back to article The ‘Vaping Crackdown’ starts today. This is what you need to know

Draconian new regulations on vaping come into effect today – but for many vapers, it won’t feel like a crackdown, at least, not right away, Written into the EU’s revised Tobacco Products Directive were new rules restricting the supply, manufacture and promotion of things which aren’t tobacco products at all, but which have …

Not in the doses gained from e-cigs - not even the entire bottles of eliquid contain enough nic to make you do more than puke up - the LD50 of nicotine is at best, highly contested seeing as it came from a 19th century pharmacologist testing on himself, and then ignoring other evidence; but because he was famous and well regarded, even though he was talking utter bollocks, it was ignored. Bit like Chapman.

Cite some sources. Silver badge or not, if you can't back up your claims, you're basically just talking bollocks.

Bit like Chapman.

Steven R

2
0
Anonymous Coward

"No, but it's an extremely potent neurotoxin"

nicotine is neurotoxin in high doses but at the levels typically found in smokers blood it it has been found to have a positive neuroprotective effect. Scientists are currently investigating if it can be used to slow the progress of alzheimers.

"with the potential to kill someone in a few minutes if misused"

pure nicotine might be dangerous but at the concentrations found in e-liquids you'd have to work pretty hard to kill yourself and besides there are a whole load of things you'd find in the typical house that are much more poisonous and nobody seems to be worrying about them.

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Have a large cold one, Steven R !

You posted a load of useful details around late March/early April, prompting me to have another go at vaping after 37 years of supporting the tobacco industry. (I had given it a shot two years ago with tobacco-flavoured e-liquid, but found that it tasted like sucking on a 3-week old ashtray - mission aborted; I preferred my ashtrays warm.)

Ran out of my alpha test 12mg/menthol e-liquid after less than a week while having ordered a batch, and reverted to the analog ciggies for a day to bridge the gap until the new stock was delivered. I found the taste vile (if anyone would have warned me about that, I'd have told them to pull the other) and was relieved when my order arrived.

I haven't looked back. Within 10 days my smoker's cough evaporated (pun intended) as did the occasional wheeze. No more burning leaves for this here geezer, so have a large cold one as the details you provided definitely encouraged me to revisit vaping - a big thanks (from me, and from my family and friends) !

Fingers crossed that the idiots (and lobbying scum) who want to regulate vaping to death will fail miserably.

AC as I don't want insurance companies and the likes to insist on having a word (or none at all) if they would find out about those 37 years, if the excrement would strike the airconditioner...

7
0

Re: Have a large cold one, Steven R !

You know, it's odd - I've helped a few mates off the fags (And some friends tried it, and didn't take to it, which is fair enough) but I'm really pleased for you, and glad to have helped.

As I've always said (or at least, inferred), it's not a panacea, but if it's made your life better, then top banana to you, good AC.

My next suggestion would be give it a couple of months till you're basically not thinking about the smokes, period - then look at dropping your nic level. £5 says you barely notice, if at all.

Then if you want to stop the vaping, you know that you can. If you enjoy the physical sensation of it, then I hope I've given you a realistic appraisal of the facts as they stand - and do keep on top of the science. The New Nicotine Alliance and people like Dave Dorn of VapourTrails TV are not just pro-vaping, blinkered numpties and know there are some risks, and I'm sure they'll keep us appraised of the situation.

As for insurance - well, you don't smoke, do you? If your insurance company disagrees, refer them to the RCP, to be blunt.

You'll find that whole 'not smoking' thing - because you aren't - handy for moving into rented accommodation (assuming you rent, natch) as vaping doesn't do any damage to property providing you have an occasional dusting session. Landlords, take note....

I have corners of my flat that I never touch (behind the TV etc) that are a little slick with VG fallout, but two seconds with some kitchen towel sorts it; which is rather better than having to redo an entire flat because of tar damage, etc....

Anyway, rant over - glad to have helped, good AC. Keep on top of the science and well done on dropping the smokes. Now, let me talk to you about drippers, rebuildable tanks and 100% VG liquids.... ;-)

Steven R

3
0
Silver badge

Re: Have a large cold one, Steven R !

You're a font of information Mr Raith :)

Could you recommend a site for more info on brands, options etc. In a non-promotional, purely informative way. Or you can just tell me, but you're pretty busy correcting the commentards :D

I smoke about half a pack a day, plus some non tobacco products. I've tried a couple of vapes, but both died very quickly and I suspect where a bad batch (the shop replaced them once, then refunded me after it went again) and I perhaps trusted the shop more than my usual "what does the internet say?"

TIA

1
0

Re: Have a large cold one, Steven R !

Half a pack a day?

Hmm, I'd guess from that you smoke mouth to lung, rather than carbing/sidestreaming/lunghitting, in which case, a good mouth to lung device like the Innoken Endura T18/T22 (same device, just different battery/tank capacity, T22 being bigger) would suffice, with 12mg (max - 18mg will likely be overkill) juice of a flavour you like would suffice. Do try *lots* of flavours, though, they really are the kicker. For throat hit, something fruity with a touch of menthol is good, the menthol throat hit will nix some need for nicotine as it replicates the effect a tad.

No need to worry about big lung-hitting stuff (if you do carb/sidestream the fags, you can do that with the T18/22 as well), really. Just get one of those kits for around the cost of five packets of 20 and chances are it'll pay for itself within a week.

Of course, I couldn't possibly recommend such a thing, as that would be promotion, and against the TPD regs.

See how stupid the regs are now, commentards? Someone wants to stop smoking, and I can't even recommend a device publicly on the internet without falling foul of the law. And the device that I'm suggesting, as it has more than 2ml capacity meaning you're not filling it up all the time, will be banned come next May.

*slow handclap at the EU*

Steven R

PS: I'm Raithtech_uk on twitter - follow me at your peril, I do all the advocacy retweets!

