Please sign this petition - future of e-cigs under major threat

[gamingdave]

I don't normally pass on petitions but his one I feel is very important.

https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition...ation/?aUtwrgb

The European Parliament is about to make a decision which would result in the loss of a technology which has the potential to save millions of lives. Its a policy being made off the back of ideology with a staggering lack of regard for evidence or scientific research.

If it went ahead electronic cigarettes would effectively be banned across Europe depeving smokers of the one alternative to smoking cigarettes that really has a chance of succeeding where all other routes have failed.

I know will power works for some, but we still have 10% of the population who smoke who have no desire to quit, or have repeatedly failed. These devices really do offer a way out with a tiny fraction, if any, of the risk compared to cigarettes. To call it a life saving technology is not an exaggeration.

For a much better explanation of why it is such bad policy than I could write read this: http://www.clivebates.com/?p=1655

[kevkojak]

I'm not a smoker, but I still don't know that e.cigs are any better than real ones - there has been no in depth research done into them.
Sadly I think that the lack of any regulation is a dangerous thing. In Bolton Town Centre there must be a dozen places selling these. A couple are dedicated e.cig shops, but the rest are just newsagents and pound shops selling the cheapies and I definitely wouldn't trust them to be safe.
Friends have had these leak, break and even explode while charging - I think some regulation would be a good thing. If that means a ban while they test them, so be it.

(Sorry)

[gamingdave]

We DO know they are safer than cigarettes. There is no combustion and therefore no tar. There are no carcinogens. There are 4 ingredients which we know a lot about.

There may the possibility there is harm from them but in order of magnitudes lower. There has been quite a lot of studies done already which so far have not shown any risks to be concerned about.

I agree, some regulation would be a good thing, but there already is. All devices have to conform to a number of consumer laws as it stands. I would not be against more regulation and in fact support it.

However, what is being proposed is effectively a ban on all current devices and potentially all future ones. Its not a ban whilst its discussed. Its a total destruction. Of the current and future market.

Please read the link I posted as there is a lot more to it than currently reported.

[markrlondon]

Signed, not that it will make any difference. This is just more of the usual feckless, asinine, governmental meddling that states (and supra-states in the case of the EU) love to do and which have nothing in reality to do with 'protecting' anyone.

[P9CLY]

I know smoking is an addiction,but just what does it take to stop!,a guy I knew had his leg amputated below the knee because of smoking.....he still smokes!.

Its bad for you,it's expensive,the tax payer has to pick up the tab,no pun intended lol.

Make smokers pay for smoking related treatment,this could possibly have smokers think again...but possibly not!.

Never smoked,never did get it tbh,but fully aware it's something that kills 100k persons annually.So surely that should be enough to persuade people to stop,oh and the fact they'd be around to see the extended family grow up,what a huge incentive hey,just imagine seeing your Grandchildren......Or NOT.

My ol man smoked Capstan full strength for god knows how many years,back when I was a teenager I recall he suddenly stopped,my guess, he visited the Doctor and perhaps given a reality check re his future,Never did ask him maybe I might when I next see him,but he never touched another cigarette.

[gamingdave]

Make smokers pay for smoking related treatment,this could possibly have smokers think again...but possibly not!..

They do. The cost to the NHS treating smoking related illness is in the region of £6billion. The duty and tax from tobacco is £12billion. The NHS figures don't take into account days lost from working but if you compensate for the money saved by not paying out state pensions to those smokers who die early its still obvious smokers subsidise their treatments and more.

Of course looking at figures ignores the human cost. And this is where e-cigs really could make a difference. Its the pharma compines and governments who stand to loose, not the public.

Its worth noting that Sweden has the lowest rate of smoking related deaths in Europe. Its also the only country where snus is not banned. The scientific evidence in favour is overwhelming but under lobbying from the health industry (funded by the pharma industry) the EU banned it. The same could be about to happen and would be a terrible mistake.

I can understand people being anti smoking, but electronic cigarettes really are not smoking. They mimic the act, which is why they are so successful, but with such a reduced rate of damage. They are a recreational alternative to smoking giving the user a self dosed hit of nicotine. Sure, people may stay dependant on nicotine but as its a stimulus with no health risks associated other than those associated with caffeine why would that be a problem. Its undeniable that someone is better of vaping than smoking.

