So the bar is now much higher for e-cig makers
It's like banning hard hats on building sites until you can prove they don't cause scalp disease.
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 …
No, it really really isn't.
A hard hat is a piece of safety equipment whose only purpose is to prevent you sustaining head injuries in a dangerous environment. Any negative side effect a poorly made hard hat might have (such as your mention of scalp disease, if such a thing exists), is still infinitely preferable to a fatal head injury.
Consequences of wearing a (scalp disease causing) hard hat vs not wearing one?
You may get scalp disease but you're alive.
Consequences of inhaling tested and regulated chemical formulation vs untested and unregulated ones?
Your fluids might cost more, but there is now a much lower chance of you inhaling something with dangerous or even life threatening properties.
Despite the endless amount of positivity E-cigs have towards them from many quarters, they are still essentially a device design solely for the purpose of taking potentially toxic substances into your body. They are not, unlike a hard hat, a device with a safety or health purpose in mind that might have unintended negative side effects. All they are is a "possibly" safer, that is safer not safe way of doing something which is known to be harmful.
The "possibly" there is important because while many government bodies will accept that e-cigs are in the short term clearly less harmful (and it's important we use the phrase "less harmful" and not "better for you", they cannot and will not comment on the long term effects of e-cig the technology simply has not been around long enough for anyone to know if there are any serious side effects from substantial long term use.
On top of that up until now there has been no regulation of the substances you're choosing to inhale, you have no assurance as to content and safety of the liquids you are inhaling.
Are E-cigs a good way to get off cigerettes and then tape off smoking/vaping altogether over a short term period? Absolutely.
Are E-cigs better for you if you just replace your heavy smoking habit with a heavy vaping habit for the rest of your life? No-one knows, it could be, but equally it could turn out that long term inhalation of vapourised nicotine and other chemicals has consequences we don't yet know about, particularly if those chemicals are untested and unregulated.
Don't even get me started on the quality of the electronics in these devices causing fires etc...
LOL, starting fires. Lit tobacco causes three house fires a day in London alone and ciggie fires are the cause of half of all preventable deaths by fire. You show me when e-cigs get to within 10% of that number and then we can talk. The reason you see them in the news is because it's good click-bait.
As for the hard hat analogy, it's not a very good one.
Oh, and long term effects have been estimated because as you point out, there are no 30 year studies. However, as we know that cigarette smoke causes 100,000 deaths a year in the UK alone, it's nice to know that you infer that it's better that we wait for 3,000,000 people to die, than to throw them a lifeline and help get them off the fags.
Both Public Health England and the Royal College of Physicians have looked at the makeup of liquids and how they are vapourised, and it's the 'unknown unknowns' that make up for most of the remaining 5% of that 95% less harmful number.
Basically, the sort of tests that have been done mean that there's a very low chance we'll find a large, even close to smoking like health hazard from them. And given the harm that smoking does, any smokers switching to vaping has reduced their risk profile massively.
So no, it's not like regulating a hard hat. It's like comparing walking through a steelworks blindfolded, with earplugs, on stilts, to walking through a steelworks with your senses intact and unimpeded in good trainers (95% safer), to walking through in hard hat, steel toecapped boots and a boiler suit (not smoking or vaping).
Thing is, no-one in the vaping world says they want no regulation - we want appropriate regulation. Article 20 of the TPD is quite patently not appropriate. They've been told this, by the users, the trade groups and the scientists whose evidence they misinterpreted to come up with the limits - and they've just hammered on, happily supported by the anti-harm-reduction cabal in tobacco control and the pharma companies, and fuckwit MEPs who don't understand what they're legislating, but want to appear 'tough on smokers'.
That's why this is a thing.
Have a look at the comments of the last article on this where I answered pretty much every point, or click my name to see a history of my posts, then click on the timestamp to see them in context. Chances are it'll cover 90% of any queries you have as to why this is going on.
A regulation of something that's freely available in 1000 other places cannot bring any kind of security, just the opposite.
Up to the regulation, vape shops provided help for beginners, extensive advice of how to use things, what to do, what not to do and all that.
For this advantage of getting good advice, vapers were willing to pay the slightly higher prices of vape shops compared to other shops.
After the regulation prices will go up and many things will disappear from the vapers market, to an extend that most users will prefer to buy their stuff outside of vape shops, where the regulation doesn't effect the free sale of almost anything used in vaping, except of nicotine.
But outside of vape shops users are on their own, buying flashlights instead of mods, PG and VG as chemicals, flavorings as kitchen flavors, all without any kind of customer service.
That's 1000s of accidents waiting to happen, which nearly all would have been avoided if there were no regulation.
"Consequences of inhaling tested and regulated chemical formulation vs untested and unregulated ones?
Your fluids might cost more, but there is now a much lower chance of you inhaling something with dangerous or even life threatening properties."
What's the existing chances of "inhaling something with dangerous or even life threatening properties." with current e-cigs? Have there been incidents of such when purchased through brands or vaping shops? More, say, than the shite some people get from various "legal highs"? Or non-labelled allergy inducing foods? Or instances of food poisoning? All the above except for vaping have been in the news many times over the years. I don't recall seeing people being made ill or dying from unregulated vaping yet.
The difference between the chance of inhaling a dangerous mixture in e-cigarettes is far different than, say, obtaining a bad cut of illicit narcotic. In particular, one is a product of a formerly self-regulating free market while the other is a product in a completely unregulated, self or otherwise, "black" market.
Obviously I am not implying e-juice is the same as "Fatal Beauty," but this is exactly the FUD pushed by fervent supporters of pervasive and ubiquitous regulations.
In a properly self-regulating free market, that is one in which the consumer actively participates, a bad e-cigarette formulation will bring about a massive public out-cry against the manufacturers, producers, and likely the distributors as well. Is it less likely that a regulated free market will result in fewer instances or lessened chances of obtaining a dangerous substance? That is debatable considering the myriad recent instances of regulatory agencies not doing their jobs -- which I have to find amusing were it not so serious as a well-known axiom is how the bureaucracy is lazy and slothful, and yet so much trust is placed upon it to protect us.
Are these new regulations necessary? It seems to be yet another instance of the bureaucracy justifying its own existence and fulfilling a proclamation I once heard a city councilman make about, to paraphrase, how the council cannot permit certain businesses, which came about "organically" to fulfill a customer demand and need, to operate until mechanisms exist to regulate them.
A hard hat is a piece of safety equipment whose only purpose is to prevent you sustaining head injuries in a dangerous environment
An e-cig is a piece of equipment designed to stop the tobacco industry killing me. The TPD is a piece of toilet paper (I strongly resent calling it legislation because it was written like 3 years ago and wasn't fit for purpose then and sure as hell isn't fit for purpose now) that's designed to bulk out the coffers of the tobacco industry by regulating people back to smoking and regulating the e-cig companies they own into market owning positions.
The EU is MURDERING EU citizens. We'd be safer if we policed petty crime with drones that fire missiles: if I had literally any money to spare to do it I'd take the EU to it's own court arguing my Art 2 rights, but I don't so they'll get away with it.
And yes, not for nothing I'm dramatically under-playing what's actually happening here.
June 23rd, don't forget to vote.
I hate to be that guy - but leaving the EU on June 23rd won't make a jot of difference for at least three years, as we need to negotiate an exit plan, rework transitional regs, replace existing trade laws etc.
And even then, if any vendor wishes to sell to the EU, they still need to comply with the TPD - but at that point, we won't have a place at the table to negoatiate on. So if the EU goes antiscience and jacks up the prices for compliance, vendors and manufacturers are even more humped then they already are.
So I'm afraid Brexit ain't gonna fix this.
Even ardent "leave" proponents accept this in the e-cig world that's why we're pushing to get TPD annuled, regardless of Brexit.
leaving the EU on June 23rd won't make a jot of difference for at least three years, as we need to negotiate an exit plan, rework transitional regs, replace existing trade laws etc
Utter nonsense - these things are really easy to tidy around, you can unpick EU regs as they stand in our laws really easily from outside the EU.
even then, if any vendor wishes to sell to the EU, they still need to comply with the TPD
Irrelevant - the kit people who don't want to smoke want to buy or already own isn't TPD compliant - only stuff owned by tobacco corps (that will never in a million years get 100% of people away from smoking) is. UK sellers can't sell their fit for purpose gear to the EU either way but outside the EU it can be imported into the UK and sold to customers outside the EU. That's a win for everybody except people who would still be in the EU but they're screwed anyways.
Lets be clear here, the EU is killing millions of people who are alive today with these regulations. One is too many; given the EU has made it clear that these regs are not able to be moved because they're based on bad science and tobacco/pharmaceutical corp lobbying - the best thing the UK can do to save hundreds of thousands of lives and massive expense (via disability harming the tax take and through out of work benefits) to the treasury is to extricate ourselves from the problem: the EU.
Yeah, you say that, but MHRA and DoH were dead set on making e-cigs medicinal only (IE a defacto ban) only a few years ago until vapers actually stepped in and told them what a fuckwitted idea that was - IIRC that was what basically created the New Nicotine Alliance to ensure that there was a somewhat central point for outreach to media and politicians (they currently have input on the APPG on e-cigs, and contacts in DoH and MHRA) as they weren't a thing back then.
The UK is, in short, perfectly capable of making it's own stupid decisions without EU assistance!
I won't argue that the TPD - and particularly Article 20, although the rest of it isn't exactly a subtle, nuanced piece of delicate, evidence based legislation that will shine a bright light throughout the world - isn't a slapshod piece of shit written up to, one presumes, satisfy the WHO with the WAR ON TOBACCO (that going by the main players in BT, they're losing badly - they're all making far more money than ever) because the TPD is blatantly a massive stinking pile of shit across the board.
Conflation with an EU exit vote, however, means that those trying to counter us can claim it's just 'brexit rambling' and rabblerousing, and dismiss it as such, as being a 'niche anti-EU argument' and then it gets drowned out by all the other Brexit stuff.
Which is why those of us who are putting in the hard work to contact MPs and Lords right now aren't making that connection between the two - it's plain dangerous and undermines the main message, which is 'it's shite, get shot'.
Re timings for a leave if it were to be voted for, I have it on pretty good authority (IE Vapers in Power, New Nicotine Alliance) that yes, if we did leave the EU on the 23rd, we would still be beholden to the TPD and all other treaties till we sort out the formal exit. That's why they aren't making this a Brexit thing, because it's functionally irrelevant to us in the near term, and takes focus away from what matters - which is fighting the TPD.
From the Beeb (but backed up by any other source you care to look for)
How long will it take for Britain to leave the EU?