2
0
Silver badge

Re: Have a large cold one, Steven R !

Thanks Steven :)

And I'd like to make it clear that you are purely informing me of an option, that in no way constitutes a recommendation :)

1
0

Re: Have a large cold one, Steven R !

I'd agree with the Endura T18. I'd tried quitting using the £10 market stall e-cigs and they did nothing for me.

A friend recommended that I had a chat with a real vape shop and they recommended the T18. It's brilliant.

0
0

They should exempt unflavoured liquids.

I am extremely irritated by smoking, but I have no problem with people using unflavoured vapes right next to me, however the flavoured ones are often close to as bad as real cigarettes.

0
2

Re: They should exempt unflavoured liquids.

Aaaw, does little Jessie find flavoured e-cigs a touch annoying?

I find people who take curries or fish and chips into the office for lunch to be Just The Worst, but I'm fairly sure I can't suggest legislating against that for fear of being labelled a complete fucking tosser as it's doing absolutely no harm to my health, just like flavoured e-cigs do no harm to yours.

Guess what I'm inferring. Go on.

On a more (genuinely) serious note, if someone is vaping with an obnoxious flavour in your office, try letting them know and ask if they'd mind taking that particular vape to the kitchen area/lobby/etc - amazingly, chances are they'll listen. If not, then standard grievance procedures can be followed for general misconduct.

If someone is being a prick in the office, report them for it, being vaping something abhorrant, or farting in your face, or running around without their top on, etc. There are rules in place for this arleady. Use them.

Steven "Only *near* infinite patience" R

4
0
Silver badge

Doh!

Didn't anyone check out that TLA's meaning before adopting it.

Having said that, seeing some of their policies makes one wonder if it was deliberate.

I get that tobacco products are bad and that they push people to give up. So, an option that makes it easier for them to give up and doesn't result in butts and ash must be good as a half way house - if not for the user, then for everyone else.

I don't get how making it harder for people will help, particularly as they are addicted to the product. As a non-smoker, I'd prefer people to be vaping than smoking next to me.

Looking at the new rules makes me wonder if the rules affects real cigarettes in the same way. Am I OK to wander around with a couple of carrier bags of cancer sticks but not a bottle with the same amount of nicotine in it ? Seems a bit poorly thought out.

Personally, I'm worrying about the time when they will get bored of worrying about other things and try to regulate alcohol - imagine that with limits of 5ml containers.!

2
0

Re: Doh!

Dude, look at how they are approaching sugar these days.

Don't be surprised to see plain packaging for fast food and chocolate soon.

And yeah, "Oh, it'll never happen" - yeah, they said that about booze too, now they're mooting smoking style images on the bottles...

Steven R

2
0
Anonymous Coward

I'll just leave this here. http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/02/e-cigs-shut-down-hundreds-of-immune-system-genes-regular-cigs-dont/

0
6

Tell you what, link the actual study and I'll have a look.

Because it doesn't appear to be peer reviewed, and I can't find it on pubmed. Anyone can publish a clickbait study, doesn't mean it's valid, representative, etc. This is especially common in the US at the moment.

That, and you know, the admittedly anecdotal fact that most vapers tend not to suffer colds and flu as severely as smokers rather makes the 'research' look a bit silly. That, and the emerging evidence of reversal of harm in smoking ashtmatics and COPD sufferers which rather blows the doors off of your link.

Nice try.

Next time you leave something here, at least leave a plastic bag so I can put in the bin without getting my hands all brown and sticky, eh?

Steven R

4
1

the study

All that study is saying is that nicotine and cinnamaldehyde have an immunosuppressive effect... so what? We have known that for years. It's exactly the result you would have predicted and not surprising since both of them are produced by the plant as an insecticide.

0
0

Having never been a smoker, I cannot attest to the validity of the claim that it helps you stop smoking. I can only say that nicotine is used as an insecticide. That is why tobacco is so easy to grow, no insects Will eat it. Essentially E-cigarette users are breathing in bug spray. no amount of argument will convince me that is healthy. Even the bugs no better. And I for one do not want to breathe in anyone's secondhand smoke/evapor. E cigarettes have also been known to explode. Who would ever want to use an item that could blow up in their face. It just doesn't make sense to me. the regulation also keeps them out of the hands of minors. A group that is not supposed to be smoking anyway.

And as far as regulation goes, industry in general has proven time and time again that it does not care about people's Safety/health. In the past here in the US, Unregulated industry, has polluted The air and many of the lakes and streams. Illegally dumping chemicals, In remote areas just to get rid of them. at one time the pollution got so bad that the Ohio River caught fire. Industry Resisted the regulation that solved this problem. in fact the tobacco industry fought the regulations that the government wanted to implement. They denied that Cigarettes were harmful, they denied cigarettes caused heart disease and cancer. They denied cigarettes were addictive. And all of that was proven that it was true. And it was also proven that they knew that it was true, but was trying to hide the facts, and mislead the public. just so they could continue to make enormous profits.

Without regulations of e cigarettes, they could put whatever chemicals they wanted In them. Including chemicals that would be hallucinogenic in nature. A product called bath salts comes to mind. Although it was advertised for one use, it's only value was as a hallucinogenic drug. And it has been outlawed.

in fact Using E cigarettes, it is possible to ingest more nicotine than a regular cigarette would have. the regulations enacted is designed to make sure the E cigarette companies work in a responsible manner. the Regulations are not perfect, they will evolve. but I believe they are necessary.

without government regulation, This country would die. We would have lead poisoning from paints, From Gasoline, water pipes, and from the solder used in canned Foods. We would have Mercury Poisoning, The air would be so polluted we could not breathe It. the waters would be so polluted we could not drink It. There would be people dying in factories because of unsafe working conditions. even the cars we drive Would be less safe. and if you don't believe me look at China, one of its rivers is so polluted that nothing can live in or around it. The air pollution in some cities is so bad that it can be seen from space.

