For the House of Lords, our last bastion of defense against the encroachment of big business.
No wonder the Powers That Be want rid of it.
Revolutions have started for flimsier reasons than draconian new laws that assault the population’s health. In the past, a ruling bureaucratic class has had to do something demonstrably stupid to signal to the people that it’s unfit to govern: like dramatically increase the price of staple foods such as bread, or introducing …
"What is depressing is that when it comes to Parliamentary reform, I sometimes feel that we'd be better off abolishing the Commons rather than the Lords."
What is even more depressing is that you see this as a reasonable statement.
Remove EITHER, and the effect is lost.
House of lords only, a bunch of nobs and rich bastards rule.
Commons only, a bunch of nobs and rich bastards rule.
But crucially DIFFERNT nobs and rich bastards.
The best weapon in the democratic arsenal, is a bunch of awkward old gits being difficult on principle.,
Different nobs and bastards indeed
Many people complain that Britain is so slow-moving whereas in some other countries they can dream up a law on Monday and have it passed by Friday. I LOVE that Britain is slower. We have a wealth of history to steer us, but also have an important history of antagonism to prevent one fashionable idea following another. Fashions change, whims change, 'right' and 'wrong' are often proven in retrospect to be the wrong way round. Having a heavy drag on changes like this provides stability and is right at the core of what people like about us.
"Many people complain that Britain is so slow-moving whereas in some other countries they can dream up a law on Monday and have it passed by Friday. I LOVE that Britain is slower."
And the new gun laws after the Dunblane massacre were carefully considered and thought through were they. All of the UK governments have jumped to respond to the Daily Fails screams of (pretend) outrage. The panic response didn't stop the Wolverhampton school machete attack a couple of months later.
Occasionally that does happen. Fortunately it's not the norm.
In regard to the firearms laws a little after that Blair had his photo-opportunity with the UK Olympics squad who signally failed to use the chance to point out that some of their number had been disadvantaged by it.
Not so Hurrah in my opinion. Nothing in this article gives any voice or consideration to the argument in favour of these laws. It's a hit-piece. For example, the comment that it forbids nicotine levels of the degree that a "heavy smoker", "might" need to quit. Vaping isn't by itself a cure for smoking. So what does that statement even mean? It would hold even if the vaping solution provided more nicotine than you got from a cigarette. After all, if you get MORE of a hit from a vape than a cig, that would increase the chance of you getting off cigarettes. So anything less than that makes Orlowski's statement factually true. But would it sound as rabble-rousing to state: "EU law prevents vaping from providing more nicotine than a cigarette"? Obviously not. But let's not just look at hypotheticals, lets see if the loophole in Orlowski's article is actually exploited in practice. Turns out the answer is yes. The regulations limit the maximum threshold for e-cigarettes without prescription to 20mg/ml. How much nicotine do you typically get from a cigarette? From 12mg - 20mg.
So when Orlowski says "less than the amount a heavy smoker might need to quit" that's factually true as statements containing "might" often are, but actually means that the EU is limiting e-cigarettes to containing no more nicotine than cigarettes. And there's a further omission in Orlowski's article which is that such things aren't illegal, they're simply restricted to prescription so if you are Orlowski's "heavy smoker" trying to quit, the EU doesn't stop you, it just means you need to get them as part of a structured quit-smoking program which is the best way to quit anyway. Furthermore, the figure isn't just pulled out of the air. The 20mg figure is show to be suitable for the majority of smokers which is why Orlowski snuck his "heavy smoker" qualifier in there. No, if you have a three pack a day habit then e-cigs with a normal dose might not stop you smoking, which is why you'd go to the prescription ones that can have more.
What else? Well, the stuff about harmonization. Orlowski's view seems to be that law can only be reactive. Heaven forbid that for once in our lifetime regulations are actually laid out in a timely fashion rather than waiting a decade for everyone to build utterly unrelated standards and then stick a patch on top. Yes, Orlowski, this IS in fact about harmonization. It sets out a framework for all countries even though some of those countries still haven't fully fleshed out rules on this themselves. That's a GOOD thing.
Finally, the general outrage that motivates this article. Well, the jury is still out on vaping help vs. harm but lets at least accept that the simplistic idea that because they're less harmful individually than cigarettes they're an intrinsic good. They're still addictive and harmful things. But there is a perception spread about that they're not. In fact, the companies behind these are doing their best to make vaping trendy. I mean, have you seen the range of stylish vapers you can buy? The range of flavours and mixes you can get that would put the average homepath store to shame? It's a very hipster thing to be vaping. But that is causing some people who don't smoke to take it up. And that's not anecdotal, it's based on studies. People are picking up vaping who don't smoke. Vaping is becoming normalized in situations where cigarette smoking would be frowned upon. I've had people start vaping inside a hotel lobby where it's a no smoking zone and the sign even explicitly stated "this includes vaping", but it was ignored because the person said "vaping isn't smoking" and carried on. I even had one person try to start vaping in a restaurant where we were eating and got very unpleasant when asked to stop and the poor waiter had to ask them twice to stop and endure being lectured on how they were an idiot because "it isn't a cigarette". In both cases, there was a very smug righteousness about the person.
So yes, it's important that there are regulations on these and Orlowski's objections in this article to the regulations that have been brought in are fallacious and one-sided. Here's the study that was done prior to the changes being brought in.
Of course it's 345 pages so I don't expect many to read it. But at least recognize a biased hit piece when you see it. Loaded vagueries like "how much a heavy smoker might need to quit" are a clear give-away.
The regulation has been built on misunderstandings, heavy pharma lobbying, deliberate misinterpretation of evidence and a widescale ignorance of the views of those who actually use the devices.
They are, in short, a complete fucking shitshow.
I thought the issue with the house of Lords was the continued growth (i.e. 400 available seats in the house vs 807 members), the ease at abusing the expenses and introducing a term length with the possibility of re-election following that term rather than wanting to make the whole House elected.
If only they would die off faster....
the House of Lords, our last bastion of defense (sic)
I don't think you've been paying attention. The House of Lords has been uniquely ineffective as an upper chamber since, well, anytime in the past two centuries. When it was full of sleepy old codgers in ermine, who never interfered, it was fine. A tourist attraction and nod our history.
Of late, it has become a place of shitty patronage for smug, halfwit prime ministers to offer lifetime membership of one of the world's most exclusive clubs. At the moment, thanks to that grinning war criminal Blair, the place is stuffed with a majority of Labour peers - numpties like both Kinnocks, talent like Joan Bakewell, Peter Mandelson. The Tory peers are of no better calibre, but at least there's not as many.
So we have an entirely unelected chamber that has now taken it upon itself to interfere in the lawmaking of the elected government. Now, I might be considered a Tory, but I hold Cameron and his chumocracy in deeper distain than any Graun reader, so I'm not in favour of the current government. But if you think these people are doing ANYTHING in your interests, you really haven't thought it all through.
So we have an entirely unelected chamber that has now taken it upon itself to interfere in the lawmaking of the elected government.
Which is exactly why they are there. Unelected means they are not beholden to anyone else, and they can interefere with government only up to a point, enough to have an impact, yet they can still be overridden if they are really out of order. What's not to like?
"So we have an entirely unelected chamber that has now taken it upon itself to interfere in the lawmaking of the elected government. "
That's the point. The TPD is well regarded as being a fucking stupid piece of entirely inappropriate legislation that will seriously impact (and before intervention from people like the NNA, would have utterly destroyed) on a burgeoning industry run by thousands of small businesses for no good reason at all, introduced by MEPs who didn't understand (or even bother properly reading) what they were signing - they can't even claim 'public health' as a justification as it's entirely clear that compared to lit tobacco, e-cigarettes are a far, far safer option.
The whole point of the lords is to look at what the toadying, lickspittling fucktards in The Other House, and point out when they're being entirely backwards and stupid for the sake of the votes of Daily Mail readers.