This was a question asked by many people. The minimum period after a vote to leave would be two years. During that time Britain would continue to abide by EU treaties and laws, but not take part in any decision-making, as it negotiated a withdrawal agreement and the terms of its relationship with the now 27 nation bloc. In practice it may take longer than two years, depending on how the negotiations go.
It took Greenland three years to get out, for reference - and that was back in the 80s before the red tape truly took hold; I'd expect a UK exit to take at least that long.
If we can get the TPD fucked off, then we can talk about the EU overall, yeah? ;-)
I will say though, seeing the shenanigans involved with TPD, I've gone from 'firmly remain' to 'on the fence'. It's seriously knocked my previous belief in the EU system, right to it's core.
I expect that most people who are for exit have had the EU do something similar to them at some point in the past, and that's why I don't dismiss those who want to leave. I can see why, these days.
PS: Small note, I don't represent VIP or NNA, in case I give that impression!
Yeah, you say that, but MHRA and DoH were dead set on making e-cigs medicinal only (IE a defacto ban) only a few years ago until vapers actually stepped in and told them what a fuckwitted idea that was
I'm fully aware of the history. The government is quite capable of directing the on policy. They can't however ignore EU regs. The EU won't move on the regs.
Surely you see the problem?
It took Greenland three years to get out, for reference - and that was back in the 80s before the red tape truly took hold; I'd expect a UK exit to take at least that long.
I wouldn't. I mean it's not the end of the world but if it comes down to it you can leave in 30 seconds if you want to. Leaving the EU doesn't erase laws as they stand; you can still use the EU regs as guiding light and unpick stuff as you go, starting with the easy stuff.
What takes time is bending over for the EU when you decided you want to leave. There's WTO rules on trade so you don't NEED to negotiate trade deals with the EU to trade with the EU - indeed I suspect that any negotiated settlement would actually be dangerous and get us back to where we started so actually we probably don't want an FTA with the EU regardless; companies wanting to sell to the EU would have to abide by relevant EU regs but that's true if you want to sell to the US you still have to follow their regs, and it's the same for everywhere else but you don't have to bend over backwards and get shafted everywhere else.
Re: rambling, there's plenty of reasons to want to leave the EU; and this one is a monster that's going to result in the deaths of many people - it's one of many but as I say; it's pretty huge and they're intractable on this as they are in many other issues.
"It's like banning hard hats on building sites until you can prove they don't cause scalp disease."
While also restricting the weight of said hats, the materials they are made from, banning advertising of them, restricting the number of hard hats you can have on a building site at a time and the number you can order at a time, stopping you from buying them from outside the country, and generally trying to make like as difficult for manufacturers, retailers and consumers as possible.
E-cig portions of the TPD are possibly one of the most insane peices of legislation I have ever seen:
"Here's something which will make millions of people healthier and better off."
"Lets force bunch of nonsensical rules on them to kill them off."
"Great idea, our friends in the tobacco and pharmaceutical industries will be really happy with us for that! They've been loosing loads of money thanks to these devices."
"Great idea, our friends in the tobacco and pharmaceutical industries will be really happy with us for that! They've been loosing loads of money thanks to these devices"
Knew I wouldn't have to wait long for that to come up. Its the same argument with homeopathy and "big pharma"
My response - do you really think that if Brittish Tobbaco was that worried about loss of sales that they would just sit back and say... "Ah well fuck it, we had our day." No You'd see Marlborough, Silk Cut and B&H branded liquids and vaping machines on the counters in minutes and all off the smaller manufacturers out on their arses.
Same with homeopathy - You can knock "big pharma" all you want and say that they are suppressing evidence that it works, but really it would be in their interests to prove sugar pills cure cancer because
a. They are cheap to produce and
b. The markup is ridiculous.
As for B&T vaping would make them MORE money if they got into it because production costs would be much lower.
Realistically all that is happening here is that the rules for vaping are being brought inline with normal cigarettes.
And the extremely harsh regulations are there because cigarettes are vastly harmful, whereas e-cigarettes are not even in the same ballpark.
As for tobacco involvement, earlier in the state of things, they were pushing 1st gen products to get medical licensing, and making very bold (and utterly bollocks) claims that open systems were extremely dangerous. So for them to start marketing their own open systems now would be tricky, as it goes against everything they've been saying.
That's why they're fairly quiet these days on that front and just getting on with getting on, with their crap devices that aren't anywhere near as effective or popular as those made by independent manufacturers who have no ties to the tobacco industry.
And for reference, yes, Pharma have had a very heavy hand in the lobbying for these rules. It's on record. I can point you to Hansard where it was the subject of much discussion amongst the Lords. They tend not to make such statements without evidence behind it, and many who were involved were MEPs during the lobbying stage, and you didn't see them denying what their honorable friends were suggesting....
Just because you're not paying attention doesn't mean things aren't happening.
As for AC, I again point you to the Royal College of Physicians, who are saying that the TPD is likely inappropriate and will probably damage public health as opposed to the status quo. This isn't some tinpot blogger, this is one of the most respected public health bodies on the face of the fucking earth.
This isn't tricky, kids.
Ahem, thank you for making the argument.
British American Tobacco: Vype
Lorillard (Later acquired by RJ Reynolds) : Blu
Phillip Morris, makers of your "Marlboroughs": Altria
the fact is that "big tobacco" ARE the ones pushing the regulations. Because they have financials to be able to afford the testing. In the US, we're looking at $1M per product/strength. So the small places, like "Dr Crimney's" that I use, are looking at for just ONE flavor $1M per strength. that's 0, 3, 6, 12. $4 Million dollars for one product line.
further, the limits on "refill size" is a blatant attempt to limit the amount of liquid to roughly that of one pack of ciggs.
I don't really care if e-cigs have cancer in them or something else but ... recently whilst driving into work I've been seeing plumes of smoke emanating from the windows of cars. It is almost as if the Flying Scotsman is in there. That in itself seems to be a risk of blow back into the car, or into the car of someone waiting at lights besides them, making visibility inside the car a problem.
Besides its bound to irritate Craig so that's a good thing in itself.
Re in car visibility - crack a window, fans on low, and the positive pressure evacuates the vapour immediately, if you blow it in the direction of the window.
You know, just like with cig smoke.
If you think this is a problem, you're really reaching - and any idiot hotboxing their car as they drive can quite easily be pulled for existing laws on driving without due care, same rules used for when people dont' clear their windscreens in winter, etc.
Except hard hats make specific claims to protect you from injury.
e-cigs simply claim to be a more enjoyable, less harmful way to get nicotine.
They have never claimed to be a smoking cessation device, for example, and as such, have no need to be held up to such high standards of efficacy. They are just another way of smoking, that happens, by design, to be significantly less harmful (and there is no debate on the science about this, unless anyone thinks they know better than the Royal College of Physicians).
This, again, is why the hard hat analogy is, and I'm being polite here, not very good at all.
No, Its closer to banning *NEW CARDBOARD HARD HATS* Tested and proven by the manufacturers to be every bit as safe as regular hard hats but without the drawbacks.*
Read this bit really fast like a radio advert >>
* Not actually tested, may include additional drawbacks.
Cardboard hardhats should not be used on construction sites or in light rain.
So way more people getting direct dodgy imports from hong kong, which will lead to excellent scare stories in the tabloids. The perfect attack.
It's bizarre. There's a weird alignment between big pharma, anti-smoking zealots, bureaucratic health organisations, governments and maybe tobacco companies - not sure on that as I'm pretty sure they'd happily get into the market, unless of course the plan is to increase the costs and difficulty so only big tobacco can afford to make them.
It's not quite that bad over here (At least not in the UK - in Austria perhaps...) but in the US, that appears to be exactly what they're going for.
$500,000 and 5000 hours of work per sku for market approval, as they're using exactly the same regs as for lit tobacco. So if you were turning over $250,000/PA selling liquid, with ten flavours and three strengths, that'll be $15,000,000 to remain on the market, thanks....
I agree that citations would help the cause, but it doesn't take anything other than common sense to see that being able to feed an addiction to nicotine without burning tobacco is definitely a step in the right direction.
I agree that vapour products should be regulated, just like other nicotine products (patches, gum, etc.), but those products are allowed to be advertised and no-one is trying to get them banned. I'm struggling to see any significant difference between nicotine gum and nicotine vapour, other than vaping _looks_ like smoking.
re "I'm guessing you've never set about quitting smoking."
Its not hard, you just stop. If you really want to quit smoking then you will and all you have to do is stop.
The fact is most people who say they want to give up don't really want to and so they find it difficult or look for reasons why they failed.
as far as I can see, vaping is simply swapping one addiction delivery method for another but it is at least a healthier way of getting a fix. Mind you teh down side is that most people sucking on a vape' don't seem to realize just how silly they look :D
"Its not hard, you just stop. If you really want to quit smoking then you will and all you have to do is stop."
Course it is sweetie. Just throw away the chemical dependence, and the decades of positive reinforcement. Piece of cake..
Have you ever beat an addiction, and been honest enough to admit how hard it was?
"The fact is most people who say they want to give up don't really want to and so they find it difficult or look for reasons why they failed."
No.. The fact is.. most people who want to give up, but don't. Are still addicts.And if you are going to dismiss addiction so lightly, then you are not intellectually equipped to hold this conversation,
"as far as I can see, vaping is simply swapping one addiction delivery method for another"
Yep. So look a little deeper.
You are correct.. e-cigs are a nicotine delivery system. Like patches, or gum, or inhalers. Crucially dropping pretty much all the nasty stuff from smoking at the same time.
"but it is at least a healthier way of getting a fix."
Yes. But not only the chemical fix, which is all the other options address.
The addiction has a second less recognised part. The ritual.
The behavioural modification that every smoker goes through. Which is why smoking and other forms of tobacco use has always had such a wealth of ornate or intricate paraphernalia.
The (in my case) 30 year habit of putting a thing in my mouth and inhaling an irritant to get a chemical fix.
This is an excellent example of positive reinforcement.
Do something unpleasant for a happy drug.
Same effect as potty training, exercise, sex, enjoying alcohol, and many other pleasurable things.
But one not addressed by other cessation strategies.
Drinking alcohol is actually quite unpleasant. Beer tastes horrible. But the alcohol reward makes our brains modify our ability to enjoy something. And outside alcopops and possibly liqueurs, spirits taste vile.
Coffee, tea.. Both vile tasting fluids one must acquire a taste for. Because guess what.. Caffene is addictive.