So don't condemn the regulations, or get mad when government steps in. Work with your representatives to improve the regulation So it is fair for both Industry and the public. and don't be taken in by the claims of industry when they say their product is safe. Look at the science on both sides and even look at the Reputable independent sources. Ignore the hype and look at the science behind It. and make up your own mind.

0
7

"Having never been a smoker, I cannot attest to the validity of the claim that it helps you stop smoking. I can only say that nicotine is used as an insecticide. That is why tobacco is so easy to grow, no insects Will eat it. Essentially E-cigarette users are breathing in bug spray."

Yeah, that just proves that you have no idea what you're talking about. The rest of your hilariously ignorant comment is barely worth critiquing, but I can assure you it's equally moronic.

Start from "The dose makes the poison" and move on from there. I suggest you have a look at my comments on Andrews last article on this subject to realise how blithely ignorant you are, and why the phrase "better to be thought of as an idiot, than to open ones mouth and prove it" comes from.

Steven R

5
1

Ignorant, and long-winded. Just perfect.

2
0

"Who would ever want to use an item that could blow up in their face"

Like, say, an iPhone...?

0
0
Silver badge

Hey, cars have been known to crash. Who in their right mind would want to get into a vehicle that could mangle them horribly?

0
0
Law

My only issue with vaping

... so my only gripe with vaping is the advertising. An old antiques so closed near me recently, it's been replaced by a vaping shop... a mile down the road the same franchise opened another. The only thing in common is theirproximity to secondary schools. They've got 2 massive boards outside on the pavement, there are "sails" outside too...and it's all fun cool branding in he window too... designed to look fun and appealing. It's next door to a school and next to a kids shoe shop. Not long after opening we've noticed more teenagers walking around vaping. They shouldn't make it hard for adults and smokers to get on these things, they will help people already hooked... but they should get on top of the advertising part of it. retailers are sending mixed messages, if it's just about getting off the cigs, why target kids and make the shops look like a cross between Alton towers and Game. More to the point, why are they allowed to be so over the top with branding and advertising to kids. That's the bit that's winding me up, and the only thing they should really be making difficult for the companies .

These are the guys, but in the uk...

http://www.totallywicked-eliquid.com

0
2

Re: My only issue with vaping

Shop opens next to other shops non-shocker ;-)

In all seriousness, sales to under 18s have been banned for ages (and no shop worth their salt sold to under 18s anyway) so if you think they are selling to under 18s, report 'em.

However, do be sure to report all the local corner shops where the kids get their snacks from, who aren't legally required to cover up their cigarette stands (unlike bigger supermarkets; I think that's still the case), or who have booze just piled up in crates next to the crisps etc, too. Because that's more of a danger just from pure shoplifting terms than a shop that has strict under-18s policy, as all vape shops these days do, by law, and no corner shop does.

Because oddly enough adults respond to bright colours and cool, fun marketing things too. And having seen TWs marketing, I'm struggling to think of where they're advertising to kids. Please, do show me. I have little time for TW (I have moved on from their products to bigger, better devices and liquids - but if you're a newbie, they're totally worth a look) but even I won't throw that accusation at them. I've been ID'd in their shops, and I'm 33 for gods sake.

These aren't really arguments against vaping per se - they are assumptions that kids are imbeciles. Oddly enough, most data shows that kids view vaping with the same disdain they show for smoking. You say they're targetting kids; I'll give you a hint - speak to trading standards and prove it. Otherwise, you've got no argument to make.

The 'think of the children' card simply doesn't hold up to the fact that >98% of vapers are adult ex-smokers, and that stat hasn't changed since they started taking it, and isn't changing now either. This is YouGov data from ASH, by the way, who hate smokers and aren't exactly supportive of vaping either.

And frankly, even if a small percentage of youth (I note you use the term teenagers, not 'underage'...) take it up, that's nothing compared to the damage reversed to adult smokers who take it up over smoking - and there's a pretty decent argument that if kids are smoking, they perhaps should have access to vaping tech too - maybe one of those Big Tobacco medically licensed products on prescriton (much as they can with NRT; if NRT doesn't work, prescription vape might help). Yes, you can get NRT on prescription down to, I believe 12 years old.

There's a big picture here, and you're missing it. It's called harm reduction. You might be concerned about underage vaping, but compared to adult smoking, it's a drop in the ocean.

Steven R

1
1
Law

Re: My only issue with vaping

I wouldn't say vaping is harmless - it's still nicotine, and that's an additive substance - kids pointlessly getting hooked on anything isn't harmless.

I wasn't attacking vaping, I was saying the vaping shops I've seen recently open up are literally next door to two secondary schools (they don't seem to like highstreets or rows of shops not next to schools), and with the close one open I've suddenly seen kids walking around using them. Those are observations and they might be coincidence, but I doubt it. But more than that, I don't see why it takes 4 massive signs outside a shop already plastered with branding to pull in business. No other shop needs that level of advertising and this is the largest corner plot with 2 sides of huge window displays and signage, the other 5 shops in that row either have a small billboard or nothing and have been there for decades. That isn't about helping people, that's about profit, and we both know when companies want profit they'll sell to anybody one way or another.

On me missing the big picture - I'm really not. My mums been a smoker since she was 9, my entire family (mum, dad, aunties and uncles, brothers and sisters - everyone!) growing up were smokers and most of them will be until they die (that's happening with cancer and emphysema mainly so far, for over a decade). My mum's actually terminal with smoking related illness too, using nebulisers etc to breathe, but still smoking. I don't smoke, I've seen what it does even growing up, and wasn't stupid enough to start (or cool enough, for smokers who wanted to feel good about themselves).

