New mail to my MP

[kibbster]

Well as you probably know we now have to follow up our successful campaign in the EU with our MPs to make sure the UK sticks to what the plenary voted for.

I've just written to my MP again, no rest for the wicked

Hello Jack,

You may remember I wrote to you back in the beginning of 2013 about the (then) upcoming Tobacco Products Directive in the EU.
As you probably know E-cig users lost the vote in EU parliament with the ENVI committee voted to classify E-cigs as medicines.
Earlier this week the tide turned and at plenary on Tuesday the vote went in favour of sensible regulation of E-cigs, much to the joy of E-cig users and Tobacco Harm Reduction supporters.

As far as I know the next stage is for Council of ministers to come to an agreement with the European parliament.
So the vapers fight is far from over.

My purpose of writing this email to ask for your support in parliament to protect E-cigs as recreational nicotine devices and avoid the public health disaster that MHRA Medicinal regulations would entail.

As my previous emails to you said, I am completely opposed to medicinal regulations due to the damage it would cause to the e-cig industry and to my health and that of my friends and family.
Medicinal regulations would slow the industry to a crawl and remove all innovation from the market with ridiculous costs imposed on small and medium businesses.
If the businesses can't sell E-cigs to us we can't buy them, if I can't buy E-cigs and liquid then I will be forced to get my nicotine from other sources, be it the black market or from the oldest form of nicotine delivery that's still widely available - namely tobacco cigarettes.

According to the TPD now, Amendment 170 protected E-cigs from being classified as medicines and instead proposed quite sensible regulation for E-cigs in many ways, but it's still not ideal.

I agree that E-cigs need to be safe, that's a given and no one in their right mind would argue against that, not even vapers - but I still feel amd 170 is a bit too over the top in it's protection.
Specifically the limit of nicotine strength at 30mg per ml.
Currently the UK legal limit is 75mg/ml and there hasn't been any recorded problems with that limit that I know of since the 1970s when it was introduced.
72mg nicotine base is used by people like myself who mix their own liquids as the base has to be diluted so stronger means it goes further and it a great reason why mixing your own liquid is cheaper than buying pre-mixed.
I would personally like to see the limits left as they are currently in the UK because the limit being lowered by over 50% will double the cost of mixing E-liquid.
I accept that there should be good regulation in place for companies who sell liquid to others, but all of my liquid is for myself only.
I know how to handle 72mg nicotine base safely and will never sell liquid, so I feel that a 30mg limit is too low.
I don't use a final mix stronger than 24mg (generally I mix at 14mg) but I know people who do use 36 or even 45mg so they would appreciate slightly more sensible limits on nicotine strength.

I will say again though, I do feel that the Lib Dem/Conservative recommended amd. 170 was a good step in the right direction but we need to carry the legislation through to fruition and law and to protect E-cigs not just as a quit smoking device but as a recreational nicotine device like I and millions of others in the UK use.

I would appreciate your confirmation of support for the EU decision and that you will do your best to protect the E-cigs and liquid that have kept me off tobacco for over 10 months now.

Thank you very much for your time in reading my mail.
Look forward to hearing from you soon.

On the plus side, I watched VTTalk tonight and Dave said Tuesday will go in the history books.
It's the first time citizens have managed to sway an EU decision like this.

Compared to the EU, our MPs should be a doddle

[vaper22]

Great letter kibbster.

[jeffc]

kibbster great letter mate, but we now must NOT use the word "QUIT" in any correspondence with our MP`s.

We must use the word "SUBSTITUTED".eg I have used e-cigarettes to quit tobacco cigarettes, we now must use I have

SUBSTITUTED

my usage of tobacco cigarettes in favour of e-cigarettes.

By using the word QUIT it infers a quitting aid which becomes "Medicine", and that opens the door for the MHRA to pass them as medicinal products.

So Peeps please do not use the word "QUIT" at all, it damages our cause.

Hope you can understand that we have to be extra careful now.

Thanks for your attention

[kibbster]

Oct 10, 2013 22:18:23 GMT jeffc said:

kibbster great letter mate, but we now must NOT use the word "QUIT" in any correspondence with our MP`s.

We must use the word "SUBSTITUTED".eg I have used e-cigarettes to quit tobacco cigarettes, we now must use I have

SUBSTITUTED

my usage of tobacco cigarettes in favour of e-cigarettes.