It's called checks and balances. Kind of important.
@ Sir Runcible Spoon
You were just saying...
The future of the House of Lords would be called into question if ministers press ahead with plans to curtail its powers, the Lord Speaker has said.
Baroness D'Souza said the Lords "should be free to scrutinise, to question and to hold the government to account".
House of lords is the last line of defence against our corrupt "elected" MPs.
'noscitur a sociis ejusdem generis' (as one of these prats would most probably say..)
Considering that a percentage of the current Lords are ex corrupt "elected" MPs...and that a percentage of the current corrupt "elected" MPs will be future Lords...it's all one big circle jerk.
A political commentator of some sort (can't remember who) back in the 80's said to a colleague something along the lines of 'how to spot an anachronism? the Lords being near empty for the passing of this act, yet was full of the noble coffin dodgers for the passing of this one '
"Probably trying to work out how they can add crack flavoured e-liquid with 120% addiction rate to the market without getting caught. "
Fruit flavoured tobacco is almost universally banned because companies used it in the past to hook kids.
Fruit flavoured vapes are not - and it's the young vapers who mostly buy 'em.
There's something fundamentally unkosher about selling a potent neurotoxin as a lightly regulated recreational chemical whilst stomping all over availability of several other benign (by comparison) substances.
"Fruit flavoured vapes are not - and it's the young vapers who mostly buy 'em."
So what? If they're over 18 and they aren't smoking lit tobacco, who gives a fuck who buys it?
And given that the well known statistics prove that 98%+ of users are adult smokers and ex-smokers - and oddly, adults like flavours too - that argument is a load of tat, along with your tacit appeal to 'think of the children'.
Youth (IE underage) use of vapour products in never smokers is basically quite limited - it's just not there outside of experimentation; experimentation that would otherwise be in lit tobacco. Which has a far, far higher conversion rate to everyday use and is significantly more dangerous in every respect.
Youth use rarely involves nicotine even, so it can barely be claimed that it's a gateway to anything - the current statistics back this up.
Actual transposition from experimenting with vaping in never smokers to using it every day is really rather rare too (it's higher in those who have smoked in the past, obviously); experimentation from never smokers with lit tobacco to regularly smoking however? Well, that's a different story. Numbers are far stronger for that.
This article from Clive Bates, former executive director of ASH covers this topic quite well. Undoing mangled stats is one of his specialities.
Think Of The Children is the last argument of those with nothing to back up their claims, or the intellectual charlatan. Either way, it can get bent; the grown ups are talking here and we have important things to discuss than you're "ooh, think of the kiddies" crap.
Oh, Nicotine as a neurotoxin: Not so much, actually as the LD50 came from some very flaky sources, and more importantly, in the doses used in these devices, and even in the raw liquids, it's barely describable as toxic. The dose makes the poison.
Wow, you really did your research on that one didn't you?
The fact of the matter is that while most people who have just started vaping look for familiar tobacco and menthol flavours, once they have actually got off tobacco and their palate comes back to life, many move on to fruit and other non-cigarette like flavours. Your insinuation that fruit flavours are used to attract non-smoking youngsters to nicotine use is not supported by facts.
All you are doing here is regurgitating completely false anti-vaping propaganda that you probably read in some fact free tabloid newspaper.
>Fruit flavoured tobacco is almost universally banned because companies used it in the past to hook kids.
I don't think I've ever smoked a shisha that wasn't fruit flavoured and they've been smoldering away a lot longer than big tobacco - there are many thousands of shisha bars/cafes in the UK - numbers are growing rapidly.
>Fruit flavoured vapes are not - and it's the young vapers who mostly buy 'em.
Really? Just as illegal as buying cigarettes so I doubt this happens much. I favour Blackjack (aniseed) vapes myself though have tried a few fruits - tobacco tastes disgusting so it's not a flavour even ex-smokers buy or miss - amusingly big tobacco have yet to realise this in their rather pathetic latent attempts to gain market share.
BigT is a huge purveyor of customers for the pharmafia products : nearly useless NRTs, lifelong COPD treatments and the like, and of course chemotherapies.
By protecting BigT's interests, the pharmafia also protected its own interests, as well as those of the tobacco-taxes-addicted states. BigT probably didn't even have to lift a single finger here.
That's the "beauty" of the current war on vaping: all the players of the cancer industry (which also includes many pharma-funded public health bodies and anti-smoker charities) have vested interests in keeping people smoking, despite their grand speeches.
"all the players of the cancer industry (which also includes many pharma-funded public health bodies and anti-smoker charities) have vested interests in keeping people smoking"
Once again Sir Humphrey explained it. Yes [Prime] Minister should be part of the national curriculum.
The problem that Big T have with their products is that they are all based around fucking useless 1st gen tech, that they are desperately trying to get medicinalised so they can have a 'steady income' by charging £100 for an 'approved medical product' that costs £10 from a petrol station, and is just as shit as it.
Third gen products are what really got people moving - that is, open systems you fill yourself rather than using an RFID tagged, printer style cardridge - and Big Tobacco can't move into that arena without tacitly approving of the existing tech that they've been calling 'unsafe' for years.
Big Tobacco have basically kneecapped themselves by trying to go through the 'medicinal' route, and the rest of the industry has - carefully - moved on, leaving them way, way behind whilst still performing self-regulation to ensure they're not going completely over the top.
Big Tobacco genuinely don't seem to be able to grasp, or even understand the consumer market which is very telling.
And it's hilarious.
Another way a market is being missed is advertising non-nicotine juice.* I would quite like to cultivate an e-pipe in my declining years (I tried smoking a couple of times, but hated it), but all the advertising is about nicotine-containing stuff. Now seems to be the time to produce pleasantly flavoured vapours for those who don't want the nicotine hit, so why doesn't anyone produce non-nicotine liquids with some flavouring - it would tap into a new market, and put pressure on legislators from people who don't use nicotine, and therefore aren't any sort of health risk.
(Ah - fortunately, before posting, I did a quick online search, and there seem to be plenty of non-nicotine liquids. I hadn't seen any advertising before this. Maybe my ad-blocking is so good that it is something commonly known, but I didn't. Alternatively, maybe my comment stands that the marketing isn't particularly good.)
*I hate that term in the context of smoking** - it is what my mum used to refer to the foul liquid that collected at the bottom of the bowl of my dad's pipe.***
** I know we aren't actually talking about smoking here, but the ideas are very closely linked in my head.
*** That isn't a euphemism - my dad smoked a pipe most of his life,**** and when it got cleaned he had to do it outside because of the smell of the dottle.
**** He was a fireman, and a couple of times he set fire to his trouser pocket after the bells went down and he stuffed his still-lit pipe in his pocket ...
Interesting aside, non-nicotine liquid is not covered by the TPD.
So you can buy that in litre bottles if you want.
I'd not recommend taking up vaping habitually if you're not a smoker, but if you're eyeing up pipes and other lit tobacco options anyway, and still fancy it, it'll at least be less dangerous.
People seem to forget that part of the thing with smoking (and vaping) is that it's quite enjoyable.
Obviously with lit tobacco the fun is massively offset by the harm it causes (which smokers - and I was a heavy one - have a bit of a dunning-kruger/blinker for so that we pretend it's not relevant. You know, till you get diagnosed with something horrific), whereas at least with the vapour products, the potential for harm is substantially lower, so not thinking about the harm is at least partially justifiable.
PS: Upvote for doing some research ;-)
As you've discovered there are plenty of zero-nicotine liquids available. Most of the mainstream advertising is targeted at smokers who are thinking of switching. Whereas within the vaping world, e-liquid is just e-liquid; it's pretty much assumed that all are available at zero nicotine.