The capcasin in chillies.. Same. Which is why some people like myself, get really into hot foods once we are hooked. To the point where people who have got past the heat, enjoy the different flavours and nuances of the different varieties.
Luckily this is actually a positive addiction. As chilli has a whole range of positive health benefits.
For any smoker.. the chemical dependence is actually a trivial thing to break. Realistically.. the nicotine in your body leaves after a couple of hours. And the chemical dependency is gone in a few weeks.
So why is it not a doddle to quit? Hold out a few weeks, and done.. Right?
Because the nicotine is just the reward.
The hard part is getting away from the feeling that something is missing. Smokers often complain about having nothing to do with their hands, or of feeling incomplete, or being unable to enjoy activities without a cigarette to accompany the act, or after it.
That is the physical ritual part. And it's a bugger to break.
So.. the reason e-cigs are more successful when used as cessation aids..
They address BOTH parts of the addiction.
The lesser chemical dependence, and the much harder behavioural one.
I spent the best part of 6 months on zero nicotine juice before I finally got rid of the behavioural habit.
Now I'm a non smoker.
No cravings, no desire to smoke, no feeling of pleasure from smelling smoke, and crucially.. No psychotic resentment towards smokers.
I don't smoke. If someone else wants to, I'm not going to get all precious about it. Because I'm not fighting an addiction that could reassert it's self at any time.
"Mind you teh down side is that most people sucking on a vape' don't seem to realize just how silly they look :D"
As opposed to the quiet dignity of the smoker, standing in the rain with a tube of burning leaves in their gob you mean.
Or the witty and articulate drunks, peeing themselves to wash away the vomit on their shoes?
Or perhaps the frequently admired crack addicts..
Actually.. when you really look at addictions.. Vaping is kind of mild, is it not?
"Its not hard, you just stop. If you really want to quit smoking then you will and all you have to do is stop."
You forgot the Joke Icon. Or rather I deeply hope you forgot it and don't believe all that. Yes, some people struggle to quit because they don't want to, but others genuinely struggle and to dismiss the addiction as "oh if you REALLY wanted to, it's no problem", is to display, on a massive scale, a lack of understanding of the psychology of addiction.
Agreed. I smoked reasonably heavily in my aberrant youth, for over 3 years, was quite fond of the cigs, cigars, pipe. Quit overnight due to a combination of winter chest cold, jogging & doctor's warning. In other words I had an incentive to kick the habit. I still get an occasional minor longing for a cigar, after 30 years.
Looking back, I don't understand why I tolerated putting odd things in my lungs. I don't understand why today, with so much information to hand and so much history to reflect upon, people take such a short term view of potential influences on health. I don't want to experience passive / secondary vaping. I totally agree that people should give up tobacco products.
Substituting an unknown risk that has attached specific least worst negative impact(vaping) for a terrible risk with awful impact (smoking tobacco) is a short term relative improvement. Until those longer term data come in, we don't know for sure. We may reject the nanny state for molly coddling us, but should the great unwashed discover there has been a long term serious risk extant in widely used products, they want the state to intervene and protect and cocoon them from predatory suppliers, possibly arrange compensation too.
That such logic can be applied to many questionable products in use in the first world about which precious little restriction appears to occur (consumable alcohol, internal combustion emission, pesticide, growth hormone, etc) is not a defence for vaping.
"Its not hard, you just stop. If you really want to quit smoking then you will and all you have to do is stop."
"as far as I can see, vaping is simply swapping one addiction delivery method for another"
I think your second statement answers and contradicts your first. Yes, it's an addiction, and no, the vast majority of people can't "just stop". If they could, it wouldn't be an addiction in the first place.
"Its not hard, you just stop. If you really want to quit smoking then you will and all you have to do is stop.
The fact is most people who say they want to give up don't really want to and so they find it difficult or look for reasons why they failed."
Ok, I'll bite. Yep, I enjoyed smoking, but I got tired of hacking up black shit from my lungs after almost 20 years of it and was concerned about the effects on my health.
So vaping has offered me an alternative that is similar enough to smoking to satisfy me, with way less risk to my health. If there are currently unknown long term adverse health effects, that's fine. I will take that risk (which I think is minimal) as opposed to continuing to smoke cigarettes and suffer adverse effects that I have no doubt are very real. If I drop dead from vaping 10 , 20, 30 years from now, so be it. I gambled with my own body, of my own free will and lost. At least I won't have to deal with stinking like shit, and hacking up garbage for the remainder of my existence.
As for looking silly, I couldn't give a shit less. People that dye their hair gaudy colors, or jam metal thru their faces, or cover their bodies in tattoos, etc. look silly to me. So fucking what?
This post has been deleted by its author
"I'm struggling to see any significant difference between nicotine gum and nicotine vapour, other than vaping _looks_ like smoking."
I suspect you may have been using the gum wrong, then, since there's a fairly big difference between absorbing something through your saliva and doing so through the walls of your lungs.
I'm not anti-vape, btw (own one myself, enjoy using it, etc); we just have to be honest about the fact that there's no a lot of clinical information out there on the long-term effects. Recall that smoking was considered healthy (by medical professionals) as little as 70 years ago.
Now, I smoke anyway (my e-cig is for fun, not for some crusade to quit smoking), but yeah, I do worry about something being advised for large-scale adoption as a means to solve one problem when we're not sure what it's effects will be; heroine was originally given out to wean people off morphine addictions and that turned out to be a pretty bad idea after they'd been doing it for 25 years too.
I think a little heavy-handed regulation and a demand that vaping actually offer some evidence that it's genuinely safer than smoking before that regulation is lifted might be a good idea, really.
Here's your evidence from the most respected public health body in the world.
The summary on that page is fairly concise in it's approval of these devices, and the full document itself has some rather pointed comments about the TPD itself, and not in a good way.
A little heavy handed regulation - such as preventing >20mg on the market, will prevent the heaviest of smokers from giving up as they won't get enough nicotine out of the weak-ass devices left on the market.
Which is why the regulation needs to be appropriate. The TPD, quite frankly, is not.
That's why the DoH have inferred that they aren't going to enforce it, and why the Lords are looking to pass a Fatal Motion, because what's the point of having regulation that no-one intends to enforce because they know it's not going to help anyone?
A lot of the assumptions and numbers being thrown around comes from this report from the Royal College of Physicians
Long story short, e-cigarettes are estimated as being 95% safer than smoking cigarettes; mostly because the act of burning/oxidising produces a bunch of carcinogens whereas just heating up vapour doesn't.
The e-liquid bases (MPG/VG) are fairly well understood because they have been used (and heated up) for years in commercial food settings, so people have been breathing them in for years. Doesn't completely rule out something showing up in the future; but it's very likely that any toxicity would have made itself known by now.
Nicotine has also had a great deal of research done. It's not especially pleasant stuff in it's pure form; the chief danger being that you can absorb it through the skin. According to Wikipedia a "2013 review suggests that the lower limit causing fatal outcomes is 500–1000 mg of ingested nicotine, corresponding to 6.5–13 mg/kg orally". Not not for baby food or paddling in; but you're going to spew red white and blue before you can fatally dose yourself by oral means.
The 5% of risk is mostly from the favourings. Pretty well uniformly these are all food-safe; but with vaping you're 1) breathing it in and 2) may possibly be getting more/higher concentrations of a flavouring than in regular food use. So there could be a few surprises there.
The interesting point is that even if we did discover that some of the flavourings were potentially dangerous, they'd still be fairly minor compared to that of continuing to smoke - so perhaps they'd be 90% safer, rather than 95%. That is, it'd still be better to vape than to smoke. In fact, there's never any situation where it's better to continue to smoke if vaping is an option, period.
In educated circles, the actual estimate is more like >98% safer, but as you correctly note, unknown unknowns being included makes the 95% number actually on the conservative, careful end of the scale. IE it's not overblown at all.
"I'm struggling to see any significant difference between nicotine gum and nicotine vapour, other than vaping _looks_ like smoking."
There's a quite significant difference.
Nicotine in gum and sprays is absorbed slowly though the relatively thick lining of the mouth and/or nose, so while they reduce the overall effects of withdrawal if you're attempting to give up smoking, they do not give you an instant nicotine 'hit', more a background level of nicotine in the blood.
Cigarettes and vaping products, on the other hand, produce a nicotine vapour that is inhaled and absorbed through the lining of the lungs. This lining has a large surface area and is very thin, so nicotine is transfered into the blood, through the heart and up to the brain in a matter of seconds, giving a 'hit' as it binds to certain neurotransmitter receptors and relieves withdrawal symptoms.
This 'hit' is presumably why it seems so hard to give up smoking/vaping, as the act of drawing on a cigarette or vaping machine is strongly associated with the relief of nicotine withdrawal a few seconds later.
@ TitterYeNot - This 'hit' is presumably why it seems so hard to give up smoking/vaping, as the act of drawing on a cigarette or vaping machine is strongly associated with the relief of nicotine withdrawal a few seconds later.
Psychologists call it reinforcement. Your smoking habit is attended by many oft-repeated actions (raising cig to mouth; inhaling; putting cig down again; exhaling; blowing smoke rings; whatever) and after a while, these actions become inextricably linked with the reward (nicotine hit). So a nicotine patch -for example- will top up your nicotine (but in a steady dose, not a spike); but will not replace any of the associated actions/rituals; leaving people trying to give up with a sense of "what the fuck do I do with my hands" which -depending upon the person- can be as distressing as the lack of nicotine. Vaping has similar actions; a visual component (which is quite important in my totally personal and wholly unscientific opinion) and therefore satisfies both the nicotine craving and the missing reinforcement behaviours.
Yep - I used to find that upon leaving the office, I had a cigarette out the pack, in the mouth, lit and was inhaling - well without even having noticed and completely irrespective of whether I'd even decided I needed nicotine or not.
Gums and sprays all tried to tap into this, patches are simply rubbish - I like my hit.
Vaping doesn't make me break these habits (apart from once I've had a puff or two, I don't feel compelled to finish it).
Fiddling bit is quite important as well - explosion of all in ones, mods, tanks, flavours, sub-ohms etc etc gives a much more satisfying range of things to tinker with. I quite enjoy it all.
Pack of fags and a lighter.. well where's the fun in that?
I actually moved to rolling tobacco to try and break that habit, walk to the bus stop have a cig, wait at the bus stop have a cig, rolling meant you actually stopped and thought about whether I wanted a cig, cigarettes are to easy to smoke and build a habit, I ended up smoking less smoking rollups.
Vaping satisfies some of those habits, I can quite easily while working go without smoking if I am interested in what I am doing I think it's less addiction to nicotine for me (not saying their ain't some) and more the whole smoking thing, but when getting home and sitting around I want to smoke.
