Non automated/generic reply from Lord Mendelsohn

[mel]

Hi Folks,

I was really pleased to get this reply from Lord Medelsohn which I think shows he is interested and wants to know more. I would really like to get my reply RIGHT so wondered if anyone could help me put together a knock out response.

Firstly I will copy the email I sent to him then his reply below that.


My email:

I am writing to express my grave concern regarding the new restrictions to be placed on the sale and use of electronic cigarettes and their related products. I successfully stopped smoking cigarettes three years ago after being a ‘20 a day’ smoker for 35 years. I have tried every other product on the market, nicotine patches, Zyban, sprays etc and been on a quit programme several times. In fact there isn’t a lot I haven’t tried and the electronic cigarette is the only thing that has worked, not only for me but most of my family and friends too. My life has changed since giving up tobacco, my cough disappeared overnight, I’m able to lots of physical activity that I never could in my whole adult life and, my Grandchildren are more willing with cuddles now I don’t smell like an ashtray! I have now avoided smoking almost 17,000 cigarettes to date.



It seems ridiculous and outrageous that such revolutionary and game changing products and technology, which will help save hundreds of thousands of lives each year, are to be restricted. It seems that they are to restrict products, which have no proven harm forcing people to return to tobacco, which will almost certainly kill them. Significantly, this is against and despite key recommendations by organisations such as The Royal College of Physicians (2016). They clearly state ``the hazard to health arising from long-term vapour inhalation from the e-cigarettes available today is unlikely to exceed 5% of the harm from smoking tobacco’’ and `` in the interests of public health, it is important to promote the use of e-cigarettes, NRT and other non-tobacco nicotine products as widely as possible as a substitute for smoking in the UK’’. Cancer Research, (amongst many others), also support the argument for using e-cigarette over traditional tobacco smoking saying ``the balance of evidence at the moment suggests that e-cigarettes are much safer than smoking tobacco’’.



The proposals for the new restrictions, particularly the limitation of nicotine strength and size of e-liquid bottles available will almost certainly increase the cost and reduce the effectiveness of using these products. Inevitably, this will greatly increase the likelihood of my family, friends and I going back to tobacco after years of being smoke free. In summary, the new restrictions are to take away a less harmful method of using nicotine and drive us back to the one that will almost certainly kill us. How can it possibly make any sense to restrict them? I would like to ask for your attention and support along with Lord Callanan in this matter where the new restrictions should be reconsidered as a matter of urgency.



Kind Regards

Mel


Then Lord Mendelsohn's reply:


Dear Mel,


Thank you for your very helpful email.



I think you make the case very well for the health benefits of these products and the useful role they play in stopping smoking. I think this is widely accepted.



There is a case being advocated by some for some measure of restrictions - which i have not either examined in detail nor taken a view on - and I would be very interested in your views.



The argument to apply restrictions to their open market availablility is becasue there are arguments about who they recruit to some form of "smoking" and "nicotine" introduction rather than just who they help to reduce their intake. Do you think that there is a case to ensure that ecigarettes are not widely adopted by those who either by age or by inclination had never previously smoked?



There is also an argument which says that there should be some form of ongoing regulation to ensure that particulates that cause harm are identified and restricted to ensure the maximum available reduction. Do you think that there should be no monitoring or regulation on, say, the amount of nicotine? If there should what should be the factors that should be considered in addition to health?



Finally I am aware that the argument has been made that there could be a cost issue but no one has thus far supplied any details on how or why this should be the impact. COuld you shed some light on the economics of this argument.



Many thanks for your kindness in writing.



Best



Jon


On first name terms already

Anyway like I said I could really do with some help, particularly on the `recruiting new people to nicotine' as he puts it and also the `economics' and how it could push up the costs of vaping. Any help most appreciated.


PS I think a few more emails to Lord Mendelsohn could have some impact as he is obviously reading and replying to them himself

[gill2009]

  mel...I have to say, I think your initial letter was splendid, & I know how important your next one should be.

  Unfortunately, I am not able to help, but I know there will be others only to eager to assist you in a reply.