I get why people can't or don't want to stop - I get vaping is a good alternative - I wish I'd been in a house with strawberry smelling steam growing up instead of clouds of choking smoke, yellow walls and smelly clothes. In that way, it's good for the kids... I just think they need to think about who they're targeting as an industry, it's about trying to help or even stop the addiction for people already hooked, not just swapping addictions (albeit less harmful) for a new generation, helped into it by greedy companies.

"Think of the children" isn't always a bad thing, somebody has to, may as well be the parents, yeah?

1
0

Re: My only issue with vaping

Cheers for the further info, and apologies for being a bit harsh - wine, and having to basically correct every misconception on these threads might be getting to me a bit ;-) as such, I retract all of my obviously more twatty statements about big picture and all that (yes, I had the yellow walls growing up too!)

As I state, the shops are strictly over 18s only (most shops won't allow non-over18s even across the threshold without being accompanied by an adult) specifically because they know that it gives a really bad impression. As for the TW shop up the road from the school, without knowing the specifics, it just sounds like they've found a good bit of space that was available at an opportune time; perhaps the space required/desired was limited and that was only place available in a town they wanted to have presence in?

Long story short, it's unlikely they moved there to capture the kiddy market, given that TW are a very well know brand in the market, and one of their shops being done for selling to kids would be....shall we say, bad for them.

Ultimately, the stats show that kids who are using these devices, almost without exception, were smoking anyway; there are no stats that show non-smoking kids touching them, outside of experimentation. So while it might look like more than a coincidence, it's more than likely that it's kids who smoked anyway who are using them, mixed in with kids who think they look cool, who are using non-nicotine based liquids (which is the majority of experimenters)

Problem is, with so much of the debate so polarised, it's difficult to get nuance in there (and to some extent, my wine-fuelled posts don't help, I'll grant you) but the broader picture at the moment is getting rid of bad regulation that will fuel a black market for these devices that are out of spec with the TPD, at which point there won't be shops operating an 18+ policy moderating sales - as they legally won't be able to sell them; it'll be ebay, car boot sales etc with no restrictions on device quality, liquid quality, etc.

Bad regulation is bad, basically.

Steven R

2
0

Capitalism's true colours

Here is an unregulated market with a multitude of suppliers, for a product that is demonstrably safer than its main competitor.

What is the response of our supposedly free-market loving capitalists? Regulate it to the point of unprofitability to protect the business models of the big incumbents who donate to their political parties and offer lucrative executive positions.

2
1
Silver badge

Re: Capitalism's true colours

"Here is an unregulated market with a multitude of suppliers, for a product that is demonstrably safer t

than its main competitor."

The key point is this one:

If someone was to invent alcohol or tobacoo on Monday, they'd be banned by Friday. "safer" is relative when both substances make appearances in the "most dangerous drugs" lists put together by health groups.

0
2

Re: Capitalism's true colours

Except E-cigs are, quite specifically, not tobacco, and are known to be 95% safer than lit tobacco. Nicotine is not, in itself, any more dangerous than caffiene in the real world.

You really are talking a load of bollocks Alan. You know, unless you claim to know more than the Royal Society for Public Health.

"Shirley Cramer CBE, Chief Executive of RSPH “Over 100,000 people die from smoking-related disease every year in the UK. While we have made good progress to reduce smoking rates, 1 in 5 of us still does. Most people smoke through habit and to get their nicotine hit. Clearly we would rather people didn’t smoke, but in line with NICE guidance on reducing the harm from tobacco, using safer forms of nicotine such as NRT and e-cigarettes are effective in helping people quit. Getting people onto nicotine rather than using tobacco would make a big difference to the public’s health – clearly there are issues in terms of having smokers addicted to nicotine, but this would move us on from having a serious and costly public health issue from smoking related disease to instead address the issue of addiction to a substance which in and of itself is not too dissimilar to caffeine addiction.”

You're just making yourself look stupid now. Please stop.

Steven R

3
0

Re: Capitalism's true colours

"The key point is this one: If someone was to invent alcohol or tobacoo on Monday, they'd be banned by Friday. "safer" is relative when both substances make appearances in the "most dangerous drugs" lists put together by health groups."

Relatively safer is still safer. If I'm undertaking a risky activity, it still makes sense to mitigate the risk as much as I can, but obviously it's never going to be as safe as not doing the risky activity at all. However I don't think safety is the issue here, it's a combination of hypocritcal puritanism and financial vested interests.

In this instance, a market has been created around a nicotine delivery system that is "relatively safer" than the established method, but circumvents the revenue streams of both huge corporations and governments. A government that truly cared about safety would forgo the lost tax income and might even go so far as to ban the "relatively dangerous" established method. But smokers are lucrative pariahs, tobacco companies are generous political donors, and governments don't really care about safety so the status quo must be maintained.

If someone invented and started giving away a totally safe recreational drug on Monday, it would still be banned by Friday, because the powers that be don't like the idea of the general public enjoying themselves when they could be busy working, unless there's plenty of profit to be made, in which case, it's fine even if it's harmful.

2
0
Silver badge

Re: Capitalism's true colours

I see the invective being thrown about by the smokers is much the same as when smoking indoors was being banned.

_IF_ vaping was something that only existing smokers did then it would be a net health gain. I am very well aware that vaping is _probably_ healthier than smoking if you're going to smoke.

Big tobacco has targetted kids for generations with the bright packaging. Whilst paying lip service to "no smoking under 18", the packaging was to get their attention - and whilst it may be illegal in this country to sell vaping or cigarette products to under 18s, it's not illegal for under 18s to smoke or vape.

There is a large uptake of vaping in the younger set, who think 1: "vaping is cool" and 2: Vapes are a lot easier to hide than cigarettes. These new recruits are cruicial to the industry and it's this group that the government has been trying to dissuade from taking up smoking for years - hence the push to minimum packet sizes + high taxation.

Pushing that group into the loving arms of the vaping industry isn't going to help much. The changes being seen aren't about big Pharma, it's about BAT and JPT and all the other big tobacco companies looking at which way the wind is blowing and supporting changes which make it easier for kids to afford to buy product and to get hooked.

0
2

Re: Capitalism's true colours

This is the third time I've given this data in some way or another destroying the 'kids are vaping everywhere' argument.

Try to read it. Your concerns are not "not backed up by a lack of evidence", they are destroyed by authoritative YouGov surveys performed by ASH who, if they saw dangerous numbers, would be screaming from the rooftops about it.

From 2013 onwards YouGov has been commissioned by ASH to conduct an annual online survey of young people aged between 11 and 18, called Smokefree GB Youth Survey. It includes questions on electronic cigarettes. The most recent Smokefree GB Youth Survey was carried out in March 2015 and relevant comparisons with previous years are presented here.

In 2015 only 7% of 11-18 year olds said they had not heard of electronic cigarettes, down from 33% in 2013. 13% of those surveyed had tried e-cigarettes at least once, this is up from 5% in 2013. In 2015 more young people (21%) had tried cigarettes than electronic cigarettes and 64% of those using e-cigarettes had tried tobacco first. Regular use (once a month or more) was rare and largely among children who currently or have previously smoked. 2.4% of respondents said they used electronic cigarettes once a month or more, including 0.5% who used them weekly.

THEEEEE CHEEEELDREEEEEN are not taking up vaping in large numbers, and those that are, are almost exclusively smokers already. Beyond smokers, outside of experimentation, non-smokers aren't touching them. At all.

This is not an argument. Saying it again, and again, and again will not make it true.

Big Tobacco has a tiny slice of the e-cig market, and no-one who makes e-cigs and liquids independantly - that's >80% of the e-cig market - want anything to do with Big Tobacco.

We would be much happier if the current anti-harm-reductionists (Glantz, Chapman, etc) would hold their hands up and admit that maybe these things have a place in harm reduction, and would help us keep Big Tobacco out of the market entirely because they have the experience of dealing with those bastards and keeping them in check as best they can.

But they, like you, keep mewling like imbeciles about THEEEEE CHEEEEEDREEEEEN when there is reams of very solid evidence that there is nothing to worry about, particularly. The kids are alright. Especially the ones vaping, as they are reducing the harm they were getting from lit tobacco.

How many times do I have to say this before it sinks in?

Steven R

1
0
Silver badge

@ Alan Brown Re: Capitalism's true colours

"There is a large uptake of vaping in the younger set, who think 1: "vaping is cool" and 2: Vapes are a lot easier to hide than cigarettes. These new recruits are cruicial to the industry and it's this group that the government has been trying to dissuade from taking up smoking for years "

I think you may be conflating two disparate things here, as in your para above which starts off with kids vaping and ends with them smoking.

Yes, a new market is crucial to the tobacco industry, since their existing customers are dying early and depriving them of income. BAT has a very minor slice of the vaping market, and is pushing it's medically approved e-cig as a smoking cessation device. BAT are going for big NHS (is that a thing?) funding to assure their profits going forward, just as the pharmaceutical companies are pitching vapesticks against 'tried & trusted' (though essentially ineffective) approved and regulated NRT products.

The evidence from the regular ASH surveys seems to indicate kids are moving away from ciggies to vaping, indicating a future break in the tobacco industry's 'Customer Replenishment Program'. Since kids are going to experiment anyway, I'd rather they experimented with something that is proven 95% safer than cigarettes, even if they are doing it to 'look cool'.

Let's face it, looking cool, whether imagined or real, is the reason most kids take up smoking anyway.

0
0

Re: @ Alan Brown Capitalism's true colours

It's really quite wonderful if you don't like Big Tobacco.

In the UK the stats (that I've posted three times on these comments....) show that kids who never smoked basically just aren't interested in vaping. That's fine.

In the US, the stats show that only 20% of (similarly small percentage of) youth using e-cigs use nicotine - although it doesn't drill deep enough to show whether these are smoke-naive, or previous smokers; on the flipside, I don't think the ASH data records nicotine use, so six of one, half a dozen of the other...

Regardless, as nicotine outside of smoking shows next to zero addictive qualities (this is true in lab rats and also in clinical experiments with nicotine, or NRT, in never smokers - it's why NRT doesn't have an addiction warning) this means that any potential gateway to smoking (or even regular vaping) is limited at best outside of existing smoking youth - to which e-cigs appear to be a gateway out of smoking.

Then have a look at the conversion rates from 'experimentation' to 'regular use' for cigarettes - that's a different story. One that anyone who smokes will likely remember being very powerful, and it's backed up by the stats, even if you remove the hyperbole.

So as you say, if the kids must experiment - and I was one once, and I did - then better to piss about with an e-cig than a lit smoke on every front.

Steven R

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Was thinking ...

I was thinking about taking up smoking.

Think I'll start on the nicotine patches and work my way up.

1
0
Silver badge

Here comes the nicotine Mafia

Anytime something is banned or heavily taxed, the door opens for people to supply the demand at fat profit by importing the item in bulk and selling it from under the counter.

People already buy fags in Belgium and drive them back to resell. There is a shop in almost every neighborhood of a certain size that has "good deals" for people they know. The same people picking up smokes could also bring back what looks like a case of beer except it's 24 varieties of vaping liquid ready to be packaged into 25ml bottles bought via eBay from China for pence.

e-cigs helped me quit smoking. Patches didn't work, I can't stand the gum and electro-shock therapy isn't my bag, baby. The only plausible push behind the bans and lead-weight regulations is pushing by the tobacco industry. I'm quite sure that many politicians have had to buy new and larger safes to store the bribes.

