Interesting insight

[Bobsbeer]

www.fiercepharma.com/story/glaxosmithkline-rejected-e-cig-buy-beef-stop-smoking-franchise/2015-01-20

The comment in the 3rd paragraph sums it up.  If you don't join them, destroy them attitude. 

In 2014, GSK pushed for heightened restrictions on e-cigarettes in Europe, asking the European Commission (EC) to follow in the U.K.'s footsteps by requiring that e-cigarettes be licensed as medicines.

[Get Off My Cloud]

Feb 18, 2015 12:06:57 GMT Bobsbeer said:

www.fiercepharma.com/story/glaxosmithkline-rejected-e-cig-buy-beef-stop-smoking-franchise/2015-01-20

The comment in the 3rd paragraph sums it up.  If you don't join them, destroy them attitude. 

In 2014, GSK pushed for heightened restrictions on e-cigarettes in Europe, asking the European Commission (EC) to follow in the U.K.'s footsteps by requiring that e-cigarettes be licensed as medicines.

It's bizarre isn't it that the same people who keep saying that e-cigs are not a proven smoking cessation aid also want them classified as a medicine?
What other possible medical application could they have other than to aid people in quitting smoking?

[maytwin]

It's not widely known that GSK had to pull Nicorette lozenges nearly a year ago because, ironically, the nicotine dose was all over the place !!

[Bobsbeer]

I wonder what the headlines would have been if that had been a well known juice product. Although to be fair to GSK, how many juice manufacturers have their batches of juice tested to the same standards?

[Deleted]

Feb 18, 2015 12:45:49 GMT Bobsbeer said:

I wonder what the headlines would have been if that had been a well known juice product. Although to be fair to GSK, how many juice manufacturers have their batches of juice tested to the same standards?

The thing is they want exacting standards - that is the way they shut down markets. If e cigs (of all strengths) become medicinal then they will be one of only a handful of companies that will have the funds to go through regulation. It is a business tactic - not a concern for health.

If and when they do become regulated two things will happen. 1) The price will increase massively, and 2) they will produce a product that is unlikely work that well for the vapor or the person wanting to give up fags. When that happens they can say - "we told you e cigs didn't worK'.

In their wake they will leave a generation of smokers without the benefits of vaping, and thousands of businesses closed with the associated unemployment.

The issue is that these companies and NGOs with something to lose are not only questioning and manipulating science but they are downright lying - and no-one is challenging them. 

Nick

[Bobsbeer]

Totally agree with you @kopiert. My post wasn't condoning them. Merely pointing out that GSK will have a massive amount of money directed to quality control, as they should, being a medicine manufacturer. I would be surprised if any ejuice manufacturer had their products tested to assay the stated nicotine content, or that the other ingredients were as stated. Would I know if a juice had 18% or 14% nicotine? Probably not, but the unscrupulous e juice manufacturer would be making a saving in production costs. Although most don't seem to charge differently for different nicotine strengths. But I do agree that the e cig industry should be subject to standards. Not medical standards, but normal trading standards, which they are to an extent, if I was bothered or had the money to have my purchase tested. Again I would be surprised if trading standards tested any products. To me it's a matter of degree. There is no reason ejuice should be manufactured to the same standard as heart medication. But I should be able to trust that the juice was fit for purpose and not going to harm me beyond the normal risks. At the moment we are relying on the integrity of the manufacturer. A big risk when money is involved.

[Deleted]

But I do agree that the e cig industry should be subject to standards. Not medical standards, but normal trading standards

Bobsbeer I whole heartedly agree with you. I am pretty sure I have bough what seems to be the same liquid, but had different nic levels. My fear is that we are in a situation where I feel if you give an inch someone is going to take a mile. I just don't understand the level of hatred toward e cigs.

[Bobsbeer]

The article I linked to says it all really. E Cigs are taking market share and profits from both tobacco and pharmaceutical companies. In turn that is threatening the public health industry who have for years relied on tobacco being the number one evil in the world to generate income. They have tried to evilise the alcohol industry, but that hasn't had the effect they wanted and seems to have stopped for now. But the reality is that e cigs are threatening their profits, and are an easy target. Smoking is black and white good and evil, and those who don't smoke or vape don't care. Alcohol was different, and was an uphill battle and they gave up. As I see it we need to stall any regulation until the evidence is incontrovertible, which some would argue it already is, that vaping is safe. But it will be difficult given the very deep pockets rallied against vaping.

[Deleted]

...and those who don't smoke or vape don't care

Again I agree with you , apart from this point - unless I have misunderstood you. Non-smokers and non-vapors do care - they want it banned. They don't care about vaping in the sense that they won't feel bad if it is banned. I have been getting some quite odd reactions to vaping. The PR campaign (and it is an orchestrated campaign) is based around getting public opinion alongside false science to destroy the industry. I have had conversations with people who genuinely believed that second-hand vaping smoke (sic) is much much worse that cigarette smoke.

Only a year ago people would tell me well done for giving up (or cutting down) on cigs. Now they seem to think that vaping is the work of the devil.

I think a lot of western governments would have been happy to broadly leave the vaping community alone - just have a status quo. What organisation such as WHO (and their paymasters the Pharma industry) is to raise the issue so it can't be ignored. Governments are being forced to take action. Just remember WHO is meant to be about real global health issues. WHO is the organisation who helped control so many genuine diseases have made tobacco (and by extension vaping) their number one target.

But the war on tobacco is not over yet. We still expect 8 million people to be dying each year by 2030 – because they have smoked tobacco or have been exposed to second hand smoke. The use of alternative products such as water pipes, smokeless tobacco and electronic nicotine delivery systems are gaining in popularity and will need to be addressed through tobacco control measures. The illicit tobacco market still counts for 1 in every 10 cigarettes consumed globally.

Also remember that in spite of this war global smoking rates have increased. Not only are they liars and cheats, but the are ineffective liars liars and cheats. E-cigs are a real method by which the scourge of smoking could be reduced, and yet they decide to destroy the industry .

It is a war, and right now we are losing.

[Bobsbeer]

When I say the non smoking, non vaping population don't care, I mean they don't care if it gets banned into oblivion. They don't smoke or vape, and sadly the two have been twinned. I'm sure if you asked them if they wanted patches and other NRT's banned they would say "no way it's helping people quit smoking". And there is the problem. The powers at be have made people think that vaping is equally as bad as smoking. Although fortunately not everyone. I work in a hospital and have about 4 other people in the same office. Even though the hospital policy is no vaping indoors the others don't mind me vaping away at my desk. One is a smoker, but tries vaping, the others don't, but all say well done for quitting fags. But it probably depends on what newspapers people read.