My MP got back to me

[frank 133]

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

Tubby mate who are all politicians trying to fool,the big pharma companies are shafting the government,with all their nrt remedies,
that don't work,free patches ,chewing gum,nicorets,its not effing free, it comes out of the tax everyone pays,
and if they want to class it as a medicine to combat the disease that tobacco causes ,surely it makes sense sense to ban tobacco,I get so riled over politicians,[all public schoolboys,given to much power] who have never had to struggle in all their pampered lives,I will start ranting if I go on,[as if I haven't already,my apologies to all you Tory vapors on site,

 

[frank 133]

supercris I am going to kill you,lol

 

[SuperChris]

The thing is, we are arguing the same argument. But I honestly think we need to be careful HOW we argue it.

All this talk of "there are so many we will not vote for them" is pointless. We have no options. We live in a two party country, where both are anti because of big money. Argue facts and logic, and be positive towards even our most negative of detractors. Accept their point of view and PROVE it wrong through argument and open discussion

Sorry, I am a twat who loves an argument. Forgive me

 

[Tubbyengineer]

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)

[h=2]cure[/h][h=3]verb[/h] [with object]relieve (a person or animal) of the symptoms of a disease or condition:he was cured of the disease

eliminate (a disease or condition) with medical treatment:this technology could be used to cure diabetes

The argument is that E-cigs actually have no medical function, there is no "active" ingredient that cures the illness, what they do is replace a harmful behaviour with one that is less harmful. Any cure is actually a by-product not a function of their use. Since there is no active ingredient then they are not a treatment, medicine or cure. This is part of the problem they are a new phenomenon and as such there is no convenient pigeon hole to pop them in...

 

[steffijade]

The reason tobacco isn't banned is because it makes far too much money for big tobacco, big pharma and government for them to want to ban it. It generates more income for all 3 if people are allowed to smoke.

E-cigs are not a medicine because they are not curing anything, they are merely providing an alternative delivery method for nicotine (apart from zero nic).

E-cigs are already regulated and defining them as medicines benefits no one except the 3 entities named above. The current crop of devices and liquids are so popular because they are effective. If current devices are effectively banned, they are likely to be replaced with less effective devices which wouldn't work as well and be a lot less popular.

This is exactly what pharma, tobacco and government want to happen. They'd all like to see the back of e-cigs because they threaten their income streams and perpetuating tobacco use actually benefits them all.

Profit is the only reason that they are trying to regulate vaping and if you actually believe any of their bullcrap about wanting to protect the public, then I'm afraid you're quite naive.

The scientific data is there for these politicians to study, if they were actually interested in the truth, but for the most part, MPs just do as they're told and follow the party line (as can be evidenced by the number of members here who have had stock bs replies to their enquiries from MPs).

The vaping community HAS been trying to argue from an evidential basis for ages, but the authorities aren't interested in listening because to do so would mean they would have to consider embracing vaping 'as is', without being able to generate income from it.

Oh.. and PG/VG are not new at all... both have been in use for a long time and there is plenty of scientific data available on them. Nicotine is no more harmful than caffeine so there is no need for an over cautious approach to it either.

Political parties get themselves elected to government by making promises (whether they keep those promises or not is a different matter). Saying it's wrong to threaten a political party with not voting for them if they don't adhere to a certain viewpoint is also somewhat naive. Political parties lie, cheat and go back on promises and they're also quite well known for bullying their members to toe the line, so threatening them to take one's vote elsewhere is little different and besides, an MP is supposed to be elected to represent their constiuents, not their party.

Sorry if this comes across as combative, but I think people need to learn to be as cynical as those who purport to represent them and not just take things like honesty, integrity and the will to do the 'right' thing, rather than submitting to the party whip, for granted.

 

[SuperChris]

Oh, come on! Medicine and cure are two different things.

I'm not arguing that vaping is a cure for anything. Just that it prevents disease by offering an alternative route to satisfying an addiction by a less harmful path. Prevention of disease, is a key part of the definition of medicine. Cure and medicine do not have the same purpose OR definition.

 

[steffijade]

If there is nothing to 'cure', then why would there be any need for a 'medicine'?

 

[SuperChris]

I do not disagree with anything you said steffijade. Except for one point.

"Political parties get themselves elected to government by making promises (whether they keep those promises or not is a different matter). Saying it's wrong to threaten a political party with not voting for them if they don't adhere to a certain viewpoint is also somewhat naive. Political parties lie, cheat and go back on promises and they're also quite well known for bullying their members to toe the line, so threatening them to take one's vote elsewhere is little different and besides, an MP is supposed to be elected to represent their constiuents, not their party."

Political parties get voted in for a number of different reasons. The most overwhelming of which is that the present government has fucked up in some aspect, or people are downright bored of them. To argue that they get voted in on promises is short sighted and naive. Most people, when surveyed, go on what a leader looks/sounds like, or which party they stand for, not what they promise. Realistically, most people don't give a shit...until it's too late.

As an aside, I do not take your post in any way combative. I think discussion is incredibly healthy.

If we start to take the vote route we WILL lose. Why would they care. One million voters, spread across the country equals less than one 40th of the voting age population. Show me the constituencies that are determined by a 2.2% or even a 5% (to take it at it's most concentrated) swing and I will see the validity of arguing the "mass poll" approach. We don't have enough power to do that. No matter what anyone thinks. It isn't blue eyed naiveism or any other such nonsense, it's practical politics.

I would agree there is plenty of data to support our position. We need to consolidate and project that data as forcefully as we have, or even more forcefully, if that is possible.

What other route is available? Antagonising MPs and others by saying "we aren't happy you are looking at the evidence" is a terrible path!!! We know the evidence...we feel it! Others who are non-ex-smokers do not. Don;t expect them all to share our point of view. That's what I'm saying.

 

[SuperChris]

Humph...

Medicine, as a definition, is not only a "cure" it can also be a "preventative"...hence "prevention of disease" , being a valid argument for it being a medicine.

 

[steffijade]

I've yet to see a political party approach an election without making promises, they all have manifestos and they all consistently fail to deliver on them.

Given the public's apparent disillusionment with party politics and the lack of alternatives to vote for that they actually consider to be trustworthy, it wouldn't surprise me if the turnout at the next general election is very low and the number of spoiled ballots increases.

If enough people decide not to vote/spoil their ballots, who's to say how much of an effect a 'block' vote may have. Also, by the time the next election comes around there may be many more folk vaping. If current estimates are to be believed, 20% of the population are smokers/vapers.. that is a significant number of votes waiting to be tapped.

Of course, any party could promise to protect vaping and then just go back on their word.. common enough practice amongst the poltical classes.

And that's the relevant point really... politicians and political parties commonly prostitute their morality/ethical stances for short term expediency and gain. Threatening to vote against them is something that they will probably understand quite well. They move in circles where mudslinging, backstabbing and alliances of convenience are common practice and in a lot of cases, actively encouraged by their respective party political machine.

A lot of them are low enough to crawl under a snake's belly whilst wearing a top hat and so they wouldn't be above skullduggery or above shifting their personal stance on an issue if their incumbency was threatened.

Trying to engage meaningfully with politicians is of limited use in the long run anyway... they could well just go ahead with regulation regardless of scientific evidence.

Rather than trying to educate politicians, it may well be better to try to educate the general public as to the benefits of vaping and also how to be as self sufficient as possible in vaping so that they can continue to vape even if regulation is forced upon us.

I know there are plenty of members here who would rather become 'criminals' if vaping was 'outlawed' than being forced to return to tobacco smoking.

Being in a position to effectively ignore any regulation is where the true position of strength for vapers lies, not hoping that corrupt representatives can be persuaded to do the right thing... at least imho.