  Well done 

[Postmodern Smoking]

Hi mel , excellent letter and reply. 

Here's a few of my initial reply 'ideas' on the questions raised by the Lord. There may be some more links of use such as from NNA here.
These are just my thoughts. I'll try to review again later and see what citations that I can find.

Others feel free to chip in !

Dave


------------------------------

The argument to apply restrictions to their open market availability is because there are arguments about who they recruit to some form of "smoking" and "nicotine" introduction rather than just who they help to reduce their intake. Do you think that there is a case to ensure that e-cigarettes are not widely adopted by those who either by age or by inclination had never previously smoked?

There is no evidence that e-cigarettes act as a gateway into smoking by young people. In fact it growing evidence supports that vaping is a gateway out of smoking.

www.ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_891.pdf Figure 3 is one example, where the number of non-smokers using e-cigarettes has been shown to be extremely small, (0.2% of those surveyed, and of those surveyed it is unclear how many of this 0.2% are in fact using nicotine in their e-cigarette).



Most vendors have for years voluntarily imposed a ban on selling to under 18's. New laws have already been introduced in England & Wales to ensure this, prior to the TPD. However there may be a case for enabling under 18 smokers to be able access these harm reducing products; somehow.

There is also an argument which says that there should be some form of ongoing regulation to ensure that particulates that cause harm are identified and restricted to ensure the maximum available reduction.

Unlike smoke, vaping particulates (vapour) quickly disperse into the air or are absorbed as they are mostly liquid vapours. Trace 'particulate-particulates' have been shown in some studies though at levels much lower than smoking.  More information: here

Do you think that there should be no monitoring or regulation on, say, the amount of nicotine? If there should what should be the factors that should be considered in addition to health?

The 20mg/ml limit set by the TPD appears to have been plucked out of thin air. There are currently estimated approximately 200,000 users of >20mg/ml e-liquid in the UK and indeed many heavy smokers initial require stronger than 20mg/ml in order for e-cigs to properly do there job and get them to stop smoking. Some use 24mg/ml others 36mg/ml in their e-liquid. Others make up their e-liquids themselves diluting <75mg/ml (the max. strength governed by UK poison laws) nicotine liquid. Nicotine (outside of burnt tobacco) is not known to be carcinogenic or particularly 'bad' and has indeed been compared to that of drinking coffee, says Professor John Britton. Some studies actually indicate that there may be positive health benefits in relation to dementia/Alzheimer's, although there isn't enough evidence yet to be conclusive.
More information on why the limit set by the TPD is wrong here: www.clivebates.com/?p=4056

Finally I am aware that the argument has been made that there could be a cost issue but no one has thus far supplied any details on how or why this should be the impact. Could you shed some light on the economics of this argument.

Many people switch to vaping to save money, with health benefits being a secondary reason, rising prices will not only create a cost barrier to make the switch (particularly for the less well off), but also it will significantly reduce the wide diversity and range of products and e-liquids currently available, that has made vaping so popular in the first place. Many of the smaller vendors will
go out of business, unable to cope with the cost and levels of bureaucracy and testing required by TPD.

Bottle size limitation to a tiny 10ml will, asides from being less convenient for users, create a huge amount of unnecessary waste, probably in excess of a million bottles/day. I have read of cases too where elderly, or disabled, struggle with using 10ml bottles. 

Additionally, whilst the Royal College of Physicians believes that vaping should be widely promoted to smokers as a much safer alternative, the TPD actually bans most forms of promotion and advertising.

[VapingBad]

He asked about the economics mel here is an excerpt from my letters that is one example.

The last bottle of nicotine I purchased was 2,500 ml of 7.2% nicotine for £115, but under the SI I would need to purchase one thousand 10 ml bottles of 1.8% nicotine to get the same amount of nicotine with a current cost of £1,200 from the same supplier. On top of ten times the cost for the consumer, the fact 10 ml bottles are a choking hazard and burden on landfill this makes no sense whatsoever, there is no good science that supports it and the tobacco legislation goes in the opposite direction with a probation on small packs. The reason given is the hazard from poisoning, but I can buy 5 ltrs of bleach or spirits of salts and many other far more hazardous liquids without let.