By using the word QUIT it infers a quitting aid which becomes "Medicine", and that opens the door for the MHRA to pass them as medicinal products.

So Peeps please do not use the word "QUIT" at all, it damages our cause.

Hope you can understand that we have to be extra careful now.

Thanks for your attention

I agree but I don't see anywhere where I said I quit smoking?

[jeffc]

kibbster Great correspondence, but we must not use the quit word.


I will say again though, I do feel that the Lib Dem/Conservative recommended amd. 170 was a good step in the right direction but we need to carry the legislation through to fruition and law and to protect E-cigs not just as a quit smoking device but as a recreational nicotine device like I and millions of others in the UK use.

Hope you take this in the spirit to give the GOV or MHRA any chances to say we are using e-cigs as a quitting agent, which opens a can of worms for us

Jeff.

[rich64]

Excellent letter kibbster

Im wondering though; where you state nicotine content of 75 mg 72 mg 24 mg etc , is it worth in brackets putting the percentage figure in?

Just thinking it might be a way to emphasise to your mp that 72 mg really is only 7.2 % of total liquid?

Not really sure myself it helps just chucking it into the pot of thought

[kibbster]

Oct 10, 2013 22:56:24 GMT rich64 said:

Excellent letter kibbster

Im wondering though; where you state nicotine content of 75 mg 72 mg 24 mg etc , is it worth in brackets putting the percentage figure in?

Just thinking it might be a way to emphasise to your mp that 72 mg really is only 7.2 % of total liquid?

Not really sure myself it helps just chucking it into the pot of thought

True I possibly should have but I thought it was already getting to nerdy
I should really have just put the percentages in without the mg per ml figures really

[rich64]

Oct 10, 2013 22:58:47 GMT kibbster said:

Oct 10, 2013 22:56:24 GMT rich64 said:

Excellent letter kibbster

Im wondering though; where you state nicotine content of 75 mg 72 mg 24 mg etc , is it worth in brackets putting the percentage figure in?

Just thinking it might be a way to emphasise to your mp that 72 mg really is only 7.2 % of total liquid?

Not really sure myself it helps just chucking it into the pot of thought

True I possibly should have but I thought it was already getting to nerdy
I should really have just put the percentages in without the mg per ml figures really

I really dont think its a biggy kibbster and your letter covers the points very very well (mind if i borrow the outline points to send to my MP(just the points not the letter proper? )

[kibbster]

Oct 10, 2013 22:51:48 GMT jeffc said:

kibbster Great correspondence, but we must not use the quit word.


I will say again though, I do feel that the Lib Dem/Conservative recommended amd. 170 was a good step in the right direction but we need to carry the legislation through to fruition and law and to protect E-cigs not just as a quit smoking device but as a recreational nicotine device like I and millions of others in the UK use.

Hope you take this in the spirit to give the GOV or MHRA any chances to say we are using e-cigs as a quitting agent, which opens a can of worms for us

Jeff.

I thought it was fairly clear by saying not just as a quit smoking device but as a recreational nicotine device like I and millions of others in the UK use.
A lot of people think they are just quit smoking devices and a lot of people do use them as just that, that's why I put in they aren't just quit devices, they are recreational devices.
Too many times people just think ah they are quit devices, I wasn't condoning them to be used as such, just stating that they are considered that but they are also a lot more.
I think it's ok to use the word quit, it's not an offensive word as long as it's qualified as them not being just quit devices like NRT.
I could have said They aren't quit devices at all but I'd risk losing credibility by whitewashing something that like it or not, they are known and used for.

But you are right, we want to get people away from thinking of them as quit devices, just like we'd like to get them away from thinking of them as E-cigarettes but neither are going to happen.
Not by us not mentioning the Q word and not by us calling them something that the general public doesn't understand when they are generally known as E-cigs.

I think we have to be careful we don't wrap ourselves up in so much semantics that we lose or distract from the whole point we are trying to make.
No matter what they are used for they still aren't medicines, whether someone uses the quit word or not, it doesn't change what they are or what they are called.