Indeed. I'll switch between 3mg and 0mg depending on the flavour in my bigger, cloudier, more hilariously anti-social devices, depending on whether it adds something to it. Quite a lot of fruity flavours work quite well with 3mg on them as it adds a little bit of tart to the inhale (I find, anyway) whereas sweet, toffee, custardy, vanilla sort of flavours don't tend to need that. So I'll have them with zero nic.
Really doesn't affect me these days. That said, I do still use 6mg in my mouth to lung device, as that's what I reach for first thing in the morning, and last thing at night (and throughout the day if I fancy something a bit more concentrated in the flavour side, or if I'm in a social situation that denotes big clouds are a no-no - council offices, etc) so I'm not entirely over the nicotine.
If someone said I *had* to use zero nic though, I could probably swing it. The concept of someone taking my cigarettes away though - I'd have bludgeoned them to death with their own arm, that I had just rent from it's socket...
Addiction, dependency and habitual processes are odd, I think.
Semi-related note, we really need to get more funding for long term research on dependency profiles for e-cigs compared to lit tobacco. I reckon that'd be very, very revealing from the hundreds of anecdotes I've seen.....
I think the hugely addictive nature of smoking is explained by:
1) nicotine hit - very rapid absorption of high levels via the lungs. That's each puff.
2) very rapid decline of said hit
3) cheap to get each hit (in fact free, until you need another pack)
4) the weird combo (or at least unusual) of very common use and antiestablishment/counterculture cool
5) the repetitive nature of smoking - 20/day, with how many puffs?
This structure can be compared to e-cigarettes - obviously having a "new" very similar habit (hand to mouth, inhale) which is known to be less harmful, is a more interesting/intellectually challenging/novel experience, and does not necessarily have similarly addictive products is I think all the explanation you need.
Most addiction is not related to pharmacology; it's psychology. Once you remove the additive substance then it's just a habit.
I'm still at 6mg but can't see any problems dropping to 3 or even zero - I've dropped twice from 18mg to 12mg and then down to 6mg without a problem. Unlike the first step when I smoked and vaped for about 2 years off and on.
It leads me to suspect that addiction to cigarettes is less to do with the nicotine than all the other stuff in the cigarette smoke. Which would explain why nicotine patches, gum, etc. are all so ineffective - there was always a feeling of "something missing" when trying to use 'em.
The 'something missing', as DocJames suggests and I tend to subscribe to, is that when you're on patches and inhalers, you don't get the same inhalation experience, the visual feedback of smoke (or vapour), you may not have the 'totem' to play with as you do with cigs and lighters, etc.
E-cigs give you all of these important psychological components, as well as a 'clean enough' source of nicotine when compared to lit tobacco.
There's a fair few research papers out there on the strict addictiveness of nicotine, and almost all of them say 'in lit tobacco, it's addictive. In anything else, we can't make it addictive without really trying'. Which says a lot in and of itself.
The fact that lit tobacco has, until the last decade, been about the only way to get nicotine for most people (snus, chewing tobacco, etc notwithstanding due to very low market penetration in the UK/EU at least) is at least partially to blame for this; as it's by a wide margin the most dangerous way to get nicotine, then the hyperbole was 'acceptable'.
We now need significantly more nuance in the research on the addiction side of things, I'd say, now that we have a rather less dangerous delivery method.
I do still use 6mg in my mouth to lung device
How do you go about setting the dose?
I've not smoked in ~35 years, and never will again - but I am *toying* with the idea of getting a vaping device to see if the claims of nicotine helping concentration are plausible. And I've no idea what sort of strength liquid I should be looking at...
 Well, it would have to be an e-pipe really, wouldn't it? That's required boffinry fayre.
For the most part, the dose is set by the manufacturer. If you're making it yourself, then it's dependent on the amount of nic-juice you put in the mix. The juice comes at a set level, and there are many sources online to determine what you need to mix in what amounts.
Personally, I just buy juices that come in 0, 3, 6, 12mg strengths, and then dilute with "0" when necessary. ie: 50% 3mg and 50% 0mg will result in a 1.5mg liquid.
The majority of the juices I've seen have all had 0mg strengths available, and one reason is stated so that you can dilute the strength without diluting the flavors.
"How do you go about setting the dose?
I've not smoked in ~35 years, and never will again - but I am *toying* with the idea of getting a vaping device to see if the claims of nicotine helping concentration are plausible. And I've no idea what sort of strength liquid I should be looking at..."
The ecig liquid (aka "juice") comes in various strengths, and that's how you choose the dose, eg by selecting not only the flavour you want but also the strength. For instance I normally use 1.8%, but you can also get 0%, 0.6%, 1.2%, 2.4% (at least those the options where I shop), which is handy since you can drop the strength over time.
It varies depending on if you are vaping mouth to lung (MTL) or a direct lung inhale (DLI), and on the resistance and wattage of the atomizer.
MTL: Less intense hit, physically more like smoking a cigarette but less satisfying. Less complex and/or cheaper/older kit can do MTL. Can use liquids that are 40% to 100% PG. 18-24mg is strong, 12-15mg average, 0-6mg weak.
DLI: Intense cloud hit, physically like hitting a bong or shisha, lots of flavour. More modern kit required, usually using sub 1 Ohm atomizers. Liquid should be 70%+ VG. Lots of nicotine per hit, so 6mg is strong, 3mg average, 0-3mg weak - I know people who buy 0mg and 3mg and mix them in varying proportions..
The cheaper kits will only really allow you to do MTL. For sub-ohm vaping, you will need in excess of 20W, which none of the cheap stuff will cope with. Sub-ohm is where all the development is at these days, you can get mods (the battery + electronics portion) which can drive coils at specific temperatures - one of the reasons why a coil will wear out is if it gets too hot and burns the cotton that it is wrapped around.
With sub-ohm kits, you can do MTL or DLI. You have a mod, a tank and a coil. Some mods have replaceable batteries, which is handy as you can carry several with you on a trip. The tank needs cleaning occasionally, but will last a long time. Coils need to be replaced every few weeks, and cost about £10 for 5. You will use more liquid with a sub-ohm/cloud setup. You can also put on a MTL tank on a sub-ohm mod and dial the wattage down (and your battery will last for many many days).
With cheaper kits, you have a battery, and either a tank and coil, or a "clearomizer", or a cartridge. A clearomizer is a combination tank and coil, when the coil is no good you throw it all away and put on a new clearomizer. A cartridge is a proprietary pre-filled and non-refillable clearomizer (aka "a rip off").
Having started on the cheap kits, my recommendation is to not bother with it. It's unsatisfying, clearomizers tend to leak because they are disposable and everything wears out a lot quicker. I use a KangerTech topbox mini sub-ohm, it costs around £45, you can refill without disassembly, it takes standard 18650 batteries, coils last weeks and I've not had a tank leak on me yet.
Liquids: VG is thicker, and less likely to leak through the cotton in the coil. Some people get irritated throats from high PG content liquids. Liquids with more than 40% VG won't vape well in non sub-ohm/high wattage kit. Almost all the cheap juices you see at the newsagent are 100% PG. Pre-mixed high VG juice can tend to be more expensive, they are more at the premium end of the market and have more complex flavourings - pure VG itself is no more expensive than PG. In fact, by raw cost the most expensive part of the liquid is the flavourings.
For price comparison, I made a 6L batch of 100% VG juice (5L VG, 500ml 7.2% VG nicotine base, 500 ml assorted flavourings) for ~£100, or 50p per 30 ml. Pre-mixed high VG juices are between £15-£30 per 30 ml. In my home made juices, cost wise 10% is VG/PG, 30% is the nicotine, 60% is flavourings
Nicotine is self-titrating, so if you use too much, you'll feel a bit tatty for a few minutes then you'll be fine.
Honestly, for someone who's not smoked for donkeys years, and perhaps just misses the habitual/ritualistic side of it, try lots of different flavours, and start with zero nicotine.
I'm a bit woofly on the 'makes your brain better' claims about nicotine, but as my brain doesn't work very well at the best of times, I've not looked into it too hard.
