MHRA regulation of electronic cigarettes announced

[Dreadz]

I was having a chat with a mate about this earlier and she came at it from a non vaping ex smoker side. The thing that really struck me was that a lot of academics, a whole lot of academics, rate nicotine as one if if not the most addictive drug. That's backed up by all of us, and millions of others, risking our lives to get it, albeit in a previous life for us vapers.
With that in hand there is no way it will be let off regulation free, we all know that really, the point is the level of regulation. I'm all for regulation but labelling it "medicine" is a step too far and why with all these petitions being bandied about its important that there is a central message. I can't sign a petition asking the government to leave it well alone as that will be laughed out under the weight of medical evidence on the addictiveness of nicotine. But I will sign ones asking for lesser regulation so as not to strangle a market that has real life benefits for the nicotine addicted

Couldn't agree more. I for one would welcome a standardised system of regulation if it meant I could be confident that the products I buy and ingest are safe and do actually contain what they claim to on the label. As people have already pointed out, food and cosmetic regulations are not infallible but they do put in place measures which strive to make products as safe as possible for consumers and also lay out a framework for the prosecution of those who fail to comply which surely can only be a good thing.

I don't for one minute agree with the proposal by the MHRA that medicinal licensing is appropriate, in fact I think it is inappropriate, unjust, immoral, irresponsible and quite possibly illegal.

My initial reaction was one of disbelief and anger but the more I look at it the more I come to realise that, despite the fact that this decision is in the hands of euro-beaurocrats, the likelihood is that it cannot succeed in being passed as law - several courts have already ruled that providing that no medicinal claims are made for these products then they can only be regarded as recreational and not medicinal products.

Some form of regulation is inevitable, as is taxation no doubt, but if it makes vaping safer for everyone then surely that's beneficial to all concerned??

 

[steffijade]

Because I choose to believe
Ok, you choose to have faith and trust etc etc...
I think many would prefer some tangible evidence or attempt at quantifying juice contents materials used in atomisers, I think blind faith tends to get the ass bitten more often..

'game over' vaping wins
Something we agree on, yes, as it stands right now e-cigs win hand down, never been contested by anyone I believe to have an IQ over 9.

How long did we eat horse...
Horse meat, in this context I'm more interested in how long we would have continued to have eaten horse meat and by how much that % would have increased over time without the checks being made and because I don't think anyone will ever know how long.
The situation was brought to light by a flawed and inefficient system but I'll have that over none at all...

not Ketamine.
Ok Bute, if you say so, I don't care the name of it but I do care that a chemical deemed unsuitable for human consumption was in the food chain....
I'd like to think that if something similar happened in the Nicotine or flavouring it could be spotted at some point by a man in a white coat and not due to an increase in health problem or blind luck.

Regulation is already in place
Regulations are in place but it seemed to be largely self regulated and to some degree voluntary or based on good faith and morals, as it stands a producer or vendor that is being careless or unwittingly getting it wrong will only be properly checked after some kind of problem comes to light..
I think there is plenty of evidence to suggest this is not the best way forward.
Checks would also protect and inform the juice mixers buy checking their supply chain...

"Do you really think regulation will change that"
Not directly and it would depend on the structure of the regulations and who and how it is monitored but let's for now say no..
What it would do is reduce the timeline between production and discovery of a contaminated product, I would suggest mandatory batch testing it would go some way to spot problems early and keep producers informed, don't forget the mixers and vendors can fall foul of substandard ingredients, it helps cover their ass as well.

Is every cigarette tested??
Of course not, maybe a quick Google of batch testing will explain better than I'm able.
The point is to find a level of cover for all the vaping community that is not too restrictive, cost effective but is worth putting in place.
I do not know what that is, the vendors don't know and neither do the MHRA which maybe why they propose the total control option of medicine law....

I dont need regulation or a nanny state
I do believe at some time in our life we need the protection of those smarter and better informed than ourselves, your method of juice testing for products yet to be found unsuitable, toxic, mistakenly included at source or included buy a rogue vendor or counterfeit is to march forward blindly until your body shouts for help. Not most peoples preferred option but most certainly your right, when some regulation is in place you will be free to buy all your supplies on the black market and continue as you are but please don't contest what I think the majority would prefer, providing it is done within reasonable boundaries and cost.

cannot guarantee this 100%
You are right again, no testing system that I can think of has produced 100% results, absolutely right but I do know a system is not checked and monitored in some predefined way will fail substantially more and increase the risks.
No self regulating system ever produced worthwhile or consistent trustworthy results and most often spirals downwards, something similar to the US banking/mortgage system.

Are you really aware of the amount of counterfeight alcohol on sale in the UK, either through off licences or Pubs???
No I'm not but I'm pretty sure it's more than is completely safe and less than if there were no one watching and checking, those doing it risk getting caught, if this was a system based on morals, good faith and a belief system I'd say it would be at the very least double the risk, I'm being very conservative with that estimate.