Ha, depends how good you are at rolling, having spent 30 earth years rolling I can assure you that:
by feel , in the pitch dark, a bit pissed still at 3am rolling a fag is most definitely possible, as is walking and rolling. Driving and rolling is downright dangerous however.
I never quite mastered one handed, it always need the second hand to arrange the baccy 'just so' could sort of do the rolling with one hand though.
Dude, I was a teenager in London in the late eighties, a student in Manchester in the early nineties, I liked going to raves. I have rolled not quite cigarettes in many conditions environmental, physical and mental, I can assure you a mere single skinner does not faze me. ;)
Yep.... pitch black rolling - could do that - one handed while driving or hanging off of scaffolding (back in my teen days as a scaffolders mate) could do that rolling in pouring rain while not under shelter... could do that.
Quitting an equivalent to a 50 a day habit... did that because I knew it was going to kill me.
What really gets my attention is seeing schoolkids walking to school in the morning in a huge cloud of fug from the stupid looking contraption they are dragging on looking like a pre shoot run thru for "stars in their eyes ("tonight Matthew Im going to be.......")
All the smoking cessation arguments overlook that some sad idiots - in a quest to "look cool" are using these rather than real cigarettes.... which they probably lack the bottle to smoke... *now*.... but how long before they start on the "real thing" out of curiosity/peer pressure?
For some they could be a Gateway INTO smoking - and lets not forget the problems in some territories with "imitation cigarettes" filled with toxic crap, far easier to import cases of potentially lethal vaping products in small bottles than pallets of cartons of cigarettes.
Most stuff we buy is "quality regulated" in some way - why would this be any different?
There is absolutely no evidence that they are a gateway to smoking, period. I mean, literally none. Well, none that hasn't come from torturing the stats to try to show something that isn't there, of course.
The actual data is absolutely clear on this - >98% of vapers are adult smokers and ex-smokers. Youth/underagers who experiment with them do exactly that - they experiment, with the exception of those who were already smoking who appear as a blip in the stats.
This is, and always has been, a complete non-argument - what sort of sensible youth - or even insensible - is going to go from something that has minimal short term side effects, tastes nice and is cheap, costing a couple of quid a day to play with once you get past the initial setup costs, to something that tastes like shit, makes you reek of burning leaves, will immediately cause quite severe shortness of breath and chest pains, nausea, that they know is extremely dangerous to their health, that their parents will smell off them a mile off etc, and costs near £10 for 20 'doses'?
It's just not happening because most never-smokers kids view vaping with just as much disdain as they do smoking.
"All the smoking cessation arguments overlook that some sad idiots - in a quest to "look cool" are using these rather than real cigarettes.... which they probably lack the bottle to smoke... *now*.... but how long before they start on the "real thing" out of curiosity/peer pressure?"
The pricing tends to discourage this. With tobacco, it's fairly cheap to get in the game. All you need is a packet of cigs and a lighting device. Thereafter the cost is the same. With e-cigs it's usually more expensive up-front and only cheaper over the long-term.
E-cigs tend to discourage impulse using; both from the high up-front cost; plus the fact the you have to have your shit together enough to have cig, coil, e-liquid, and charged batteries in place before you can start vaping (and also a plan for running/out failure of any of those components if you're away from base for any length of time). There's also the fact that e-cigs are more personal...people are considerably less inclined to pass their kit round for their mates to have a toot than they would be to just give them a cig from a packet.
So, say someone has got into vaping to "look cool" and has invested the time and money into an e-cig. Switching to smoking is more dangerous and also -here's the point- a bloody sight more expensive; especially if you factor in the cost of the now-abandoned e-kit.
I'm sure when you're talking about millions of people then someone will be doing any conceivable outcome; but the form factor; the complication; the added difficulty in sharing and the pricing structure all discourage an e-cig --> tobacco path.
Haha, I rolled my own for 20 years. I was on at least 30 (40 with a night out) when I switched to gaping. I used to wake up in the morning and my hands had rolled me one! I just lit up, finished it, got up, got coffee and rolled my second. Thank goodness for vaping. It has most certainly saved my life. I won't take my itchy hard hat off for anyone!
"I'm struggling to see any significant difference between nicotine gum and nicotine vapour, other than vaping _looks_ like smoking."
Which is the whole problem. It wrecks the whole de normalisation program that has been going on for years with the quit or die mob.
The thing is, that forcing people outside to smoke puts smoking in the public view; it actually normalises smoking while demonising smokers.
And given that there is no e-cig on the market with any traction that looks remotely like a cigarette, and the effluent from vaping is so different in texture, smell and visability/colour compared to ciggy smoke, the idea that it normalises smoking is a joke. It normalises not smoking.
These days, no-one with a functional set of sense organs mistakes the two.
Good I am fed up of seeing vapers everywhere. They a a total eyesore. Let's get out of the EU and back to a country of real British people smoking packs of real cigarettes. I would also like to see tobacco advertisements on TV again and the age of purchase reduced to 14. If kids can vote and enjoy fighting for this country shouldn't they have a right to enjoying a good smoke too?
Disclaimer: I have shares in a tobacco company I once worked for, but that hasn't shaped my view whatsoever. I am making this disclaimer because I am ethical
"to a country of real British people smoking packs of real cigarettes"
You do realise that cigarettes were long considered very feminine, and since that was half the market of the already established manly cigars, the tobacco industry started a grass-roots PR campaign to market the cigarettes to men as well.
So, if you're male and smoke cigarettes and you think you're manly, you're not, you were once considered quite a poof. Better change over to cigars right now. Yes do it now, because you're manly.
Yet another law from the stupid, mis-informed powers of ironic insanity.
I say ironic because they write this legislation with the intention of making this community safer * but actually if the legislation does have any effect, it will drive a lot of business underground, people will just buy stronger liquids / bigger tanks etc etc from unauthorised channels.
I say insane because they do this again and again, each time they expect the legislation to make a difference but all it does is advertise the products, loopholes are found, it becomes a major problem because people are enjoying themselves too much and they just write another piece of crazy legislation to deal with the previous fuck-up. Again and again, GOTO :Insane
It's f**king ridiculous.
* Safer? Yeah right. I would bet that the cost of getting products approved is in some way proportional to the governmental tax loss from declining sales of analog cigs.
Have a nice day and vape on :)
I live in a European country where this will have no affect at all. I can go into any bar and be among smokers, the buggers light up everywhere. In some places it is fine and in others it is a case of washing all the gear you went out in last night. I do not mind it but the missus does.
If you smoke after sex you should seriously consider changing lubrication.
Making things illegal (or making only the crippled versions no one wants legal) always works.
Nobody dies from heroin now that it is only available from criminals. We should learn from this example especially in relation to products that appeared to be pretty harmless in the first place.
It may turn out that it's easier to chase-the-dragon than to buy 24mg e-juices but there couldn't be any unintended health consequences. We can just make unintended consequences illegal. Then they will never happen. It all makes perfect sense.
No one dies from Heroin?
The Article was so pro that it was nearly as annoying as those people who Vape just so they can fill the air with whatever scent/flavor they are using today.
From what I have seen/heard the 20mg thing is no issue at all, If the goal is for these to help you quit smoking, why do you want something that's stronger than cigs?.
I bet if all of those proud "Vaping" guys wouldn't have decided to make plumes of "whatever" in the air, smokers came to learn that being offensive with your habit was something that was frowned on more than the habit itself.
The few people I know using these things didn't do it to quit, they did it so they could "smoke" in places where they would not be allowed to smoke. I hope it does help people break the habit but I am not real sure it will. I have no doubt that people who managed to quit and feel the urge to go back will benefit from this, if they need that "Fix" and they find it here, they will skip the cig - that's great.
Generally speaking I think Vaping is a good move, but limits will have no doubt been put into place for reasons. If they article would take a proper view and hash out why limits were put into place then it could debate if they really were a good or bad thing. Lets keep taxing cigs and get people pushed over to vaping. Lets also make sure going out to eat doesn't feel more like a trek into Silent Hill.
Almost every important statement you make is wrong or wildly misinformed, I'm afraid.
The TPD was drafted up with an abuse of the scientific evidence, and has completely failed to keep up with the science and the market.
No-one is saying 'don't regulate it'. We're saying 'regulate it appropriately'.
If you want to know why you're wrong, read my comments on Andrews last article on the subject here - just do a find on the page for "Raith" and then check the posts in their context, as I'm pretty sure I answer every single one of your points in detail.
Then feel free to ask me if you have more questions. I'm keeping tabs on this thread.
Anybody know if this will affect mix-your-own stuff?
I buy 7.2% nicotine, flavourings and aqueous glycol because it's cheaper. I've just bought £90's worth just in case, but will I be able to buy the super-strong nicotine liquid to mix into my own normal-strength liquid?
I'm not sure, because the super-strong nicotine isn't really e-cig liquid on its own.
Your base is a nicotine containing liquid, which is the exact wording in the regulation. So no, come next May, you won't be able to get it, or any liquid with greater than 20mg/ml nicotine, and it won't be available in anything other than 10ml bottles. I'm not even joking.
So stock up (it freezes well) - or sign this petition linked to show support to the Lords who want to annul this regulation for being the overblown, misinformed tat that it is, and write to your MP in a polite, succinct and clear way (imagine you had to explain it to the Reg Commentard community - too much waffle will not get read in detail) explaining why e-cigs have been useful to you, how they've helped you sidestep the problems you previously had healthwise from lit tobacco, and how these regulations will likely increase the cost to you of getting your liquids by a factor of ten.
Incidentally, anyone who has a mate who now uses a vape product rather than smoking - sign that petition, and write to your MP too. Because the sorts of products they likely used to get off the fags - high strength liquids, conveniently sized tanks - are what are being banned, for no good, scientifically backed up reason. So if you think that you have other mates who you'd like to stop smoking using the same sort of tech...well, you do the maths.
People smoke because they enjoy it. If they can get that enjoyment with something that is, by all accounts, at least 95% safer, then why be overly concerned about quitting?
The risks of vaping have been described by those in the know as being comparable to caffeine usage. After all, caffeine promotes problems with the cardiovascular system and gastro-intestinal system, and stopping using that drug can cause migraines and withdrawal symptoms, and abuse can cause hypertension and psychological side effe....oh, wait, you use caffeine.
So that's different.
I'm sorry, but who ever said it was about getting temporary respite? Some smokers will never give up nicotine. Lots of people vape because they want their nicotine without the added extras of popcorn lung and cancer. I don't know if I'll ever give up vaping, and to be honest, I don't really care. I didn't take up vaping because I needed to give up nicotine. I did it because it was cheaper and safer than smoking.