[DiscoDes]

Hi Mel,

What a FANTASTIC letter you wrote!

I'll try and bung some thoughts as answers to "Jon's" letter :

"Then Lord Mendelsohn's reply:


Dear Mel,


Thank you for your very helpful email.



I think you make the case very well for the health benefits of these products and the useful role they play in stopping smoking. I think this is widely accepted.



There is a case being advocated by some for some measure of restrictions - which i have not either examined in detail nor taken a view on - and I would be very interested in your views.



The argument to apply restrictions to their open market availablility is becasue there are arguments about who they recruit to some form of "smoking" and "nicotine" introduction rather than just who they help to reduce their intake. Do you think that there is a case to ensure that ecigarettes are not widely adopted by those who either by age or by inclination had never previously smoked?


My answer : All studies so far have indicated that there is a less than 0.1% take up of E-cigarettes by "never smokers" The "gateway effect" has been proven not to happen. Also, would it not be better for a young person to take up "Vaping" described by the Royal College of Physicians as 95% safer than smoking tobacco? Even ASH say "In the UK there is no evidence that use of electronic cigarettes leads to a take-up of smoking"
All e-cigarettes or "Vaping Products" Sales are subject to a minimum 18 year age restriction.


There is also an argument which says that there should be some form of ongoing regulation to ensure that particulates that cause harm are identified and restricted to ensure the maximum available reduction. Do you think that there should be no monitoring or regulation on, say, the amount of nicotine? If there should what should be the factors that should be considered in addition to health?

My Answer : "Most "Vapers" (E-cigarette users) welcome a "light touch" approach to the regulation of Vaping Devices, these products are have already been widely tested (CITATION NEEDED) and when used correctly pose little risk (see statement by RCP above).


Finally I am aware that the argument has been made that there could be a cost issue but no one has thus far supplied any details on how or why this should be the impact. COuld you shed some light on the economics of this argument.

My answer : "In the UK there are approximately 10 million tobacco smokers we know that at least 50% will die due to their habit, many more will need to be treated by the NHS for smoking related illnesses. In this document from ASH ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_121.pdf puts the cost to society in England alone at 13.9 BILLION pounds. If this figure can be cut by 95% as stated by the RCP then this is potentially a HUGE saving to the taxpayer, it will also free up NHS resources to help fight other diseases."



Many thanks for your kindness in writing.



Best



Jon

****************************************************************************************************

I would ask someone else to jump in with a citation on the testing for particulates/toxicants probably by Dr Farsalinos or another recognised body?

The above is just my thoughts, I hope it helps.

Calling Postmodern Smoking blaze to help.



ETA Ninja'd by better informed people than me!

[Postmodern Smoking]

DiscoDes

I would ask someone else to jump in with a citation on the testing for particulates/toxicants probably by Dr Farsalinos or another recognised body?

I believe Clive covers it here

ETA Ninja'd by better informed people than me!

Not at all! We can all come up with ideas, that'll hopefully be useful! I just splurged out what I was thinking!

[DiscoDes]

In all my letter to The Lords, MP's MEP''s etc I also try to get rid of "E-Cigarettes" and "smoking" anything with cigarette in it conjurs up negative implications. So I use the phrases "Vaping" "Vapers" (us) and Vaping Devices.

After all who wants to be associated with cigarettes and smoking?

[mel]

This is my dissertation all over again

[gill2009]

Jun 3, 2016 16:59:02 GMT mel said:

This is my dissertation all over again

  & you'll pass with flying colours...good job mel 

[blaze]

I think the "cost" question relates to the cost to the user buying some eliquid OR the costs to an eliquid maker, these are related so I would concentrate on the current range of products - say an eliquid maker has 20 flavours, each would need £3-5K to test and notify. These are small, not medium enterprises, that level of costs puts them out of business. It also raises the cost of the few flavours that do get put on the market and so makes less attractive the ecig proposition.

Fantastic letter btw