The E cig has landed. . . . Tesco.

[itsmeitis]

Jun 22, 2011 9:47:44 GMT hifistud said:

it wasn't covered by the smoking ban.

theres a clue there

[Skally]

Will ECETA be contacting Tesco asking them to join?
As they are now a UK vendor.

And how will the UK consumer group be aproaching them?

This will prove the worth of both groups to the UK vaping world.

[hifistud]

Jun 22, 2011 10:19:40 GMT itsmeitis said:

Jun 22, 2011 9:47:44 GMT hifistud said:

it wasn't covered by the smoking ban.

theres a clue there

There's no clue there - the smoking ban is very precise and explicit in what is banned and what is not. Only LIT smoking substrate is covered. There is no coverage of vapour, and there cannot be, because vapour is produced in a myriad of ways all of which would have to be separately and specifically excluded. In order to bring e-cigs under the ban, they would have to bring in the nicotine in order to exclude kettles, haze machines, nebulisers, humidifiers and so on, and if they try that, then big Pharma will be straight on the case.

In all of this, though, I maintain that if 90% of e-cig users are aiming to quit (and, by the way, the official definition of "quit" means off nicotine altogether - the check is by continine level test), then the rest of us have to go with that. However, it's my belief that 90% of users do not want to get off the nicotine - they want to avoid inhaling smoke with all its dangers, but they don't want to quit nicotine.

The closest I can explain it is that folks saying they've "quit" while continuing to use nicotine juice in e-cigs is like someone claiming they've stopped smoking heroin and now only inject it. You're still hooked - it's only the substrate of the delivery that's changed.

[itsmeitis]

in other words the smoking ban refers to smoking.
something that you did Quit doing upon finding suitable alternative.

nicoteen addiction does not equate to smoking. and your smack head did not change brand.

[hifistud]

I haven't quit anything - I have continued my habit, all I've done is change the substrate of delivery. Don't confuse the smoking ban terminology with "smoking" as the WHO and Dept. of Health see it. The medicinalisation of e-cigs is the very last thing we want. If that goes ahead, look forward to at least three years without them, and then a very, very limited and naff product if and when they do finally make a reappearance.

For clarification, the act of of "smoking" is undergone to obtain a supply of nicotine into the bloodstream by inhalation. It could have been called "furkling". Had it been so called, you'd still be "furkling", just using a different system. A safer, and possibly more palatable system, but you'd still be "furkling" - still seeking to obtain a supply of nicotine into the bloodstream by inhalation.

That may not sit well with the "quitters" but it's a fact. Unless and until you're off nicotine altogether, you have not quit.

[ragjoy]

some say TOM A TOE some say tomato ???

[itsmeitis]

my take on vaping is that i will continue to enjoy it and fully expect changes to occur with costs rising significantly as controls ensue. the powers will not be influenced by you.
i am aware of folk who have weaned themselves comfortably from nicotine by personal choice by utilising the versatility of vaping.
i recognise the massive distinction between smoking and vaping and feel no necessity to submit to definitions of the week minded conformist.
ecigs suitably offer nicoteen delivery therefore ecigs equate to the ultimate smoking cessation device.
i have no desire to reconsider my vocabulary and will not cosy up to the ludicrous notion that conflicts with my own intelligence.
there is no smoke without fire and i quit smoking amid my discovery of ecigs. my individual intelligent conclusion tells me you did the same.

we remain appreciative of nicoteen but differ on the choice of whom to listen to in categorising ourselves. my opinion is led by logic and intelligence wheras your position is seemingly to bow down to satisfy the requirement of others. if denial of the facts suits you then so be it but i prefer to catatagorise you simply a bloke who quit smoking but lacked the pride to stand up and admit it.

you are correct you did change brand.

[Chrissie]

Jun 22, 2011 12:48:14 GMT hifistud said:

For clarification, the act of of "smoking" is undergone to obtain a supply of nicotine into the bloodstream by inhalation. It could have been called "furkling". Had it been so called, you'd still be "furkling", just using a different system. A safer, and possibly more palatable system, but you'd still be "furkling" - still seeking to obtain a supply of nicotine into the bloodstream by inhalation.

That may not sit well with the "quitters" but it's a fact. Unless and until you're off nicotine altogether, you have not quit.

By your example Hifi, it would mean that anyone using nicotine gum/inhalers/patches are also still smoking? Lol, I doubt the MHRA would be very happy to hear that as it would make the NHS' quit smoking programs success rates even worse than they are now

[collie2011]

Jun 22, 2011 10:33:06 GMT hifistud said:

Jun 22, 2011 10:19:40 GMT itsmeitis said:

theres a clue there

There's no clue there - the smoking ban is very precise and explicit in what is banned and what is not. Only LIT smoking substrate is covered. There is no coverage of vapour, and there cannot be, because vapour is produced in a myriad of ways all of which would have to be separately and specifically excluded. In order to bring e-cigs under the ban, they would have to bring in the nicotine in order to exclude kettles, haze machines, nebulisers, humidifiers and so on, and if they try that, then big Pharma will be straight on the case.

In all of this, though, I maintain that if 90% of e-cig users are aiming to quit (and, by the way, the official definition of "quit" means off nicotine altogether - the check is by continine level test), then the rest of us have to go with that. However, it's my belief that 90% of users do not want to get off the nicotine - they want to avoid inhaling smoke with all its dangers, but they don't want to quit nicotine.

The closest I can explain it is that folks saying they've "quit" while continuing to use nicotine juice in e-cigs is like someone claiming they've stopped smoking heroin and now only inject it. You're still hooked - it's only the substrate of the delivery that's changed.

So what about a heroin addict that is now on methodone? They are still addicted to the heroin they just use a different substance to keep away withdrawals and then they wean themselves off the methodone, but they have quit the heroin. Vapers were using tobacco now they use e-juice instead they have still quit using the tobacco.

A lot of people who start vaping do see it as a way to quit smoking they are no longer using tobacco as they have quit they are now just trying to wean themselves off the nicotine and with the various strengths of e-liquid available including the zero nic it is possible to use it as a cessation device if they want to. You cannot dictate how a person uses their e-cig, everyone buys it for their own reason and not everyone will agree with the party line that it is an alternative to smoking.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions on vaping and everything else in this world one liberty we do still enjoy is freedom of speech and expression.

[clockworks]

Jun 22, 2011 10:33:06 GMT hifistud said:

In all of this, though, I maintain that if 90% of e-cig users are aiming to quit (and, by the way, the official definition of "quit" means off nicotine altogether - the check is by continine level test), then the rest of us have to go with that. However, it's my belief that 90% of users do not want to get off the nicotine - they want to avoid inhaling smoke with all its dangers, but they don't want to quit nicotine.

You must mix with a different type of person to me, as I feel that the opposite is true of the general public - 90% see e-cigs as a quitting device. In fact, every single person that I've spoken to about e-cigs congratulated me on giving up, and asked when I felt I'd be able to stop vaping. I had to explain that I had no intention of stopping, I enjoyed it more than ciggies, but I didn't want to die a painful and early death. I then had to explain that nicotine wasn't the evil drug that they think it is, and that it isn't the nicotine in cigarettes that gives people chest and lung problems.

Totally different, percentage-wise, on e-cig forums, though.



Not sure where I stand on the regulation debate. Classification as a tobacco product makes it easy for the State to tax the juice and hardware, while pharmaceutical classification means masses of red tape and endless delays for new products.
However, it's easy to get prescription drugs through the back door, with or without a script. I don't think that the hardware would be affected at all - are syringes and ointment applicators subject to regulation?
Pharma classification may be bad for "off the shelf" starter products, and many vendors would lose out on juice sales, but it probably wouldn't affect the hardened vaper, who already buys mail order. They would just have to go direct to China for their nicotine base.

I don't feel that the government will do anything, until tax revenues from tobacco drop at a faster rate than they save money on health care. In fact, financially, the state would be better off if everyone smoked - save a fortune on pensions and geriatric care if we all died early!
I don't suppose the tobacco companies are that bothered, either - they have huge markets to tap in the "third world"for traditional products. Nothing stopping them switching their marketing and sales efforts from ciggies to juice in developed markets. Don't they already supply the raw nicotine?

