Proposed UK legislation

[Kate]

Here's suggested wording of the petition that Eric is putting together over at UK Vapers:

Quote:Ecigs promise to revolutionise the habits of smokers and are considered many times safer than smoking. Please help us to keep this life saving product available and effective. Irrelevant or unnecessary regulations could harm people by discouraging use and making a very effective tobacco alternative as useless as NRT.

Sale of these products is already covered by the Poisons Act 1972 (maximum nicotine content of 7.5%), CHIP standards (for packaging), CE mark regulations (for electrical goods) and general trading laws which say the products must be fit for purpose.

We encourage thoughtful legislation that would protect young people from toxins and addiction, it would be responsible to allow availability of this product only to young people who would otherwise smoke.

We oppose reclassifying vapour as smoke (which is the main harmful aspect of smoking) and we oppose regulation because of appearances. There is no negative collateral harm argument with ecigs similar to second hand smoke concerns.

Vaping is a recreational habit, not medical treatment or tobacco and needs to be regulated appropriately. Priority consideration should always default to the rights of citizens to be at liberty to make their own informed decisions and choose what they enjoy themselves.

Prof said he'll tidy it up a bit when he gets a chance but it should be good to go within a couple of weeks by the looks of things.

[Kate]

This is a pretty accurate account of the NJ regulations as seen from the point of view of vapers I think, it's more or less what seems to be proposed by the UK authorities:

Quote:New Jersey Politicians Reject Public Health Care Authorities, Approve E Cigarette Restrictions

New Jersey politicians have kept in line with today's politicians and thrown out warnings by expert physicians and public health experts concerning the e cigarette, a new product that is creating quite a stir in the U.S. right now.

Letters, faxes and other forms of communications were used by top medical experts in the anti-smoking movement to defend the e cigarette from what one expert called "senseless regulations" and also claimed that the actions would put the public in general in a position to pay a terrible price.

The state Senate voted 38-0 Thursday to approve a bill to apply the provisions of the "New Jersey Smoke Free Air Act" to restrict the use of electronic smoking devices, commonly known as "e-cigarettes."

The bill (S-3053) would expand the definition of "smoking" to include e-cigarettes and extend the ban on smoking by minors to include the use of e-cigarettes. It would define smoking as the burning or inhaling of tobacco or any other matter than can be smoked or inhaled, or the inhaling of smoke or vapor from an electronic smoking device.

Talk is already starting about lawsuits to counter the bill, because it could also enforce the non-use of asthma inhalers in public, and also for users of the e cigarette to be forced to share areas of second hand smoke and endangering their lives after they found an alternative that is deemed as "100 to 1,000 times safer" by public health officials from around the world, based on independent lab studies on the product.

"Elected officials are using scare tactics to pass bans and protect the companies these products threaten financially, they use terms like "an ingredient found in anti-freeze" to describe propylene glycol, when it is an that ingredient is also found in the food supply and asthma inhalers that children use on a daily basis, "states Tiffany Ellis, Public Relations Director of E Cigarettes National. "It is about time the smokers fight back at the ballots and remove any politician that uses deceptive propaganda to pass bills and protect the lobbyist and the companies that fund their election campaigns. It is time they serve the people, not special interest."

http://www.auto-mobi.info/index.php?opti...&Itemid=50



After rereading this thread I have to apologise about some of the things I said while ranting. I can't remember why I thought there was no known reduction in harm related to smoking bans or that second hand smoke has not been proven harmful. Basically I don't know what I'm talking about a lot of the time even when I have plenty to say. Sorry. Also sorry for the 'fascist' comment, that was just plain old frustration.

[K.P.]

At first glance of the letter, the problems outlined seem to be
a-promotion of an addictive product with no regulation
b-availabity to minors
c-quality control
d-use in public and workplaces and confusion over enforcing smoking bans

On a-c most everyone is on the same page. Ecigs shouldn't be advertised as risk-free, shouldn't be sold to minors, and should be subject to basic quality control for the safety of their users. It's only 'd' that is a major issue.

But this isn't a problem that requires heavy-handed legislation. Business owners and managers already have a wide berth to decide what conduct is disruptive in the workplace, and pub landlords already have the power to ban ecigs in their pubs if their resemblance to real cigarettes is causing a problem.

I can tell my employees that drinking apple juice from a pint glass is ok (even though it looks like and smells like a pint of cider) but sniffing sugar through a straw is not (because, though legal, it just plain looks bad). Pub landlords are currently able to decide if my repeat business is worth having a 1 minute conversation with a confused patron occasionally. These kinds of briefly awkward conversations are not the sort of inconvenience that requires legislation to eliminate.

[Kate]

Hi KP, welcome.

Thanks for your thoughts, I think you're right, the main sticking point is what vaping looks like and the enforcement of smoking bans. I really do hope that the agencies concerned about vaping and vaping products will talk with us and try to come to an understanding, constructive dialogue is far more civilised than a political battle.


Anyway, I hope you're all having a great Christmas and vaping, smoking or breathing happily

Here's what Santa is thinking of bringing this year

[Kate]

Dr Bergen has sent me a message, he wasn't able to log onto the forum for some reason. This is his response to the discussion here -

Quote:... This bit: he inability to easily distinguish between a normal and an
e-cigarette leads to confusion and upset amongst the public which can
give rise to complaints as they believe that breaches of the
legislation are taking place..