[markrlondon]

Of course looking at figures ignores the human cost. And this is where e-cigs really could make a difference. Its the pharma compines and governments who stand to loose, not the public.

Indeed. And this makes sense of the EU's sudden desire to meddle: It is in their (or their constituent governments' and corporate sponsors') interests to ban (or 'regulate') something which could reduce income and control.

[kevkojak]

what is being proposed is effectively a ban on all current devices and potentially all future ones. Its not a ban whilst its discussed. Its a total destruction. Of the current and future market.

In that case it sounds very much like the story of the electric car - a technology which the public want but that picks the pocket of the government who tax petrol to death, so early prototypes were bought just to send to landfill.

Fair enough, I'll join the petition but nothing and no-one will stop the (allegedly) corrupt idiots in the European Parliament.

[verv]

I know smoking is an addiction,but just what does it take to stop!,a guy I knew had his leg amputated below the knee because of smoking.....he still smokes!.

Its bad for you,it's expensive,the tax payer has to pick up the tab,no pun intended lol.

Make smokers pay for smoking related treatment,this could possibly have smokers think again...but possibly not!.

Never smoked,never did get it tbh,but fully aware it's something that kills 100k persons annually.So surely that should be enough to persuade people to stop,oh and the fact they'd be around to see the extended family grow up,what a huge incentive hey,just imagine seeing your Grandchildren......Or NOT.

My ol man smoked Capstan full strength for god knows how many years,back when I was a teenager I recall he suddenly stopped,my guess, he visited the Doctor and perhaps given a reality check re his future,Never did ask him maybe I might when I next see him,but he never touched another cigarette.

make people with sports injuries pay for their treatment
make people with BBV's or STD's pay for their treatment

as an ex smoker who paid an awful lot of tax for the pleasure of lighting up a fag with a coffee.. i resent having to give the NHS my money so that feckless berks can fall off their bicycle and get treatment at my expense.

(petition signed)

[Josh B]

make people with sports injuries pay for their treatment
make people with BBV's or STD's pay for their treatment

as an ex smoker who paid an awful lot of tax for the pleasure of lighting up a fag with a coffee.. i resent having to give the NHS my money so that feckless berks can fall off their bicycle and get treatment at my expense.

(petition signed)

Its a pity they don't do free treatment for idiocy. You'd certainly qualify.

[kevkojak]

make people with sports injuries pay for their treatment
make people with BBV's or STD's pay for their treatment

as an ex smoker who paid an awful lot of tax for the pleasure of lighting up a fag with a coffee.. i resent having to give the NHS my money so that feckless berks can fall off their bicycle and get treatment at my expense.

(petition signed)

But the things you mention are accidents. Unfortunate occurrences that our NHS is funded for.
Someone falls off their bike and it's their fault??

Smoking related and caused illness are not accidents. Unfortunate, yes, but there are enough warnings on the packet...

I don't suggest the NHS cuts off smokers treatments, but it rankles when a smoker is treated then carries on smoking after (or worse, during!) treatment - THEN they should be left to it.

Before the smokers start, same goes for fatties or heavy drinkers or any number of other things where a persons continuing poor health is their own doing.

[gamingdave]

Thanks for signing kevkojak, and all the others.

On the issue of the NHS though, as I pointed out, smokers pay in twice as much, through tax and duty, than they cost the NHS.

If e-cigs continue at the pace they are that burden will decrease. But with it so will the revenue. We are also seeing a decline in the use of NRT which is a blessing. We spend a fortune lining the pockets of big pharma companies to give out a treatment which has a 4% success rate. No wonder the pharma companies want to get there hands on, and destroy, e-cigs. If left unchecked it will destroy the NRT market and also make a massive dent in their ability to sell cancer, and other diseases, treating drugs.

I may sound a bit tin foil hat here but ive been following this for some time and the actions of some of those involved really do begger belief. Its probably more of a thread for the pit though if I was going to filly express how I feel about this.

[SlimJim16v]

If they're that concerned about our health, why don't they ban real cigarettes, eh?

[robcuk]

Signed, not that it will make any difference. This is just more of the usual feckless, asinine, governmental meddling that states (and supra-states in the case of the EU) love to do and which have nothing in reality to do with 'protecting' anyone.

