Jump to content


Eu To Ban Electronic Cigarettes

eu ban eu corruption eu electronic cigarette electronic cigarette ban electronic cigarette

5 replies to this topic

#1 admin

admin

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 293 posts

Posted 18 May 2013 - 11:50 PM

Update June 13th

New regulation just announced removes ecigarettes as an alternative from newsagents and supermarkets (the same places cancer causing real cigs are sold), thus removing the competition, its an absolute scandal.

Today our government brought in new regulation designed to do two things.

1. Destroy competition for revenue raising cancer causing real cigarettes by banning ecigs from newsagents and superstores, the same place real cigarettes are sold, therefore removing the competition (Big Tobacco studies showed their customers were leaving them in droves when ecigarette alternatives were on sale in the same location as real cigarettes), i.e newsagents and superstores. This new government regulation is designed to remove that direct competition and keep people impulse buying cancer causing real cigarettes.

2. To destroy the current electronic cigarette market on behalf of the Big Pharma lobby and to hand the entire lucrative business over to them in a spectacular capitalist coup so that expensive products can be pushed through the NHS by the big pharma companies, who completely missed out on the ecigarette revolution and have now used the government to hand them the entire industry via corrupt politicians and the EU.

3. Our corrupt politicians are hoping it does not dawn on people that classifying ecigarettes as "medicine" because they contain nicotine but not the 5000 cancer causing chemicals found in real cigarettes, in order to remove them from newsagents and supermarkets the healtier alternative where they compete directly on impulse sales with real cigarettes (which obviously also contain nicotine but are expempt from this law), is nothing short of criminal behaviour, especially when it is proven big tobacco and big pharma lobbying was behind this.

If you google "EU electronic cigarette corruption" you will see those creating this regulation have already been found to be seeking bribes from big pharma companies, yet there same corrupt legislation has been pushed through regardless.


Are e-cigarettes medicines? It simply isn’t the case that e-cigarettes are medicines – they are recreational consumer nicotine products, with superior characteristics to cigarettes that appeal to users. There are other things that have effects on the body that are a better parallel for e-cigs than medicines – for example alcoholic drink, high caffeine drinks, functional foods, cosmetics. Also, there is not need to define something as a medicine simply because it presents risks: thousands of products do – anything using mains electricity, heat, pressure or could be tampered with by children. Consumer protection regulation deals with all of these successfully.

http://www.youtube....h?v=tYfmaoYukVk


They are trying to say that manufacturers would be able to apply for the licence. However, in practice, at least at present, the technology does not exist to comply. The one company that has tried lost two million pounds and four years of time in a failed attempt to make a device that would comply - and the product was terrible. So at present they know it is a sneaky way to enforce a ban.

This will make ecigs too expensive to buy on the highstreet, but it will allow for corrupt politicians to use the NHS (tax payers money again) to buy them at a rediculous cost and push them via prescription through the NHS, thus making the pharma lobby happy, fleecing the tax payer and making them unavailable in newsagents and supermarkets (where they create huge impulse purchases that damage the sales of cancer causing tobacco cigarettes).

What is bizzare is the governments own "nudge unit" were advising everyone who could not quit to atleast switch to electronic cigarettes not long before this. As Diane Abbott pointed out, for the government to build up regulation for e-cigs just a month after caving in on the issue of standardised, non-enticing packaging for real, poisonous cigarettes, is frankly bizarre, and really does cause one to wonder what conversations are going on behind the scenes.

My mother is over the moon because as a 60 a day smoker for 40 years she has quit a year ago using an ecig. Her doctor says her "gasses are now normal" and she no longer has a smokers cough, she feels great. BUT she has had to lie to her doctor, who is under the false impression the NRT lozenges and patches have worked and she is having to play along with him, he says he "amazed" at her progress, but why does she feel she has to lie and pretend its the useless NRT stuff he gave her that did it? I smell a rat here, are the doctors being persuaded somehow to push big pharma products that do not work? While at the same time putting out Pharma funded scare stories about ecigs and trying to bribe EU commissioners into getting them banned as they cut into their profits too much? Google "Eu electronic cigarette corruption" and judge for yourselves.


EU electronic cigarette ban



maria t  •  12 hours ago

I was smoking 20+ cigarettes a day, not only was it unaffordable but I was waking in the morning fighting for breath. I tried ecigs and was astonished how easy it was to switch, and can only say after just a few weeks of switching, I had no more breathlessness on waking, I don't know how safe they are for non-smokers, but the improvement in my health since giving up the normal cigarettes 6 months ago, and the cut in cost, has been amazing :)


ifaly1  •  20 hours ago



not much tax revenue on these oh dear


Semtex  •  20 hours ago


The anti-smoking fascists really hate the way that we can now enjoy a 'smoke' without them being able to be all superior about how we're all killing ourselves, because with these we're not. They should be improved and also available in higher strengths so that people who try them don't want to smoke tobacco any more, by itself nicotine isn't really any more harmful than caffeine. They should aim to make these the new and improved replacement for tobacco, basically tobacco MK2 and render tobacco itself obsolete. We smoke because we like it and also because we're addicted to it, not because we're suicidal and if we can do so and remain healthy then that can only be a good thing - especially if it irritates people who want to have a reason to look down on others by wiping the smug grins off of their faces.

Previously there was only two choices, give up or die. Now there's a third way, you can enjoy a 'techno#$%$' and not worry about the dying part, nor the poor health. Expecting lifelong smokers to all give up is unrealistic in most cases, this means that they don't have to.


Samantha  •  10 hours ago


I used to smoke around 8 a day, got an electric one and now only have about a dozen PUFFS a day! Certainly helped me to cut down and felt the biggest difference in my pocket!


Colin  •  12 hours ago



I am sure the HMRC are writing an import tariff as we sit here, so that the government can raise as much tax on these as they do with ordinary cigs ! Death and Taxes .. the only certain things in life !


Boudicca  •  12 hours ago



Of course the government wants these banned. If everyone took up smoking these instead of 'normal' cigs, look at the venue the governent would lose. I had already stopped smoking when these came on the scene, but my son swears by them



90

#2 admin

admin

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 293 posts

Posted 31 May 2013 - 11:55 PM

Are e-cigarettes medicines? It simply isn’t the case that e-cigarettes are medicines – they are recreational consumer nicotine products, with superior characteristics to cigarettes that appeal to users. There are other things that have effects on the body that are a better parallel for e-cigs than medicines – for example alcoholic drink, high caffeine drinks, functional foods, cosmetics. Also, there is not need to define something as a medicine simply because it presents risks: thousands of products do – anything using mains electricity, heat, pressure or could be tampered with by children. Consumer protection regulation deals with all of these successfully.

#3 admin

admin

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 293 posts

Posted 13 June 2013 - 04:11 AM

Today the government announced new regulation, this law bans ecigs from being sold in newsagents and supermarkets (the same places cancer causing real cigs are sold), thus removing the competition, its an absolute scandal. Madness, so ultra strength caffeine drinks in newsagents are not medicine, alcohol in newsagents is not medicine, nicotine in cancer causing real cigs in newsagents (which government collects tax on) is not medicine, but nicotine in ecigs which government dont collect tax on but that save peoples lives IS medicine, so they can remove them from newsagents where they compete with cancer causing real cigs. Absolutely scandalous! Just to confirm They effectively got banned from newsagents today (where they compete with real cigarettes in sales and government tax revenue). Ask yourselves, how can ecigs be banned from newsagents as they contain nicotine, (no more harmful than caffeine), yet normal cigarettes which also obviously contain nicotine AND 5000 cancer causing chemicals remain exempt? What the government has done is destroyed the competition for cancer causing cigarettes where they are sold (in newsagents etc) AND handed the ecig business of to the BMA (who are in the pocket of the big pharma lobby), its an absolute scandal.

The government have destroyed the thriving ecig industry, handed it over to the big pharma companies (who completely missed the revolution and have no right to steal it on behalf of a corrupt government from those who had foresight), thus pleasing the huge pharma lobby that works mainly through Brussels, while at the same time removing ecigs from newsagents and superstores, insuring there is no direct competition to the tax revenue they acquire from cancer causing tobacco cigarettes.

Some great new electronic cigarette review sites we have found recently, for information about Skycig this is the best site, if you are interested in the latest E-Lites electronic cigarette reviews and discount codes then check out these E-lites discount codes here. This site was also really good for the latest Skycig discount codes and from our research you can get the biggest E-Lites discount codes here, including E-Lites promo codes and E-Lites coupons.



#4 admin

admin

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 293 posts

Posted 14 June 2013 - 10:28 AM

New Statesman article today...

http://www.newstates...t-have-it-right

E-cigarettes: the conspiracy theorists might just have it right

What’s really going on behind these clouds of nicotine-infused vapour?

Addiction is an emotive subject, to put it mildly. As such, when reading reactions to the news that electronic cigarettes may be regulated as a medicinal product from 2016, it’s easy to lose all sense amidst the roaring.

For some, this is all down to lobbying from Big Tobacco, aimed at pricing e-cig makers out of the market with red tape before they can further erode the monopoly on addiction. For others, it’s Big Pharma trying to quash competition for its sprays, gums and patches by restricting surrogate fags to the pharmacy counter. Another set think this is the government, scared witless of losing revenue from tobacco taxes.

For others still it’s grey-faced, life-hating Eurocrats, engaged in their endless struggle to quash life’s pleasures and make everyone into a cycle-riding vegan.  Then there are the people who’ve forgotten what’s actually happening and are just using comments sections to bark about how much they love or hate smoking. But what’s really going on behind these obfuscating clouds of nicotine-infused vapour?

Naively assuming that no conspiracy theories are in play, the situation seems to revolve around the fact that an unregulated market of 1.3 million people, which it is estimated will be worth £250m in 2014, has sprung up virtually overnight, and has huge cultural links to smoking. The broad aim of the EU Tobacco Products Directive – which is to drive the regulation in question – is to reduce uptake of tobacco smoking in young people, and its logic seems to be that if e-cigs can be sold anywhere and everywhere, it may actually bring impressionable teens into the smoker’s fold.

Whether the risk of this happening outweighs the benefit that e-cig availability has in taking career smokers away from flammables is genuinely up for debate. That said, I am inclined to agree with Rob Lyons of Sp!ked, who argues that “to block people from accessing this escape route is rather like padlocking fire doors on the off-chance that someone tries to break in.”

The second (non-tinfoil-hatted) argument for the regulation of e-cigs is the fact that there are currently no enforceable standards for product safety. But while it is possible that moustache-twirling manufacturers could cut their propylene glycol with rat poison, there’s currently no evidence to suggest that electronic cigarettes are harmful, and nicotine in itself is the least of a smoker’s health worries.

Nevertheless, even if one does come to the conclusion that regulating replacement cigarettes will be a boon to public health, it’s impossible to think about the issue for long without being consumed by the screaming irony of the whole debate.

As Diane Abbott pointed out, for the government to build up regulation for e-cigs just a month after caving in on the issue of standardised, non-enticing packaging for real, poisonous cigarettes, is frankly bizarre, and really does cause one to wonder what conversations are going on behind the scenes.
Perhaps, in this case, some of the conspiracy theorists have got it spot on.

#5 admin

admin

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 293 posts

Posted 15 June 2013 - 01:23 PM

http://nannyingtyran...2/evil-BMA.html



E-Cigarettes and the Evil BMA


I don't write about e-cigarettes very often for a variety of reasons, primarily because others (such as Carl Phillips, Dick Puddlecote, and Christopher Snowdon to name only a few) write a great deal about them. Today, though, I've decided to write about e-cigs because I believe that the British Medical Association (BMA) is outpacing ASH and other anti-smoking groups in becoming the most dangerous organisation in Britain.

Full and necessary disclosure: My personal experience with e-cigarettes was entirely negative.  In the summer of 2010, I decided to give them a go.  With the smoking ban utterly destroying my social life and an enormous tax increase on roll-your-own tobacco that hurt my wallet considerably, I was getting angrier and angrier.  E-cigarettes seemed to offer an opportunity to address both of these things. So I ordered a kit and some extras from a company that I will not name here.

