My MP got back to me

[Ninjaassasin1983]

My msp James Kelly got back to me first by phone and now my mp Tom Greatrex has emailed me back not really happy with his response.

Dear Robert

Thank you for contacting me recently regarding the revised EU Tobacco Products Directive (TPD) and specifically how this will affect electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes).

I appreciate that e-cigarettes are becoming increasingly popular in the UK and that there is evidence from a variety of sources that they can help people to stop or reduce smoking. It is important, though, that there is regulation in place to ensure these products meet quality and safety standards and, as they are relatively new to the market, that there is further research and study of the pros and cons of e-cigarettes.

As you may be aware, the European Parliament voted on the revised Tobacco Products Directive on 8th October and rejected the European Commission's original proposals which would have seen e-cigarettes classed as medicinal products throughout the EU. These proposals will now be negotiated between the European Council of Ministers, of which the UK Government is a member, and are expected to be implemented in the UK in 2016. I understand that the UK Government intends to argue that e-cigarettes should be classed as medicinal products during these negotiations.

The Medical Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), the body responsible for regulating all medicine and medical services in the UK, has also recently held a consultation into the regulation of nicotine containing products such as e-cigarettes. The consultation found that there was clear support for increased regulation from health bodies and trading standards and the MHRA have recommended that e-cigarettes should be regulated as medicinal products in the UK in order to ensure they are safe and work effectively. The MHRA have stated that they plan to regulate e-cigarettes as medicinal products in the UK from 2016, pending negotiations on the EU TPD.

I know that many of the estimated 650,000 users of e-cigarettes (also known as 'vapers') in the UK have found e-cigarettes a helpful way to either stop smoking or to reduce the harm of smoking, and are concerned that licensing e-cigarettes as medicinal products rather than consumer goods may make it harder for people to switch from cigarettes to e-cigarettes.

It is important that the Government listen to these concerns as negotiations over the EU TPD continue and carefully study the available evidence.

I can assure you that I will continue to follow this issue closely and I thank you once again for writing to me and sharing your views.

Yours sincerely,


Tom Greatrex
Labour & Co-Operative MP
Rutherglen & Hamilton West | Shadow Energy Minister

 

[Motorheaded]

The thing is, they need to understand that although people who smoke may cease, once they start vaping, this is not a treatment to stop smoking. Therefore not a medicine. (I'm not ill anyway!)
No more than drinking tea is a "cure" for drinking coffee! It is an alternative.
Beer vs Spirits is the same comparison.
The question needs asking, "What, if this is medicinal, is the aim of it?" If it is to cease nicotine addiction, then they have not consulted the consumer. I don't want to be nicotine-free.

 

[Ninjaassasin1983]

The thing is, they need to understand that although people who smoke may cease, once they start vaping, this is not a treatment to stop smoking. Therefore not a medicine. (I'm not ill anyway!)
No more than drinking tea is a "cure" for drinking coffee! It is an alternative.
Beer vs Spirits is the same comparison.
The question needs asking, "What, if this is medicinal, is the aim of it?" If it is to cease nicotine addiction, then they have not consulted the consumer. I don't want to be nicotine-free.

me either it was never my intention to quit nicotine just fags, i feel much healthier and happier vaping than i ever did smoking why can't they just leave well enough alone - i'm not sick therefore do not need medicine - when i'm tired of a morning and have a coffee or a latte or mocha perhaps it doesnt mean i'm sick i'm just invibing caffeine in a way i choose same as I choose how to invibe nicotine.

 

[SuperChris]

Actually, in my opinion, you are wrong. Vaping can easily be argued to be a medicine, and it is certainly not unreasonable for people to do so. Medicine is defined as:

"A drug or other preparation for the treatment or prevention of disease"

If you consider that smoking tobacco causes disease, the evidence for this is pretty conclusive, then you can reasonably argue that vaping, as an alternative to tobacco is a disease preventative. It is not an alternative, unless we accept the premise that it is fine to encourage non smokers to vape for either pleasure or another purpose. Drinking tea and coffee are totally different, and unfortunately we have to accept that what we do, we do because it is not causing any where near as much harm as what we previously did. I would love to hear from any people who vape who were not addicted to cigarettes previously. I bet there aren't many.

Beer and spirits are different because they essentially have the same effect AND the same consequences. (On a lesser level the same is true of coffee and tea) Smoking and vaping are different because they have the same effect BUT DIFFERENT consequences. Where one is proven to cause cancer, the other appears to be, at the present time, free of any direct negative side effects. This is the positive we should be arguing, not that it is some sort of life choice for the majority or even the minority!