When I was a kid in the 70's there was always a fund-raiser somewhere fro a fireman burned in a fire, breathed in smoke etc.

Later on the EU passed various directives, and one of them was to enforce fire retardant uniforms and helmets with visors.

There was a big outcry at the time, citing tradition, hands off etc, including many of the papers, I think they even wrote it into a London's Burning storyline.

However our standard fireman's uniform at the time consisted of:
Helmet of pigskin over cork
standard WW2 era air tank and rubber/glass face mask
tar impregnated woollen jacket
Oilksin tousers
Rubber boots

It's no wonder they used to burn like fireworks is it?

I'm sure there will be hundreds of replies slating me,and this, but sometimes a little bit of regulation is a good thing.

They won't ban the dammed things overnight, reputable manufacturers will work with the regulators to ensure they are compliant.

This should at least stop the chinese knockoffs.

[Josh B]

Source for your numbers please Dave?

incuidentally I think thee cigs are a good way of getting many people off real cigs and should be encouraged not banned and have signed the petition accordingly.

[sidders]

Have been using ecigs for 7 months and not touched a cigarette in that time. I will be fighting this as I know many others will. It's nothing to do with health. Purely financial and big pharma and tobacco are calling the shots. Also it shows how corrupt the EU is.

There is a lot of crap being said about ecigs so don't believe everything you read. Pure propaganda

[Jubal]

If they're that concerned about our health, why don't they ban real cigarettes, eh?

It's a mockery. I can see the jobs, compensation issues in banning a previously legal commercial pursuit but on a smaller scale they do it all the time.

[Michael_Mcr]

As a non-smoker, I can bring a counter point to this.

Many non-smokers that I know are as annoyed about the users of e-cigs as they are about proper smoking; That is, users of e-cigs seem quite happy to blow nicotine vapour all over non-smokers in public places because "its their right". A growing number sit within the workplace and in other public places and puff away merrily, quite aware ( or they should be ) that it bothers non-smokers but they do so because "its not illegal" and "its not harmfull".

E-cigs may well be far less harmful than real cigarettes to the user, but they are still more harmful and offensive to non-smokers that it would be if smokers used patches instead. Expert opinion appears to be quite divided over whether the expelled vapour presents a secondary health risk to non smokers nearby or not and further research is neccesary.

The e-cig "industry" has, I think, bought this legislation on itself because e-cigs appear to be mostly promoted as "healthy smoking" rather than as a pathway to cessation.

[Kingstepper]

If they're that concerned about our health, why don't they ban real cigarettes, eh?

That's true!

[verv]

Its a pity they don't do free treatment for idiocy. You'd certainly qualify.

<yawn>

Keep bleating josh.
It's terribly interesting.

[Josh B]

<yawn>

Keep bleating josh.
It's terribly interesting.

You're the one doing the bleating. It's not at all interesting.

[verv]

If they're that concerned about our health, why don't they ban real cigarettes, eh?

I'm all for banning them but that's not going to happen because they're an excellent source of revenue.

[Josh B]

If they're that concerned about our health, why don't they ban real cigarettes, eh?

Let's ban alcohol while we are at it cos, let's face it, it's the biggest single cause of misery, illness, and lots more trouble in society.

So let's ban it. then the problems will all go away. Just like drugs. Oh. Hang on...

[bongo]

If they're that concerned about our health, why don't they ban real cigarettes, eh?

Coz the 'government' would lose £12 Billion pounds in tax?

I'm for e-cigs. Been a smoker (roll ups only) for most of my adult life, and when I've used them they cut down my smoking drastically. As for the NHS cost, if going down the route of charging or refusing to treat smokers, how about doing the same to alcohol users, drivers, motorcyclists, cyclists, boxers, cliff divers or anyone else who indulges in a voluntary and perfectly legal activity that presents physical risk? Smoking ain't good for you and I certainly would not recommend it no more than I would recommend getting a payday loan or using a FOBT.

It's one of those for/against subjects that can induce a mania or zealotry on both sides, bit like cycling or the green agenda. Hard to be truly objective.

The plain cigarette packaging argument is also raging at present, I'm all for that but while we're at it, lets do the same for booze. Have you seen the colourful booze isles in the supermarket? Even as a non drinker for the last 17 years, it can still get my juices flowing.

