Updates on Plenary

[Deleted]

Thanks for the updates. Its great news that we won the battle but I fear its not end of the war.

Thanks to all the people that fought our corner

[dnglos]

McAvan's press conference was due to start at 13:00 UK time. Hasn't started yet.

[barrynorton]

Ah, now I see what's wrong - what we should be quoting is 'Amendment 71 Proposal for a directive Article 18'

[ckc]

Don't worry about it,there were that many amendments it really is a job trying to keep half an idea what they are adding and taking away ! I still never know if what I think it means is just that

[Deleted]

I figure like kibbster says....wait for someone more knowledgeable to get their head round all this

In the mean time worry about dodgy evod heads flooding loL

Jane

[Roscopecotrain]

I was going to ask if somebody could explain all this in lamens terms for us lamens.

Sent from my Galaxy Note 2

[barrynorton]

I'm still a little confused why the attention on that - not passing 'Amendment 71 Proposal for a directive Article 18' would still leave in place the huge restrictions (essentially making any sensible eCig medicinal) unless those restrictions were raised from 2mg to 30mg by Amendment 170 to Article 18.

That's our real win (except for DIY).

(I get the argument now though - the latter couldn't have been accepted without throwing out first the amendment to medicalise all nicotine-containing products)

[Karma]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24439474

[Deleted]

Have I understood this right. If buying over 30mg nicotine, you would need authorisation?. So buying nicotine over that 30mg strength would be a major issue for mixers.

We have won but a part of me feels like we lost too or am I still being a dumb ass.

Tell me I am a dumb ass and everything is going to be okay

[kibbster]

Oct 8, 2013 12:23:14 GMT barrynorton said:

I'm still a little confused why the attention on that - not passing 'Amendment 71 Proposal for a directive Article 18' would still leave in place the huge restrictions (essentially making any sensible eCig medicinal) unless those restrictions were raised from 2mg to 30mg by Amendment 170 to Article 18.

That's our real win (except for DIY).

(I get the argument now though - the latter couldn't have been accepted without throwing out first the amendment to medicalise all nicotine-containing products)

I think that's how it is.
I got he impression that if 71 would have gone through med regs would have been certain for all e-cigs.
170 gives us a max limit of 30mg before med regs which although not great is still a victory as it was 71 or 170 as our only options.

[barrynorton]

I'm not convinced that nicotine solution is going to be covered in their definition of product. But I'm not convinced it's not either. After all they're legislating on e-cigarettes under the title of 'tobacco products' (i.e. something that's produced from tobacco).

[kibbster]

Oct 8, 2013 12:29:53 GMT stamina said:

Have I understood this right. If buying over 30mg nicotine, you would need authorisation?. So buying nicotine over that 30mg strength would be a major issue for mixers.

We have won but a part of me feels like we lost too or am I still being a dumb ass.

Tell me I am a dumb ass and everything is going to be okay

I think that will be the next battle once the dust settles.
Well that and the MHRA.


Can't wait to see what ASH and the BMA have to say after they supported 71 so much.

[Deleted]

Oct 8, 2013 12:23:45 GMT Karma said:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24439474

Thanks Karma...that looks like not fab news but a lot better than it could have been. Now to lobby the MhRA

[gapy360]

This really awesome news. Only other issue now is UK medical boards statement a while ago saying they would class it as medicinal from 2016, hopefully this will be overruled now.
I am made up though!

[kibbster]

Oct 8, 2013 12:32:34 GMT barrynorton said:

I'm not convinced that nicotine solution is going to be covered in their definition of product. But I'm not convinced it's not either. After all they're legislating on e-cigarettes under the title of 'tobacco products' (i.e. something that's produced from tobacco).

I get the impression no one actually knows what they are doing in the EU over this or the MHRA.
No doubt there'll be loads of bashing out of the details and we'll be looking for legal loopholes