Statement to forward to the MHRA from AAEC?

[jeffc]

gibla53 I would suggest that a link to the forum would enable them to confirm that we are a serious/safety group of ex - smokers.Also an indication of our members numbers and growth of membership acceleration in the past 2 years, along with our age variation and gender of the membership.

Hope the above suggestions are helpful.

[gibla53]

Jul 4, 2015 11:40:56 GMT jeffc said:

gibla53 I would suggest that a link to the forum would enable them to confirm that we are a serious/safety group of ex - smokers.Also an indication of our members numbers and growth of membership acceleration in the past 2 years, along with our age variation and gender of the membership.

Hope the above suggestions are helpful.

very helpful jeffc thanks - see the updated doc! 

[gibla53]

Jul 4, 2015 12:03:02 GMT gibla53 said:

Jul 4, 2015 11:40:56 GMT jeffc said:

gibla53 I would suggest that a link to the forum would enable them to confirm that we are a serious/safety group of ex - smokers.Also an indication of our members numbers and growth of membership acceleration in the past 2 years, along with our age variation and gender of the membership.

Hope the above suggestions are helpful.

very helpful jeffc thanks - see the updated doc! 

[Greg]

Jul 4, 2015 10:46:03 GMT gibla53 said:

Jul 4, 2015 9:26:05 GMT jeffc said:

gibla53 I most certainly would want our thoughts and voices be heard by the MHRA. Should you offer to make this representation, I would help where ever possible.

GO FOR IT.

1st stab at a statement   docs.google.com/document/d/1ovI29arcL1CdFPWk4oPee9ajNN3fd29Uh8WlC3-Q2gU/edit?usp=sharing 


remember anyone can edit,add to this . This of course is assuming that we wish to proceed , a poll is suggested elsewhere  by Greg whether a statement or not would be a good idea ......yes indeed I reckon that's a good democratic way of seeing if folks are behind this + also it might encourage extra interest in advocacy in general. 

Just edit your initial post in this thread and select the add a poll radio button 

[letsavit]

Jul 4, 2015 0:19:16 GMT gibla53 said:

Jul 3, 2015 23:36:23 GMT letsavit said:

I'm really unsure when I read this ATM I don't think they can tell an Istick from a iPhone.... No mention of existing e-juice sales, PG nicotine, regulated mods AKA 2nd generation aren't they?

Is this regulation of new, regulating new is easy, regulated a existing market is not, is shouting hey this is what we buy and use that's affective make sure you pick this up too a good idea?

Kind of feel dammed if I don't, dammed if I do.....

Reading through the consultation document ,accompanying impact assessment etc totally agree they haven't a  feckin clue in so many areas ,but that is the whole 

point of getting consumer involvement with the government agencies like MHRA ,DOH etc ,they rely on market assessment information from totally flawed inaccurate 

sources (they used Nielsen as eg for some sales data even though they readily admit their limitation is that they can only track large tobacco co owned brands- so 

unable to follow independents (tanks etc), the consultation makes 1 obvious howler when it states 'cigalikes' represent 60% of the market 

The MHRA has got form for its stance on trying to introduce meds regs along with very unhelpful comments from the aptly titled Mr Meane (spokesperson at that time) 

So without me waffling further, I believe the more noise we can make to get a voice in there the better, it may eventually require us to also badger our MP about this (again ) but getting a voice in these places to get some genuine information in there is essential . After all we are the  experts not some bloody  civil servants who know zilch and even if there has been a change in attitude it needs genuine consumer knowledge represented in any committee meetings or discussions 

That's my point, how can they regulate something they haven't got a clue about so is inviting them here to read all about what we use, about us mixing, where we get our supplies etc. a good idea?

[Greg]

Jul 4, 2015 12:09:45 GMT letsavit said:

Jul 4, 2015 0:19:16 GMT gibla53 said:

Reading through the consultation document ,accompanying impact assessment etc totally agree they haven't a  feckin clue in so many areas ,but that is the whole 

point of getting consumer involvement with the government agencies like MHRA ,DOH etc ,they rely on market assessment information from totally flawed inaccurate 

sources (they used Nielsen as eg for some sales data even though they readily admit their limitation is that they can only track large tobacco co owned brands- so 

unable to follow independents (tanks etc), the consultation makes 1 obvious howler when it states 'cigalikes' represent 60% of the market 

The MHRA has got form for its stance on trying to introduce meds regs along with very unhelpful comments from the aptly titled Mr Meane (spokesperson at that time) 

So without me waffling further, I believe the more noise we can make to get a voice in there the better, it may eventually require us to also badger our MP about this (again ) but getting a voice in these places to get some genuine information in there is essential . After all we are the  experts not some bloody  civil servants who know zilch and even if there has been a change in attitude it needs genuine consumer knowledge represented in any committee meetings or discussions 

That's my point, how can they regulate something they haven't got a clue about so is inviting them here to read all about what we use, about us mixing, where we get our supplies etc. a good idea?

I'm sure they are savvy enough to think of googling vaping forum should they so wish but I do understand the point your making. I think it's more likely they won't do either.