Heroin, crack cocaine anti depressants? Noooo, can't ban them, most of the people 'in power' would'nt be able to get out of bed or on telly without them.

[P9CLY]

Disgusting habit/addiction that NO person can deny.

So all you smokers out their are perfectly happy with the way your health is panning out puffing on your cigs?,or would rather stop for all the reasons that you know are better all round for you and your family.

Or keep smoking simply because you choose to pursue your "rights" to carry on inflicting damage to yourself and the family/ friends you leave behind.

Get on with it if so,I personally really don't care about anyone I dont know,but certainly do care about my own,my Son has cut down thankfully my Daughter stopped,but be certain YOUR family will care,even though you seem not to give a toss.

Its not about your rights,it's about your time here on this little rock called Earth.

[verv]

I think you're rather missing the point.
Its EX smokers who are opposing the ban on ecigs and vaping, as in people who don't smoke.

[fishman307]

How long before the Non Smoking nutters want patches banning,! They might get stuck on the adhesive, Its another case of the lunatics taking over the asylum, I feel sure this country has many bigger and far more serious problems but of course solving some of those requires common sense.

[Josh B]

You're also missing the point that gaping is a massive improvement over smoking. This is about helping people to improve their health and thats why the EU should piss right off.

[P9CLY]

Who'd have thought tobacco was ever going to cause all the problems it does when it was first smoked.

Is vaping totally safe?, with no possible adverse problems,do you really know?,or care is the real answer for sure.I certainly don't know......do you?,b'cos if not your going to be addicted to vaping until the next safer option comes along.....and then will that be safe!,and then and then...........

I'll never convince you,and visa versa.

[robcuk]

You're also missing the point that gaping is a massive improvement over smoking. This is about helping people to improve their health and thats why the EU should piss right off.

Yes, vaping is an improvement over cigarettes, and for that reason it must be regulated, currently you are depending on the honesty of total strangers as to what is in your vaping fluid.

Regulate it, hell, tax it even, then at least the 'getting one over on The Man' types will go and find another untapped niche product.

[jegger]

Whilst I agree many smokers may move onto ecigs, I wonder how many children are enticed into smoking with ads such as this, I saw a similar one at a bus stop, at first I thought it was an ad for the real thing. I had to walk back to check.


[/URL]

[nickk]

How long before the Non Smoking nutters want patches banning

An interesting viewpoint - I'd never thought of myself as a nutter for NOT smoking before.

[gamingdave]

When I was a kid in the 70's there was always a fund-raiser somewhere fro a fireman burned in a fire, breathed in smoke etc......

I don't doubt that good regulation saves lives, but if you read the article I posted originally and others on that blog its clear to anyone prepared to look at it that this is not good regulation.

They won't ban the dammed things overnight, reputable manufacturers will work with the regulators to ensure they are compliant.

What they are proposing is not just a ban on the existing products, but every conceivable future variation on the same theme. The MHRA, who would be in charge of licensing them should they become a medical product, have publicly stated not one of the products on the market today would qualify.

One of the key requirements of a medicine is that it can give controlled doses in effective and measurable quantities that can consistently be repeated. The way the technology works makes this requirement unachievable. Therefore they would cease to exist, legally at least.

Source for your numbers please Dave?

I had read some other docs but didn't save them, but this one has similar figures. Of course it depends which things you decide to factor in and out, but either way its a surplus of cash smokers create not a deficit.

http://www.ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_121.pdf

Many non-smokers that I know are as annoyed about the users of e-cigs as they are about proper smoking; That is, users of e-cigs seem quite happy to blow nicotine vapour all over non-smokers in public places because "its their right". A growing number sit within the workplace and in other public places and puff away merrily, quite aware ( or they should be ) that it bothers non-smokers but they do so because "its not illegal" and "its not harmfull".

I personally dont vape in lots of places, basically everywhere other than pubs I wouldn't have smoked. It is legal, and I do believe it to be harmless, but its a matter of common courtesy. If I am vaping in a pub and someone asked me to stop, though it has never happened, I would. I don't uses it on busses or trains, in shops, restaurants, outside the school gates etc. I'm sure some vapers do behave inconsiderately, but so do all sorts of people.

E-cigs may well be far less harmful than real cigarettes to the user, but they are still more harmful and offensive to non-smokers that it would be if smokers used patches instead. Expert opinion appears to be quite divided over whether the expelled vapour presents a secondary health risk to non smokers nearby or not and further research is necessary.

