Time to come together - show your support

[Kate]

[Kate]

[Kate]

[Kate]

[Kate]

MOTOR’s Mr No Fights For His Right To Enjoy (E) Fags

Quote:Bad boy techno rocker Mr No from MOTOR came out in public support of electronic cigarettes this week, revealing he’s finally managed to quit tobacco after recently experimenting with the soon-to-be banned nicotine delivery devices.

The notoriously hard-living Frenchman has written a protest letter to the British Government, begging them not to ban e-cigs, describing in vivid detail how they’ve changed his life after he tried them out.

... “The government uses real ciggies to make shit loads of money and to kill their people at a younger age to avoid problems with pension benefits. Now that a guru has found the solution to quitting cigarettes, I’m not surprised that they want to ban it. It wasn’t part of their devilish plan,” he suggested. (Click here for more information and to sign the petition

http://skrufff.com/2010/02/motor%E2%80%9...interview/

[Kate]

This is CASAA's press release:

Quote:Theresa Whitt, M.D., Medical Director for The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-Free Alternatives Association (CASAA) says that ignoring the astounding 79% success rate of electronic cigarettes as replacements for tobacco cigarette smoking would be an abdication of the MHRA's mission to safeguard public health. CASAA wants the MHRA to exclude electronic cigarettes from its plan to step up regulation of nicotine-containing products.

Consumer Group Urges MHRA to Add E-Cigarettes to Harm Reduction Strategy

February 11, 2010: Mobile, Alabama

The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-Free Alternatives Association (CASAA) today called upon the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) to exclude electronic cigarettes from its proposed regulatory framework, MLX 364, in view of the fact that 79% of regular users of an electronic cigarette have succeeded in using this product as a complete replacement for all their tobacco cigarettes. Electronic cigarettes are battery operated devices that vaporize a liquid that contains nicotine.

"As a result of eliminating their exposure to tobacco smoke, these consumers are experiencing significant improvement in their lung health and markers of cardiovascular health," stated Theresa Whitt, MD, CASAA Medical Director. "The 17% who have partially replaced their tobacco cigarettes are also reporting health improvements such as increased energy and improved sense of smell."

The statistics on the electronic cigarette success rate come from a survey conducted by the University of Alberta. There also have been recent news reports that, according to a poll conducted at Royal London Hospital, more than 50% of the people who stopped smoking during the past year preferred using the electronic cigarette. "If the MHRA doubts these statistics, it would take very little time and money for the agency to conduct their own survey to confirm or refute the findings," said Dr. Whitt. "But ignoring an astounding success rate like this, and taking action that might halt or reverse this positive outcome, would be an abdication of the MHRA's mission to safeguard public health."

"Recharacterizing the electronic cigarette as a medical product and regulating it as such stands to destroy its effectiveness as an alternative acceptable to smokers, Dr. Whitt continued. "One of the reasons that Nicotine Replacement Therapy, or NRT, products such as the nicotine patch, gum, lozenges, and inhalers have not worked for the majority of users is that the dose of nicotine is too low. The problem is then compounded when many revert to smoking as a result of discontinuing use of the NRT product."

The MHRA's Consultation Letter MLX 364 states "5% of smokers who quit using NRT remained quit after 8 years, and are assumed quit thereafter". Dr. Whitt believes that most, if not all, of the 79% who switched to electronic cigarettes will remain quit long-term, provided they can continue using their electronic cigarette.

"Many of those who have made the switch had no intention of quitting smoking," Dr. Whitt revealed. "But once they began using the electronic cigarette, they lost interest in lighting up a tobacco cigarette. In fact, many people report that when they attempt to smoke a regular cigarette again, they put it out after a puff or two because of the bad taste."

Dr. Whitt said that she believes the reason for the astonishing success rate of electronic cigarettes is that users can gear their nicotine intake to more closely match the nicotine level they used to obtain from smoking. Polls show that more than half of electronic cigarette users require a strength of 2.4% nicotine or higher, but less than 3% of users need a strength above 3.6% to stay off tobacco.

"Electronic cigarette consumers self-regulate their nicotine in the same way that tobacco smokers do, without much conscious thought," said Dr. Whitt. "They can increase or decrease the nicotine content in their cartridge, take more or fewer puffs, and adjust how they inhale. They determine their need for nicotine based on the same cues used by smokers: need for alertness, level of fatigue, mood, degree of stress, and state of muscular tension or relaxation."

Dr. Whitt pointed out that applying "Option 3 - Do nothing" to electronic cigarettes would not equate to lack of regulation. There are already regulations in place in the U.K. to ensure the quality and safety of electronic cigarette products. U.K. companies that distribute electronic cigarette liquid have had registered laboratories conduct toxicological testing. The companies have posted the results on their public web sites. So far, no tests have determined that electronic cigarette liquid or vapor contains harmful substances in quantities that would present a danger to human health.