[jeffc]

letsavit the better educated the MHRA are regarding vaping, the sooner they "WILL" realise, that vaping is nothing like smoking, and therefore how can they be classified with the `killer` tobacco products.

They will also get confirmation that we vapers are normal people,not sponsored by anyone.

Even more important do not `cost` the NHS any expenditure, and are helping improve the "HEALTH OF THE NATION".

[letsavit]

Jul 4, 2015 12:15:04 GMT Greg said:

Jul 4, 2015 12:09:45 GMT letsavit said:

That's my point, how can they regulate something they haven't got a clue about so is inviting them here to read all about what we use, about us mixing, where we get our supplies etc. a good idea?

I'm sure they are savvy enough to think of googling vaping forum should they so wish but I do understand the point your making. I think it's more likely they won't do either.

Don't count on it...think of the average persons intelligence, half the population are more stupid than that, then divide by civil servant....

[letsavit]

Jul 4, 2015 12:21:29 GMT jeffc said:

letsavit the better educated the MHRA are regarding vaping, the sooner they "WILL" realise, that vaping is nothing like smoking, and therefore how can they be classified with the `killer` tobacco products.

They will also get confirmation that we vapers are normal people,not sponsored by anyone.

Even more important do not `cost` the NHS any expenditure, and are helping improve the "HEALTH OF THE NATION".

And we have a few 5pawns threads running that don't read too well..a subject that gets repeated, are any of them chemicals mentioned in a report....? Not against the cause, on same side here and do need to read more, just sometimes it's best to sit back and study, not ruffle feathers, provide little information and look for loop holes.

[gibla53]

Jul 4, 2015 13:17:03 GMT letsavit said:

Jul 4, 2015 12:21:29 GMT jeffc said:

letsavit the better educated the MHRA are regarding vaping, the sooner they "WILL" realise, that vaping is nothing like smoking, and therefore how can they be classified with the `killer` tobacco products.

They will also get confirmation that we vapers are normal people,not sponsored by anyone.

Even more important do not `cost` the NHS any expenditure, and are helping improve the "HEALTH OF THE NATION".

And we have a few 5pawns threads running that don't read too well..a subject that gets repeated, are any of them chemicals mentioned in a report....? Not against the cause, on same side here and do need to read more, just sometimes it's best to sit back and study, not ruffle feathers, provide little information and look for loop holes.

Agree @letsavit , the same  discussions exists on every Forum,Facebook page and the Internet .I do reckon though without some gentle persuasion the MHRA would never in a month of Sundays consider consumer involvement,letters calling for that I don't consider antagonistic or ruffling feathers. We hopefully have a part to play in their understanding and education such that they cannot interpret the proposed legislation in a vape-negative manner. I appreciate your valid concerns but not getting a say with them will not end up well imo . MHRA has strong strings pulled by Pharma co eg Pfizer, GSK(patches,gums,sprays,cancer treatment etc) who definitely do not want to see any competitors flourish and survive :- US inotherwords , left unchecked its my opinion that anything left open to interpretation eg leakproof refilling mechanisms, refillable tank sizes ..........etc the MHRA would opt for the very strictest,negative(to us) route 

[GunJack]

only just seen this, a good idea gibla53 I can't do a Suggested edit on it, but will have a think about it, try and reply again tomorrow - even though it's going to be an AAE-C statement, I think it ought to reference the efvi/nna/vip statements somehow as they are cross-forum/independant organisations and we as a sub-group of vapers I think should be seen to support them within our own pov.

[gibla53]

Jul 4, 2015 23:20:24 GMT GunJack said:

only just seen this, a good idea gibla53 I can't do a Suggested edit on it, but will have a think about it, try and reply again tomorrow - even though it's going to be an AAE-C statement, I think it ought to reference the efvi/nna/vip statements somehow as they are cross-forum/independant organisations and we as a sub-group of vapers I think should be seen to support them within our own pov.

Thats a good suggestion GunJack , will attend to immediately 

[GunJack]

Jul 5, 2015 0:06:43 GMT gibla53 said:

Jul 4, 2015 23:20:24 GMT GunJack said:

only just seen this, a good idea gibla53 I can't do a Suggested edit on it, but will have a think about it, try and reply again tomorrow - even though it's going to be an AAE-C statement, I think it ought to reference the efvi/nna/vip statements somehow as they are cross-forum/independant organisations and we as a sub-group of vapers I think should be seen to support them within our own pov.

Thats a good suggestion GunJack , will attend to immediately 

good job Sir I feel that it gives us as vapers a greater sense of unity than it did without

[tracerace1]

hi guys remember moi?

sorry haven't been around for along time, but I am in and out of hospital; back in 13th august for new hip
great idea and am 100 % behind you, will try and catch up with everyone and say hello to those that thought i'd forgotten you all..............BELIEVE ME I have missed you guys VERY MUCH hope you all forgive me
Trace xxxx

[Bobsbeer]

Well done. Nothing ventured nothing gained as they say, so well worth a shot.