I have read a lot of material on this and I would certainly say it isn't divided. I don't disagree that more research is needed, but all that has done so far that has been peer reviewed has suggested there is zero concern from a secondary perspective. I think part of the perception issue is that they are related to smoking. Of course they are in that they deliver nicotine, via a hand to mouth action, in the form of a cloud you inhale and exhale. But that is where the comparison ends. it's a delivery system of nicotine but not everything else that is in a cigarette which kills a user. It's like smoking, but it isn't smoking.[QUOTE=Michael_Mcr;2949620]

The e-cig "industry" has, I think, bought this legislation on itself because e-cigs appear to be mostly promoted as "healthy smoking" rather than as a pathway to cessation.

That is frankly not true. Under current legal frameworks that is the one thing electronic simply can not do. If any of the current retailers tried to put a hint of "healthy smoking" on any of their output they would be closed down in an instant. In order to say it is "healthy smoking" it would have to be a medical product. At which point non of the current manufacturers would be making them, it would be the large pharma companies who fund the organisations which have been lobbying for the classification.

Who'd have thought tobacco was ever going to cause all the problems it does when it was first smoked.

Is vaping totally safe?, with no possible adverse problems,do you really know?,or care is the real answer for sure.I certainly don't know......do you?,b'cos if not your going to be addicted to vaping until the next safer option comes along.....and then will that be safe!,and then and then...........

I'll never convince you,and visa versa.

You need to read some more about what we do know about electronic cigarettes. We do know a lot about the ingredients of an electronic cigarette. There are only 2 or 3 ingredients depending on which base liquid or combination is used and then additional food grade flavourings. All have research covering inhalation going back decades expecept the flavourings. A lot of scientists and doctors around the globe have already done a lot of research and are continuing.


Have a look at Clive Bates' blog for lots of well reasoned arguments: http://www.clivebates.com/

Dr. Konstantinos Farsalinos has been doing some very good research which you can find here: http://www.ecigarette-research.com/w...x.php/research

ECITA, a current trade representative, do some good work in setting voluntary regulations. They have some good articles and research links on their site: http://www.ecita.org.uk/index.html

If you don't fancy reading, then this series of videos are hard to argue with: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoSf5...mTUJ--CoK5J3xA

Sure there are issues not covered, and their use should be monitored and interviened with if necessary. But this current regulation simply isn't necessary at this time, and it would be a major blow to public health.

[gamingdave]

Whilst I agree many smokers may move onto ecigs, I wonder how many children are enticed into smoking with ads such as this, I saw a similar one at a bus stop, at first I thought it was an ad for the real thing. I had to walk back to check.


[/URL]

Electronic cigarettes should not be marketed at children, but as far as I am aware currently no one company appears to be doing so. There are some big players but there are also a huge number of SMEs operating in the sector. The competition is good, innovation fast, and consumers have a great deal of information available online to pick the best suppliers. It's in all of their interests, should they wish to remain prosperous, to sell a good product. They also are very wary not to fall the wrong side of any legal framework, it's certainly not a load of Del Boys.

If they were medicalised it would only be the big pharma companies and tobacco companies making them. The pharma companies have given out nicotine gum to 12 year olds in school and we all know the tactics the tobacco companies have used in the past. Why would any sane person wish to see the one possible solution to the harm caused by cigarettes handed over to them?

[Josh B]

Thanks for taking the trouble to respond to my question.

on the narrow point you are correct as to tax revenue vs cost to nhs being greater but as I suspected, when looking at the wider total estimated costs of smoking exceed the total tax take significantly.

some really odd responses on this thread though

[Michael_Mcr]

Well , Gamingdave, it appears that you are better informed and have greater insight than the Government, the BMA and the EU in this subject and that anyone who disagrees with your viewpoint simply doesn't understand the subject as well as you do and is advised to study it more. You do come across as having a very entrenched view on this, that your God-given right to Nicotine intake must be protected at all costs.

It also seems that anyone who objects to breathing in second hand water and nicotine vapour is just being unreasonable because it doesn't have " everything else that is in a cigarette which kills a user "

E-cigs most certainly should be regulated to ensure safety and consistency. They should also be heavily taxed, like tobacco is, to encourage them to be used for their intended purpose of quitting smoking IMO and users should be encouraged to supplement them with patches and the support that the NHS already provides.