As someone who's not wanted nicotine for years, start off at zero, and perhaps experiment with low strength stuff. Nicotine may be less addictive in e-liquid than in lit tobacco (more research needed), and e-cigs are certainly less harmful, but there's no point going overboard after 35 years of not touching the stuff.
"They want e-cigs gone too. Bad for business."
No, they seem to be buying up the e-cig companies. What they want is regulations that make it hard for the small companies to exist (they call it levelling the field). They don't what to compete against some guy selling online, or a flea market stall. They are OK with nicotine addicts switching to e-cigs as long as they are still the ones doing the pushing.
".....They want e-cigs gone too. Bad for business." The nicotine in vape capsules comes from tobacco, which the tobacco industry are more than happy to supply to either the vape capsule manufacturers or cigarette manufacturers. Indeed, smoking has been trending downwards for decades in the developed World, so vaping is giving Big Tobacco a lifeline by allowing them to sell "safe" nicotine. If anyone is blocking vaping it is not Big Tobacco. For example, Phillip Morris (BIG Tobacco) has already released their own Marlboro Heatsticks.
> The nicotine in vape capsules comes from tobacco, which the tobacco industry are more than happy to supply to either the vape capsule manufacturers or cigarette manufacturers.
It can be synthesized and also harvested from a range of other plants (sea weeds in particular) which are unpleasant to smoke hence the current primary source is tobacco extraction by convenience only.
It's also becoming clear that nicotine-free and very low-nicotine vaping with second generation vapes is a more effective aid to quitting than nicotine replacements from pharma which have a low success rate (50% or less depending on who's research you want to trust) - ie for many smokers the nicotine is not the primary driver of addition.
The mass production (at very low prices) of next-gen vaping hardware in China and vast numbers of liquid makers (which is classed as a food until you add nicotine so no chance of legislation) doesn't leave any space for big tobacco - even if their products weren't 1st gen rubbish anyway. They are doomed - if you're a smoker who's only tried 1st gen, vaping pens etc spend £30 on a sub-ohm type device offa Ebay - you really won't miss cigarettes or experience withdrawal on very low mg vapes.
Big Tobacco want to impose similar restrictions on vaping as smoking to ensure that both can tehn be reduced/increased in lockstep... that's my guess. It maximises public pressure to reduce tobacco restrictions if these restrictions also apply to vaping.
I'd also agree with everyone above pointing out that Big Tobacco completely misunderstood the vaping market and missed the boat. They're scrambling to catch up and would love to shut down all the small players with legislation "for public health."
Finally I would point out that just because 1) we have no evidence of harm currently and 2) it is clearly less harmful than cigarette smoking, this does not mean we need no regulation. We need a sensible, proportionate to plausible harms approach. Which will be more restrictive than some want, albeit not anywhere near what is proposed and discussed in this article.
I can believe it, but theres no denying they've been instrumental in trying to get open systems banned (and they've succeeded in some parts of he EU on that front).
Most of the vapour industry want nothing to do with Big Tobacco, period. You know, other than using them as a cheap source of USP nicotine....
I'd consider this a good reason to vote leave were it not for the fact that the numpties in Whitehall will likely implement it anyway due to pressure from the health nazis.
The uncertainty around vaping is putting me off making a permanent switch.
From a legislative point of view, even if we voted leave tomorrow, we'd need to negotiate and exit, and that would take several years - in that time, we're still under EU law so there's no choice but to implement it.
I keep seeing Brexit types associating the two and inferring that a leave vote would solve all the problems.
I can see why that would sound like a good rallying call (and in some respects, particularly longer term, it's not untrue) but short term, Brexit and the TPD? Fuckall it will do about it in the real world, sadly.
Thing is - the implementing act is already on the books - the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016. This debate in the Lords, or Brexit, won't change that. This isn't something that is going to happen - it already has happened.
I rather liked the response of someone I once knew when covered in cigarette smoke. She said
"OK I will tolerate your effluent from tobacco being sprayed over me, if you accept my effluent from drinking beer."
What is it with the e-thing posers with the desire to give their drug addiction a 'trendy' name.
Anyone for popcorn lung? Just check the list of flavourings in the liquid brew, it could be you next.
There is an ocean of difference between cigarette smoking and "e-thing" users.
The difference is like putting your house on fire vs boiling a liter of water in your kettle. The latter is hardly noticable unless you are really making an effort to pay special attention to it.
Utter rubbish. I guess you've never had the pleasure of standing next to someone at a bus stop vaping their nasty wares. You can spot the 'mod' freaks a mile a way; the ones who've clearly spent a lot trying to get that perfect toke from their chrome-plated Chinese clone dildo-bong.
As the second hand component of vapour products is biologically insignificant in it's effects on others, then what you're basically supporting is legislating against things that personally annoy you?
Did you try, perchance, just asking them to go downwind?
Or would that involve talking to the 'mod freak', which might damage your fragile misconceptions allowing you to dehumanise someone who would likely otherwise be exhaling demonstrably dangerous second hand ciggy smoke in your direction?
Posting AC. The coward part is absolutely correct.
The second hand gaseous product of eating a lot of beans is also biologically insignificant but nevertheless very annoying. I expect that strangers will not be completely oblivious of their effect on others.
For fuck's sake just stop smoking in any form you bunch of self centred, neurotic, poseurs.
Not anonymous, just totally unimpressed by smokers.
@ Uffish. The difference is that no-one is trying to legislate against farting. The point that Stephen Raith was making is that there is a very public campaign against vaping - which you think is an annoyance - that is using legislation to further its aims. This is wrong - using law to curb an annoyance to some people is dangerous ground.
@I.P. & S.R. (and smokers/vapers in general).
I totally agree with Orlowski's article and your comments, this is a truly terrible piece of legislation and it is terrible both in its misguided intentions and in the reasons for its coming into being.
I would be happy to help man the barricades with you - just don't expect me to agree with smoking / vaping in public spaces (or whatever the legal term is).
Cheers for the support :-)
I doubt we'll see a rollback of those rules, but remember that the introduction of public space bans on smoking was because of the demonstrable harm caused by it.
If vaping has no biologically significant second hand effects, and it helps people get off the smokes, then I don't see a logical or reasonable reason to restrict it through legislation.
I don't see why businesses who can see issues with it (cinemas, restaurants etc) can't simply have a "VAPE WITH CONSIDERATION" sign, next to the NO SMOKING one. Leave it up to them, as as the science stands, it's literally a social acceptability issue, not a health issue.
As an example, I can easily toke away on my diddy wee Nautilus setup in such a manner that you genuinely wouldn't be aware of it, due to it using a thinner liquid, creating less persistent, thinner vapour, and it being possible to let that vapour 'dissipate' while it's in the lungs, before exhaling. It's quite possible to vape without it being obvious or even detectable to the eye; that then raises the question of legislating something that you can't really enforce, for example.
I'm not a fan of vapers being forced into the 'smoking sheds' in workplaces though; given that second hand smoke is known to be dangerous, and given that they are, quite explicitly, not smokers, that seems like something that's going to end up in a courtroom one day.
I imagine there's a happy middle ground somewhere, but that's probably a discussion for another day at this stage. Bigger fish to fry, etc.
I'm not downvoting you Uffish, because you're not really wrong about the annoyance factor. Most of us who are fighting this shitty legislation roll our eyes at the vape-bros in their backwards baseball caps chuffing clouds in peoples faces; it is annoying. And we roll our eyes because it gives an image problem that goes against the core message which is harm reduction from lit tobacco.
As we've seen in this thread, a few times, we have people who have absolutely no credible arguments against the science behind this, or any real defense for the legislation, but will use the social stigma argument to belittle the fact that smoking kills 100,000 people a year in the country in some of the most horrific ways imaginable.
