I heard rumour, govs secretly passing law.

[EthelKing]

Sassy, love - you're not the only one to be concerned (and frightened). However, I honestly think that how we buy things will change. Instead of open websites, we will order by email and so on. Buying from outside of the EU would be very hard to police, and don't forget, the Republic of Ireland is outside of the EU

As KulrMeStoopid has said ECITA and TW and probably a few more of the bigger vendors will most likely bring a collective or several large challenges to stop medical regulation, and hopefully the outcome will be as it has been in other European countries, and medical regulation will be deemed unlawful.

Two and a bit years is a long time, and people will still be able to buy juice and gear as we are today, therefore, numbers will grow and the voice against will be louder.

At the end of the day, if we plan for the worst and hope for the best, we will hopefully be OK.

My post wasn't intended to scare anyone, honestly - and I'm sorry if I have caused upset. But I do think we need to be totally aware of what the current UK regulatory authority is doing, despite what happened in the EU Parliament. Even the experts who agree that vaping is very significant in harm reduction support some form of regulation - luckily, not many, if any, support medical regulation, which can only be a good thing for future legal challenges.

 

[Fleabag]

Clive Bates suggested that regulation should be individually tailored to the market in question, and that regulation along the lines of cosmetic products regulation would be a viable and much more suitable model for vaping.

This is something I've been arguing for months. I've made cosmetics and explored the options of cottage industry making them. The procedure for small manufacturers is really straightforward and affordable:
A single product risk assessment costs around £100-£150, which covers the exact ingredients/procedure for making one product, but for around £500, a full risk assessment can be purchased for all products in a range (e.g. various products of various scents). Any likely additions/alterations can be built into the risk assessment, or any new product not covered by it can be added to the original risk assessment for a small fee.

Applied to the e-liquid market, one risk assessment could be used for the full range of nic levels and any one or more of a wide range of flavour concentrates. Varying PG/VG levels could also be included into the one RA. The risk assessment specifies what can & can't be used within its remit. The actual RA has to be carried out by an independent chemist, who confirms that all the possible recipes and ratios you propose for your full range of products meets safety protocols. The manufacturer/products can be checked to confirm that products match the RA.

Large companies can't use this system, and must have a single RA for each individual recipe, no matter how slight the difference from a similar product. Large industry RAs do cost a lot.

If this is good enough for what we put on our skin/immerse ourselves in, why do we need more heavy-handed approaches for what we inhale?

 

[EthelKing]

that is very true Dexter and it won't stop the shysters from selling crap you'll have every market stall wannabe thinking they're walter white before we know it and trying to cut weedkiller to a safe strength then they'll say oh look what ecigs have done now even after the regulation why can't they just leave things as they are and let us get on with it sure a licence to sell and an industry standard may be needed to get rid of all the stupid crap sellers but it should be like a personal licence to work as a bar manager and it should be reviewed once a year by a governing body the crap merchants would't bother applying for a licence so everybody would be happy and know they were getting good merchandise they could use potv vendors on the marketplace as a benchmark for good quality and service - the damage is being done by these crap merchants selling junk, lying journalists overblowing every little story that comes about on the subject of ecigs, and the ignorant people who believe everything the government tells them to believe rather than gaining knowledge of a subject they go ooh thats bad because cameron says it is.

I agree 100% - realistic standards and licencing would be ideal, and I think that's what Clive Bates meant regarding the "cosmetics type" regulation. I reckon we'll end up with regulation very much along the lines you have suggested. (Or, at least, I bloody well hope so!)

 

[MrKraken]

As an example. 1 bottle of juice(lets read flavour here) can be GCMS tested for 250. It can be assessed for nicotine content for £200.

So for each Flavour (as currently stands for due dilligence/trading standards)
It would cost £450 per flavour for the first strength and then £200 for each additional strength.

I personally feel that regulation should be in the form of GCMS testing to test the chemical composition of a fully mixed juice (nic pg vg flavourings) and nicotine assay for the base nicotine.

There would be a workaround of course for manufacturers (make up a juice containing all flavourings mixed into one ). But it seems the soundest route.
I as do many vendors; already have nicotine made in the UK that is tested by the manufacturer once it is made.

Medicines approach is wrong and absurd, and they either know it and dont care. Or are listening to the voices over their shoulder and in their pockets

 

[Ninjaassasin1983]

This is something I've been arguing for months. I've made cosmetics and explored the options of cottage industry making them. The procedure for small manufacturers is really straightforward and affordable:
A single product risk assessment costs around £100-£150, which covers the exact ingredients/procedure for making one product, but for around £500, a full risk assessment can be purchased for all products in a range (e.g. various products of various scents). Any likely additions/alterations can be built into the risk assessment, or any new product not covered by it can be added to the original risk assessment for a small fee.