[jegger]

Electronic cigarettes should not be marketed at children, but as far as I am aware currently no one company appears to be doing so. There are some big players but there are also a huge number of SMEs operating in the sector. The competition is good, innovation fast, and consumers have a great deal of information available online to pick the best suppliers. It's in all of their interests, should they wish to remain prosperous, to sell a good product. They also are very wary not to fall the wrong side of any legal framework, it's certainly not a load of Del Boys.

If they were medicalised it would only be the big pharma companies and tobacco companies making them. The pharma companies have given out nicotine gum to 12 year olds in school and we all know the tactics the tobacco companies have used in the past. Why would any sane person wish to see the one possible solution to the harm caused by cigarettes handed over to them?

are you saying that ads such as I have exampled do not appeal to kids, so making smoking more acceptable by association?

I'm not agreeing with banning them but the free for all that seems to be happening atm is not the way to go either.

I remember watching the Daily Politics and someone on there was using one of these things, the presenter had to make a point of saying it wasn't a cig, imo these things, the way they are marketed are only making smoking seem more acceptable to children, to say they are not marketed to children or that children will not see a link between these and smoking is daft. Children don't walk around with their eyes closed, it doesn't have to have a teddy bear in the picture to be effective advertising to children.

[gamingdave]

Well , Gamingdave, it appears that you are better informed and have greater insight than the Government, the BMA and the EU in this subject and that anyone who disagrees with your viewpoint simply doesn't understand the subject as well as you do and is advised to study it more. You do come across as having a very entrenched view on this, that your God-given right to Nicotine intake must be protected at all costs.

It also seems that anyone who objects to breathing in second hand water and nicotine vapour is just being unreasonable because it doesn't have " everything else that is in a cigarette which kills a user "

E-cigs most certainly should be regulated to ensure safety and consistency. They should also be heavily taxed, like tobacco is, to encourage them to be used for their intended purpose of quitting smoking IMO and users should be encouraged to supplement them with patches and the support that the NHS already provides.

The majority of MEPs voted for an amendment to the original TPD in order remove the requirement for e-cigs to be medicalised. So currently the majority of them are on the same page as I am. Our own government is currently just following the line of the MHRA, but their processes in this matter have been highly suspect. There have been many concerns raised which they simply ignore.

I don't think anywhere in my posts have I come across as suggesting I have a god given right to nicotine, or that I think it should interfere with others. I thought I was rather clear on my thoughts on behaviour.

They currently are regulated, no one is suggesting it should be otherwise, but medical regulations is an unapropriate classification.

But why should it be taxed? Nicotine may be addictive but is not a harmful drug. What justification would there be in taxing it. There intended use is not as a quiting aid but as a recreational alternative to smoking. As I byproduct a user may stop smoking, but the aim is not cessation. Its worth pointing out if they were regulated as medicines the tax on them would decrease. The govt would get less than it does now from e-cigs through VAT.

With respect I suspect from your tone you are strongly anti smoking which is why I implore you to read some of the links I posted. Vaping is not smoking. Its the one thing that really has the best chance of ending smoking. But if people who are anti smoking refuse to look at the reality of the situation then it is smoking which will prevail.

I'm happy to have my viewpoint challenged and welcome debate. But it has to be done based on science and research not ideology or reaction.

[gamingdave]

are you saying that ads such as I have exampled do not appeal to kids, so making smoking more acceptable by association?

I'm not agreeing with banning them but the free for all that seems to be happening atm is not the way to go either.

I remember watching the Daily Politics and someone on there was using one of these things, the presenter had to make a point of saying it wasn't a cig, imo these things, the way they are marketed are only making smoking seem more acceptable to children, to say they are not marketed to children or that children will not see a link between these and smoking is daft. Children don't walk around with their eyes closed, it doesn't have to have a teddy bear in the picture to be effective advertising to children.

I'm wouldn't say that imagery posted is intended to attract children. Its a picture of the product, how else would you show it?

There does need to be more discusion and debate regarding advertising but as far as I am aware there have been no complaints so far targeted at manufacturers or suppliers with evidence to show they have been marketing at kids.