That the MP has taken a cautious stance should actually be applauded. That they support or denounce the proposals currently in process, should be debated on the facts, not spurious logic comparisons, that when you actually look at them, are remarkably illogical.

Whether his statement is a genuine reflection of his opinion, or just a dangled carrot to shut up a constituent; this is what we should actually be encouraging in our elected representatives:

"It is important that the Government listen to these concerns as negotiations over the EU TPD continue and carefully study the available evidence."

As long as they live up to this, and that our belief that this method is a safer approach is proven correct; then we should be impressed with his understanding and his consideration. At least they got a reply! Many don't. I applaud this MP and the sentiments he expressed, even though I disagree with the tone of the majority of the negative sentiment for vaping as a whole.

Education, not argument will win this argument; if it can be won.

 

[frank 133]

But don't you think that to want to class ecigs as a medicine on one hand,and then say we don't know what the long term affect is.Means in affect they will be banned,until a few years of research proves them to be safe.
His estimate of how many vapors there are in the UK,falls a lot short.
Why if tobacco causes so much ill health,[which it does] is not banned,dont hike the tax,and put it in plain packets ban it.
We know what our body's tell us when we go from smoking to vaping,we don't need a lot of specialists to study the affects of ecigs. They didnt turn up yesterday they have been out for at least five years.
No mp should take a cautious stance,take notice of the people who elected him,or get voted out.

 

[Tubbyengineer]

E-Cigs are NOT medicines, many, many court rulings have cleared that one up...

 

[SuperChris]

Ultimately, I agree with you conclusions, but my reasons for getting there are completely different.

His estimates of how many vapors there are could well be correct, I have no idea. They are just that, estimates, nothing more. But the number is essentially irrelevant. Whether it is one or 30 million, should that matter when deciding a governmental policy? Of course it shouldn't! Otherwise we would have corporal punishment in schools and capital punishment in prison. Would you seriously argue for either?

The reason tobacco is not banned is because of the prohibition event. It doesn't work. You can't realistically ban a widely used substance without support of those using it. Smokers wont support it, so we must wean people off it by other means...i.e. tax it. This argument is well supported and widely acknowledged to be a good one. If they don't stop, make them pay more for it, it will encourage them in the right direction whilst at the same time paying for the social costs of the negative side effects. The intention behind it being to make people stop, not make money. I will freely admit that the money has taken centre stage, rather than the morals behind the policy, however, the logic driving it is a valid one. Sticking plain packets and tax hikes on it follow the same logic. Entirely valid.

We do need to take a cautious approach to all new chemicals and methods of delivery! It is government's job to protect the people that elect it. You cannot argue that government should NOT look at the evidence from all sides. That's tantamount to arguing that government should ban alcohol because it causes liver problems or that they should ban sugar and cake because they cause tooth decay and fattyyness! It is exactly the argument we are fighting!!!!!!!

If you want to argue that vaping is positive, do so, but on an evidential base, not some spurious "do it for me otherwise you will lose my vote" mob rule, limited non-argument. Discussion is a positive thing that should be welcomed because we can win with intellectual integrity...not because people will lose votes because they choose another path. It is the same as the pharma companies saying they will take their business base elsewhere (and all the tax income that goes along with it) if they don't get it banned. Don't fall into the trap of winning their argument for them by doing the same in public, that they do in private.

Of course MPs should take a cautious approach to all new technologies and drugs (Or drug delivery systems) that are invented. To argue otherwise is weak and short sighted. To argue otherwise allows for people to say "well, we CAN make a nuclear bomb and use it against people we don't like, so we SHOULD!"

Make the argument scientific and make it strong. That is the only way to win. The MP should be applauded.

 

[SuperChris]

E-Cigs are NOT medicines, many, many court rulings have cleared that one up...

The argument can be made that they are, to argue otherwise is pointless and fruitless. HOWEVER, whether the full force of medicinal regulation is imposed on them or not is different. No, I don't believe it should be. But by a strict definition, I would consider them a medicine. One that relieves me of the need, and the negative side effects of smoking.

 

[Tubbyengineer]

Smoking is not a disease, ergo it cannot be cured, the fact that smoking causes disease is a different matter...

 

[SuperChris]

The definition of medicine is in the:

"prevention of disease"

If we accept the argument that smokers are addicted, and by some means, cant quit or wont quit, despite the negative health affects, then vaping is a cure for that addiction that, in effect, causes a prevention of the disease that would, or could, have happened; then it is a medicine.

(I will caveat this post by saying that I am a primary school teacher and my use of commas may, or may not, be entirely stupid. Please forgive me! I have only recently gone from teaching 5 year olds phonics and number recognition to teaching 10 year olds subordinate clauses and correct use of commas. I may have got over excited and used too many)