"Of all the testing that has been conducted world-wide," stated Dr. Whitt, "the least useful has been the test conducted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FDA, enmeshed in a law suit with the two companies whose products were tested, made alarming announcements about carcinogens and toxins being detected. However, FDA failed to point out two important facts that would have placed their findings in the proper perspective: (1) the quantities of carcinogens in the liquid match the quantities in FDA-approved NRT products, and (2) all of the potentially harmful substances detected are present in tobacco smoke in quantities that are thousands of times larger."

"The biggest danger to human health would be the disappearance of electronic cigarettes as a much safer alternative to tobacco smoking," said Dr. Whitt. Dr. Whitt commended the MHRA for its efforts to pursue a tobacco harm-reduction approach, but added that she hoped that smoke-free alternatives such as Swedish snus and electronic cigarettes would be considered as part of the harm reduction strategy.

CASAA is a non-profit organization that works to ensure the availability of reduced harm alternatives to smoking and to provide smokers and non-smokers alike with truthful information about such alternatives. The association is headquartered in Mobile, Alabama USA, and has members from the U.S., Canada, and the U.K.

For further information:
The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-Free Alternatives Association
182 St Francis Street STE 300
Mobile, AL 36602
Elaine D. Keller
(703) 244-8692
ekeller@casaa.org

[Kate]

This is one of the petition comments from Margaret ****:

Quote:I am 82. Smoked from age 17. Have tried all the accepted "cures" - no joy! I accept my nicotine addiction, which is preferable to sugar & carbohydrate adidiction (and alcohol) which is allowed unrestricted endorsement. E cigs will save lives; my asthma has already improved but I am aware that this will not weigh against loss of revenue from sales of deadly tobacco. Nor will it impress the many people, MPS included who have vested interests in the industry. Support e-cigs, save lives!!!!

[Kate]

Dr. Stefan *** said this on the petition:

Quote:As a medical doctor I fully support the petition and the use of electronic cigarettes as an immensely valuable tool in preventive healthcare. I believe, that there is no single other measure in healthcare, which has a positive impact of similar magnitude on the impovement of a peoples health, than opening opportunities to the individual, which discourage the use of incendiary tobacco products. Instead of making access to less damaging nicotine altenatives more difficult, the government should support these altenatives! If every smoker converted to using non-incendiay nicotine products, like vaping electonic cigarettes, the socio-economical burden of the ever inceasing healthcare expenses could be drastically reduced!

[Kate]

[Kate]

Dave's MHRA submission:

Quote:I shall be sending this to the MHRA

Electronic Cigarettes and Regulation
Existing Regulation
Poisons Act, Consumer Laws etc.
Existing Regulation
Nicotine containing products are already regulated under the Poisons Act, which requires concentrations of no higher than 7.5% and packaging in fully CHIP compliant methods. In stark contrast, the traditional nicotine containing product - tobacco - is available in whatever nicotine level manufacturers care to produce, and is not required to be packaged in such a way that children cannot ingest the entire contents of a pack. It is therefore entirely possible - and desirable - that Trading Standards can, and should, police this aspect of both “e-liquid” (the “fuel” for electronic cigarettes) and other NCPs
Fitness for purpose.
Already existing legislation protects consumers from products which do not live up to their claims. That is to say, if e-liquid is advertised as being of 24mg/ml concentration, then it should be at that level (within limits) else it is not as described and a complaint can be made. Again, this is a matter for Trading Standards.
Ingredients.
UK manufacturers of e-liquid already produce full independent reports of the contents of their e-liquids. As smoking, and, by extension, electronic cigarette usage is a “user choice” matter it is entirely at the user’s discretion as to whether s/he wishes to use either tobacco or electronic cigarettes. Since all ingredients (with the exception of Nicotine) in e-liquid are generally recognised as safe, then it is a matter for consumers, and not regulators.
Safety
In MXL 364, MHRA states “With regard to safety, toxic elements may be included and unexpectedly high doses of Nicotine could produce adverse effects...” It is generally recognised that smokers self-titrate, and that they build up a tolerance for nicotine over time. It is almost impossible to overdose on nicotine using any inhalation method of delivery, in stark contrast to patch usage, where there have been numerous instances of people and children becoming very ill due to having too many patches applied at one time.
Much has been made of the notion that electronic cigarettes, in particular in non-tobacco flavours, might appeal to children. In all cases, electronic cigarettes look like what they are. The same cannot be said of, say, Nicotine gum, which is flavoured in child-friendly flavours, and looks exactly like many other non-nicotine bearing gums on the market, and patches have already been mistaken for sticking plasters on more than one occasion. Absolute safety does not exist for any product, and in this regard, electronic cigarettes are no different. However, weighed against the traditional method of nicotine delivery - tobacco - they have been rated as orders of magnitude safer as a switch product.
The FDA analysis. MXL 364 mentions the much publicised FDA analysis of a sample of sixteen nicotine cartridges from two manufacturers, and cites “We know from work done by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the United States that laboratory analyses of e-cigarette samples were found to contain carcinogens and toxic chemicals against which general product safety could not protect”. Firstly, the levels of carcinogens found in those samples were below the levels of the same carcinogens found in already authorised nicotine patches, and the toxic chemicals - which one must assume refers to Di-ethylene glycol - were at the threshold of detection and in only one cartridge. Bringing currently unlicensed e-liquids under regulation would do nothing to eliminate these issues at all - UK manufacturers are already using the exact same sources for their products as Pharmaceutical companies producing licensed NRT, and thus far, the MHRA and its associated bodies have provided no scientific evidence to show that their products are in any way dangerous.
Regulation by Function
A catch-all
The MHRA states that “Recent legal advice is that all products which contain nicotine which appreciably affect metabolism in normal usage my be within medicines legislation in terms of pharmacological action (medicinal by function)”. If this definition is rigorously applied, then, logically, tobacco products must be included. There can be no escape from this. A cigarette has no other function than to deliver a dose of nicotine, which will appreciably affect metabolism. That fact is inescapable, and if the MHRA wishes to press the point, there is a wealth of evidence to back it up. 
Electronic cigarettes are designed to mimic tobacco cigarettes in function - that is to be used the same way, with similar levels of tactile feel and nicotine delivery, but with minimal levels of carcinogenic and debilitating chemicals being delivered. Their prime intent is not to assist the smoker to quit the habit, but to switch the mechanism to one which is demonstrably less dangerous, not only to him, but also to those around him.
In other words, an electronic cigarette is a cigarette in all but those constituents of smoking that are known to cause death and debility. The two delivery methods perform exactly similar functions, and one cannot be considered without considering the other.
“appreciably affects metabolism”. The MHRA has been unable to confirm absolute levels, methods of measurement or any limits for applying the term “appreciably affects metabolism”. For instance, it is well known that Aubergines contain significant quantities of nicotine, and it is not inconceivable that the nicotine contained in them may “appreciably affect metabolism”. Without hard and fast limits, or thresholds for the term, “appreciably affects metabolism” has no meaning. While it may take the equivalent of ten cigarettes to have an appreciable affect on person A’s metabolism, another person may only need to nibble a slice of Aubergine in order to experience some sort of nicotine-related effect.
In effect, then, the phrase “appreciably affects metabolism” means whatever the person using it at the time wishes it to mean, and it is, therefore, neither scientific nor a valid measure.
Impact Assessments
Currently affected users
It is estimated that in the UK there are anywhere between 100,000 and 200,000 users of electronic cigarettes. Should the MHRA succeed in forcing Option 1 upon us, those users will have two courses of action. One is to quit altogether, and the other is to return to smoking cigarettes. Since the vast bulk of users are using electronic cigarettes in their intended purpose - that is as a substitute for smoking tobacco - and have not and are not using them as a stop-smoking device, it is extremely likely that they will return to smoking cigarettes rather than quit altogether.
That is the nature of the product - it is not designed as a smoking cessation device, neither is it generally used as a smoking cessation device - it is primarily a switch product for those smokers who wish to lessen the risk, but who do not wish to quit what is, after all, a perfectly legal recreational activity, altogether.
Businesses
Of the distributors in the UK, only a very small number are actually manufacturers, and of those, two have the bulk of the market in UK-made e-liquid. Their offerings are not vast, but are significant in number. Their products are manufactured in facilities already producing approved nicotine-bearing products, and thus are already subject to the stringent quality controls those establishments have in place.
Should the MHRA force either Option 1 or Option 2 upon us, neither manufacturer would have the funding available to process all of their offerings through an application where each product is considered in isolation from the others. If they are considered as a “family” than option 2 is potentially feasible. However, to date, the MHRA has not responded to my requests for further information regarding costings.
That, therefore, means that it is entirely possible that either or both manufacturers would be unable to supply the market, thus forcing users back to tobacco cigarettes.
Small businesses
There is a significant number of small vendors who do not manufacture, but are re-sellers. Their businesses are small, and their profits not vast. They do, however, service a need, and imposition of either Option 1 or Option 2 would, in all likelihood, force them out of business - certainly Option 1 would. Option 2 would give them time to re-structure their buying regimes, assuming that approved UK and EU manufactured product could be sourced in a timely fashion. The knock on effect to their customers is as has already been stated - they will be likely to return to smoking cigarettes if Option 1 is enacted.
Conclusion
Health Benefits
The research that is available points out that electronic cigarettes are orders of magnitude safer for both the smoker and the bystander when compared to tobacco cigarettes. It therefore makes no sense to, effectively, ban them from the 100,000 or more users currently in the UK and force them back to smoking tobacco cigarettes.
Regulation
Existing legislation already covers electronic cigarettes in terms of safety and quality, and since they are used as a substitute for tobacco smoking, and are growing in popularity, their efficacy is demonstrable. Therefore regulation by the MHRA is neither necessary nor desirable, but, if it should be enacted, logic dictates that tobacco cigarettes should be similarly regulated. In short, as long as tobacco cigarettes remain on the market, there can be no justification for MHRA regulation of electronic cigarettes by function.
Regulation by presentation is, of course, as now, an entirely different matter, and should remain as it is.
It is therefore my opinion that Option 3 be the option which the MHRA pursues - there is nothing which needs to be done, other than to ensure that current legislation is adhered to.

http://ukvapers.com/showthread.php?t=619