Whilst we should obviously think of the children, we shouldn't forget the adults. There have been several studies done already regarding vaping and children. So far the evidence suggests that e-cigs do not appeal to children and yet they continue to take up smoking.

More discussion is a good thing, and if special regulations are required to sperate this product from other consumer products then let's have them. Let's just take time, look at the facts presented and do it right.

[Josh B]

Well , Gamingdave, it appears that you are better informed and have greater insight than the Government, the BMA and the EU in this subject and that anyone who disagrees with your viewpoint simply doesn't understand the subject as well as you do and is advised to study it more. You do come across as having a very entrenched view on this, that your God-given right to Nicotine intake must be protected at all costs.

It also seems that anyone who objects to breathing in second hand water and nicotine vapour is just being unreasonable because it doesn't have " everything else that is in a cigarette which kills a user "

E-cigs most certainly should be regulated to ensure safety and consistency. They should also be heavily taxed, like tobacco is, to encourage them to be used for their intended purpose of quitting smoking IMO and users should be encouraged to supplement them with patches and the support that the NHS already provides.

If there are unthinking entrenched views here they belong to you.

kindly explain what harm nicotine itself does?

then explain how you get through life without breathing water vapour exhaled by our fellow mammals through breathing?

kindly detail the amount of nicotine exhaled through vaping?
how much is inhaled by passive bystanders?

lets get some facts please.

[Michael_Mcr]

If there are unthinking entrenched views here they belong to you.

kindly explain what harm nicotine itself does?

then explain how you get through life without breathing water vapour exhaled by our fellow mammals through breathing?

kindly detail the amount of nicotine exhaled through vaping?
how much is inhaled by passive bystanders?

lets get some facts please.

OK

Fact - Breathing is a necessary natural act.

Fact - Public Vaping isn't necessary.

[Josh B]

Fact or not: public vaping causes no harm to those around them?

Incidentally I have no dog in this fight - I do not vape nor have I ever. But I am inherently against banning things. Its a hideous interfering tendency that is far too prevelant and is the one thing that ought to be banned.

[jegger]

I'm wouldn't say that imagery posted is intended to attract children. Its a picture of the product, how else would you show it?

There does need to be more discusion and debate regarding advertising but as far as I am aware there have been no complaints so far targeted at manufacturers or suppliers with evidence to show they have been marketing at kids.

Whilst we should obviously think of the children, we shouldn't forget the adults. There have been several studies done already regarding vaping and children. So far the evidence suggests that e-cigs do not appeal to children and yet they continue to take up smoking.

More discussion is a good thing, and if special regulations are required to sperate this product from other consumer products then let's have them. Let's just take time, look at the facts presented and do it right.

I have not said the advertising has been targeted at children, my point is any advertising of a product that resembles a cigarette will be seen by children and imo will entice them to start smoking.

There is no reason for these products to resemble a cigarette, yes it helps adults to make the switch but pictures as above need to be regulated and the effect they have on drawing new people into smoking, needs to be assessed.

I wonder how many of these e-cigs companies are owned by the tobacco industry and use the ads to get images of cigarette out there again.

And to be clear the EU are not banning these but want them regulated, which I believe is the right thing to do, for a product you breath into your lungs to be freely availble without any/much regulation is wrong, how many people have started using this product that has never smoked? that also needs to be looked at, imo this product is far to new and it's effects on the body can not be known fully yet, for it to be putting out images as above with the word "enjoy".

[markrlondon]

I'm sure there will be hundreds of replies slating me,and this, but sometimes a little bit of regulation is a good thing.

Sometimes. Usually not.

Also one should note that the example you gave was not about regulation, per se.

The case at hand here is of over-regulation for political and financial control and is nothing to do with safety. Do not be deceived by 'regulation' being a good thing sometimes (rarely), and especially don't be deceived by the protective gear mentioned in your story which, as mentioned, is not a lot to do with regulation.

[sidders]

Said it before and will say it again. This is nothing to do with health and is purely financial. They are a huge threat to pharma and tobacco.

Have to say pretty disappointed with some of the responses. Ecigs can save millions of lives but this is ignored and you prefer to believe the propaganda.

Finally it's none of your business what I do with my own body

[BrianT]

"But the things you mention are accidents. Unfortunate occurrences that our NHS is funded for.
Someone falls off their bike and it's their fault??"