Simple fact is - and I suspect you're trolling a bit here - that if stopping smoking were so easy for everyone, we'd not have this problem.
E-cigs make stopping the harm from smoking significantly easier (when you find the right product, the right liquid etc) and basically gets rid of all the harm - or at least as much as it functionally makes little difference in the short to medium term - that smoking does to you. It also makes it, for some, a lot of fun.
Imagine saying that going to a Stop Smoking Services clinic was fun. Never gonna happen...
Richard, for your information, there's two orders of magnitude more diacetyl in lit tobacco than in e-cigarettes.
Tell me, why aren't smokers getting popcorn lung?
Because it presents differently to COPD and other smoking related diseases, so it should be easy to spot.
I'll tell you why - because it's the powdered form of diacetyl that's the problem, which isn't used in e-liquids, and the majority of quality liquids actively advertise that they don't use it as a flavouring, because that's good for their sales, and they resolved this issue over a year before it hit the mainstream press.
You are, as a point of fact, being lied to about these things. Ironically, mostly by certain cabals within tobacco control operating within the realms of Public Health.
£150 doesn't actually reflect the cost at all. That is just the fee to the medicines regulator (and no, no one knows why a tobacco free product regulated under the tobacco products directive is regulated by the medicines regulator) - there's a whole mess of analysis, emissions testing and toxicology that also has to be done. The cost per product is going to be thousands, not hundreds.....
Other states like Austria have their fees set at €4000 per notification, and per SKU.
Our notification regime is about the lightest touch implementation possible. Yup, it's still a bit shitty (and the emissions methodology hasn't even been decided yet, a fortnight before implementation) but it's significantly better than many other states, who are, as Dave Dorn but it so succinctly at the weekend at VaperExpo in a somewhat NSFW presentation: "Anyone here from Austria? Yer fucked"
We've had the ends of our fingers lopped off by the EU, whereas some states have lost entire limbs by comparison.
America? They've been fully bifurcated as it stands. Their regs are amazing in their flat out incompetence. By their notion, if nicotine is a tobacco product, then potassium is a banana product. Bonkers.
And lets not forget that the result of this 'market harmonisation' directive is that cross border sales are only possible where a retailer is registered in both the sending and receiving member states.
It's currently possible to register in 2 - the UK and Netherlands.... so that's the extent of inter EU retail sales.
(My diatribe was short purely for the sake of brevity - I'm painfully familiar with the full extent of the insanity that is the TPD)
On the subject of god-awful flavours, one of the customers in my local shop managed to find some XXX god-awful flavour - cinnamon, spice and menthol flavourings, all sorts in there.
I was challenged to drip it on a series box (vapers will know, for those unaware they are, when built right, extremely powerful vape devices) and I thought, ha, easy.
Swear to christ, it felt like my teeth were vibrating for the next fifteen minutes. Although oddly, it was nothing like as bad on the second, and third goes.
There are some reet odd people out there. Suspect I might be one of 'em.
Do like me, and stock up on 72mg nicotine base. (PG or VG, according to taste) Lasts a long time in the freezer. When the vested interests finally win (And they always do in the end) I can still mix my own juice. Or buy 0mg and add nic. to taste. I am hoping to be down to 3 or 6mg by then, so a litre of Darkstar nicotine should last a while. I feel a bit like a doomsday-prepper in the current climate...
That doesn't help people like my brother, however, who still smoke north of 20 a day and will not be interested in stocking up in homebrew, or be better suited to a device that can only use 50/50 VG/PG liquid, whereas all my stuff would be 80/20 or thicker.
We're not arguing the toss about these regs because it affects us (although it does), it's more about current smokers who won't be able to get effective devices and liquids once these regs come in, as they won't be able to get anything stronger than 20mg/ml liquid to use in mouth to lung devices (favoured by new starters/ex smokers) which means they won't get the nicotine hit and will fall back to lit tobacco, because getting something that *does* work will be significantly more difficult than it currently is.
You know, the heavier smokers, those who are most at risk from smoking related diseases.
I think the best part was the follow up to the specific question about the enforcement.
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has twice mentioned weights and measures authorities enforcing this in a heavy-handed or a light-touch way. Can the Minister comment on which he thinks they will do?
I certainly hope that enforcement will be more "Italian" than traditionally British, if I may put it that way.
Which means, in short, that the intent is to barely enforce it at all.
That's an astounding condemnation of the incoming regs, and there were plenty more jaw-droppers in there too, including Earl Cathcart - who was quite the troublemaker in there.
"I hope that when I run out of my 2.4% nicotine supply and I am forced to use the weaker nicotine, I do not switch back to smoking. That is the danger for many e-cigarette users. Perhaps by the time I run out of my 2.4% nicotine supply, stronger nicotine may be available on the black market, with all the dangers that that will entail."
That's a member of the House of Lords intimating that he'll ignore the rules and actively break the law because he feels they're so flat out inappropriate.
The whole debate is worth watching if you have the time, because it's tricky to explain in words just how utterly dismissive the committee was on this. Almost every statement was laced with undertones of "how the fuck did we even get here??".
Probably the most encouraging thing is that even just a year ago, the Lords were still fairly on the fence about this. So it's nice to see them coming around to a more common sense standpoint, even if at this stage, their hands (and that of The Other Place) are pretty tied now WRT to regulation.
PS: Slight aside, but if you use e-cigs and are happy that they haven't been entirely screwed (just mostly) in the UK, you have the New Nicotine Alliance to thank for that; they work quietly in the background with APPGs, the MHRA and DoH to try to knock back some of the more idiotic rules and have been very successful - it's why you can get spare parts to increase your tank size after the TPD restricts them to 2ml, they're why mods aren't covered by the TPD in the UK, and they're why the plan to make e-cigs medicinal only, which would have resulted in a defacto ban, never came to pass; it' s not a huge exagerration to state that they are why you (or someone you know) has an e-cig and has been able to stop smoking, or at least severaly cut down their ciggie intake.
They don't want your money (But you know, if you want to...), they don't even need to email you newsletters - but if you give just your name, it gives them a lot more weight when they walk into these groups and can say that they represent 1500+ e-cig users. Ideally that needs to be ten times that number.
Sign up here, it's quite safe and it'll help get your voice heard in the corridors of power, far more than any petition will.
Seems to me that neither side of the argument REALLY wants the status quo to change. There is far too much money involved in providing people with tobacco products to smoke. There is also far too much money involved in providing products, solutions and therapies and all manner of other related shit to try to get people to stop smoking tobacco products (non of which really work en masse).
HMRC just sits in the middle and creams off of both. If this wasn't the case then it would just be made illegal to supply.
As for the e-cigarette... I've managed to kick tobacco products completely, am now on 0% liquid, so am now just slowly eradicating the habit. It has worked for me. That opinion however is just no good for sustaining big corporate revenues.
To mix your own juices, you start with a Vegetable Glycerin (VG) base, add concentrated (7.2%, 72mg/ml) nicotine and flavourings and then bottle it. TPD will restrict the sale of the nicotine concentrate, so bye bye to home mixing. Its hard to restrict the sale of food grade VG and colorings, for now anyway...
BTW, the "heavy smokers need heavy strength nicotine" argument can be misleading; I certainly started on quite strong juice (2.8%), but that was because my vape was rubbish. Using a decent mod (Kanger topbox) and a sub-ohm coil, the highest nicotine level you want is 0.6%, with 0.3% even common. It produces a much larger volume of smoke per inhale (and hence nicotine per hit) that this will get the smoking buzz for even the heaviest smoker.
I don't disagree that with more modern devices, high strength nic isn't necessarily required, but bear in mind a lot of those devices are direct-to-lung (ie breathing through the device straight in) as opposed to mouth to lung (which is how most smokers I know - well, knew, they're all vapers now - smoked; pull it into your mouth, then inhale those contents after the fact) and the mouth to lung devices tend to pack less of a punch in terms of vapour generation, and thus, nicotine delivery.
