MEP and MP Letters

[AnnaLaw]

I've only had two replies, the usual copy/pastes, but I replied to the identical reply to one, received a reply and plan to reply to that.
As long as they give stupid answers I'll not shut up until they either give at least a half-believable excuse or they accept the facts. I'm also sending info and links to studies to a few friends and learning as I go.
So, the answer to the '48 mg' would be 'that is sold for people to make their own (like home brewing), not to use. I also say that a cigarette takes a few minutes to smoke, I remember getting through one in a minute on a very short smoke break, whereas 1 ml of liquid takes several hours to use, so I now say it would be better to compare with a pack of 20. I also make a point of avoiding any suggestion of quitting by stressing that adults who have either tried many times to quit and failed everytime so now have given up on giving up, or people with no intention or desire to quit are those who vape. I give links to that, to evidence that nicotine-containing liquid has no interest to 'children' (means 17 year olds but uses that term for emotional impact) and to evidence that vapers are mostly over 30, the majority over 40, many older than 50, and that if eliquid was banned, reduced to levels that would only appeal to non-smokers or required to have an MA, then nillions throughout Europe would be smoking again. I then state that nobody suggests that vaping is more dangerous than smoking.

We have only just begun a massive battle and if we give up because we get form letter fueled by ignorance we should trt ti dispel that ignorance. After all, a lot has been written so 'there are no studies/no evidence' is a lie.

 

[EthelKing]

We have only just begun a massive battle and if we give up because we get form letter fueled by ignorance we should trt ti dispel that ignorance. After all, a lot has been written so 'there are no studies/no evidence' is a lie

You know what Anna? You are completely right! I've been getting into a "Plan for the worst, hope for the best" frame of mind - and you are quite right - ignorance will perpetuate unless it's countered with some facts and maybe an expression of common sense. With snow on the forecast - I shall sit in with my laptop and compose another three hour reply.

 

[AnnaLaw]

You know what Anna? You are completely right! I've been getting into a "Plan for the worst, hope for the best" frame of mind - and you are quite right - ignorance will perpetuate unless it's countered with some facts and maybe an expression of common sense. With snow on the forecast - I shall sit in with my laptop and compose another three hour reply.

I've already spent almost that long on a reply to my second reply to the Lib-Dem, where she says that a colleague has placed a written question about trace amonts of proplylene glycol (think she is confused with diethylene glycol) and how large amounts can be dangerous. As we now have some faverouble reports (ASH) and both ECCA and ECITA to draw on, I think we can give a lot more facts than earlier because others have placed studies in one place.
I hope I'm not snowed in tomorrow because my car is booked into the garage for a new ignition switch... I never know if it will start and it's taken over a month to get the part.

But snow or no I'm sending that letter back and send it with changes to all the rest, including those who haven't even sent acknowledgewments, The Europarliament site gives not only emails but office addresses and phone numbers.
They have secretaries but there are more of us. The ECCAUK Facebook page is read and used by THR scientists so I use that for info as well.
Time for VTTV and The Haze Hour now.
I'll be busy tomorrow, even going to ask the lot for a meeting.

 

[Vapertron]

Got one from ' the office of' Rebecca Taylor MEP, what do you think

Dear Gavin,
Thank you for contacting me on the subject of the European Commission's recent proposal for a revision of the EU Tobacco Products Directive, particularly with regards to the proposed new rules surrounding 'nicotine containing products', such as e-cigarettes.
I would first like to point out that the proposal does not contain an outright ban on nicotine containing products such as e-cigarettes , so such products may still be sold as long as the amount of nicotine contained in them does not exceed a certain threshold. The exact wording in the proposal states:
"Nicotine Containing Products that either have a nicotine level exceeding 2mg, a nicotine concentration exceeding 4 mg per ml or whose intended use results in a mean maximum peak plasma concentration exceeding 4 ng per ml may be placed on the market only if they have been authorised as medicinal products on the basis of their quality, safety and efficacy, and with a positive risk/benefit balance 24".
There are many arguments for and against nicotine containing products, in particular with regards to their safety , functioning and impact on health, as well as the effect more stringent regulation would have on the habits of nicotine addicts. Some argue that the relatively low level of nicotine permitted by the revised Directive in devices like e-cigarettes would render them useless to those attempting to quit smoking. However, others suggest that not enough is known about the safety of such products, and that they are in need of greater regulation in order to safeguard against an increasing over dependency.
I have just begun to look into the issue of nicotine containing products and have not yet taken a position on this particular part of the Directive . Over the coming months I will be looking at a range of studies and meeting various experts and stakeholders in order to have as sound an understanding of the issue as possible.
I can assure you that I will be closely following the progress of this proposal through Parliament.
Kind regards,
Rebecca Taylor MEP

 

[AnnaLaw]

Got one from ' the office of' Rebecca Taylor MEP, what do you think

Dear Gavin,
Thank you for contacting me on the subject of the European Commission's recent proposal for a revision of the EU Tobacco Products Directive, particularly with regards to the proposed new rules surrounding 'nicotine containing products', such as e-cigarettes.
I would first like to point out that the proposal does not contain an outright ban on nicotine containing products such as e-cigarettes , so such products may still be sold as long as the amount of nicotine contained in them does not exceed a certain threshold. The exact wording in the proposal states:
"Nicotine Containing Products that either have a nicotine level exceeding 2mg, a nicotine concentration exceeding 4 mg per ml or whose intended use results in a mean maximum peak plasma concentration exceeding 4 ng per ml may be placed on the market only if they have been authorised as medicinal products on the basis of their quality, safety and efficacy, and with a positive risk/benefit balance 24".
There are many arguments for and against nicotine containing products, in particular with regards to their safety , functioning and impact on health, as well as the effect more stringent regulation would have on the habits of nicotine addicts. Some argue that the relatively low level of nicotine permitted by the revised Directive in devices like e-cigarettes would render them useless to those attempting to quit smoking. However, others suggest that not enough is known about the safety of such products, and that they are in need of greater regulation in order to safeguard against an increasing over dependency.
I have just begun to look into the issue of nicotine containing products and have not yet taken a position on this particular part of the Directive . Over the coming months I will be looking at a range of studies and meeting various experts and stakeholders in order to have as sound an understanding of the issue as possible.
I can assure you that I will be closely following the progress of this proposal through Parliament.
Kind regards,
Rebecca Taylor MEP

I'd like to ask her and the rest why they want to bother allowing placebo ecigs which could appeal to children to be sold, but not those comtaining more nicotine than in some vegetables.
I'd like to ask her if kits to extract nicotine from patches will be sold, also if it will be legal to extract nicotine (without the added chemicals and carcinogens) from legal cigarettes as it will take years, if ever, for e-liquids to obtain medical licenses. I'd like to ask why they want a monoploy run by cigarette companies that would totally destroy a new industry.
I would like to ask her why she igmores all independant evidence on flavoured vapourised nicotine and also why the EU continues to ban snus, which has been proved to remove the dangers of cigarette smoking over many years, and ask her if the result of a snus ban in Sweden by banning flavours exist because Swedish Match refused to pay a bribe to Dalli.
I would ask for an investigation to be made into money and perks for Commission members from the pharmacuetical and cigarette industries, who both want a trading monopoly.
In other words, use the anti-corruption and the anti-monoploy laws as an argument. Because of Dalli this should not have been placed before the EU until a new and proven clean committee had been formed who would study all of the evidence from the beginning again, ignoring all highly questionable committeees that have ruled before.

If this is a Lib-Dem MEP you haven't got exactly the same letter as everybody else receives.
I'd like to ask her and the rest

 

[Vapertron]

It looks like most just want to ignore it till it comes up and then back who ever puts up the .......... l better stop there lol

 

[AnnaLaw]

I wonder if the 'tobacco only snus flavour' was put in for if Swedish Match didn't pay Dalli the bribe he wanted and got reported for demanding.
As this directive is the identical version that Dalli had, then we can assume that the contents reflects the bribes that were or weren't paid. I think tobacco companies paid for nicotine as a medicine because that gives them a monopoly on theecig companies they've bought. Pharma wants everything as it is, and I worry about eshgishas because these zero nicotine nice flavour colourful sticks are likely to appeal to kids. Add a decent amount of nicotine and they'd probably not think of trying them until after they smoke for a few years.
If everything that contains more than a negligable amount of nicotine is medical, then the exemption for tobacco shouldn't be allowed, cigarettes should be on prescription.

 

[Vapertron]

And limited in the same way

 

[EthelKing]

Of course, you realise that the answer is most likely to be something along the lines of, "A certain strength is still available, vape more of that". It is widely recognised that when a smoker switches from regular to low tar, they tend to smoke a lot more to maintain levels. I'm not expecting any MP or MEP to change their point of view or do anything to address their lack of understanding - that way I'm not going to be surprised when everything changes.

As an afterthought, and following on from something you posted earlier elsewhere Anna, if things do change for the worse, it may be worth exploring the "three months for personal use" import allowance that you have found is the case in Australia? Planning for the worst and hoping for the best...

 

[EthelKing]

STOP THE PRESSES!
My local MP hadn't replied, and to be honest I was starting to get a bit narky. Then I got a letter. Not an e-mail, but a physical letter! Regardless of political leanings, I think that the following is quite positive, and I will follow it up with the latest statements and ASH bulletins for him to have a read of. His constituency office is just around the corner from me, so I might just pop in and say hello too. Here's what I got...

View attachment 3994