To make a long story short, the quality of the e-cigarette kit and the accessories was rubbish -- one of the two supplied batteries simply died after a few weeks and the other had a marked decrease in performance a few weeks later; the company itself proved to be exceptionally rubbish as far as customer service goes;  thus my entire vaping experience was rubbish.

And while I now know a lot more about vaping and what makes for a better experience overall (thanks to those mentioned above), I am still extraordinarily reluctant to spend my money on e-cigarettes now for fear of being immensely disappointed (ripped off?) once again.  I am also extremely at odds -- nay, extremely livid at a large number of vaping companies using the same bullshit rhetoric and propaganda that the anti-smokers have used to denormalise tobacco use in order to sway potential customers.

All of that said, I recognise that a great many people have had overwhelmingly positive experiences with vaping. From what I understand, the technology and quality has improved a great deal over the last few years, with more reputable dealers selling them.  Despite my negative experience, I fully support the use of e-cigarettes and other vaping kits, particularly as means of harm reduction, but even for recreational use.  It's patently obvious that e-cigs are several orders of magnitude safer than conventional cigarettes -- vaping is quite possibly harmless. I would never stand in anyone's way and advise them not to vape, or tell them what they can and cannot do in respect of anything. So vape all you like, and enjoy.

But for me, I'm now firmly in the "try before you buy" camp when it comes to vaping, and I haven't seen any companies offering that. I'll just say that any vaping company that wants my business will have to work for it, and that company better not be spouting any anti-smoking propaganda because I will consider it my enemy if it does.

So, for all of the reasons above, I don't write about e-cigs very often. Perhaps some day that will change.

Today I saw this article on the BBC called "Electronic cigarettes - miracle or menace?" and it is possibly the most positive article about e-cigs the BBC has ever dared to print with even ASH saying people should switch to e-cigs. Yet as you can see from the title, the BBC couldn't resist a bit scaremongering courtesy of the incredibly evil Dr Vivienne Nathanson of BMA:

So are e-cigarettes safe?

"The simple answer is we don't know," says Dr Vivienne Nathanson from the British Medical Association (BMA).

"It's going to take some time before we do know because we need to see them in use and study very carefully what the effects of e-cigarettes are."

The BMA is just one of the bodies to respond to a consultation on e-cigarettes by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. The agency is deciding whether the e-cigarettes should be licensed as a medicine and more tightly regulated. The BMA thinks they should.

"I would either take them off the shelves or I would very heavily regulate them so that we know the contents of each e-cigarette were very fixed," says Dr Nathanson.


See, it's that last bit that is enormously worrying.  "I would either take them off the shelves or I would very heavily regulate them [...]."   She is basically saying, "I don't know squat about e-cigs, so they must be banned!"  But that's not the only reason, and dare I suggest that it is not the primary reason for her opinion?  Being the anti-smoker nannying tyrant she is, someone who is an ardent proponent of banning smoking in your car and homes, what really bothers her is that vaping looks like smoking.  From the BMA's web site:

"We are especially concerned that e-cigarettes might reinforce the smoking habit as they are designed to closely mimic smoking actions."


This sentiment against what "looks like smoking" so it should be banned is repeated by the BMA's Richard Jarvis, who said about e-cigarettes:

"These devices directly undermine the effects and intentions of existing legislation including the ban on smoking in enclosed public spaces."

Now wait a second.  Wasn't the public smoking ban sold as a measure to protect workers from second-hand smoke?  Why, yes, it was presented as such, but we know now that it was really about denormalising smoking by forcing smokers to stand outside and make us third-class citizens. The smoking ban had nothing to do with workers' health.

But if you really want to be wowed by how dangerous the BMA's stance on e-cigs is, then you need look no further than their updated briefing "BMA calls for stronger regulation of e-cigarettes" (PDF 112kb). Here is a small excerpt from the section titled E-cigarettes in workplaces and enclosed public places:

Stronger controls are needed on where e-cigarettes can be used in order to:

• protect others from being exposed to e-cigarette vapours. While the concentrations of the constituents of these vapours (propylene glycol, glycerine, flavouring substances, and nicotine) are lower than with smoked cigarettes, 'passive vaping' has been found to occur with the use of e-cigarettes.