And while we're on the subject, why should it matter to you whether I ever stop vaping? What makes you give a shit?
It's not really considered polite to make up your own straw man and then knock him down.
10ml is just plain silly.
So I can not buy 100ml of liquid, but I can buy 10 x 10ml bottles. A child could still drink it, or worse still can choke on a 10ml bottle now.
I read something a while back which claimed some interesting things about nicotine. I'm not stating them as fact, or true, or that you will react the same, or whatever, it's just something i read and they do seem to fit with my experience of smoking vs. vaping.
- It's never been proven that nicotine is addictive. It's only been claimed after research on cigarettes that smoking was addictive. Nicotine was selected rather unscientifically as the culprit, but it could be any combination of the 5000+ other chemicals that causes the addiction.
- There have been numerous tests on pure nicotine which claim that the substance in itself is not addictive. Something like many hundreds of people were subjected to high doses over a long period and they showed no signs of addiction afterwards.
- The killer amount of nicotine, I think it's the LD50 or something, should be way higher than it is, something like 12 x higher. It was something about the body naturally repelling nicotine in large doses / you naturally stop vaping if you start feeling ill / if you drink liquid you will likely be sick. Basically, there have been very very few reported deaths from nicotine alone and most of the people who drink it deliberately and succeed have used something else to incapacitate them which ensures they cannot sick it up.
- And various other interesting bits of information which seem stupid at first but seem to have some sense in them when I think about it.
I could not / did not want to give up smoking for 20 years, switching to vaping was a nice idea at first but I kept going back to smoking after a month or two, for the first two years. Now it's been another three years since I smoked after that initial period and I can easily vary the strength of my juice between 0mg - 10mg for many days at a time with no cravings. honestly I use nicotine now because I like the quick buzz. Also, many foods have nicotine in them but I can't remember anybod having to weane themselves off tomatoes.
I also spilled half a 72mg bottle on my lap once and I am fine, I hope. I never wear gloves when I mix my juices, I have had it all over my fingers and I think I am still alive. Basically my own evidence says it's not as dangerous as they want you to think it is.
I support the idea that vaping equipment should be safe but even in its current form it has a long, long way to go before it can truly be compared to cigs - I'm talking about house fires / people drinking liquid accidentally or deliberately and stuff like that, rather than the health risk of using the device or cig the way it is intended.
Just because one person buys a Chinese charger & fake battery and blows their face off it will get news time, but the three other people who lost their house through smoking related fire in the same week? No, that's not interesting anymore.
I think you will still be able to buy pure nicotine and high strength solutions based on the wording of the TPD
"No person may produce or supply an electronic cigarette or a refill container which contains a nicotine-containing liquid unless it complies with..."
Pure nicotine and high strength solutions are precursors to the manufacture of e-liquid. They are not usable directly. You have to process them first before they can be used in an electronic cigarette so in my opinion they are not refill containers. I'm not a lawyer but that's certainly what i will be arguing :)
However as im sure you are aware there are moves afoot to put a stop to DIY manufacturing
@AC regarding DIY, unfortunately the catch all term 'nicotine containing liquid' and 'for retail sale' was used for a reason.
The only people able to buy USP grade nicotine base will be liquid manufacturers, on a B2B basis. This has been covered many times over within the advocacy world (which I'll grant you, you might not be aware of - which is understandable, there's not many of us and vendors have been atrocious at spreading the word).
There are possibilities of getting it to market on a medicinal basis (someone is bound to try it, at least) which might mean the end user could access it through some chicanery, but to all intents and purposes, any nicotine containing liquid for retail sale can not have a nicotine content greater than 20mg/ml.
Unless I see convincing evidence in the SI that suggest otherwise, that's the way it is I'm afraid.
I think you will still be able to buy pure nicotine and high strength solutions based on the wording of the TPD
"No person may produce or supply an electronic cigarette or a refill container which contains a nicotine-containing liquid unless it complies with..."
Pure nicotine and high strength solutions are precursors to the manufacture of e-liquid and cant be used directly in an e-cigarette without further processing. In my opinion this means they do not fit the definition of a refill container.
@AC re base liquids, the docoo has been updated to cover this.
As I stated previously, nicotine base liquid sold to consumers is covered by the 20mg/ml, 10ml limit and will only be available to manufacturers.
You can argue that maybe a manufacturer might do 'back door sales' but the fines for non-compliance are pretty high so don't expect it to be commonplace.
Nicotine Base Liquid
The TPD requirements on nicotine concentration (20mg/ml maximum) and size of presentation (10ml maximum for refill container and 2ml maximum for e-cigarettes) apply to products sold to end consumers (irrespective of whether the end consumer intends to modify the product).
The requirements do not apply to ‘trade sales’ i.e. where you are not selling direct to a consumer. But for all sales (trade and to consumers) the tank capacity of a refillable e-cigarette must not exceed 2ml.
The application of all TPD requirements are subject to transitional provisions.
As I said, that wording (nicotine containing liquid) was very specific so as not to mistake 'e-liquid' with 'nic base'.
Better to have the Lords annul it first, surely?
See my post above - if you feel strongly about it, sign the petition and write to your MP, or a Lord you feel an affinity with (they're mostly terribly affable chaps and chappettes) to let them know that you feel that the law as it stands is stupid and that striking it off the books is a sensible thing to do till we can work out some decent regs that won't destroy the usefulness of these devices.
Don't normally 'do' online campaigns, but I found this a significant cause. Very few people in my extended family have ever smoked, and neither have I. However, I truly sympathise with those who attempt to quit for good, or who want to continue, whilst reducing the harm of their addiction.
If I could give you 100 upvotes for all your posts on this topic, I would.
As long as they don't regulate vampires, the vapers can f*** off. I just need a pint of blood a day, not too much to ask, and not nearly as filthy as that liquid these e-fag smokers inhale. No tar, no nicotine, just a pure haemoglobin rush (and a bit of alcohol if you pinch someone coming home from teh pub - oh well, 2-for-1 special I suppose). Hit 'em in the jugular - they deserve it anyway.
"I'm tired of seeing vapers flaunt their filthy addiction in public. It's a disgusting habit as is smoking."
Funny that, I'm tired of seeing colon fetishists flaunt their filthy addiction in public. It's a truly disgusting habit. Doubt you'll see that as a reason to yank your head out of your arse though.
I'm tired of seeing vapers flaunt their filthy addiction in public. It's a disgusting habit as is smoking.
While I don't agree with your tone of voice, I'm sympathetic to the sentiment. I rejoiced when smoking in a public place was banned, and I'd quite like to see the same happen to vaping, and yes, I do understand that it is "not as harmful as" smoking. If a smoker can transfer to e-cigs and gradually wean themselves off the addiction, that can only be a good thing.
However, if anything, vaping in a public place is more antisocial than smoking because the cloud seems to hang around longer and vapers have no qualms about blowing the stuff in the face of every passer-by. And with the sheer variety of "flavours" around, the mix of smells can be quite nasty.
Living in Wales, I might get my wish.
And don't get me started on people vaping or smoking while driving (should there be a hands-free law?), with the window down, in slow moving traffic, right in front of or beside my car. The number of times I've had to close the windows and turn on the re-circ.
At least vapers don't chuck their butts out of the window. More than once I've had one of those, still lit with half an inch of tobacco left, lodge itself under some part of my bonnet and cause noxious fumes to enter the air intake.
So you're driving around in a car, surrounded by cars and trucks and buses, at least some of which, I'm guessing, are propelled by internal combustion engines, and you have to close your window to protect yourself from the occasional horrible whiff of vapour (or even cig smoke)?
"And don't get me started on people vaping or smoking while driving (should there be a hands-free law?), with the window down, in slow moving traffic, right in front of or beside my car. The number of times I've had to close the windows and turn on the re-circ."
Oh FFS!!!! Have you considering the shite coming out of the exhausts of all those others cars around you? You know the ones with their exhaust emitting fumes almost directly into your cars air vent intakes? Maybe you should have your car windows welded shut and the air re-circ switch jammed to on.
And as for the "smell" of vapers, are you also planning on banning perfumes and aftershave? What about anti-perspirants? Scented soaps? Scented shampoos? Chip shops? Burger bars? Pub/Resturant/Cafe kitchens?
So how much of this is either greed to get the cash from all the now-required testing and suchlike (with its mentioned fees), and of course to try and prevent existing smokers actually quitting and so losing all that lovely tax revenue from the money they're burning?
All it'll do of course is drive things underground...
IN fairness to the MHRA and DoH, they've set the fees down to be pretty much enough to run the backend paperwork side of things; as the article mentions, around £150 for new notifications and about£80 for changes. It's still a lot for vendors and producers, but in Austria and other states, they've gone mental and set the fees at €4000 or so.
As for preventing existing smokers from quitting? I doubt that's genuinely the reasoning behind it, but it will be the functional outcome, as many, many smokers start on liquids stronger than 20mg/ml to successfully replace the throat hit that 20+ a day gives cravings for, before they tend to transpose down to lower levels.
But of course, if they don't transpose initially, they'll never be happy with the lower levels, and will continue smoking.
The purpose of an e-cigarette is to introduce a pharmecutical into the body through the lungs. The most common pharmecutical is very toxic and addictive.
There are obvious hazards of overdose an dthe introduction of unintended chemcials into the body.
The idea that this should not be regulated in some way is crazy. Traditional smoking is known to be very damaging to health. We have no long term data but have good reasons to vapping will be much less damaging to health, but given what is known about nicotine even if there are no unexpected effects, impurities, acccidental over doses etc then there will still be a negative imapct on health. This has to be regulated in the same way there are food safety regulations for example. Those regulations were introduced because peoples health was being damaged in some cases dying.
The fact that vapping is probably not a dangerous a smoking does not mean that we should not make them acceptably safe. I cannot comment on thd precise quantaties and concenrtaions but the proposed regulations seem sensible and not at all onerous as evidenced by the fact that the article itself says that it will not seem like a crackdown.
I was prompted to read the regulations by the articles clear bias. They are in the main very sensible requirements on reporting, labelling and obvious basic safety requirments. The only thing beyond this are concentration and volume limits which as a non-vapper I have no idea about but there are clear safety benefits to having such limits. The fact that he regulation is so light show sthat he benefits of vapping are appreciated and a sensible approach has been taken.
The EMC regulations for e-cigarrettes are more onerous than these. Andrew seems to have lost contact with reality.