[kibbster]

Oct 10, 2013 23:07:47 GMT rich64 said:

Oct 10, 2013 22:58:47 GMT kibbster said:

True I possibly should have but I thought it was already getting to nerdy
I should really have just put the percentages in without the mg per ml figures really

I really dont think its a biggy kibbster and your letter covers the points very very well (mind if i borrow the outline points to send to my MP(just the points not the letter proper? )

Of course as long as it doesn't look like the same letter rewritten, especially if sending it to another Tory MP... in case they compare letters

[rich64]

Oct 10, 2013 23:13:16 GMT kibbster said:

Oct 10, 2013 23:07:47 GMT rich64 said:

I really dont think its a biggy kibbster and your letter covers the points very very well (mind if i borrow the outline points to send to my MP(just the points not the letter proper? )

Of course as long as it doesn't look like the same letter rewritten, especially if sending it to another Tory MP... in case they compare letters

Heyy they do it to us (send out a stock letter to thousands)

No it really is just the outline points as they are all nicely updated and in order in your letter

Thanks

[jeffc]

kibbster I agree we will not get tied up in semantics, and we are all fighting for our healthier future cause.

If we all members of the vaping community in the UK had put as much effort as you have done, we would most certainly have a better educated parliament and general public on our side.

On a different topic, how`s the family doing, especially the new addition, all fit and well.

Jeff.

[kibbster]

Oct 10, 2013 23:26:47 GMT jeffc said:

kibbster I agree we will not get tied up in semantics, and we are all fighting for our healthier future cause.

If we all members of the vaping community in the UK had put as much effort as you have done, we would most certainly have a better educated parliament and general public on our side.

On a different topic, how`s the family doing, especially the new addition, all fit and well.

Jeff.

All good thanks Jeff.
Starting to lose the plot a bit from lack of sleep

Still back to work on Monday then instead if being a bit mentally dulled I can be really, really exhausted

It's all worth it in the end though

[dnglos]

just an update - there's currently a Twitter conversation involving Dave Dorn and Rebecca Taylor.

Rebecca recommends 'ok to say "less harmful" ie switch to less harmful alternative; not health claim!'.

We shouldn't be using the word "quit" in any context.

[kibbster]

Oct 10, 2013 23:35:29 GMT dnglos said:

just an update - there's currently a Twitter conversation involving Dave Dorn and Rebecca Taylor.

Rebecca recommends 'ok to say "less harmful" ie switch to less harmful alternative; not health claim!'.

We shouldn't be using the word "quit" in any context.

As the conversation continues, we are treading a slippery slope IMHO.
We all know we feel better, we know our health has improved since vaping and it's one of the big guns we have to turn MPs and tobacco control people.
Yet we can't talk about it because it can be viewed as health claims and bring the MHRA down on us.
So we can't say quit, can't say we feel healthier, some people think we shouldn't use them indoors, some we shouldn't produce visible vapour, some say we should keep it a secret.

Now we have people censoring what people can say and do because it's for everyone's good.

So what exactly is the difference between us and the ANTZ that are pretty facist in forcing their attitudes on others?

The ANTZ want to stop us talking about E-cigs in a good light, they want us to hide away and behave like smokers so they can treat (persecute) us like smokers.
If we do half the job for them and oppressing others then we don't really deserve the freedom to vape.

The MHRA have made it obvious we are their next meal and we have to be sure to stand up to them as adults and say "no, enough is enough" if that's how we feel.
Personally I couldn't give a toss if I upset some old biddy down the road by me walking down the street proudly vaping, neither do I care what the MHRA or The Angel of Death think of me.
Unfortunately the latter two can curtail vaping (the former can just moan to the Daily Fail.)
I'm 40 years old, I work full time and drive a car, have a wife and two children.
But I still feel treated like a naughty child, at least when I was smoking there it was only non-smokers that tried to persecute me. 

The truth is the genie is out of the bottle and run away to emigrate, this is not going to be controlled as more people join vaping and start telling their stories to friends.
Our enemies will never go away, they want an end to all that is smoking and even like smoking, even the word smoking sends them into paroxysms of righteous fury.
They aren't going to leave us alone just because we don't mention the Q word, so how long do we censor ourselves and try to censor others?

This is a rabbit hole, we have to decide how far down that hole we are willing to go and how much of us and our ethics, morals and freedoms we are willing to sacrifice to achieve our aims.

If a world of free vaping means we have to hide it and not talk about it in case we upset someone or introduce more legislation , I'd rather be a smoker tbh.




Having said that, if not mentioning one word will fix all of this then I'll gladly follow suit but it's only the beginning of a thin wedge, that I know.