Ecig Efficacy, Who care

    E-Cigarette

  1. eCig Victory - but also for who?

When Public Well being England’s (PHE) review in electronic cigarettes ‘e-smokes: an evidence revise’ (19th August 2015) was published proclaiming that ‘e-smoking cigarettes are 95% less bad for your well-being than normal cigarettes’ there is a predictable flurry of activity in the united kingdom and world mass media. Although the report didn’t recommend the prescription of of ecigs on the NHS as the gutter press sensationalised, it do however motivate doctors and public well-being bodies to embrace and god forbid, recommend ecigs to smokers desperate to stop smoking tobacco cigarettes. Even now great news for advocates of vaping such as yours truly.

In the week and somewhat since TV and printing headlines seemed to talk about nothing else for two days, we have seen the ANTZ (anti nicotine and tobacco zealots) ‘ecig hitters’ flap around trying to discredit both the report’s findings and the scientists who compiled it. Whilst this is very unfortunate, and to some degree damaging to the vaping cause and the credibility of Consumer Health in general, it had been as well predictable and smacks of desperation, so I take some comfort from that. For completeness here’s an example of the typical of rebuttal the ANTZ will be resorting to, from that well known way to obtain truth and expertise The Daily Heil Mail.

But this will be discussed at size elsewhere and will play out in public to its ugly conclusions I dare claim. The purpose of this blog is to bitch about a thing that irritates me privately, a notion that is referred to on both sides of the argument whenever the main topic of ecigs is definitely debated, and that is whether ecigs might help smokers to ‘suit tobacco altogether’.

Anyone who exactly vapes, knows that this is definitely the case - a short check out to any online vaping discussion board or blog will present irrefutable evidence of this. It doesn’t need to be debated, its a matter of record, but that’s not what seriously irritates me. What winds me up, is the complete irrelevance of this question - it certainly shouldn’t subject. At all!

“ We don’t need to substantiate claims that no one is even making! “

To my knowledge, there are very couple of advocates of vaping that claim that ecigs should be categorized as a sort of NRT (Nicotine Alternative Therapy). I don’t prefer my ecig to be looked at as a medicine because I’m not unwell. Furthermore, I am of the thoughts and opinions that any ecig with the capacity of receiving a Advertising Authorisation (MA) from the MHRA (not likely to happen soon anyway) would be entirely rubbish. The decline in product sales of mass-created, limited variation, first generation ‘cig-a-like’ ecigs marketed by the big tobacco companies when compared to meteoric rise in product sales of user-configurable, second and third era devices illustrates a regulated, identi-kit ecig will fail.

I have generally maintained that ecigs are not ‘suit’ devices, they are actually an alternative solution to tobacco smokes that enable me to take pleasure from nicotine with much (95%) less risk. Used, they have made this hobby of mine far more enjoyable as well and medical benefits have been a dramatic and welcome bonus offer. As a client, I demand the right to spend my money on whatever I want without meddling interference from governments. Public Heath’s function in all of the should simply be to suggest of any risks, and as they can’t find proof any after a long time of attempting, they should cease producing hysterical, unsubstantiated promises and concentrate their attempts, donations and state funding on things that basically matter and simply leave us alone.

Of course in the real world, this isn’t happening and prohibitionists continue steadily to invent ‘risks’ and seek to demonise ecigs. We’ve reached the point where egos and reputations happen to be on the line for many prominent PH ‘faces’ who’ve supported themselves into corners and are embracing increasingly desperate methods to salvage some credibility. We check out the debate flip from ‘renormalising smoking cigarettes’ to the ‘gateway’ (make sure you, someone think of the kids) to if they really ‘help smokers to give up’ advertising infinitum, ignoring any proof as they go. Here is the crap we must pay attention to, whilst the TPD starts to deny our personal independence across Europe. (See new information from Spain, Portugal and Finland for example, where gadgets and flavours, over the internet ordering and even internet debate are set to come to be banned).

The whole problem of efficacy of ecigs as a quitting product is merely a distraction from the real issues at stake in this article, the rights of individuals to select versus the increasingly nannying philosophies of governments. We don’t have to substantiate promises that nobody is even making! Either express me some proof that ecigs are unsafe therefore i can decide whether to utilize them, or piss off and keep me alone!

eCig Victory - but also for who?

There exists a sentiment being expressed via social media that the ‘compromise agreement’ reached towards the end of the EU’s TPD Trialogue process could possibly be hailed as some sort of victory. But also for who? It really isn’t for vapers.

The premise because of this claim is that what we have isn’t quite as bad since it might have been, which saddens me as I genuinely thought that a number of the people claiming this ‘victory’ really understood what was on the line for vapers. I was plainly wrong.

Let’s look into a number of the ‘highlights’ of the proposals because they stand, nowadays agreed and apparently supported by everybody involved with trialogue except the ECR group and the truly wonderful Frederique Ries - who have still won’t accept this ‘compromise’. Sadly, some of her ALDE colleagues seem less likely to fight and appearance destined to capitulate and vote with the compromise. The fact that they appear to be declaring credit rating for the appalling, shameful final result can be frankly baffling to those of us who positioned our faith in them.

A good reminder of what that ‘victory’ / compromise appears like:

  • Nicotine liquid of more than 20mg per ml concentration is banned.
  • Bottles of liquid of above 10ml are banned.
  • Clearomisers / tanks etc above 2ml in ability are banned.
  • Whatever left will be subject to 6 month progress notification intervals and a couple of requirements that bear a exceptional similarity to med regs.
  • ‘Contributed’ (ie ecig advertising reinforced) forums and weblogs are banned.
  • Sponsored radio / TV channels (like RY4 Radio and www.vapourtrails.tv) are banned.
  • Technically - recommending ecigs to your friends is banned.

And if the above wasn’t enough, it continues on:

  • Member states are still absolve to classify ecigs due to medicinal products anyway.
  • There’s a two year review period prior to the EU Wellbeing Commission could, theoretically, utilize the ‘nation’ guideline to ban items without the inconvenience of a good debate and vote.

As a vaper that uses large mods with greater than 20mg per ml liquid, everything I currently use will be outlawed by the above, and I am faced with the same decision as everybody else - back to cigarettes or the black industry. The failing of compliant gadgets and liquids to sustain vapers could have knock on effects:

  • Vapers will go back to tobacco.
  • A black market can look
  • EU ecig industry jobs will be lost

The only people who may truly treat this agreement as a victory are likely to be Tobacco and Pharma company executives. They will see the innovation and development of the ground-breaking products slowed up to pace at which they can compete and in the end dominate, whilst preserving the demand for cigarette smoking induced health care. It’s a hell of a triumph for them, at the trouble of smokers and vapers.

It’s difficult to acquire the right words to sum up the proposals because they stand whilst remaining civil, and it’s becoming more and more difficult to anticipate that it might not actually happen. Even so, we must continue steadily to fight, make noises, be a part of community actions and the majority of all continue steadily to exert pressure on our MEPs and MPs. Electronic smoking cigarettes should never have already been contained in the TPD, and the only sensible way onward is to eliminate them from the TPD. Document 18 is normally a farce that if enforceable will eliminate thousands of people.

In the meantime, it could be helpful if certain visible politicians were to avoid trying to convince casual onlookers that there is some sort of ‘victory for Vapers’ this week - because there actually wasn’t and its beginning to grate now.

page PV:  ・  site PV:  ・  site UV: