steves
Postman
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2015
- Messages
- 511
That's the spirit!!Won't change anything probably
Errors in TPD...
- Thread starter steves
- Start date
JohnnyAce
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2015
- Messages
- 6,506
Nah, nothing will change :/
One thing that gets me & I'm not full of the facts but isn't bleach, as an household item, a bit more dangerous than nicotine? Probably every business & household in the country will have a bottle of bleach knocking around the house & a child proof cap is good enough for that & it isn't limited to 10ml bottles. So what's the difference there?
One thing that gets me & I'm not full of the facts but isn't bleach, as an household item, a bit more dangerous than nicotine? Probably every business & household in the country will have a bottle of bleach knocking around the house & a child proof cap is good enough for that & it isn't limited to 10ml bottles. So what's the difference there?
steves
Postman
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2015
- Messages
- 511
You are making the mistake of applying logic and common sense to a something that lacks either...
eightbitraptor
Achiever
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2016
- Messages
- 2,395
So I also got the same cut and paste response back from Heidi Alexander. This thread has prompted me to reply with the following:
---
Thank you for getting in touch with me.
Whilst I (and a large portion of the scientific community) disagree with your conclusions I nonetheless appreciate your response to my mail.
I would like to make you aware of this open letter that was sent to the European Health commissioner in 2014 (!!) that pointed out the factual inaccuracies and scientific mis-representation that Article 20 is based upon (http://www.ecigarette-research.com/web/index.php/2013-04-07-09-50-07/149-tpd-errors)
Based on your evasiveness of the concerns raised I am assuming that you are either unaware of these concerns or have chosen to ignore them.
I had concerns that Article 20 had been pushed through in the dark due to heavy lobbying by the tobacco and pharmaceutical industry, and sadly your reply has not allayed these concerns in any way.
It has also made clear that you seemingly do not care about the potential of current smokers to switch to e-cigarettes as a vector away from smoking in the way that you dismiss the concerns of nicotine concentrations above 20mg/ml, not to mention the estimated current 10% of vapers that rely on these strengths to keep them away from tobacco.
My concerns about 'container' size and 'tank' size (emphasis yours) has nothing to do with manufacturers being able to provide e-liquid in these container sizes by the end of the grace period in 2017 as you seem to suggest, but rather to do with the inconvenience and potential danger that dealing with these frankly ridiculous quantities will impose upon current vapers, future vapers and the safety of those around them.
I appreciate the intent with which the TPD was formed, even though I disagree strongly with the way it is being carried out. I believe that getting more people away from smoking traditional cigarettes is a laudable goal, and it saddens me greatly to see that one of the biggest harm reduction methods that has happened to the tobacco industry in decades is being crippled in these same regulations.
I deeply regret that the implementation of these regulations as they stand will push many current vapers back to cigarettes and discourage many potential vapers from being able to successfully switch. These regulations as implemented have the potential to send many of us to an untimely grave.
Regards
---
Thank you for getting in touch with me.
Whilst I (and a large portion of the scientific community) disagree with your conclusions I nonetheless appreciate your response to my mail.
I would like to make you aware of this open letter that was sent to the European Health commissioner in 2014 (!!) that pointed out the factual inaccuracies and scientific mis-representation that Article 20 is based upon (http://www.ecigarette-research.com/web/index.php/2013-04-07-09-50-07/149-tpd-errors)
Based on your evasiveness of the concerns raised I am assuming that you are either unaware of these concerns or have chosen to ignore them.
I had concerns that Article 20 had been pushed through in the dark due to heavy lobbying by the tobacco and pharmaceutical industry, and sadly your reply has not allayed these concerns in any way.
It has also made clear that you seemingly do not care about the potential of current smokers to switch to e-cigarettes as a vector away from smoking in the way that you dismiss the concerns of nicotine concentrations above 20mg/ml, not to mention the estimated current 10% of vapers that rely on these strengths to keep them away from tobacco.
My concerns about 'container' size and 'tank' size (emphasis yours) has nothing to do with manufacturers being able to provide e-liquid in these container sizes by the end of the grace period in 2017 as you seem to suggest, but rather to do with the inconvenience and potential danger that dealing with these frankly ridiculous quantities will impose upon current vapers, future vapers and the safety of those around them.
I appreciate the intent with which the TPD was formed, even though I disagree strongly with the way it is being carried out. I believe that getting more people away from smoking traditional cigarettes is a laudable goal, and it saddens me greatly to see that one of the biggest harm reduction methods that has happened to the tobacco industry in decades is being crippled in these same regulations.
I deeply regret that the implementation of these regulations as they stand will push many current vapers back to cigarettes and discourage many potential vapers from being able to successfully switch. These regulations as implemented have the potential to send many of us to an untimely grave.
Regards
Gonloopy
Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 5,627
I remember this well when the TPD was going through.
We know that the euro mps were sent information stating the 20mg/ ml was wrong based upon the scientific evidence.
The scientist who actually conducted the study on nicotine, which th EU cited as their evidence for the need for the upper limit wrote to them and told them they were interpreting his evidence wrongly, but they carried on regardless anyway.
We jumped up and down a lot , held protests, did twitter bombs signed petitions after petitions with no effect
And then there was always sheer bloody incompetence
Anna Soubry anyone?
We know that the euro mps were sent information stating the 20mg/ ml was wrong based upon the scientific evidence.
The scientist who actually conducted the study on nicotine, which th EU cited as their evidence for the need for the upper limit wrote to them and told them they were interpreting his evidence wrongly, but they carried on regardless anyway.
We jumped up and down a lot , held protests, did twitter bombs signed petitions after petitions with no effect
And then there was always sheer bloody incompetence
Anna Soubry anyone?
davroz
Postman
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2015
- Messages
- 849
The difficulty is that any scientific text sent to the deciding bodies on the TPD could have contained "bla bla bla bla bla bla", and the TPD would have come out exactly the same.
This has nothing to do with science and health ... this has to do with business and tax
This has nothing to do with science and health ... this has to do with business and tax
vapingmongoose
Initiate
- Joined
- May 5, 2016
- Messages
- 25
I'm not one for Daily Mail reader style "so and so should be hanged" comments normally, and besides, that would be too good for this prick Soubry! Instead, she should be drowned in the blood of the millions of lives her incompetence/negligence will cost.
Vaping residents and their families in the Broxtowe constituency need to vote her out at the next chance. Maybe spending some time being unemployed will be give her an opportunity to reflect upon the many errors of her ways, but if not then at least we're not paying for her incompetent ass to be sat in a position of power and authority on important matters.