Absolute nonsense and undermines the trust that typifies any civilized
group. It is rarely possible to tell if someone is stealing a car
just because they open the door and drive it away. We err on the side
of trust and assume that is the most likely case. The same here in
that one should assume that someone who is "smoking" in a nonsmoking
zone is doing so legally. Not to mention that "confusion and upset"
as a basis for legislation is not a good idea. I might become
confused and upset because I misinterpret any number of things but I
would not want to see changes in the legal system even if it would
make those misinterpretations less likely because as above, I do not
want to be limited by other people's false assumptions.

Even in this virulent anti-tobacco culture, the onus must be on the
complainer to prove the case, not the vaper to appear to be innocent.

And then this bit: The use of e-cigarettes in premises where the law
prohibits smoking could well encourage people to smoke, either in the
mistaken belief that the law does not apply or is not being enforced,

To use the past example, then the legal drivers will encourage theft
because some people might think they are stealing cars....

And finally: There is also real potential for public order offences
being committed where individuals are approached and asked or told to
stop and this is challenged.

This would be true of any challenge of any activity, legal or not, and
cannot reasonably serve as a valid impetus.

Essentially this passage says that we have to stop it simply because
we don't like the way it looks. What garbage!

...

-- Paul L. Bergen M.Sc., M.L.I.S. Research Associate, Public Health Sciences University of Alberta

[Kate]

Here's Dr Bergen's article in the Tobacco Harm Reduction blog:

Quote:... That any anti-ecigarette moves are taking place in the UK is particularly disturbing since it appeared to be free of the nonsensical opposition in many other parts of the world...

http://vapersnetwork.org/forum/newreply....rocessed=1

Thanks very much for your time Dr Bergen, it's much appreciated.

[Paul Bergen]

Re the nonsense of this proposed regulation, at least this excerpt.

It is bad enough that laws come about based on false health claims but to create laws based purely on perception is inexcusable, at least in a purported democracy. If you are going to encroach on the rights of citizens to engage in certain behaviors, these encroachments should at least be based on someone being either harmed or their other rights being eroded in some way.

I have written more at our tobacco harm reduction blog.

Let's hope that some common sense shuts this absurdity down.

And just a point on clarification on my credentials...though I am a researcher, I am not a Dr.

[Kate]

It is a serious problem in the UK that freedoms are being gradually eroded - usually in the name of prevention of terrorism (again *sigh*) or supposed public health. In fact we're the most watched people on the planet probably and are forced to swallow whatever political agenda has power at the moment. Health isn't really being promoted, it's usually about keeping us afraid so we can be controlled more easily.

Sorry about making you a Dr, Paul and thanks for the clarification.

This matter is still ongoing anyway. There's a petition in the pipeline and various names have been made aware of the concerns here. Letters will be written and the press involved when the time is right.

Even if we are penalised for looking like we smoke there's no point in going quietly so the authoritarians can have an easy time of it.

[Kate]

James from E-Cigarette Direct has written a response to Paul's blog article. I hope it's ok to quote the whole thing here, I think it's very good:

Quote:James Dunworth says:
January 1, 2010 at 1:44 pm

I must admit we were rather sad and confused about this aspect of the proposed legislation. The other aspect of the proposed legislation, i.e. electronic cigarettes not being sold to those under the age of 18, is something that we can all support.

I agree with you, however, that we to say e-smoking will cause people to take up smoking is wrong. There is no evidence to suggest that smoking electronic cigarettes leads to smoking tobacco – and as Dr Adrian Payne pointed out in an interview with us, if there had been some we would have heard of it. Bad news travels fast, especially when there are so many anti-nicotine extremists desperately looking for anything negative connected to the electronic cigarette.

Furthermore, as you are aware, our survey of several hundred electronic cigarette smokers clearly demonstrated that e-cigarette smokers are ex-tobacco smokers, not new nicotine addicts. Dr Murray Laugeson’s main concern is that there is not enough nicotine in the product to satisfy existing smokers, which suggests that it’s ability to hook people who did try the device out of curiousity would be reduced.

On a personal note, I’d argue that on the basis we live in a free society, if someone over the age of 18 wanted to take up a product that was both addictive and harmful, they should be allowed to do so. (And if I was a parent, I would rather they took up the electronic cigarette than a product which all the scientists we have spoken to have told us carried a hundred times the risk cigarettes!)

I think the opposite of what the letter argues (that the device could create new smokers) could also be true. Smokers who would have tried the electronic cigarette could be put off by any legislation, resulting in them staying with a product which is a known killer.

The final point, that electronic cigarettes could cause a public disturbance, seems a very weak one to me. However, in dealing with it we have to note that we have not heard of one case of the electronic cigarette causing a public disturbance – in fact, most of our customers have told us it has resulted in an interesting discussion. (And if people don’t believe that what they are smoking is an electronic cigarette, grinding it out in the corner of your eye is a very quick way to persuade them they are wrong.)

http://smokles.wordpress.com/2009/12/30/...n-reality/

[prof beard]

I'll back to a normal life after tomorrow and will have a go at the petition wording sometime this week. I'll take into account everything said in this thread...