I have spoken to like you are a nazi
I don't think I have been spoken to like a Nazi I just get the impression a few may think I'm someone who wants a controlled world and everything bubble wrapped for safety or someone in uniform on every corner keeping us safe !!
I just think it is an intelligent option to try and work out what could benefit vaping from both vendor and consumer view points and keep the dogs at bay, they want totally restriction, control of this terrible poison we ingest, why not spend the next few months preparing a viable option that covers their concerns as much as possible whilst finding out what vapors and vendors think will work ?

Personally, I get the impression that you're just looking for an argument.

 

[Fleabag]

Of course it's unreasonable to expect that vaping would continue unregulated (and to be honest, it's pretty surprising it's got this far without it). If I were buying a pre-mix, I would want to know the VG/PG ratio (to meet my personal preference). I also need to know the nicotine strength - I have seen pre-mixes without this information. If the information is to be included by law (which makes sense), then it also makes sense to have some regulation to confirm that manufacturers are actually putting into the product what they claim to be. What is counter-productive is to reclassify it as a medicine, take it out of the open market and prevent/discourage people from using it as a recreational product as they do now. Regardless of the health risks, I have always enjoyed smoking (which is a key reason why I never made any effort to give it up). Though I haven't cut out cigarettes entirely, I've naturally back from 17-20 per day to 4-7 per day - without any real effort. More to the point, the fact that I'm exclusively vaping a range of exotic and interesting flavours (none of them cigarette flavour) has had the unexpected effect of making the real thing taste much less pleasant than it used to (I have a fag and I'm disappointed it didn't taste better). If they're looking to eliminate any flavours that might appeal to kids, I lose one element of vaping that helps put off that next fag (and hopefully put me off entirely at some point). ---- sorry, I can't create a new paragraph for some reason----- One of the problems of yesterday was that the pro-vaping argument was not reported. Even anti-smoking campaigners who have argued with us up to now changed their tune and backed the latest decision. No-one seems to be making a reasonable and sensible case for the users, and there's a large public opposition to anything that satisfies the smoker (just look at the intense and irrational objection to vaping on flights and the justification for banning it to get an insight into the hatred and irrationality of the vehement anti-smoker). ------- What doesn't help is the ill-informed media coverage. Last week I heard a radio phone in with a host who knew nothing about it and 2 callers - one of whom insisted there was absolutely NOTHING in an e-cig but water vapour against another who said he'd tried it and got headaches, wooziness etc (yes, I had that when I vaped too much in too short a time) - he went to his GP who said "you don't know what you're using" - which I don't dispute per se, but I would suggest is an irresponsible attitude to take in the face of the known toxins the patient will be ingesting if they return to the cigarettes. The GP was implying that the symptoms were caused by ingestion of unknown additives, when in actual fact the guy just needed to vape less and/or go for a lower strength juice.

 

[Numpty]

Personally, I get the impression that you're just looking for an argument.

Really ?

So responding as best I can to comment such as "Can I ask you to stop vaping, drinking, eating and lock yourself in a dark room, with pumped oxygen into it." is me being deliberately provocative and nothing I have said has reasonable grounds for consideration or further debate?

Nothing I have proposed and attempted to qualify has any merit and I should shut up and bow down and try to accept that the real issue is everyone should just go do whatever they want ?

I'm wondering if you have read what you quoted?
It's mostly me agreeing and supporting a persons right take their own path regardless of the outcome of the MHRA regs, but I do question whether that is the wise choice.

I thought an open direct exchange of opinions might be more constructive than plans to hoard base and march on parliament or decide which Chinese company could best fly under the radar, none of these will be what those in power will be using against e-cigs when it comes crunch time.

I guess not everyone can so easily distinguish between healthy open debate and an argument in which case I apologise and will tag any further comments on the subject a 'debate'.

 

[steffijade]

Of course it's unreasonable to expect that vaping would continue unregulated (and to be honest, it's pretty surprising it's got this far without it). If I were buying a pre-mix, I would want to know the VG/PG ratio (to meet my personal preference). I also need to know the nicotine strength - I have seen pre-mixes without this information. If the information is to be included by law (which makes sense), then it also makes sense to have some regulation to confirm that manufacturers are actually putting into the product what they claim to be. What is counter-productive is to reclassify it as a medicine, take it out of the open market and prevent/discourage people from using it as a recreational product as they do now. Regardless of the health risks, I have always enjoyed smoking (which is a key reason why I never made any effort to give it up). Though I haven't cut out cigarettes entirely, I've naturally back from 17-20 per day to 4-7 per day - without any real effort. More to the point, the fact that I'm exclusively vaping a range of exotic and interesting flavours (none of them cigarette flavour) has had the unexpected effect of making the real thing taste much less pleasant than it used to (I have a fag and I'm disappointed it didn't taste better). If they're looking to eliminate any flavours that might appeal to kids, I lose one element of vaping that helps put off that next fag (and hopefully put me off entirely at some point). ---- sorry, I can't create a new paragraph for some reason----- One of the problems of yesterday was that the pro-vaping argument was not reported. Even anti-smoking campaigners who have argued with us up to now changed their tune and backed the latest decision. No-one seems to be making a reasonable and sensible case for the users, and there's a large public opposition to anything that satisfies the smoker (just look at the intense and irrational objection to vaping on flights and the justification for banning it to get an insight into the hatred and irrationality of the vehement anti-smoker). ------- What doesn't help is the ill-informed media coverage. Last week I heard a radio phone in with a host who knew nothing about it and 2 callers - one of whom insisted there was absolutely NOTHING in an e-cig but water vapour against another who said he'd tried it and got headaches, wooziness etc (yes, I had that when I vaped too much in too short a time) - he went to his GP who said "you don't know what you're using" - which I don't dispute per se, but I would suggest is an irresponsible attitude to take in the face of the known toxins the patient will be ingesting if they return to the cigarettes. The GP was implying that the symptoms were caused by ingestion of unknown additives, when in actual fact the guy just needed to vape less and/or go for a lower strength juice.

Education would be a better approach than heavy handed regulation... if people know what to look out for, they're more likely to avoid buying duff gear. Unfortunately, the health nazis tend to deal in misinformation, cherry picked data and scare tactics which all just serve to muddy the waters for newer and would be vapers.

That's where places like POTV come in... we can offer help, information and sometimes, even just a few words of reassurance or encouragement.

Wouldn't surprise me if the antis tried to plant a few moles on sites like ours to stir the $hit and try to disrupt the positive influence it can have.

 

[steffijade]

Really ?

So responding as best I can to comment such as "Can I ask you to stop vaping, drinking, eating and lock yourself in a dark room, with pumped oxygen into it." is me being deliberately provocative and nothing I have said has reasonable grounds for consideration or further debate?

Nothing I have proposed and attempted to qualify has any merit and I should shut up and bow down and try to accept that the real issue is everyone should just go do whatever they want ?

I'm wondering if you have read what you quoted?
It's mostly me agreeing and supporting a persons right take their own path regardless of the outcome of the MHRA regs, but I do question whether that is the wise choice.

I thought an open direct exchange of opinions might be more constructive than plans to hoard base and march on parliament or decide which Chinese company could best fly under the radar, none of these will be what those in power will be using against e-cigs when it comes crunch time.

I guess not everyone can so easily distinguish between healthy open debate and an argument in which case I apologise and will tag any further comments on the subject a 'debate'.

Uh-huh... kind of proves my observation.

I know the difference between a debate and an argument thank you.

I also know the difference between enlightened discussion and pedantry.

 

[Szaxe]

No one is against regulation and their are those sensibly working towards that, without attacking our right to vape by arming those searching for any flaws !!!!


This is to do with MHRA classifying ecigs as MEDICINE!!!!!

Have disgussions about none related regulations you or someone else less liberal wishes to see introduced, along with other SH*T not related, like kiddy vapers, exploding batteries, itchy armpits or receding genitals IN ANOTHER THREAD THANK YOU

 

[Numpty]

Uh-huh... kind of proves my observation.

I know the difference between a debate and an argument thank you.

I also know the difference between enlightened discussion and pedantry.

Sorry to see you cherry pick one phrase out of 5 paragraphs, I apologise to you and accept that doing what you like is freedom but voicing and then trying to qualify an opinion is pedantry. Clearly I have been mistaken as to the purpose of this thread.

 

[steffijade]

Sorry to see you cherry pick one phrase out of 5 paragraphs, I apologise to you and accept that doing what you like is freedom but voicing and then trying to qualify an opinion is pedantry. Clearly I have been mistaken as to the purpose of this thread.

Well.. I thought it might take up a bit less bandwidth to leave a shortish reply and as you're obviously intent on argument just for the sake of it, why bother trying to qualify anything and feed the troll? (shrug)

 

[AndyC1971]

Really ?

So responding as best I can to comment such as "Can I ask you to stop vaping, drinking, eating and lock yourself in a dark room, with pumped oxygen into it." is me being deliberately provocative and nothing I have said has reasonable grounds for consideration or further debate?

The purpose of that comment was to explain that everything in life has risk. I disagree with your opinions, but you are entitled to them the same as I am mine.

Now, as we have both stated and agreed that as it stands Vaping is safer than smoking. Personally, I believe it to be 99.9% safer due to the amount of ingredients. That really is enough for me. NRT inhalators are deemed a medicinal product, and they have a damn sight more chemicals in them, than my lowly ejuice.

Ok, fine lets have your regulation, but can you sit there and state that it is 100% safe all of the time?? Thats the joke with checks and regulation, its not, so what is the point. You are talking about the threat of prosecution, how many manufacturers have been prosecuted over Horse meat??

GVC recently was tested and found to pass. What did it actually pass, what was tested?? Was it tested to see if it was free from nasty substances or Reindeers??

Also what happens with this proposed regulation, will it be UK or Worldwide??

Personally, I am not a 'glass half empty' or 'glass half full' person, I have bigger and better things to worry about than my trusted juice vendors, and its my choice and mine only to who I use.

Its not regulation we need, its education to vendors and users alike to what is acceptable and what is not. As I have said before, you can lead a horse to water, but cant make it drink