IE my bro, who still smokes like a fiend, would almost certainly need north of 24mg in something like an Endura T18/22 or a Nautilus to successfully transfer away from the B&H Silvers without it being a huge chore for him (which is half the thing about e-cigs; it makes stopping smoking fun, not a pain in the arse).
And in my local vape shop, yeah, there are those like us who get on fine with DTL devices, but probably two thirds of customers who don't give a toss about clouds and just want to not smoke are on mouth to lung devices, and most of them are on 12-18mg, having started north of that in the 24-36 range.
The real risk is that these regs will make devices ineffective for the majority of smokers who don't DTL/carb/sidestream their ciggies, as going to DTL can be intimidating for a new starter.
Source: I've spent far too long in my local vape shop since I've been out of work...
Steven "Adopted by the Shop" R
It's the way forward.
At the strength I use (0.3%) 1L of nic base made me litres and litres of liquid. around 16-18 litres if memory serves. It's in the cupboard steeping away.
A few quid and a freezer drawer for Nic base and i'll be set for years. They can't regulate the PG, VG or flavour concentrates.
Whilst this is true (I have over 1.5 litres of homebrew in the cupboard at the moment), that's not going to help the people who are unable to get homebrew supplies, are not inclined or just don't know about it. They will drift back to smoking with the massive hit to public health that entails. These evil fucks in the EU (and that backsliding little shit Soubry) should all hang their heads in shame.
It was nice to see that utterly useless waste of oxygen, Anna Soubry (that's Anna Soubry, he says, not hoping to bump this up the SEO rankings - you know, Anna Soubry) who was directly referenced in the HoL for not understanding that E-cigs were still included in the TPD when she signed it off, like the utterly, demonstrably incompetent moron that she is?
Yes, Anna Soubry. What a complete tool.
It was nice to see Anna Soubry mention in that debate.
Steven "Anna Soubry" R
Thing is, if we in the UK can get a more positive view of vaping in the public eye, and more importantly, can prove at a population level that it's having an impact on lit tobacco (and can continue supporting research into confirming the lack of nasty side effects, as very much seems to be the case compared to lit tobacco) then we can probably help our cousins in the US, Thailand, Australia, etc to back off on their regs.
We are currently the global focus of tobacco harm reduction, period. Time to step up to the plate and show the rest of the world how it's fucking done, just as the RCP did near fifty years ago when it blew the whistle on tobacco harm in the first place.
You know, several years before the US had it's research and introduced the Surgeon Generals Warning on packs.
Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it, etc.
If you offer an e-cigarette with nicotine as a substitute for a tobacco product, then you're into medicinal product territory straight off.
If you advertise said product for reducing tobacco intake, then you're possibly making a claim of medical efficacy and then a whole raft of legislation designed to keep quack cures and useless vitamins from being advertised hoves into view.
Though if you choose to evaporate (only) sugar and glycerol and the like into your respiratory system for the fun of it, then - as far as I'm concerned - you can go about it. Though Trading Standards will still be your friend if you buy something from China that sets fire to your front room.
Given that 90% of the harm from smoking comes from the whole 'burning' part, and e-cigarettes don't have that burning part, I think we can safely say that as a harm reduction strategy it's pretty sound.
There's plenty of science out there if you care to look for it; the Royal College of Physicians report is worth a read; yeah, it's 200 pages, but just skip to the summaries if you're short of time.
It's a report that has looked at as much of the available evidence as there is available - it's the biggest piece of analysis of it's kind in the world - performed by a group who are by a wide margin, the single most respected public health research body on the face of the earth, with a half millenia history and they are the ones who blew the whistle on the harms of lit tobacco itself. If anyone is going to have a problem with e-cigarettes, it's them.
They're recommendation? Promote e-cigs to smokers, pretty much without reservation; the comparative risk profile compared to lit tobacco are so low that it's barely worth mentioning and there's no evidence of any gateway effect for non-smokers, no evidence of biologically significant second hand effects, basically no real evidence that they do anything but good if you smoke, and they don't appear to do much harm if you didn't (which is a vanishingly rare subset, mostly comprised of those experimenting in youth, who would otherwise be smoking lit tobacco)
They also recommend against obstructive regulation (like making it a medicinal product - which was thrown out years ago as a fucking stupid idea - thankyou, New Nicotine Alliance) and suggest that given how little risk these products pose, appropriate light touch regulation is the way forward.
The evidence is perfectly clear. If you choose not to see it, then more fool you.
But then, they actually know what they're talking about and have the balls to put their names to it, unlike someone posting anonymously on an internet forum making spurious statements about how they 'must' be medicinal with no concept of what harm reduction actually is.
Which includes house fires:
"Though Trading Standards will still be your friend if you buy something from China that sets fire to your front room."
You do realise that lit tobacco causes three house fires a day and is attributable to half of all preventable deaths by fire - in London alone - right? Reports of e-cig fires get press because they are incredibly rare occurrences...
Chapman, is that you? Or maybe it's McKee - Wouldn't be the first time you'd (allegedly) penned an anonymous hit piece, eh?
Nicotine, like sugar, isn't a controlled substance.
You can walk into Sainsburys and buy nicotine patches, gums etc
The reason they got them classified as medicinal products, was simply so your GP could prescribe them to you (and get the government to pay for them).
The lobbying money came from pharma, not tobacco (most tobacco companies own vaping brands as they picked up on the change earlier).
The scenario pharma found themselves in is pretty unique, in that people gave up on what could be prescribed, paid out of their own pocket for an alternate, which is universally accepted as being 'better'
Back to your point though. Advertising a "reduction in tobacco intake" is no more a claim of medical efficiency, than Diet Coke advertising it reduces your sugar intake over regular coke.
It's very public spirited of you all to take part in a vast public health experiment on the safety of inhaling chemical vapours. Your sacrifice will not be in vain as it provides everyone else the opportunity to part in a vast public health experiment on the health benefits of schadenfreude
See my reply above to AC as to why that is nothing like the case. That RCP report is well worth a Glantz. I mean, glance.
Your name is, amusingly, part of the clue; almost all the (personal) harm from smoking comes from the smoke, the combustion - something e-cigs simply don't do.
Just from that alone, you remove most of the problems.
Even if the very worst stories based on utter junk science were true (formaldehyde, diacetyl etc) e-cigarettes would merely be around 85% safer than smoking, not 95-99%.
And would still totally be worth recommending to smokers as an alternative given the god-awful harms that lit tobacco cause in every single respect of their existence, from cancer, to house fires, to litter.
A massive number of people are trying something new and untested. Will there be long term effects on health? t's too soon to say one way or the other. But, if it makes you feel better to believe there are none, go for it. Maybe the placebo effect will boost your immune system enough to negate any harm.
Yeah, there's a big difference between "will be a direct cause of the death of 50% of it's users" and "we can't find anything that appears likely to directly cause any long term problems in the majority of users" - and believe me, people have been trying to find them.
No-one claims that e-cigs are harmless - that's a stupid argument, as nothing is harmless.
The real risks? In a non-smoker, it's not impossible that it'd raise the risk of things like COPD and other airway based issues. But as 98%+ of users are ex smokers, they've actually reduced their risk significantly as lit tobacco raises that 'slight possibility' to 'almost a certainty if you live long enough'.
What we put forward - with evidence to back it up - is that e-cigarettes are massively safer than lit tobacco, are physically incapable of being as harmful as lit tobacco, and as such, should not be legislated against as violently as lit tobacco as the risk profiles that we know about are stupendously, hilariously different.
That 95% safer figure? That takes into account "holy crap, we didn't see that coming" problems from, say, flavourings being vapourised as opposed to used in cooking. It is not some ass-pull figure, the very cream of those in the scientific world looked into it, and they've been reaffirmed by the Royal College Of Physicians who don't do anything lightly.