1
0

Shouldn't be long now before they start adding duty to the liquids.

1
0
Unhappy

Very likely true, sadly. There's a shitstorm of under-funding coming the Treasury's way as vaping gains momentum (much as I hate much of the TPD's content and loathe the interests behind it, I don't think it'll reverse what's happening) so they'll have to raise more cash from somewhere, and vaping's the obvious Daily-Mail-pleasing target.

I just hope our constituency grows enough before they get their arses in gear to start enacting that move, that we can fight it.

1
0
Gold badge
Flame

The EU.

Pointless legislation brought to you by hideously overpaid, chair-polishing cunts.

1
1
Silver badge

Attracting children in needs to be stopped

Fruit-flavoured/scented tobaccos were banned decades ago because they generally targetted kids.

Fruit-flavoured e-cigs are popular with younger vapers - many of whom have never smoked a cigarette in their life.

Making vapes available in "attractive" flavours was an act of self-inflicted well-poisoning. Once that happened and young people started vaping, governments couldn't NOT pay attention to an uptick in nicotine consumption when the trend has been steadily downwards for a long time.

Several shop managers I've spoken to are deeply uncomfortable with fruit-flavoured vaping materials but have been ordered to stock and sell them by their Head Office. In many cases they're brightly advertised at the front of the counter, beside the impulse-buy candies.

0
6

Re: Attracting children in needs to be stopped

"Fruit-flavoured e-cigs are popular with younger vapers - many of whom have never smoked a cigarette in their life."

Absolute horseshit.

Hmm. Adults, shock horror, also like flavours. Not just THEEEE CHEEEEELDREEEEEEN.

Go on, show me the evidence that flavours are getting THEEEEE CHEEEEELDREEEEEN hooked on e-cigs. I'm quite certain you can't as no such evidence exists.

Here's my evidence showing almost a complete lack of youth uptake - probably the most authoritative e-cig usage study in the world, and I quote, from page 116-117:

"Data on the use of non-tobacco nicotine among children are limited to e-cigarette use.

Annual surveys by ASH of young people in the UK since 2013 demonstrate that awareness of e-cigarettes has grown substantially, such that, in 2015, only 7% of young people reported no knowledge of these products, and the proportion of young people who had tried e-cigarettes increased over these three surveys from 5% to 13%.

However, of the 13% of young people who reported in 2015 ever having tried an e-cigarette, most (80%) had done so only once or twice.

Only 2.4% of all participants in the survey had used e-cigarettes once or more a month, and 0.5% once or more a week.

The Scottish SALSUS (Schools Adolescent and Lifestyle and Substance Use Survey) study reported similar findings among 13- and 15-year-olds in 2013, with 7% and 17%, respectively, reporting ever having tried to use or used an e-cigarette, and only 1% in each age group using the product more than ‘once or a few times’.

In 2014, the Welsh Health Behaviour in School-aged Children survey of 11- to 16-year-olds in Wales reported that 12.3% of participants had ever used an e-cigarette, and 1.5% were using e-cigarettes at least once a month.

The 2014 Smoking, Drinking and Drug Use survey of children aged 11–15 in England found that 22% of participating children had ever used an e-cigarette, but only 1% reported regular use.

Regular use of e-cigarettes among young people in the UK thus appears to be very rare. As in adults, it appears that it occurs predominantly among those who are using, or have used, tobacco cigarettes. In 2013 in the Scottish study, all of those who reported having used e-cigarettes more than a few times had been, or were still, smokers.

The 2014 Welsh survey reports very similar findings, with young people aged 11–15 who had ever used an e-cigarette being over 20 times more likely than never-users to have ever smoked; those using e-cigarettes more than once a month were more than 100 times more likely to be smoking cigarettes at least once a week. The 2015 ASH survey also reports a strong association between use of e-cigarettes and tobacco cigarettes, with almost all e-cigarette users either being current smokers, or having tried or been regular smokers in the past.

Regular e-cigarette use in the 2014 English Smoking, Drinking and Drug Use survey was exclusive to children who had at least tried smoking"

I have not hyperlinked the sources for the individual data sources, as I feel it'd do you good to read that report, even if it's just the summaries, which are concise and clear.

In short, if fruity flavours are so attractive to THEEEE CHEEEELDREEEEN, explain why regular (As opposed to experimental) use in youth is almost exclusively limited to those who are already smoking, and is in the sub 3% (and closed to 1% in most cases) range across the entire country, data which is not dissimilar in the US, too?

Ah, wait, you can't.

Sources: Learn to cite them.

It'll stop you from being made to look shall we say, a touch shallow.

Steven R

PS: This post brought to you by cheap wine; if I have been overly harsh, I'll apologise in 't morn.

4
0

Re: Attracting children in needs to be stopped

Flavours, I'm gonna call BS on Alan here too. I've been using eCigs for a fortnight and started on tobacco to make my transition a bit easier (I'm 'reducing' after about 30 years of smoking tobacco). I've done it, and am just vaping now. However I started to dislike the taste of tobacco, so I (on impulse) got a cherry flavour last week and I love it! I'm on a juice of 11mg/ml and really like it. I have 2 eCigs now, one with tobacco flavour in at 5v for my morning coffee, and the other with the Cherry flavour in set at 4v for during the day.

If I can move to flavours other than tobacco I'll be very happy, I'll smell a bit nicer for others. I appreciate that smell now, because after just a fortnight I am becoming very aware of the smell.

My experience with these things was a leap in the dark, but the local eCigs shop really helped me figure it all out (after I read a lot first). I've today washed out my ash trays and packed them in a drawer. Here is my write up after my first 7 days of kicking the weed...

www.yourgibraltartv.com/blog/11823-jun-03-tale-of-an-accidental-quitter

I think these things are brilliant, helping me stop years of murdering myself. The alternative flavours are helping reduce my liking for tobacco flavour, and I still get the nicotine hit I very much need.

