K
MEP and MP Letters
- Thread starter AnnaLaw
- Start date
Szaxe
Achiever
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2012
- Messages
- 1,875
It ain't over til the fat Judge sings...
Sorry to double post ... but do the BMA consider nothing sacred? .... They do seem to want to replace satisfaction for "moderation"? If the other elements of ecigs harm, removing or limiting nic has no effect, everything else remains. So the only thing left is nic!!! The only argument they should find relevant is nic .. full stop!!!
In a comical sense in another thread I made the same point using sex ... 2 seconds sex and you still get clap, so limiting the time allotted for sex has no effect other than limiting sperm ... In the other thread they should have argued sperm not sex LOL ....
(thread) ... http://www.planetofthevapes.co.uk/forums/showthread.php/819-Funnies/page21?p=87033#post87033
Ps ... Specsavers stand to lose a lot of money if men stop masturbating
Last edited:
Szaxe
Achiever
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2012
- Messages
- 1,875
A shortened version ... you can put nicotine into your body ... you can vape, neither is being challenged. Do they intend that people require more than one method to achieve the satisfaction of vaping to get their required nic level? Do they offer an ALTERNATIVE ... smoking ... gum ... patches ... inhalers ? I don't need to be a scientist or need research to know increasing the methods required to ingest enough nicotine can't lower risks.
They say kids may vape ... I say many will increase the methods of ingestion for their addiction ...
They say kids may vape ... I say many will increase the methods of ingestion for their addiction ...
Last edited:
Szaxe
Achiever
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2012
- Messages
- 1,875
Sorry to rant on but .... If cream tea (with the vicar) laced with nic gained a following would cream teas and the vicar be under scrutiny? Remove everything that is acceptable, such as cream teas and vaping nic free ejuice and you have nic ...... So they say you can't ingest your nic via cream teas or vaping, but its okay to have cream teas or vape as long as you ingest nic from another source and most probably via smoking? ..... This is why I don't get into the argument at this moment ....
I fought two nations in the Commission of Human Rights ... Nations build their arguments on sand and let you fight the wrong issues ... I will fight when their is an actual logical point raised by the opposition, that warrants a response .... failing that I will invoke my Human Rights .... This will in effect kick the bullshit into the long grass
I fought two nations in the Commission of Human Rights ... Nations build their arguments on sand and let you fight the wrong issues ... I will fight when their is an actual logical point raised by the opposition, that warrants a response .... failing that I will invoke my Human Rights .... This will in effect kick the bullshit into the long grass
AnnaLaw
Postman
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2012
- Messages
- 503
A shortened version ... you can put nicotine into your body ... you can vape, neither is being challenged. Do they intend that people require more than one method to achieve the satisfaction of vaping to get their required nic level? Do they offer an ALTERNATIVE ... smoking ... gum ... patches ... inhalers ? I don't need to be a scientist or need research to know increasing the methods required to ingest enough nicotine can't lower risks.
They say kids may vape ... I say many will increase the methods of ingestion for their addiction ...
Vaping zero nic with patches is OK even for kids?
I hated the way the suggestion that PVs didn't have to look like cigs was answered wityh 'there are gums, patches, quickmist...'
Szaxe
Achiever
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2012
- Messages
- 1,875
I stated the above with a question mark .......... As to their argument.
Ps actually not with your additions.
Last edited:
EthelKing
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2012
- Messages
- 5,448
Quote 1 = "Given 400 years of social acceptance of smoking in the Western world, the Department of Health does not believe that a ban on the sale and production of tobacco in the UK is a realistic way forward and will not support it. The Department believes that people should have the choice to smoke.
Me: Very convenient - we wouldn't want to change the habit of 400 years, would we? And since when has smoking been socially acceptable in the last ten years? You and your cohorts have made sure that every bloody smoker in the country has been systematically demonised. The loss of revenue would be a big loss too, wouldn't it?
Quote 2 = "The Government wants to make it easier for people to make healthy choices."
Me: Erm. No it doesn't - obviously.
Quote 3 = "This approach has allowed NCPs, such as electronic cigarettes, that do not make such claims to be used and sold without the safeguards built into the regulation of medicinal products. Therefore, the safety and efficacy of the products as they are used has not been subject to the type of rigorous testing expected for medicines regulation."
Me: But e-cigarettes are not fecking medicines my old son, they are an alternative to smoking in the recreational use of nicotine. Think of smoking, but without the carcinogens. Couple this with my aversion to developing primary lung malignancies and chronic lung disease, and you get the idea of why I don't give a feck if it's not 100% safe - 80% better than smoking is acceptable to me personally.
Quote 4 = "The Government does not want to reduce the availability of products that help to reduce smoking but does want to ensure that smokers have access to products that are acceptably safe and that support smokers in reducing the number of cigarettes they smoke or to quit."
Me: Yes it does, and your letter illustrates quite clearly that you do. Allow me to transfer my freedom of choice from your socially acceptable smoking to vaping which you seem to regard as some cataclysmic disaster in waiting, and I, along with thousands of others like me, will be happy to prove to you how suitable it is as a substitute for smoking - Christ, you could even use all of us as a source of information for the basis of, dare I say it, a measured response to what we believe to be "acceptably safe" over smoking - it would be like the big clinical trial you conducted with the largely unproven swine flu vaccines not so long back. The only difference in that instance was that the general population of this country were frightened into acceptance of being guinea pigs.
Just a few thoughts. My last thought is, "Don't piddle up my leg and tell me it's raining!". Ta.
Me: Very convenient - we wouldn't want to change the habit of 400 years, would we? And since when has smoking been socially acceptable in the last ten years? You and your cohorts have made sure that every bloody smoker in the country has been systematically demonised. The loss of revenue would be a big loss too, wouldn't it?
Quote 2 = "The Government wants to make it easier for people to make healthy choices."
Me: Erm. No it doesn't - obviously.
Quote 3 = "This approach has allowed NCPs, such as electronic cigarettes, that do not make such claims to be used and sold without the safeguards built into the regulation of medicinal products. Therefore, the safety and efficacy of the products as they are used has not been subject to the type of rigorous testing expected for medicines regulation."
Me: But e-cigarettes are not fecking medicines my old son, they are an alternative to smoking in the recreational use of nicotine. Think of smoking, but without the carcinogens. Couple this with my aversion to developing primary lung malignancies and chronic lung disease, and you get the idea of why I don't give a feck if it's not 100% safe - 80% better than smoking is acceptable to me personally.
Quote 4 = "The Government does not want to reduce the availability of products that help to reduce smoking but does want to ensure that smokers have access to products that are acceptably safe and that support smokers in reducing the number of cigarettes they smoke or to quit."
Me: Yes it does, and your letter illustrates quite clearly that you do. Allow me to transfer my freedom of choice from your socially acceptable smoking to vaping which you seem to regard as some cataclysmic disaster in waiting, and I, along with thousands of others like me, will be happy to prove to you how suitable it is as a substitute for smoking - Christ, you could even use all of us as a source of information for the basis of, dare I say it, a measured response to what we believe to be "acceptably safe" over smoking - it would be like the big clinical trial you conducted with the largely unproven swine flu vaccines not so long back. The only difference in that instance was that the general population of this country were frightened into acceptance of being guinea pigs.
Just a few thoughts.
My last thought is, "Don't piddle up my leg and tell me it's raining!". Ta.
Last edited:
James
Postman
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2012
- Messages
- 322
Is this any use? I've divided MEPs who replied into who supports ecigs, who is unsure and who wants a ban: http://www.ecigarettedirect.co.uk/a...vaping-who-is-unsure-and-who-wants-a-ban.html
Similar threads