Just because you don't understand how harm reduction works doesn't mean the rest of us don't. We know what lit tobacco does to users. We have a damned good idea of what vapour products are likely to do to users, and we know that it's a huge amount less than the lit tobacco will.
I don't know odds, so I won't.
Longer term, I can't see it going below 80% based on what we know now (and that's me being pessimistic), but anything would be a guess on my part. The PHE/RCP figures take that into account (calculating unknown uknowns in) too, remember.
You have to realise that the amount of harm done by lit tobacco is stratospheric, and almost all of that is caused by the burning of organic material - and that's before the tobacco companies treat it with all kinds of other shit to prevent it from going out in the ashtray, to make the nicotine freebase etc. Therefor while the 95% number looks extreme, it's like comparing lopping the tip of your finger off (e-cig) to pulling the pin in a hand grenade, then stuffing it in your pocket (lit tobacco).
When you're comparing to that, e-cigs are, while not benign (and no-one with any weight claims they are), are clearly a far better option, and no-one with a solid understanding of basic physics and chemistry denies that, as that would be flat-earth level ignorance.
Edit: Upvoted because it's a genuinely good question and definitely worth discussing.
Hey, no worries dude - when it comes down to it, the raw data and research is 'plenty good enough' at this stage to say that e-cigs are 'safer enough' than fags to recommend them to smokers who otherwise can't, or won't quit. And I'm firmly of the opinion that you get more with sugar than you do with salt....!
On a related note, the latest ASH data shows a massive change in the number of dual users - that is, those who smoke and vape, and often those used to show that 'vapers don't quit smoking', which anectdotally we've known for years is crap - and fully quitted smokers who full time vape.
PDF WARNING although it's Figure1.
If you want a quick image, hopefully this'll work
Basically, the way the market has been going lately has caused 1.3m to completely give up smoking over the last four years, and 1.4m are cutting back, likely significantly (as the increasing number of non-smokers would infer - they aren't coming from nowhere).
I suppose at this stage, all we can hope is that the upcoming regulations don't bugger that progress; things like the higher strength nicotine are essential for the heaviest smokers to transpose successfully, even if they only use it for a few months.
Although ASH throwing them/us under the bus by approving of the TPD (despite many people within ASH strongly disagreeing with this - they have a media/public image to maintain....), ignoring the above about high nicotine strength (despite them knowing it) hasn't exactly helped things...
A recent episode of 'Blue Eyes' had the Swedish cops popping into a tobacconist in search of some CCTV footage. It was noticeable that behind the counter were arrayed rows of round tins, various brands of Snus.
This is another EU idiocy - if you're addicted to nicotine, it's much healthier to get your fix via chewing tobacco than by smoking it. Yes, there's an increased risk of mouth cancer, but that's far better than the alternatives caused by smoking.
I used to argue that, if you're addicted to nicotine (not all smokers are - many do it as a social habit), you're better off in health terms smoking Piccadilly or Capstan Full Strength rather than the mildest B&H concoction available, because you'll breathe in less of the nasties for a given quantity of nicotine.
It's notable that Sweden has the lowest smoking rates in Europe, and also the lowest incidence of lung cancer in Europe too.
Of course, The Usual Voices in public health - who have maintained the ban on Snus in the EU - claim that has nothing to do with Snus, despite there being nothing else on a population level that can possibly explain it.
There's huge problems in tobacco control parts of Public Health at the moment. The above is just one example.
Snus (or local equivalents) are big in Norway too. Norwegian friends tell me it's the result of compulsory military service - smoking is forbidden in uniform, but no-one minds if you stick some powdered tobacco under your lip.
Incidentally, BAT are a big manufacturer, so it isn't big tobacco that's promoting the EU ban.
It's true that BAT make snus, but lit tobacco is by far their biggest market which is why they appear to have been lobbying very hard to get e-cigs snuffed out. Or discharged, or whatever.
If Snus were banned, BAT might lose 5% revenue (likely less) globally.
If e-cigs were promoted as opposed to lambasted (and given that Big Tobaccos e-cig options are laughably poor - still mostly first generation devices with poor efficacy), they stand to lose a fuckton more than that through people switching away from lit options.
Don't doubt that the tobacco lobby had a very heavy hand in this. They are terrified because they were caught on the back foot by all this.
And quite right too. No-one in the vaping world wants anything to do with them, no matter how good their devices may get.
It's not big-tobacco that's been lobbying against vaping, but the pharmaceutical industry.
Vype (the brand you see next to the fags) is owned by BAT. Tobacco seems to have accepted that vaping isn't going away - and are fine with it. Well by fine, I mean they wish to embrace the Gillette model of locking you into their ecosystem.
It's pharma that's shitting themselves as patches, gums, everything they have is demonstrably less good than vaping. BAT doesn't care what you pick up at retail. Pharma cares as an entire division is now dead in the water. Gone. Hah.
"Snus are banned in most of Europe."
Yes, I referenced that in my earlier post in this thread. Look up a bit.
"Not really, they have simply developed their own e-cig products."
The Big Tobacco products are ineffective tat compared to the rest of the market.
I'll concede that from what I understand Big Pharma are the main ones pushing for legislation these days - it does appear that Big T have lightened their stance since they started entering the market, which does make sense.
Presumably the nicotine is in fact extracted from tobacco plants, so is a tobacco product?
As for prominent display of products in TV shows, there is a reason for that. There also is a notification symbol for that. In UK TV programs it is a rather small letter P hidden somewhere on the screen nearly the same colour as the background and/or made to look as though your digital telly is playing up. Try to spot one this weekend and win my sincere respect! (quantity of respect may vary).
In Swedish television I think the equivalent symbol appears as a birthmark on each corpse when it is found. Or if the camera dwells on the rather nice wristwatch it is still wearing.
USP grade nicotine is, to be fair, pretty far removed from what you find in lit tobacco, which is freebased with ammonia, and it's addictiveness is increased thanks to the intermingling of all the other shit in there.
You can tell this by the fact that there is no addiction warning on nicotine patches, and no-one has ever managed to get anyone addicted to them in double blind trials. Yes, the delivery method is slower, but animal studies using USP nicotine, and nicotine extracted from lit tobacco showed it was damned near impossible to get animals addicted to the USP stuff, but the lit tobacco extract nicotine showed statistically significant effects.
Which is why classing USP nicotine as a 'tobacco product' - despite the fact it contiains nothing tobacco related in it (bear in mind it can be extracted from eggplants and potatoes too - just at much lower yeild; hence tobacco being the obvious choice as we go through loads of that anyway) - is as utterly backwards as calling potassium a 'banana product'.
Tobacco products are so heavily legislated (in terms of new products etc) because all the legislation is built around lit tobacco and the devastating harm it does. It's entirely inappropriate for things like nicotine patches, snus and e-cigarettes which have orders of magnitude less harm attached to them, and that is where the problem comes in with legislation like the TPD - it's not fit for purpose for anything that doesn't burn, period.
Presumably the nicotine is in fact extracted from tobacco plants, so is a tobacco product?
That's the preposterous way the FDA decided to classify vaping in the US. But what if the nicotine is synthesized, or extracted from potatoes, tomatoes or eggplants? Suddenly it's not a tobacco product any more, although the eliquid contains the exact same nicotine molecules...
It's too expensive to do, in short - USP grade nicotine is basically a byproduct of tobacco processing, of which there is, er, rather a lot of ;-) so it's pretty cheap by volume.
It's perfectly possible to get nicotine from other sources, but the resources needed to do it are far greater than that compared to using tobacco as a source.
Although as I have mentioned elsewhere, by the FDAs measure, that would makes potassium a banana product because it's one possible place it can be got from.
Anyway, even if they did use non-tobacco sourcing for the nicotine, they'd just change the wording of the law to catch it anyway; it's a moot point at this stage, really.
Nowt changes in that regard till November, then beyond that point you can only sell on old stock of un-notified products.