2
0
x 7
Silver badge

you're all missing something. With the new rules over cigarette labeling, the assumption by industry is that the appeal to kids will be lessened so the market will drop. Big industry needs an alternative product to sell to kids, and the vaping market is it. Vaping creates a whole new alternative market in which children can be suckered with sweet fruity tastes, with the hope that they'll graduate to tobacco in one form or another. And of coure, advertising vaping isn't banned.

Its the same mindset as created the alcopops market: fruit flavoured alcohol aimed at the underage drinking market. Catch 'em as kids, you've get 'em for life

0
5

SMH

As I've posted elsewhere, the number of kids using the devices is well under 3%, and mostly under 1%.

You can make baseless assertions all you like, but if the real world usage numbers don't back them up - and they don't - then that's all they are - baseless assertions. There is no evidence to support that kids are taking these devices up who were not already smoking, which is significantly more dangerous

my post with the detailed stats from the RCP report.

You know, the one right above yours. That you clearly didn't read because yet again, you're ignoring any evidence that doesn't suit your existing narrative. I'd suggest readers click on x 7s name to see his previous baseless assertions, and my comprehensive destruction of them.

Steven R

1
0
x 7
Silver badge

Re: SMH

@ S Raith

" I'd suggest readers click on x 7s name to see his previous baseless assertions, and my comprehensive destruction of them."

1) I haven't made any baseless assertions

2) You haven't comprehensively destroyed anything I've said

All I've seen from you in response to my comments are a series of rambling unstructured monologues which appear alcohol-fueled, irrelevant unsubstantiated hearsay, based on what you would LIKE to be true, as opposed to reality. In the main I've chosen to ignore your comments as arguing with a deluded fool rarely provides a return on the energy and time expended.

However......your comments about shops selling vaping kit being "exclusively over 18" is total bollox. Go into any shop round here selling the stuff and the kids are in the majority. Same on the street - who do you see vaping? Kids and impressionable young women. Your argument that "those kids would have been doing it anyway" is irrelevant and misguided. The point is that the new cigarette labeling legislation was specifically intended to make tobacco products less appealing to kids, so that the take-up by new users would be reduced. Instead you now have the vaping industry providing an alternative route into consumption, and most importantly, an alternative route which bypasses the advertising restrictions so enable marketing to be directed at kids. Combined with the fruity flavours, you are looking at products which are designed for kids, marketed at kids, and consumed by kids and young women. Totally following the marketing routes already tested and proven by the alcopops industry.

Alcopops and vaping share one simple fact: both are new products aimed specifically at the underage market, with a view to creating and securing future demand as the kids grow to maturity.

Its wrong, its unethical, and its immoral.

0
5

Re: SMH

"Go into any shop round here selling the stuff and the kids are in the majority. Same on the street - who do you see vaping? Kids and impressionable young women."

So you reported those shops to trading standards and the press? Right?

And I'm assuming these impressionable young women - aaw, they can't think for themselves with their pretty little heads - are over 18 seeing as you mention them specifically as seperate to 'the kids'.

I have posted the stats for youth use as analysed by the RCP previously that clearly show that 99% of users are ex-smokers, even in the very limited youth use. If you have actual evidence to show that somehow thing are otherwise, then please, present it.

But you don't, do you?

As for whether my posts are booze fuelled or not, it's pretty irrelevant given that the arguments I'm making are mostly backed up by peer reviewed research and analysis, when I'm not presenting opinion. My 'job' here is to correct misconceptions and baseless accusations on a subject of which I am experienced and knowledgable - of which you have made plenty, and provided no evidence to back up your position. The plural of anecdote is not evidence.

"All I've seen from you in response to my comments are a series of rambling unstructured monologues which appear alcohol-fueled, irrelevant unsubstantiated hearsay, based on what you would LIKE to be true, as opposed to reality."

Oh the irony - from someone who hasn't cited a single source for the claims in their comments.

Steven R

2
0

Re: SMH

Tell you what, I'll have a look at each of your concerns, and see what I can come up with in terms of responding to them individually, without all the sarcasm and snark, as I probably am going a bit overboard on those. Remember, I represent no-one but me. I'm not paid to advocate for anyone (I bloody wish), this is just something that I have good knowledge and understanding of, but as I seem to be the main source of info here, I'll see what I can do for you.

I'll see if I can do that tonight, if not, tomorrow it is.

Steven R

2
0

Re: SMH

Right, your first concern is regarding the release of TSNAs (Tobacco-specific nitrosamines) from the heating of nicotine, the exposure to which you suggested means that e-cigs should be banned.

You provided no source other than having worked with the materials in the past, no comparison to other methods of being exposed to TSNAs, no data at all, and advised me to 'put that in my pipe and smoke it'.

I responded to this with data from Public Health Englands study in to e-cigs showing that TSNA production from e-cigs was orders of magnitude lower than that in lit tobacco.and is in fact in line with that a subject recieves from nicotine patches.

Public Health Englands research concludes that on an overall level, e-cigs are at least 95% safer than lit tobacco, incidentally.

Your next statement was that vaping should be banned in public, based upon your personal preferences of the smell. This does not need to be debated or countered as it's a wholly facile point.

Your next un-sourced opinion is that PG could 'degrease the lungs'.

My response to this was a blog post that cites the US FDA and EPA recommending the use of atomised/vapourised PG for inhalation use in a variety of scenarios. This includes in nebulisers (as used by COPD patients to deliver medication directly to the lungs. This has been going on since the 1940s and no-one has had any problems with it in a medical setting. You are, quite simply, wrong on this point, and over seventy years of use in clinical settings proves it.