The regulations only seem reasonable if you don't have a solid grasp of the way vaping works, why it works, and the science behind it.
That's why those who have read up on it - the Royal College of Physicians, the Lords, and most advocates, are dead set against it.
Deaths from smoking last year = 100,000
Deaths from vaping last year = 0
For reference, in the doses you'd get from an e-cig, nicotine is not a danger to human health in any common sense way of looking at it. No-one has ever OD'd (in a manner dangerous to their health - you just stop toking and you're fine in five minutes) on nicotine from a vape device, period.
Again, as I posted elsewhere, have a look at the comments I posted in the last article (you can just click my name), I went into no small amount of detail as to why these regulations are not fit for purpose.
Why do you insist on comparing vaping only to cigarette smoking? That's pure cherry-picking. Nobody has disputed that the all-vaping world is better than the all-cigarette world, but neither is the world we actually live in. Vaping needs to be considered *on its own merits* and not just in comparison to something we all know is bad. Doing X and vaping carries some risks that doing X alone does not, for all X. Those risks, which are and are likely to remain better known/understood or controlled by vendors than by consumers, are a legitimate subject of legal/regulatory interest. If you think these particular regulations are too draconian, the constructive response would be to suggest alternatives. Trying to dismiss all possible regulation makes you seem like an ideologue, and trying to suggest that vaping is a net public-health positive makes you look delusional.
I don't think anyone is trying to dismiss all regulation. The question is do e-cigarettes need additional regulation beyond that which would be applied to a consumer product. Perhaps they do but the regulations proposed in the TPD on maximum strength and volume have no scientific rationale.
"Why do you insist on comparing vaping only to cigarette smoking?"
I dunno, because 99% of vapers are ex smokers, and smoking is the only comparable act? That's not cherry picking, that's actual real world usage. That's how you're supposed to compare things.
Jesus man, use your head, eh?
And as has been stated, no-one is saying "no regualtion" - we're saying "this regulation is inappapropriate and not backed up by the scientific evidence"
If they can come with something that actually fits, we'll be perfectly happy.
"Why do you insist on comparing vaping only to cigarette smoking? That's pure cherry-picking."
People die from falling off horses. Ban horses.
Getting out of bed in the morning can be dangerous. People die doing that every year. Ban beds.
DIY accidents? People die doing that. Ban DIY.
Shall we move on cars and related deaths? No? Thought not.
>For reference, in the doses you'd get from an e-cig, nicotine is not a danger to human health in any common sense way of looking at it.
Nicotine in vape dosages has positive effects - while smoking markedly increases the risk of (vascular) dementia positive associations in respect of other forms for smokers were identified some time ago. There's a stack of positive studies into the effects of safely prescribed nicotine (usually patches) on working memory and cognition in dementia - and also Parkinson's. Numerous longitudinal and large replication studies are on-going - likewise quite a few pilots trialing it in place of the more risky amphetamine based stimulants for AD/HD have shown positives.
>The purpose of an e-cigarette is to introduce a pharmecutical into the body through the lungs.
Ur doin it rong. Depending on your technique, only a very small percentage is likely to be absorbed through the lungs because the particle size of vapour is much larger than that of smoke. The nicotine is much more readily absorbed through the mucous membranes in the mouth and nose; especially the nose, so really the optimised method of vaping is to stick it up your hooter (though I like most vapers find it just a little odd to be doing this in public).
You're right that a lot of the bill is perfectly sensible, but I submit that the regs on bottle and tank volume and concentration are not. We've already heard from one of the MEPs (now a Lord) involved in drafting the EU law admitting to the House that Big Pharma were heavily involved in the process, and this speaks volumes about whom the chosen limits serve. Any bottle I've ever bought has been child-proofed anyway, so I fail to see why volume's a concern; you can do yourself far more harm with a smaller volume of drain-cleaner, and they sell that by the gallon. Same goes for tanks, although even more so as I'm as likely to let children near my e-cig as I was my cigs and lighter. These quantitative limitations serve one purpose only: to make vaping less competitive against traditional NRT.
If I may go anecdotal again (for your benefit as you admit you are not a "vapper"): I smoked heavily for 20 years. Many attempts in that time to quit both with and without conventional NRT products got me absolutely nowhere near that goal. I tried Gen 1 e-cigs when they came on the market, but while promising, they didn't get me there either. (From what I've since read, this may well have been because although I chose 2.4 strength, the delivery was less efficient so the effective dose was much lower.) Late last year I tried again with a modern entry-level system, and within a fortnight I had stopped smoking altogether and didn't miss it. given how entrenched I'd been, I wasn't convinced I really didn't miss it and tried one at Christmas: although it was a "wimpy" budget ciggy compared to the unfiltered rollups I used to smoke, I was too disgusted to finish it.
Would the story have been the same with only 2.0 liquid available? Impossible to say, though I have my doubts. I didn't find the e-cig *more* satisfying (of my cravings) than a cigarette; it simply achieved parity. (The bonuses of smelling better, having more energy and money etc. didn't really kick in until a bit later so they wouldn't have got me there.) And I'm quite certain there are smokers still out there who are hooked harder than I was. If they don't achieve parity, if it's not *as* satisfactory, they won't quit that way and may not at all. That would be a real shame, especially when I know it's only happened so Big Pharma can trouser more cash from the NHS and us with their inferior (for many) solutions.
This post has been deleted by its author
It was the only logical conclusion to reach after I noticed just how vaping was starting to hammer tobacco (and thus government) profit. The choice of "weapon of suppression" was fairly self evident too: tobacco companies have whole departments dealing with regulation and compliance, whereas the places that turn out the various elements of vaping are typically small setups who can't afford that sort of overhead.
The only surprise here is that it took this long. Expect lots of grey import..
Touché, insofar that I could not be bothered to dig up the specific comment in the +10k or so I have made at this site. It would not have proved anything because it would probably have been anonymous anyway :).
I hope you at least agree it was very predictable.
I wish we could burn down all EU buildings with their nany MEPS and unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats inside and reboot democracy !
"I wish I could burn down" <-> "reboot democracy" - I like the irony.
Unfortunately, they're well ahead of you - those that "vape" no longer carry lighters or matches..
Apparently the EU regulations were written by pharmaceutical company representatives....there was an article in the press about this a week or so back. Their interest is that vaping is apparently eating into their market for patches and other anti-smoking aids.
If this is true -- and I've no reason to believe not -- then its a very strong argument for ignoring these regulations.....or the EU.
Pharmaceutical and tobacco companies are getting hit in the wallets by people switching to vaping, so they in turn hit the wallets of lawmakers
In the case of smoking it's more direct as the governments have been enthusiastically heaping taxes on smoking. No doubt the loss of that income has prompted support for the industries' "plight"..
The problem that vaping will always have is that it fails the duck test.
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck.
Cigalikes look like a cigarette and the vapour looks like smoke, so people just see it as smoking but different slightly. We've been conditioned as a population to see smoking as a very undesirable thing to do and so vaping by virtue of the duck test also gets roped in to the same category no matter what the scientific evidence to the contrary.
I'm a vaper and have been for many years and I've lost count of the amount of people who have come up to me and told me that it's worse than smoking, or it will explode, or I'm killing them by standing in the open air with my vape.
last week I was in an incredibly poor area of the world. I was there to climb a mountain. I saw children, drinking dirty water from a polluted rivers, begging for food and alone, having been abandoned or orphaned because of the war torn country they live in. Their lives were incredably hard
Then I come home and find us bickering about Brexit, ECigs, traffic, Boris and that tw*t that seems to be in charge at number 10 and it makes me realise...half the people in the western world don't know they're born.
Life is hard, there is a lot of stuff out there that will kill you, you probably will die a horrible, painful death. Forget all that, instead realise you're luckier than you'll ever know.
For the record, I've vaped for well over a year now, I'm so glad to be free from smelly, tar filled cancer sticks i was soking before.My health is considerably better, I smell better and have slowly reduced my intake Whilst vaping, I can still run a 9 minute mile and climb a mountain well over 5000m.
Where as, if you eat Big Macs and drink beer (nice safe taxable things) you're more likely to die of heart disease or liver failure, but thats ok, because the NHS is coping just fine under the weight of that....
I think it's time I left Europe.
Those lads next door have a much more relaxed (as only they can) attitude towards vaping.
Most vaping stores can sell you anything you like and because we are in the EU (for now at least) they'll even post it to you.
In the meantime, support your local vaping store. They may have neck beards and too many tattoos, but they are happy to provide a service and it pays for them to buy clothes, food or even put their children through university.
TPD pretty much fucks the french vape industry too.
If we can overturn the law here, that may well cause a domino effect in the EU, and get some sensible regs in that actually follow the science, and are capable of keeping up with the changes in tech.
In 2012 when this was mooted, there was no such thing as temperature control, or sub ohm tanks, or good performing mouth to lung tanks - everything was a bit hacked together.
Now that we have good devices and tech, the effectiveness of these devices have gone through the roof. Last year it was about 2/3rds dual users (ie still smoking) and 1/3 exclusive use (IE ex-smokers).
Now, it's closer to 50/50 and rising, with less and less dual users, and more and more ex-smokers.
TPD is going to be a major problem for this because it's based on when there were less than a million vapers in the UK. Now there's closer to three.....
TPD: "It's shite, get shot".
IIRC, that's also in the TPD: There are tight restrictions on cross-border sales of e-cigs and related products.
I've heard this a few times.
That would seem to inhibit the free movement of goods, and is thus contrary to the EU's fundamental freedoms. That would appear to be a breach of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
I wonder if this legislation will end up being struck down for being unlawful?
 Their words, not mine...
next it will be. You can only buy fags in packs of 10, or you can only have beer in 1/2 pints.
where's the logic? oh, right, more money when forced to buy in smaller quantities...
I never thought i would ever stop smoking. never really wanted to. :) but vaping allows me to cut down the tobacco and my fellow workers are thankful. I use vaping in conjunction with smoking, not as a complete replacement. nothing like a proper smoke in the morning with a cuppa. :D
... next it will be. You can only buy fags in packs of 10 ...
Have you read the other half of these regulations which came into force today, covering real cigs?
You can only buy packs of 20 now, packs of 10 can no longer be produced. *
Yep, that's right. The SAFER of the two has a MAXIMUM size and a MAXIMUM strength. The KILLER of the two has a MINIMUM quantity.
When you look at the bigger picture the whole thing stinks of declining tax revenue / big tobacco pressure / pharmaceutical pressure. (tick all that apply).
* Similar to the new vaping regs, cigarette distributors have been given a fixed amount of time to sell off any existing stock of 10-packs. I would bet you a whole week's wages that the tobacco companies gathered sales data covering that amount of time and went crazy producing 10-packs so they had enough stock to sell during that time, whilst complaining about the new cigarette regs and supporting the vaping laws.
"You can only buy packs of 20 now, packs of 10 can no longer be produced."
Yup and about time too. It's about 4 decades overdue.
The direct intent of this move is to price packs out of the affordability range of schoolkids, which is the same reason that selling individual cigarettes will get a large amount of hurt falling on any shopkeeper who does it from a very great height.
If vaping usage continues to increase in under 25s faster than cig smoking declines you can expect heavier targetting to reduce attractiveness to young people.
FWIW: Thai Red Bull contains a small amount of nicotine (it can be ingested via the gut as well as the lungs). I wonder how much outcry there would be if it was sold here.
Oh, so it's under -25s now that you've realised that your claim about youth use is a load of utter shite?
Pull the other one Alan, it's got bells on. Especially if you believe that two kids who would otherwise have bought a ten pack each, won't just club together to buy a 20-deck and split it.
Jesus fucking christ, I did that when I was a kid when we realised that fag for fag, 20-decks were cheaper!
Stopped cigs Feb. 2010 - faded out of e-cigs 6 months later. Thanks to e-cigs I am better off and healthier.
How dangerous is that?
Conversations with my supplier revealed the solvent was the same as used in many perfumes.
Is that still correct? I don't know, but if my particular e-cig is banned then they should also ban women wearing perfume. I
1) Vaping should be banned in public. I don't want to smell / inhale your second-hand chemical flavourings.
2) The risk of long-term damage to the lung lining by solvents such as glycerin and propylene glycol is a gamble I wouldn't want to take. I can see a major "degreasing" effect taking place, removing the lungs protective mucus, destabilising the lung leading to partial collapse.
1) Smoking should be banned in public. I don't want to smell / inhale your second-hand smoke.
2) The risk of long-term damage to the lung lining by nicotine, tar, and carbon monoxide, as well as formaldehyde, ammonia, hydrogen cyanide, arsenic, and DDT is a gamble I wouldn't want to take. Carbon monoxide makes it harder for red blood cells to carry oxygen throughout the body. Tar is a mixture of substances that together form a sticky mass in the lungs.
I think on balance, my version is worse. And besides, you are, yet again, a knower of nothing, yet an expert on everything. You don't have a shred of evidence to back up your claims, so I would put you in both the first and second categories of my previous comment.
1) There's no evidence to support such harsh legislation, you want legislation against something you find personally annoying. That makes you something of a fascist. Well done!
2) The risk of long term damage from PG/VG is calculated by people who know the science properly to be massively smaller than the known effects of lit tobacco in any case.
If PG is so bad, why is it approved for use in hospital air systems for it's antibacterial values? Or why do they propose it's use it as a carrier for anti-rejection drugs for lung transplants?
Sounds like you're just making things up again, you know, unless you claim to know more than both Public Health England, and the Royal College of Physicians on this subject, which given your previous attempt at sciencing seems unlikely.
Steven Raith. I have followed the discussion around vaping and the TPD on the comments pages here very carefully. Thank you for your well informed and eloquent contribution. You have put in a great deal of work to help inform people, and you have done your best to pop a few myths. I have noticed you are slowly losing your rag, and I think that is understandable. But I urge you to carry on the good work and not let a minority of ignorant comentards bait you into angry retorts. Some people have opinions that can not be changed by facts. I would like to think that here on The Register's comments pages, that sub-set would be smaller than many other places, but obviously there is still a proportion of them, here as elsewhere. Don't let it get to you, the majority of us are behind you.
(Oh and; Have we met? In North Yorkshire?)
Not so much losing my rag, as just getting plain bored of hearing the same, tired, debunked rubbish over, and over, and over, and over. Eventually, if they're not going to bother doing the slightest bit of research, why should I break out my Very Best Manners for them?
Anyway, cheers for the nod.
And yeah, North Yorks. If you've been overtaken by a yellow puma bouncing off the redline (not in the last six months mind) it was probably me.
I used to do roving IT stuff, possibly via that?
>If PG is so bad, why is it approved for use in hospital air systems for it's antibacterial values?
PG has been used as the propellant in asthma inhalers and in nebulisers for many lung treatments since the off - there's well over 50 years of safety data - other medical applications are also legion.
Yup, here's a summarisation of PGs approval for use in all sorts of inhalation based scenarios by the FDA and EPA, citing the various regulatory bits that cover it. None of these studies have been overturned or deemed as needing updated since they were published. The established science is established, and no-one has felt the need to challenge it as it's very sound and well understood and accepted to be correct.
As for everything else in an e-cig, for bystanders there is naff all to worry about.
Mix that in with the RCP study on e-cigs concluding that they are safe enough, and worth promoting to smokers, one wonders whether all those crying about 'we just don't know' are looking for their information?
I'm just some chump on the internet, and I can find plenty of good peer reviewed research showing minimal harm to users, and negligible interaction (never mind harm) with bystanders, yet the only research I can find that tries to show negative effects from e-cigs all seems to be horribly cherry picked, misrepresented, methodologically broken tat.
Clive Bates, the former Executive Director of ASH, does a wonderful takedown of this issue following the usual anti-harm reduction cabals response to the RCP report. It's really rather devestating.
And that was the best the Doubting Debbies could manage, for goodness sakes.
Sadly, the Doubting Debbies have the ear of Public Health orgs around the world - see Australia recently deciding to treat ecigs as tobacco products. Despite them containing no tobacco. The 'flat earthers' referred to by Clive were involved in the (closed doors, no public consultation) guidance on that decision.
One of the leading lights in their little movement doesn't even seem to realise that nicotine isn't a carcinogen.
He backpedalled by claiming that IARC have nicotine and potential carcinogenicity of it on their 'priorities to review' list, but it's been there for the last two years, no-one else has managed to find a link to it in humans, ever, and just because it's up for review doesn't mean anything's gonna change in that respect because that's not how science works, not matter how Mr Chapman tries to frame it.
As I have mentioned elsewhere, there are chunks of public health that are just utterly, utterly broken at the moment, and the sooner those pieces get chucked out, the better it'll be for everyone.
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.
"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.
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...
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.... ;-)
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?"
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*
PS: I'm Raithtech_uk on twitter - follow me at your peril, I do all the advocacy retweets!
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
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.!
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.
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?
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.
"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.
... 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...
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.
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?
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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?
"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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
"Fruit-flavoured e-cigs are popular with younger vapers - many of whom have never smoked a cigarette in their life."
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.
PS: This post brought to you by cheap wine; if I have been overly harsh, I'll apologise in 't morn.
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...
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.
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
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
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.
@ 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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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"
"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.
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.
...is there anyone who actually believes this legislation is anything to do with protecting consumers, rather than protecting competitors profits?
June 23rd, the first step in a long road top protect ourselves against people who want us to live one way, buy one product, from them...because its all really for our own good..
First off, nicotine is a lethal poison in high percentage form. We've had a handful of deaths from high purity e-juice in the US already.
Second, what are the health effects of breathing the oils and glycols used in e-juice? We don't want to replace a carcinogen with something that might cause cancer or lipid pneumonia.
Finally, howinhell do I know just what is in that e-juice? It could actually be what is advertised, it might also be anything from ricin to plutonium.
OK, maybe not that extreme, but let's face it, a lot's made in China, which is a proper warning label.
But then, I remember my own nation's history, when it was a good idea to drink water with either radium or thorium in it - right until some rich family lost a family member to jaw cancer, then we began regulating things touted as health bringing, medicines, etc.
I'll give full disclosure, I am a cigarette smoker, smoking worse yet, unfiltered cigarettes. I've yet to meet an e-juice that is strong enough to begin tapering down, they've all, save one lethal percentage I didn't dare toy about with, been too weak and I'm not about to touch that 80% nicotine crap without a proper chemical lab to ensure it's 80%, protect myself from that toxic strength (nicotine is trivially absorbed by the skin) and ensure I can survive even a dose at a properly diluted dosage.
And not inhale a brew that clogs my lungs with something even worse than my Luckies already are providing.
Daddy might've raised a dummy, but he didn't raise a fool.
Jump through the hurdles, prove that your product has what it says it has in it and be as considerate as I am of my secondhand smoke - I hate my own secondhand smoke, I'll not inflict it upon another.
Do excuse the tobacco stench of my clothing though, it is indeed a nasty addiction. I throw serious PVC's if I stop, toying with V-tach since that heat stroke damaged my heart.
Oh, to further complicate things, I have atrial flutter, secondary to left ventricular hypertrophy, due to ignoring my own health while caring for a dying father and long undiagnosed and well compensated for hyperthyroidism, with the only specific symptom being hypertension until tachycardia and stage 2 hypertension began.
As the hypertension was well controlled and considering the family history, yeah, it got missed until all hell broke out medically.
Quitting smoking now would be... Complicated, I'll be conferencing in a number of my specialists soon.
Before things get *really* complicated.
First though, I'll wait for the Grave's to move into remission, which so far, it's moving rapidly in the correct direction.
If you haven't figured it out, I'm in the medically advanced class of people, understanding medicine, physiology and pathology well, courtesy of my previous military career. I can converse intelligently with physicians, even fellows in highly technical fields of research.
An abrupt change would currently be hazardous, so, it'll take planning and consultation first. My specialties involved military medicine involving plumbing problems or pathogenic illness or fractured limbs, mostly, endocrinology is a voodoo best left to the specialists. As the heart and kidneys are mixed plumbing and endocrine, yeah, specialist time.
I still have biochemical questions on vaping.
Newest isn't always bestest, as quite a few drugs and fads have proved in the past.
This, from one who could never, ever be considered a Luddite in any way, shape or form!
"First off, nicotine is a lethal poison in high percentage form. We've had a handful of deaths from high purity e-juice in the US already."
Now look at the number of deaths caused by laundry pods and detergents. Hint - it's a little bit bigger.
There is very little danger to health from the concentrations found in e-cigs, and the LD50 of nicotine is pretty highly contested. It appears that it should be far higher than that which is currently accepted (That is, it's not as toxic as people think)
"Second, what are the health effects of breathing the oils and glycols used in e-juice? We don't want to replace a carcinogen with something that might cause cancer or lipid pneumonia."
There are no oils in e-liquid. Glycols used are OK'd by the CDC and EPA for inhalation. The RCP report and PHE reports covered this in detail.