Well it certainly ain't mine.

[Josh B]

"But the things you mention are accidents. Unfortunate occurrences that our NHS is funded for.
Someone falls off their bike and it's their fault??"

Well it certainly ain't mine.

Meaning what? You shouldn't have to contribute to the rest of society unless you are directly interested?

[Paul J]

I'm not a smoker, but I still don't know that e.cigs are any better than real ones - there has been no in depth research done into them.
Sadly I think that the lack of any regulation is a dangerous thing. In Bolton Town Centre there must be a dozen places selling these. A couple are dedicated e.cig shops, but the rest are just newsagents and pound shops selling the cheapies and I definitely wouldn't trust them to be safe.
Friends have had these leak, break and even explode while charging - I think some regulation would be a good thing. If that means a ban while they test them, so be it.

(Sorry)

Sensible point, though I should thing if they had a will to, legislation could be roughed out in the consultation 'interim'

[gamingdave]

I have not said the advertising has been targeted at children, my point is any advertising of a product that resembles a cigarette will be seen by children and imo will entice them to start smoking.

Start smoking or start vaping? There definitely needs to be discussion on this topic, e-cigs should be marketed IMO as a product aimed at existing smokers as an alternative to cigarettes. They should not be targeted at children or other non smokers.

There is no reason for these products to resemble a cigarette, yes it helps adults to make the switch but pictures as above need to be regulated and the effect they have on drawing new people into smoking, needs to be assessed.

Many electronic cigarettes do not look like traditional cigarettes. The device I use looks nothing like one at all. If medical regulation went ahead you could be pretty sure they all would look like fags.

I wonder how many of these e-cigs companies are owned by the tobacco industry and use the ads to get images of cigarette out there again.

The big tobacco companies are moving in on the market, BAT have already bought one of the largest manufacturers in Europe. If medical regulation went ahead it would only be them and the big pharma companies which would be able to compete in the market. Non of the smaller companies which lead the innovation, which has brought huge improvements over the last few years, would be able to compete.

And to be clear the EU are not banning these but want them regulated, which I believe is the right thing to do, for a product you breath into your lungs to be freely availble without any/much regulation is wrong, how many people have started using this product that has never smoked? that also needs to be looked at, imo this product is far to new and it's effects on the body can not be known fully yet, for it to be putting out images as above with the word "enjoy".

If you took the time to read the links I posted you would see that the proposal is a ban by other means. None of the products on the market today, and none based on the technology could be. This is a ban dressed as regulation.

It actually gets worse by the day. The latest proposals, which completely disregard the amendments voted on by the MEPs earlier in the year now suggest a limit on the nicotine level which would render them useless. It also states only the flavours used in current NRT can be used, as long as they can't appear to appeal to children. All the flavours currently used in NRT could be argued to appeal to children, so what flavour would they be? It can't be tobacco, as that isn't a flavour used in existing NRT. So it can't have a flavour at all, nicotine is flavourless.

You question how many people have started using them that never smoked. In the studies done so far the numbers appear to be miniscule to the point of currently not being consistently measurable. It's also probable that some of these people may have taken up smoking had e-cigs not been available. If you take the current accepted view that e-cigs do at worst 1% of the harm of normal cigarettes at what point would you see small numbers of non smokers taking up vaping outweighing the benefit to overall health of millions of smokers switching?

There has been a lot of "think of the children" and scares of a gateway drug, but all the evidence so far points to this not being a concern. This includes a study undertaken by ASH UK, bizarrely they chose to ignore the outcome of their own study however.

I implore you to read some of the links I posted earlier, if you disagree with the analysis of the original proposal (which has now, despite a vote on an amendment watering it down, been taken in an even more extreme direction) I would like to hear why. This is the analysis to which I refer: http://www.clivebates.com/?p=1546

Mind, there is now a new proposal to consider. It is now at the stage to be so misguided it even contradicts itself, whilst completely ignores the process by which the EU is supposed to operate. It would be laughable if it wasn't so tragic. You can read a summurisation of why it is so wrong, again on Clive Bates' blog, here: http://www.clivebates.com/?p=1666

[sundial]

Cigarettes and E-Cigs ... they're all substitute titty bottles ... babies' dummies ... nobody needs 'em.

dunk