It was recently re-registered for use by the EPA and, I quote:

"General Toxicity Observations

Upon reviewing the available toxicity information, the Agency has concluded that there are no endpoints of concern for oral, dermal, or inhalation exposure to propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol. This conclusion is based on the results of toxicity testing of propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol in which dose levels near or above testing limits (as established in the OPPTS 870 series harmonized test guidelines) were employed in experimental animal studies and no significant toxicity observed.

Carcinogenicity Classification

A review of the available data has shown propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol to be negative for carcinogenicity in studies conducted up to the testing limit doses established by the Agency; therefore, no further carcinogenic analysis is required.

Mutagenicity Potential

Propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol were tested for mutagenic or genotoxic potential and found to be negative in a battery of studies: a bacterial gene mutation assay using Salmonella typhimurium, and in vitro Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) mutation assay, an in vitro Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) chromosomal aberration assay and an in vitro sister chromatid exchange assay. "

So in short, the concept of PG 'degreasing the lungs' has no basis in fact, whatsoever. It's approved for inhalation use without reservation.

Your last point is that lit tobacco (aka cigarettes) are being made less atrractive to kids, and that what is obviously happening is that they're turning to vapes.

I'm not going to copy and paste the entire part from the RCP report that utterly destroys that hypothesis by showing that use regular, non-experimental of these products in youth is very, very limited, and is almost exlusively limited to existing smokers. This data is backed up by ASH who produce a seperate study on youth use.

The main takeaway from this is, and again, I quote:

"Although children’s awareness of and experimentation with electronic cigarettes is increasing, regular use remains rare and is most common among those who currently smoke or have previously smoked. This indicates that it is unlikely that electronic cigarettes are currently acting as a gateway to smoking"

This is including when ASHs data is compared to other regional data.

These surveys are, I might add, YouGov, population level surveys - not self-selected internet surveys.

You have concerns about the use of these devices - that's understandable. However, the evidence we have does not show that your concerns are occuring, or even likely to occur.

That's the situation as it stands with regards to your specific concerns.

The real thing about e-cigarettes, that you seem to be missing, is the massive potential they have for harm reduction in existing smokers.

They have a wider penetration than any other smoking cessation product thanks to them being a consumer device, not a prescription service, and they have efficacy levels equivalent to or greater than that of existing stop smoking therapies, and this is because they were not regulated to death by people who are deliberately misinterpreting the scientific data to create laws that will almost certainly reduce the effectiveness of these devices in preventing harm in adults who cannot, or will not, stop smoking.

That is what this is all about. I want my brother to stop smoking, but he'll never do it on 18mg liquid, on a device that constantly needs refilling because it's 2ml capacity doesn't last long, having to carry around multiple 10ml bottles because he can't buy a 30ml one -it'd just be easier for him to go and get a packet of smokes than to deal with the inconvenience.

The most aggravating thing about it is that these restrictions that are being implemented are simply not evidence based.

That is why the Lords want to annul this SI - they, the DoH and MHRA know this set of regulations is backwards and won't do anyone any good, and will likely cause more problems than it solves (we haven't even talked about the cross-border sales registation site that crashed on day one, and which most EU countries haven't even implemented, meaning no-one can sell to them legally) and will likely be a detriment, not an improvement, to public health, not to mention costing thousands of jobs and a significant extra cost to users of these devices.

I don't disagree with regulations against lit tobacco, nor regulation on e-cigs, but given that these devices are not so much not in the same ball park as lit tobacco in terms of harm, but not even in the same county, to regulate them in a similar fashion is ludicrous and goes against all measure of common sense. They need to regulated for what they are, which are consumer devices used for delivering nicotine in a really rather, but not entirely (as nothing ever is) safe way.

Steven R

4
0
hmv

Re: SMH

Actually Mr x 7, you've been pretty much demolished into a road-kill pancake. Nothing you've said is substantiated by anything remotely credible, and usually resembles the sort of uneducated bilge water passed by a Daily Fail reader.

2
0
Anonymous Coward

And you think you have it tough with the TPD

Although the TPD will likely wipe out most of the small and innovative vendors in Blighty (meh, whats Britsh jobs eh ?) and hand the market over to Cameron's mates in big tobacco flogging ineffective ciga-likes.

It could be much much worse, the entire purpose of all e-cig "Regulation" in other parts of the world is to prevent smokers switching to vaping. It's all about keeping the revenue from coffin sticks

Take a squiz at how "e-cig regulation" works in Australia

State Governments in Oz are all addicted to tobacco tax so have the morality of a crackwhore.

Why else is it so easy to buy nicotine in a cigarette at the nearest corner shop, but impossible to buy nicotine juice (without the cancer) unless its ordered online from 17,000km away.

Struth I need to light up a dart I'm so depressed about it.

1
0
Silver badge

Re: And you think you have it tough with the TPD

It's just as bad, if not worse, in NZ, where the Gov has said, pretty much at the same time:

"We find that e-cigarettes significantly decrease the harmful effects of nicotine addiction when compared to smoking tobacco, and have demonstrated a higher rate of success in aiding cessation that traditional NRT products"

AND:

"It is agreed that the acceptance of 'vape anywhere' standards would only serve to normalise smoking, undoing the progress made to date"

I fully accept that putting my finger into this electrical socket will kill me, and fully agree that failing to do so would be a betrayal of our hard won freedoms.

0
0

Re: And you think you have it tough with the TPD

That said, the NZ Gov has changed their position quite a lot recently (thank you, NNA NZ - they've been poling their noses in) and they appear to be quietly looking to the UK for guidance on this matter.

I'm hoping that, with A Billion Lives being premièred there, and getting some more focus on the subject (rather than it being a niche of a niche of a niche when it comes to public health policy) that they're attitude will end up more closely aligned with ours.

Steven R

2
0

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Forums

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018