Lords comittee on EU TPD today

[AnnaLaw]

I have just watched the Lords comittee hearing on the TPD.
Mostly it is about cigarettes but some interesting hints were given about the possible outcome of the current DofH consultation, MHRA reccomendations and NICE report.
http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player...6&wfs=true

Talk of using vaping as a way to quit nicotine (as the main purpose of ecigs) was annoying, but mention of research on the amount of nicotine needed to replace cigarettes (sugest equivalent to PAD?) is against the stupid 2 mg EU proposal.
A submission from a GP who said he smoked until last summer, was nagged by his wife to try an ecig, didn't believe it would work but hasn't smoked since was mentioned. Another lord quoted recent studies that it would be 10-20 years before we knew long-term effects of vaping but it could be safely said it was at least 95% to 99% safer than smoking and may prove to be 100% safer.

Meeting ended with a statement that the entire directive wouldn't pass as it is now. There was also concern that the UK, being recognised as being in the forefront of THR, could be forced to adopt less stringent rules.
The DofH witness also said the main reason for counterfeit cirgarettes was the high price of real ones, but she'd not take that up with the Chancellor as it was above her pay grade.

A lot of the discussiopn isn't of particular interest, but apparently the government hasn't decided anything, has concern about the ecig ban preventing people quitting/switching, but we'll have to wait to find out what policy is decided.

 

[Purplefowler]

Sounds promising. Please keep us informed (as I have the attention span of a flea when it comes to listening to politicians, lol!).

 

[James]

Sounds really positive, thanks for the update!

 

[steffijade]

I've had a gander at this and I'm not so sure it is positive. The main bit about vaping is around 11:31 in the player if anyone wants to cut through all the stuff about plain packaging.

It seems to me that Anna Sourby is virtually clueless about vaping and seems set on the idea that the only use for e-cigs is as a TOTAL cessation aid. She seems to completely miss the point that a lot of us have no plans to stop vaping. She and her 'crony' also bang on about the usual bullshit gateway theory and play on the child protection issue as their excuse for needing controls. She also says her department have been working very closely with the MHRA regarding vaping and refers to 'thresholds' regarding nicotine content. They also speak about needing to ensure that e-cigs are 'safe'. I read this to mean that the MHRA will recommend allowing the sale of e-cigs, but only with low levels of nicotine and tight controls. In my mind, that just seems to confirm my suspicions that e-cigs will only be allowed to be marketed as cessation aids and at a level of nicotine that might well prove to be ineffective.

It might just be me, but watching Ms Sourby's assistant doesn't fill me with hope. His accent appears to be somewhat... erm... antipodean? If he is a product of Australia's tobacco control regime and he's involved in this at a high level (which he appears to be... and he appears to know more about what's actually being discussed and decided than Ms Sourby) then I don't hold out a lot of hope for a sympathetic approach.

Nothing I saw whilst watching the video has made me change my opinion that there is already a done deal.

Now I'm off to go sit in a corner and quietly choke on the bile of my cynicism.

 

[AnnaLaw]

Ms Sourby obviously didn't have a clue, some of the Lords committee seemed more knowledgeable especially thanks to the letter from the GP whose wife persuaded him to try an ecig and he said he thought it would be useless because if it worked his GP would have suggested it, but it worked. He then said that peer-reviewed studies showed that ecigs were a lot safer than tobacco, maybe 99% safer, but we wouldn't know if they were totally safe for another 20 years or so. Ms Sourby was told to contact him and follow up on the evidence.
I thought the 'advisor' was New Zealand, the accent was a bit different to an Australian one.
The government certainly appear to oppose health warnings on ecigs as they'd be telling lies and put people off using them. The idea that everybody uses ecigs to quit really does need to be quashed, I think the figure for nicotine abstinence via ecigs is about the same as NRT and not as good as cold turkey.
The idea that bubblegum flavour ecigs encouraging children to use ecigs then move to tobacco when they were old enough to buy cigarettes... ridiculous. If they expected a cigarette to taste of bubblegum they'd not want more than a drag on a fag, and there's no reason why selling eliquid to minors can't be made illegal, after all reputable vendors don't sell to under-18s in the UK although that's not required.
The way I see it, both Commons and Lords have to approve before the UK can agree to anything and some knowledge is reaching some of them.
In the meantime time is on our side. If ecigs had been banned or medicalised (same thing) 2 or 3 years ago there'd have barely been a whimper, but the longer time passes the less chance it will get through as it is.
I think that it was agreed that there'd be no point in allowing ecigs that would be useless to smokers (but maybe a 'gateway' argument for non-smokers at such low doses) only to be available.
Because of the very corrupt WHO framework we now have more studies all of the time.
This one is interesting although I only have access to the abstract now. I assume that the government, MHRA and NICE have read it.The MHRA are due to report but it looks as though they have nothing to add to their 2010 report that recommended banning within 21 days and was thrown out by the RPC. I thought I caught hints that as NRT has been proved safe it should come under consumer law now, which would give a level playing field for pharma.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21926451

 

[Pinkcandy]

Mr Cameron needs an e cig for breakfast lol