Please note, any banner ads that you see at the top & bottom of the forum are placed there, not by us, but by our host Proboards. Therefore neither the items advertised, or the vendors, are endorsed by this forum.
I've been looking and I haven't found one example of a letter writing campaign EVER that has successfully reached all the members of the House of Lords. As I type there are only 15 left to reach - the spreadsheet takes quite a bit of scrolling until you find a gap!
If I'm right, this is HISTORICAL - a mish-mash of social media and one of the oldest institutions in the democratic world. At the IEA talk on thursday (wednesday?), Richard Hyslop - who some of you might recognise from his work as a lobbyist for Totally Wicked said some of these people have never been emailed before ...
Of course I won't be happy until they've all been contacted a few times but, LET'S SMASH THIS.
If you haven't done it, or haven't for at least 2 days, stop your browsing right now, open up your word processor and get a letter written. We can change things, there are so many hints flying about (see other threads) that we are making a difference.
this is what I am thinking of sending to a couple of local members of the house of lords please feel free to suggest any changes before I do
Cut it down by at least 50% . . . . . short, sharp and punchy rather than in depth personal opinion and flim flam are far more likely to catch attention and be memorable to a non smoking or vaping person.
I lost the will after the first paragraph . . . . .
From the email, I think the 6 thing is real people for the emails that don't go directly from the site. I've got 2 more to go
I don't understand what you've written. You've sent to 6 (previous post), but say 2 more to go.
Are you saying that you can't send more tomorrow or think not? (We don't want a load of emails in their spam folder!)
Sorry - it was very late lol!
I mean when I sent them, the theyworkforyou site sent 2 to a direct email address and 4 to the central office thing (the one that means you get the message about the 6 emails), so I've sent 6 but only used up 4 of my more-than-6-is-spam.
I am writing to you because the House of Lords will shortly vote on something that is very dear to me, my health. In fact I would not be exaggerating to say, my life.
You see, I used to smoke. I used rolling tobacco so it's hard to say how much, I'd use a pouch every 1-2 days, I guess that's ~20 cigarettes. And I did this for 23 years.
About 3 years ago, I started to hear about electronic cigarettes, I like gadgets and new things so I thought I'd try one – I wasn't trying to give up smoking, I just thought I'd give them a go.
It was amazing, straight away I preferred it. It took me about a month to get one with enough battery power to last but instantly, if I had the choice, it was that which I'd reach for.
These things are an incredible invention, the science is in – they are much, much safer (https://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/projects/outputs/nicotine-without-smoke-tobacco-harm-reduction-0), they are not, for new users, addictive, and, they satisfy whatever it was in me that made me smoke.
They have created an incredible fuss in the Public Health community though, I think many were just scared of the unknown – one of the consequences is the drafting, and now enacting of the rules which pretty much destroy the ecig market. They have made the rules so burdensome that even now, after the law has nominally come into force in the UK. there is no way to notify products so they can be sold.
It is a public health disaster, lives will be lost if it is allowed to continue, and the Lords has a chance to stop it.
Lord Callanan has tabled this motion: “to move that a Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016, laid before the House on 22 April, be annulled on the grounds that its restrictions on product choice and advertising of vaping devices were devised before evidence had accumulated that vaping was enabling many people to quit smoking, run counter to advice from the Royal College of Physicians to promote vaping and are so severe that they could force vapers back to smoking and create a black market with harmful products (SI 2015/507).”
I will not comply with the law if it goes forward, I cannot. I really do not want to smoke again – I will turn to the black market, I don't see how that is making me safer? I don't see how that is helping me.
Please support Lord Callanan, this law is going to cause harm, it must be stopped!
If you would like any further information, anything, please do not hesitate to get in touch.
Elections are shortly to be upon us again with the Welsh Government going to the polls on the 5th of May.
Vapers in Power intends to be there, bringing vaping into the political spotlight.
To do that we need your help.
We have two candidates willing to stand in the Cardiff area where the Health Minister Mark Drakeford is based. We want to make sure that every time he stands at a hustings there is a vaper standing next to him, and every time he is mentioned in the papers there is a vaping candidate available to stand against his ridiculous attitude of the precautionary principle being used without considering the collateral damage.
Please donate if you can, share if you can't and generally help make sure vapers are heard at the ballot box in Wales this May.
Ah yes reply #10. Still don't know what they mean by non-nicotine ecigarettes - I suppose disposable e-shisha type things wont be covered ...
perhaps they will get round to specifying it but hopefully it is any product that is sold as "not designed for use with nicotine", they can then relegate the likes of ce4's as "designed for use with nicotine" and have them as the sole contender for regulation (since there old and not that good), that is my take away from the various bits of information contained in the few released documents and follow-up consultation documents, the clarification that the advertising stuff wont apply to e-cigs is strange, not that long ago they were arguing that should be the case and lost the argument in the regulatory commission meeting vote about it, seems like a complete U-turn on the stated position of just a few months ago, its all rather confusing and leaves a dodgy taste in the mouth, they cant change their position again without further consultation I hope otherwise were in for a bumpy ride /
No, the point is is that nowhere in the draft, the consultation resonse or the MHRA fees consultation can I see any evidence for that point! (non-nic ecigs not covered) No-nic eliquid yes, and I think that's what they meant to say in their email/fb post.