Recent Posts

Aye, we'll have to make poteen juice to vape if they ban nicotine. Hope it doesn't make us go blind





en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poteen

I don't know if this is helpful or not but it's what I've been sending to MPs and such:



Hi

1st February was a big day in the UK for the future of smoking alternatives. It was announced that only tobacco companies will be able to sell recreational nicotine. This will take the very effective electronic cigarettes out of the hands of citizens and shelve the idea until pharmaceutical companies bother to reinvent something that works for a change. Since their interests lie in keeping people addicted (their dependent and now captive market) that seems unlikely - or at least not before many many lives are destroyed first. Keeping people smoking seems to be the name of the game, novel reduced harm options for people who enjoy nicotine will be wiped out.

The UK Department of Health and MHRA announced that nicotine is to be allowed only from tobacco or medical products.
www.dh.gov.uk/dr_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@en/@ps/documents/digitalasset/dh_111748.pdf
Public consultation (MLX 364): The regulation of nicotine containing products.www.mhra.gov.uk/Publications/Consultations/Medicinesconsultations/MLXs/CON065617

This is another public health disaster by the government. The lessons from banning Swedish snus have not been learned - it's the least harmful tobacco product, banned in the EU but not in Sweden - where they have the lowest harm rate from smoking in the world. It's possible that banning snus has stopped 50% of people from finding an acceptable smoking alternative (compare with the failure rate of 95% for NRT).



rodutobaccotruth.blogspot.com/2009/08/smoking-in-european-union-how-swede-it.html




rodutobaccotruth.blogspot.com/2010/02/clinical-trial-evidence-snus-is.html


The message is very clear - we're to quit or die, no alternatives. People are dying by the million.






www.tobaccoharmreduction.org/faq/ecigs.htm


There is now no point in innovation and development of effective smoking alternatives, they won't be allowed on the market for anyone but the big pharm and tobacco monopolies but they would be acting against their vested interests if they actually helped people. Prices will rise because of the cornering of the market and lack of competition. Presumably the NHS/taxpayers will be expected to pay through the nose again for any nicotine products even though simple standards and product regulation would make this a safe consumer product that people could buy and maintain cheaply if allowed.

Currently, recreational nicotine is regulated by the following legislation:
CHIP - the Chemicals (Hazard Information and Packaging for Supply) Regulations 2009
The Poisons Act 1972
CE certification requirements
The General Product Safety Regulations 2005

A law similar to the Intoxicating Substances (Supply) Act 1985 would address the valid concerns of young people gaining access to toxic and addictive substances.

If enforced these regulations would ensure a decent level of safety and protection for consumers. In fact, Trading Standards officers want to close the market because it's troublesome for them to do their jobs. Instead of working towards simple standards that would measure acceptable levels of contamination, toxins and ingredients they prefer to ban the product completely making sure that effective and enjoyable nicotine is only available as smoked tobacco.

By removing these regulations the MHRA will be removing all protection for people who use unlicensed nicotine products, the black market is far more risky. There isn't even a valid argument that unlicensed nicotine products have not been found effective at treating addiction (even if that's what they were sold for) when all approved nicotine products prolong and encourage addiction.


www.prlog.org/10280006-nrt-studies-destroy-four-times-more-likely-to-quit-with-nhs-claim.html


Nicotine has not been shown to cure or treat anything, removing it from the provisions of the Poisons Act will highlight the fallacy that the MHRA (funded by pharmaceutical companies and rife with conflicting interests) is interested in public health. Nicotine has only recreational use in spite of the fact that some nicotine products are given licenses to prolong addiction.

The signatories of this petition illustrate the value and effectiveness of keeping affordable and attractive alternatives to smoke on the open market - thousands of improved lives. - www.petitiononline.com/vaping/petition.html

If they are to be disregarded with hypothetical and artificially inflated risks for the sake of pharmaceutical industry profit it will be a wasted opportunity to solve the smoke problem for millions. Understanding the real risks and opportunities of keeping nicotine properly regulated and available on the open market should surely be a priority before removing yet another freedom or harming public health and happiness in blatant support of private profit.


Kate B

Today the Department of Health stated intent to take recreational nicotine off the market. NICE and the MHRA are also talking about supporting this move.

vapersnetwork.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=166

When we can only get nicotine from tobacco and pharm companies they have us hooked and will keep us hooked - it's not in their interests to help us quit them.

I'm a bit new to Digg myself Chrissie but I go on the principal that even bad news serves a purpose and might put a rocket up some arses to get us united and take some action

I saw your message Chrissie. Might you be interested in drafting a response?

Best wishes from me too Foxy.

Keep well Chrissie, one step at a time x