• ensure their use does not undermine existing restrictions on smokefree public places and workplaces, by leading people to believe it is acceptable to smoke. Of particular concern to BMA members is their use by patients, visitors and staff in hospitals and other healthcare settings. Exposure to nicotine from e-cigarettes (either directly through their use by an individual or indirectly from the vapours they produce) may adversely impact on patients, such as those with heart or circulatory conditions, and their use may also become a source of conflict between staff and patients. Similar concerns exist in other settings, such as the use of e-cigarettes on airplanes.

• ensure their use does not undermine the success of conventional tobacco control measures by reinforcing the normalcy of smoking behaviour in a way that other nicotine containing products do not. This specifically relates to the way these devices commonly resemble tobacco cigarettes, in terms of appearance, nomenclature and the way they are used, as well as features such as flavouring and styling that are potentially highly attractive to children, and may include cigarette brand reinforcement.

The BMA worries about passive vaping and exposure to nicotine (and "The Children!" of course), but mainly they don't want anyone to think that smoking is normal, which it certainly is normal for over 20% of Britons. Still, does the BMA truly believe that trace exposure to nicotine is harmful?  If they do then that's absurd!  And if they truly believe that, then how can they in good conscience encourage the use of Big Pharma's nicotine inhalers?  Surely, those too must pose a risk! Yes?  I must point out that even chief chump of the board of ASH, John Britton (who should resign for being grossly negligent, by the way), says nicotine is not hazardous:

"Nicotine itself is not a particularly hazardous drug," says Professor John Britton, who leads the tobacco advisory group for the Royal College of Physicians.  "It's something on a par with the effects you get from caffeine. If all the smokers in Britain stopped smoking cigarettes and started smoking e-cigarettes we would save 5 million deaths in people who are alive today. It's a massive potential public health prize."


Yet the BMA insists in their briefing that doctors should only prescribe Big Pharma NRT such as gums, inhalers and patches, all of which have hugely crap efficacy rates in helping smokers quit, and to have doctors discourage smokers from using e-cigs unless the patient really wants to use e-cigs, then and only then admit there is a lower risk for e-cigs than tobacco cigarettes:

Advice for health professionals
In light of the lack of scientific evidence about the efficacy and safety of e-cigarettes, coupled with the absence of a robust regulatory framework in the UK, health professionals should encourage their patients to use a regulated and licensed nicotine replacement therapy to help quit smoking. Where a patient is unable or unwilling to use or continue to use an approved and tested nicotine replacement therapy, health professionals may advise patients that while e-cigarettes are unregulated and their safety cannot be assured, they are likely to be a lower risk option than continuing to smoke.

This is enormously dangerous behaviour and advice by the BMA.  They are saying that since e-cigs are not Big Pharma licensed products, and since we didn't do any studies on them, then e-cigs should not be used -- they should banned and taken off the shelves. By this logic, we should all give up coffee and tea too, because Big Pharma doesn't have any licensed caffeine-replacement therapy products on the market.  Perhaps we should also give up breathing air unless Big Pharma has licensed it and supplied it to us via our health care professionals. The BMA needs to seriously reconsider its stance on e-cigs and vaping immediately.

But really, it's a cover. I doubt they really believe what they've said about the dangers of vaping. What the BMA hates about e-cigs the most is that it looks like smoking. Anything that mimics smoking behaviour must go. These Big Pharma puppets at the BMA are insane. I suspect they'll change their tune once they manage to regulate and monopolise the "clean nicotine" market, which is what ASH is currently attempting to do by embracing e-cigs. But until the BMA does retract their views on e-cigs, I'm going to say that they're evil and dangerous.

#6 Electric Tobacconist

Electric Tobacconist

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts

Posted 02 September 2013 - 04:58 PM

So, what is the latest on this? I thought there was an EU vote coming in Sept to either make or break the above ruling?



Reply to this topic



  



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

90