David Dorn covers a lot of that here. Don't worry, you don't have to watch the whole lot (the impact is covered in the first half hour or so), but to be fair, it's totally worth setting a couple of hours aside to see the whole lords debate in there too, which was fucking amazing.
I've always wanted to get a small 1/4 inch (or so) wooden dowel and properly paint it in while with a bit of orange/red at one end. Then "use" it as a "vaping" device here in anti-smoking California, just to see the reaction (I'm a rebel at heart!). I suspect that it would be universally condemed and I would be asked to leave. That's just the way it is. Some are anti- anything and don't like much of anything that hurts their "personal space" real or percieved.
As for tobacco products, I suspect that governments are as addicted to them as any other for the tax revenue they produce. I don't think you will see a ban on them anytime soon.
Me? No, I don't smoke at all.
As for tobacco products, I suspect that governments are as addicted to them as any other for the tax revenue they produce. I don't think you will see a ban on them anytime soon.
Therein is the crux of the matter here in the States. How doe it get taxed? States started raising taxes on tobacco products to discourage smoking. It worked. But then the revenue fell off.. so they raised it again. Cue up "chasing the tail".
About two years ago, customs was impounding shipments for China as no one knew the duty on them. It got sorted but I'm not sure the category these things fall under at this point.
There's a couple of States working to re-write their laws from "tobacco products" to "nicotine products" but there's an issue with the patches from places like the medical world.
I won't even get into big pharma and big tobacco as other commenters have done well on this. But taxing e-cigs and vaping products is a problem... for the collectors of said taxes.
Still waiting for that source, X 7.
What's wrong, can't find one that doesn't actually destroy your argument?
Or are you worried that the actual amounts of any carcinogen that your research will show will be classed as 'boilogically insignificant', will be massively lower than that in lit tobacco, or will be shown to have pathetic methodology not suited to the real world use?
It's OK. I can wait.
@ Steven Raith
I wasn't aware you were waiting for a source......
as it happens we used to synthesise a range of nitrosonicotines and nitrosonornicotines. The products we made were the standards used by several major cigarette manufacturers in analysing their products. Now I'm not going to give away the manufacturing methods as they're proprietary and unpublished. But I can assure you that burning the nicotine wasn't part of the synthetic route. However I can assure you that heating nicotine WILL produce nitrosonicotines
Now put that in your pipe and smoke it.
So why aren't we seeing that in emissions testings of e-liquids in lab tests, in any measure that is worth worrying about compared to smoking a cigarette?
Because the thing is, when you're using an e-cig, you're not just heating raw nicotine - you're vapourising a PG/VG base that contains USP grade nicotine, which is (presumably) different to your unmentioned production method.
Again I state, the issue is not 'are there nasty things in here' - it's 'are there nasty things in here that are at a level that is
A: A danger to human health in normal dosages expected
B: Even close to that found in lit tobacco.'
Burning toast will produce carcinogens, as will charring a steak on the outside, but you don't see people calling for toasters or flame grills to be banned - because the levels produced are minuscule and not worth worrying about in the real world.
From the perspective of a smoker - and that is the perspective that is required as use of vapour products among non-smokers is miniscule - the risks are still reduced massively from those of lit tobacco.
As you're the one calling for them to be banned, some perspective might be required. Cigarettes contain 50+ carcinogens in biologially significant doses and are freely available everywhere in the world. You suggest that e-cigs should be banned because they *may* contain one carcinogen based on your unrelated work with nicotine for producers of lit tobacco (I assume so, as opposed to things like nicotine patches) with nothing to back up whether it's even a significant amount that might pose a risk to human health.
So what we have is an anecdote - and that is all it is - calling for a ban on e-cigs that doesn't provide any context in terms of dosage or representative harm to human health, fails to compare to the only other alternative to vapour products (lit tobacco) in terms of risk profile, and from that we can infer that your understanding of harm reduction is at best, minimal, and at worst, utterly laughable.
Are you sure you don't work in Tobacco Control? You certainly fit the profile.
Just as an aside, here's a comparison of TNSAs (which I think are what we're talking about, namely carcinogenic nicotine byproducts - despite my slight rant above, you're more than welcome to correct me - I'm not a complete arsehole, and nor am I a materials scientist, I'm just an interested observer) in nicotine patches, e-cigs, snus and Marlboros.
The phrase 'orders of magnitude less' is relevant here.
Here's other toxicants compared between lit tobacco and e-cigs. Same as above.
Those are from Public Health England and the UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol studies.
As I say, it's not about harm removal, it's about harm reduction. And given the amount of people lit tobacco affects, and the significant amount of harm it does, any notable harm reduction that can be gained from e-cigs is going to be worthwhile.
You need to at least provide a temperature at which this happens. E-cigs only need to heat the liquid up to about 140-200C in a matter of milliseconds. Can you provide evidence that levels of TSNAs higher than or similar to lit tobacco products in use are present in e-cig/cigar/pipe devices?
"Hunt said the very existence of the directive will reinforce the false impression, fuelled by the popular media, that “e-cigarettes are at least as harmful as tobacco”."
They may not be as physically harmful as tobacco but they're just as psychologically harmful. Nothing but a crutch for people without the willpower to simply quit smoking. And darn annoying for anyone around them!
Thankfully we don't live in a world where we legislate against things that people find annoying.
Anyway, I hope you don't drink coffee, tea, or soft drinks with caffiene them, etc. That's also a dependency forming psychoactive substance that has an impact on your cardiovascular system, and your gastrointestinal system!
And coffee breath stinks!
Ah, wait, you use that? So that makes it different, right?
See what I'm getting at here?
What I would like to know..... there are rules banning the advertising of tobacco products outright, now there are going to be rules doing the same for tobacco replacement products - but somehow it is perfectly fine to advertise alcohol everywhere, and not just advertise it - but you will quite often see on the likes of E4 in the afternoon - Smirnoff for example advertising how wonderful life is with friends when we all drink (responsibly) at 1pm in the afternoon...... So can anyone explain how one product that has an Age restriction of 18 is not allowed to be advertised anywhere at all, and yet another product also with an Age restriction of 18 is allowed to be advertised everywhere? How have we ended up with this situation? I thought Alcohol at least used to have rules restricting it to Post watershed adverts?
EU super state strikes again . . . and BREXIT will be cancelled by the "postal vote".
US Military Intelligence report "EW-Pa 128" (1944) other wise known as "The Red House Report". The Nazis planned a 4th Reich as an Economic entity, European economic and political integration.
Of course many people will click the down arrow, assuming I'm some sort of crank. But my aim is not to win a popularity competition, but simply to caution people as politicians and the press are not reliable trustworthy sources.
In Canada it is the Senate (same function) that is constantly under attack as no longer being useful. Arguments that it should be eliminated or at the very least be replaced by an elected body are constantly being levelled at it. I used to think this way too, until I realized that the people doing all of the protesting were the ones the Senate was inhibiting. Members of Senate, because they are non-elected life-time positions, stand in the way of the elected body and by extension the groups who lobby them for favours. The senate does not answer to the commons and not being under the control of the sitting government means that public opinion is the only way to attack them.
My position on the need for the Senate/House of Lords has changed. Replace the disrespectful "old farts" moniker with the more appropriate term of "elders" and see the concept for what it is; a much needed pool of sober second thought to stabilize the parliamentary system of government; with the ability to take the long view needs of the nation and see past the distractions of the short term. As such they need to remain right where they are.
e-cigs have been illegal here in the Gulf Cooperation Council countries (Saudi, Qatar,Kuwait, UAE) cor a few years, and nicotine gum was made illegal earlier this year.
Meanwhile a pack of cigarettes is ~£1.20 to £1.80.
The legislative process is a bit murkier here, so I don't know whose idea that was. I presume the tobacco lobby gave some wasta to the appropriate health ministers.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019