It'd not be surprising to find out that e-cigs increase the risks of some airway issues over a never-smoker or never vaper, but absolutely nowhere near the levels that lit tobacco does, and that is the only comparator that is required as that kills over 600,000 people a year in the UK and US alone.
"Finally, howinhell do I know just what is in that e-juice? It could actually be what is advertised, it might also be anything from ricin to plutonium.
OK, maybe not that extreme, but let's face it, a lot's made in China, which is a proper warning label."
Like the laptop you're using. Better chuck that out!
90% of the liquids on vape shop shelves are made in the US or UK using ISO certified clean room facilities, with batches, tracking, etc. They use USP grade bases and food grade flavourings. Flavourings are the only real concern, but most of them are OK'd to be heated up to the same range as foods as they cook and not be terribly dangerous, and again, still nowhere near as dangerous as lit tobacco. There are risks, but they are minutia compared to lit tobacco.
"But then, I remember my own nation's history, when it was a good idea to drink water with either radium or thorium in it - right until some rich family lost a family member to jaw cancer, then we began regulating things touted as health bringing, medicines, etc."
Don't disagree; it's a case of whether the regulations being applied are accurate, backed by science, and applicable to the risk involved that matter. The TPD and FDA Deeming Regs are, patently, not.
That's a problem. A big one, given that the products they are regulating have a staggering potential to reduce the existing harm that is happening right now from lit tobacco.
"I'll give full disclosure, I am a cigarette smoker, smoking worse yet, unfiltered cigarettes. I've yet to meet an e-juice that is strong enough to begin tapering down, they've all, save one lethal percentage I didn't dare toy about with, been too weak and I'm not about to touch that 80% nicotine crap without a proper chemical lab to ensure it's 80%, protect myself from that toxic strength (nicotine is trivially absorbed by the skin) and ensure I can survive even a dose at a properly diluted dosage."
None of the doses available (typically up to 54mg/ml) are even remotely lethal, and would barely be described as harmful to human health. I'll make some suggestions for you at the end regarding this as from the rest of your comment you may well be a good candidate for these things, but obviously, I am not a doctor, etc. If abrupt changes are dodgy, then consult a good doctor, preferably two, who are familiar with these devices and how they operate first.
"And not inhale a brew that clogs my lungs with something even worse than my Luckies already are providing."
There is no way for an e-cigarette of any kind to be able to deliver the same level of toxins as lit tobacco does, because there is no combustion involved, and it's the combustion that delivers - almost without exception - every piece of harm from smoking.
The Royal College of Physicians report on e-cigarettes. I'd strongly suggest downloading the full report from the link, and reading at least the chapter summaries, then going back and checking anything you think is a bit woofly, chasing citations etc.
It is specifically aimed at people like you who have misconceptions about vapour products, misconceptions, ironically, gleefully doled out by the press and some quarters of public health who go for the 'quit or die' method of smoking harm reduction. The RCP are pissed that people are misinterpreting this stuff, which is why, as one of the most august, respected health bodies on the planet, they analysed all the relevant data on e-cigs, and after that, recommended their use to smokers as a lit tobacco substitute.
Bear in mind the RCP are the ones who blew the whistle on lit tobacco harm in the first place - if anyone was going to shit on e-cigs, it'd be them. The RCP are what made the Surgeon Generals warning happen.
Having questions is a good thing. There's lots of data out there. Just be wary of shitty press reports. Read the literature.
A great example is the report that e-cig vapour causes DNA breaks in cells, in pitri dishes after eight weeks exposure. OK, not exactly human applicable, but worth nothing. This was bandied about the press as 'e-cigs are as bad as smoking'. Thing is, something that the press release for the paper didn't mention, and the news outlets repeating the press release didn't check. Because they also exposed the cells to cigarette smoke. Which killed all the cells in 24 hours every time.
Which actually shows that e-cigarettes are significantly less harmful than lit tobacco in this situation - exactly the opposite of what was reported.
There's a good breakdown of this study here on it's own Pubmed page by Clive Bates - this study was being used by the anti-harm-reduction cabal. Now every time they link to it, there's a nice breakdown showing why they are wrong to link to it.
As for your history with vaping, if you've used a smaller device that utilises the 'mouth to lung' method (suck into mouth, inhale that back afterwards) then as a smoker of unfiltered smokes, you'd want at least 18mg/ml normally, in a liquid that is 50PG/50VG - the PG content and nicotine together give the throat hit you're probably looking for. if you were on greater than that, then you might want to look at direct lung devices, which you simply 'breathe in' without holding it in your mouth beforehand - kinda like carbing/sidestreaming your smoke. So if you found 36mg was getting you there in a mouth to lung device, 18mg would probably give similar satisfaction in a direct lung device.
Typically you use these with liquids that have a higher VG content, so you get less throat hit, but because they develop a *lot* more vapour, more quickly, you can use a lower nicotine level - as more is delivered to your lungs in one hit. It also tends to be smoother on the inhale, too.
But speak to your specialists, and ideally, speak to a specialist who is not anti-ecig. Or give them a copy of the RCP report to consult before your next meeting with them.
I, like you, was skeptical that e-cigs could be 'that good' (IE there must still be some major problem with them, there must be a reason for the medical community to not be behind them, etc) but I didn't smell of fags and my lung capacity came back so I was fairly 'meh' about it. Since that time (four years ago) I've been following the literature and - as you can probably tell from my posts - I'm agog that they haven't been grabbed with both hands and presented to smokers as just a good way to avoid the lit tobacco part, because there is so little evidence of harm, and what evidence there is, compared to lit tobacco, is genuinely very small.
Obviously with your current health....situation, shall we say ;-) then I'd say that being careful would be wise, but as a lot of your conditions can be linked to lit tobacco, I'd strongly suggest not ruling them out of a possible harm reduction/reversal strategy. I will say that they aren't for everyone, but do keep them in the sphere of possibilities.
Also, do watch this - it's a cheeky rip of a UK documentary that was shown last night, showing a bit more abut e-cigs, and their effects. They checked the volunteers health before and after. I think that's more likely to change your viewpoint than any dry public health report ;-)
Best of luck, regardless.
Sorry, I mean biased article from the author.
Vaping is an unproven technology with unknown health impacts.
I know of people now who are taking in -far- more nicotine than they did as cigarette smokers (Yes, minus all the evil stuff that went along with it) and nicotine can have severe health impacts.
I also, don't want to be in a room with people vaping because again, it's an unknown technology with unknown health effects.
So yes, it needs to be regulated. Do you know what's going on in the factory that makes the chemicals you're taking directly into your body? The majority of which are produced in Asia probably under less than ideal conditions?
I also wonder, really do wonder, at what point people who vape will realise they are -no- different from someone sticking a needle into their vein and injecting heroin. Ignore the stereotype images and look at it objectively.
Drug users. One just happens to be legal, and one doesn't.
"Vaping is an unproven technology with unknown health impacts."
"I know of people now who are taking in -far- more nicotine than they did as cigarette smokers (Yes, minus all the evil stuff that went along with it) and nicotine can have severe health impacts."
Nicotines health impact, without lit tobacco, is on par with caffiene - it stresses the cardio system a touch, and has some neuro effects. Little else. That's why nicotine patches are not sold with any particular warnings with regards to overdose or continued use.
"I also, don't want to be in a room with people vaping because again, it's an unknown technology with unknown health effects."
See the above link to the RCP report. No-one has found anything of particular concern in second hand vape, other than, you know, barely detectable levels of anything, and certainly not anything that is a danger to human health.
"So yes, it needs to be regulated. Do you know what's going on in the factory that makes the chemicals you're taking directly into your body? The majority of which are produced in Asia probably under less than ideal conditions?"
Yes, it does need to be regulated, but not like this. And no, most liquids are not made in Asia. 90% of what you'll see on the shelves of UK vape shops is either UK or US made, using USP ingredients. This regulation will likely create a black market for 'out of spec' products like 100ml bottles of liquid containing nicotine, which will increase the risk of harm as they are not made in ISO certified clean facilities, but are instead mixed at home or in the back of shops. Do you see how bad regulation works now?
"I also wonder, really do wonder, at what point people who vape will realise they are -no- different from someone sticking a needle into their vein and injecting heroin. Ignore the stereotype images and look at it objectively.
Drug users. One just happens to be legal, and one doesn't."
That's nothing less than abject fuckwittery and villification of harm reduction at it's finest, and shows how little you know about the matter at hand. I bet you reckoned that needle exchanges were a mistake because the junkies deserved to get HIV, right?
The idiots are out in force today, for sure.
The study included a group of e-cigarette users, who had been using them for an average of around 17 months, and measured the levels of nicotine and 26 potentially harmful chemicals in their body, by looking at samples of their urine and saliva.
The team compared the results to cigarette smokers, and people who both smoked and used e-cigarettes. They also looked at people who used nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), which is commonly used to help people stop smoking or as a long-term alternative.
“We looked at NRT users because we know these products are safe to use,” says Shahab. “We thought they would be a good comparison,” he adds, because long-term users get their nicotine hit from a smoke-free source, much like e-cigarette users.
Interestingly, the nicotine levels found in the samples from e-cigarette users were very similar to those who used NRT and to smokers. This suggests that people are able to satisfy their nicotine cravings through using either of these products.
The full benefit of using e-cigarettes is from completely stopping smoking
– Dr Lion Shahab, UCL
“Part of the reason why people use e-cigarettes is to stop smoking, and we have shown that they provide effective delivery of nicotine,” says Shahab.
But the key finding came when the team looked in the samples at the levels of potentially toxic chemicals. They found that there was a remarkable difference in the levels of these substances between the different groups. In fact one chemical, called NNAL (known to cause lung cancer), was 97% lower in e-cigarette users compared to smokers.
Not only did e-cigarette users have lower levels of these substances compared to smokers, but they were also found to have very similar levels to people using NRT – something that Shahab is quick to point out is known to be relatively safe.
“We have 3 decades of research into the safety of NRT, and we’ve not picked up any significant long-term health issues,” he says.
So if e-cigarettes have the same effect on the body as an established stop smoking treatment, then surely we can assume that these products are relatively ‘safe’ too? While nothing can ever be considered completely safe, we can compare it to the other things we experience in our day to day lives.
I used eCigs to help quit after a health scare. I had endless problems with a cheap eCig since it was early on when I got one and found that I could soak a cotton swab and put it under my tongue to take the edge off. Worked a treat. I had something in my mouth which duplicates the oral fixation habit and the nicotine for the chemical addition. I pushed myself to go longer between swabs every few days until I was completely off. A bonus is that even if your place of work bans vaping, you can still get your fix without going out in the hissing rain.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020