[hifistud]

Jun 22, 2011 14:25:29 GMT Chrissie said:

By your example Hifi, it would mean that anyone using nicotine gum/inhalers/patches are also still smoking? Lol, I doubt the MHRA would be very happy to hear that as it would make the NHS' quit smoking programs success rates even worse than they are now

That's exactly as the WHO sees it, Chrissie, and countless insurance companies. As long as you have nicotine in your system, you're still an addict, and, as far as they're concerned, you WILL relapse. This is not just me spouting my personal opinion - it's documented in the WHO anti-tobacco annals.

[hifistud]

You are, of course, fully entitled to your opinion. The problem here is that HMG doesn't take how you see yourself in its entirety to account. Yes, I agree, you have ceased to use tobacco cigarettes, and have thus massively improved your risk profile. No argument there. BUT - and it's a big but - according to the WHO and the majority of insurers worldwide, you are still a "smoker" where "smoker" means nicotine addict.

I know it's not easy to digest, but you have to have waded through the mountains of documents put out by the WHO, the MHRA, the FDA and others to appreciate that they're not interested in what YOU (or I) think and feel, but how best they can control you. They want to dictate what you can have and how you get it. They want tobacco gone (the health departments, but not the treasuries) and they want to control the nicotine you get. And they'd like to stop that, too, because you enjoy it.

And trust me, I'm far from a conformist, but I have been through regulatory processes before, and I understand how these people work. There are certain games you have to play, and the rules are complex. Let me state this one more time. If e-cigs are regulated as medicine, then they WILL be removed from sale until such time as someone gets an MA for them, and that MA will almost certainly not be granted for the stuff we take for granted now. Juice? No. And yes, the apparatus is already classifiable under the MHRA's jurisdiction by their definitions.

Now, who can afford the approaching 10 million it cost GSK to get nicotine gum approved? And take the four/five years it took them?

Jun 22, 2011 13:48:01 GMT itsmeitis said:

my take on vaping is that i will continue to enjoy it and fully expect changes to occur with costs rising significantly as controls ensue. the powers will not be influenced by you.
i am aware of folk who have weaned themselves comfortably from nicotine by personal choice by utilising the versatility of vaping.
i recognise the massive distinction between smoking and vaping and feel no necessity to submit to definitions of the week minded conformist.
ecigs suitably offer nicoteen delivery therefore ecigs equate to the ultimate smoking cessation device.
i have no desire to reconsider my vocabulary and will not cosy up to the ludicrous notion that conflicts with my own intelligence.
there is no smoke without fire and i quit smoking amid my discovery of ecigs. my individual intelligent conclusion tells me you did the same.

we remain appreciative of nicoteen but differ on the choice of whom to listen to in categorising ourselves. my opinion is led by logic and intelligence wheras your position is seemingly to bow down to satisfy the requirement of others. if denial of the facts suits you then so be it but i prefer to catatagorise you simply a bloke who quit smoking but lacked the pride to stand up and admit it.

you are correct you did change brand.

[itsmeitis]

wot a load of old contradiction you provide.

you are neither of the organisations you represent through your views.

and no-one here was looking to buy insurance.
on the possitive side though david, at least you accept your talking out someone elses annals.

[buckowski]

I think i'm in Dave's camp lol...it's all bit confusing.

For example,

I can count on 1 hand, in 18 months of vaping, of people actually being able to quit E-cigs. Loads of people have quit the tabs, obviously, but no one escapes from the nicotine.

I'm certainly in that group, a nicotine addict.

There's no chance of me ever smoking tabs again, but that's only as long as E-cigs are available. If E-cigs were banned, I'd almost certainly end up back on the tabs. I suspect most vapers would be in the same boat.

so on that basis, I think 99% of vapers have indeed 'just changed brands'.

[itsmeitis]

Jun 22, 2011 16:02:52 GMT buckowski said:

I think i'm in Dave's camp lol...it's all bit confusing.

For example,

I can count on 1 hand, in 18 months of vaping, of people actually being able to quit E-cigs. Loads of people have quit the tabs, obviously, but no one escapes from the nicotine.

I'm certainly in that group, a nicotine addict.

There's no chance of me ever smoking tabs again, but that's only as long as E-cigs are available. If E-cigs were banned, I'd almost certainly end up back on the tabs. I suspect most vapers would be in the same boat.

so on that basis, I think 99% of vapers have indeed 'just changed brands'.

congratulations david. you have another sympathiser, who can also incorperate hypothetical anomaly to substantiate your point.