Applied to the e-liquid market, one risk assessment could be used for the full range of nic levels and any one or more of a wide range of flavour concentrates. Varying PG/VG levels could also be included into the one RA. The risk assessment specifies what can & can't be used within its remit. The actual RA has to be carried out by an independent chemist, who confirms that all the possible recipes and ratios you propose for your full range of products meets safety protocols. The manufacturer/products can be checked to confirm that products match the RA.

Large companies can't use this system, and must have a single RA for each individual recipe, no matter how slight the difference from a similar product. Large industry RAs do cost a lot.

If this is good enough for what we put on our skin/immerse ourselves in, why do we need more heavy-handed approaches for what we inhale?

that is an astute intelligent statement of fact which the government won't consider because they simply need to scapegoat things which make people happy alcohol blah blah these groups they always go on about kids drinking etc lets ban the booze but used responsibly alcohol is a freedom which adults can enjoy in moderation the same as us with vaping we're responsible adults making a choice to vape rather than smoke a healthier option we are saving the government money on the future because there'll be less treatment needed for smoking related illnesses
but like I say the government do what they want if its not something they're personally interested in they'll veto it and ruin it for everybody

 

[EthelKing]

Fleabag and MrKraken.


What you have both said makes perfect sense to me. It really does make you wonder why common sense can't play a part in all of this, doesn't it?

If we can thrash out the beginnings of a potential alternative to medical regulation, over the course of an hour or so on an internet forum, it makes you wonder even more about the official processes - is their approach lazy, ignorant or a little of list a and a little of list b?

 

[Mark]

This really does bother me.
After finally getting off the cigs and really enjoying vaping, I'm really REALLY worried what the future will hold for average vaper joe like me who doesn't DIY and watch to try and enjoy the juices of SO many vendors here in the Uk that come up with some bloody amazing stuff.

I suppose some of it is fear of the unknown, I started vaping less than 7 weeks ago so literally a week or two before the EU vote that decided to reject turning them into medicines. I still don't know/understand all the ins and outs and have no idea that if they did do what they wanted to do in October how it would affect me, the normal consumer with regards to things like flavours, prices, availability etc

It's almost beginning to make me feel like vaping is one of those 'too good to be true' things that comes along and gets shat on from a great height.

If things happen as they usually do we can expect a Labour government in 2016 and we know the vast majority of the party are all for regulating them. Even if that were not the case and the Tories somehow stayed in government then they have already decided 'fuck the EU, we're doing it anyway' so what else can stop them really?

I know this probably sounds really over-dramatic but I hold my hands up and admit that I'm scared about it. Vaping means a lot to me, it's saving my health, my chances of being with my kids for longer is improving...we all know the benefits of not smoking, I needn't list them all.

What the fuck do we do if they do make them medicinal?
What's likely to happen?
Are there things average joes like me can do in the meantime if this were all to go ahead?

I've kept these questions to myself for a while now as I didn't want to come across as a drama queen that doesn't know anything about it (the latter is most certainly true really) but my concerns are growing enough now to sit down and ask, especially after @Dexters post.

Put this in a letter to your MP

 

[Ninjaassasin1983]

id say its a 40%lazy 60% ignorant mix
or 40%LZ/60%IG

 

[Fleabag]

that is an astute intelligent statement of fact which the government won't consider because they simply need to scapegoat things which make people happy alcohol blah blah these groups they always go on about kids drinking etc lets ban the booze but used responsibly alcohol is a freedom which adults can enjoy in moderation the same as us with vaping we're responsible adults making a choice to vape rather than smoke a healthier option we are saving the government money on the future because there'll be less treatment needed for smoking related illnesses
but like I say the government do what they want if its not something they're personally interested in they'll veto it and ruin it for everybody

The problem is, we're not saving them money on treatment for smoking-related diseases unless they can extort money from us for our new habit. The cost of treating smoking-related diseases is significantly lower than the income from cigarette taxes (I did once have the figures, and it's a shocking disparity).

Add to that the fact that everyone is more likely to pull money out of the system towards the end of life, whether that be at 50 or 90 - what we ultimately suffer from/die of is fairly irrelevant - most of us will need treatment and care towards the end of life (arguably more care if we are also very old, which a smoker is less likely to be).

Which brings me to the third point - smokers will draw less money from the welfare state through fewer years of pensions and long term elderly care.

When looked at from a purely financial point of view, it's hard to believe any government would truly want smokers to stop when they put so much money into the system and draw comparatively little out

 

[EthelKing]

And that's another bloody good point from Mark. Maybe its time to start making our feelings known to our local MPs? It seemed to have the desired effect with the majority of UK MEPs...