will do it now but without editing duplicates of the ones I've already sent you (tad too tired tonight) I'll send you another edited version tomorrow.

Also if you want any info from any of the links so you can print it off, just yell & I'll send that as well - maybe not needed if you are OK with printing off page info fom the links?

[lolli]

That's great Chrissie.
Have a lovely long good nights sleep.
Thanks again Kate.

[foxy9212]

Well done Lollipop and I'm sure a good reporter will ask you all the right questions and from your own experience and what you've learned from others, you'll have no problem answering them. The Intellicig website has information both on the thousands of dangerous chemicals to be found in a burning cigarette and the ingredients found in the 'e-cigarette.' This information is downloadable if required.

www.intellicig.com/downloads-z-14.html?zenid=7bfoeuimv25onhb1ffqln9la96

Intellicig concentrate on the health benefits of vaping as opposed to smoking tobacco but there is also the consideration that many of us look upon vaping as a pleasant recreational passtime that is just one more freedom that others would wish to see taken from us without giving one honest reason why.

Good luck Lollipop although I'm sure you won't need it.

Fox

[lolli]

Thanks Foxy

I am actually really r e a l l y nervous about the live interview bit but not much choice as its radio!

I won't let you guys down & wimp out - but am very nervous- hope my voice doesn't go all "trembly" !

We have to hope the producers ok the "story" to "go out" so fingers still need to be crossed

[keef]

Feb 27, 2010 23:56:23 GMT Chrissie said:

Lolli, I'm wondering if Kate would be able to help? I'll try & contact her tomorrow.

You took the words right out of my mouth Kate is also my No 1 choice