I must have you up the wall then !!!arc at Columbo
ps, stop changing your pic, confuses me
nice dog though
Received email from Heidi Alexander - Labour MP
- Thread starter sylvia2406
- Start date
alun_severn
Postman
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2015
- Messages
- 151
I received almost the same response - but presumably updated a bit in light of the fact that "Lord Callanan has now withdrawn his “fatal motion” to annul the TPD regulations. A fatal motion would have stopped the regulations entirely, removing not just the changes to e-cigarettes but all the positive changes brought in by these regulations to help smokers quit and make smoking tobacco less attractive to younger people. Lord Callanan has instead tabled a “regret motion”, which highlights his concern that the regulations were drafted before evidence was accumulated that vaping can help people to stop smoking." which is what she explained in the reply to me.
Yes, it's a stock response but it is informed and sympathetic....
Yes, it's a stock response but it is informed and sympathetic....
No, the kill motion could (If the Lib/Lab opposition had not emerged) have annulled the entire TRPRegs. As it is an SI that was the only option, it cannot be amended. If it had been annulled or killed, the Govt would fall back to the earlier TPD and then try to deal with Brussels over the TPD issue. Callanan took advice and it was made clear that his kill motion would not succeed so he changed it to one of regret.
A lot of people feel deflated by this but the whole world of vaping has benefited hugely with all the recent positive UK exposure and the fight continues.
Unfortunately for vapers, politicians have bigger issues to deal with and have shown their collective contempt for vaping concerns.
There will likely be some electoral backlash, we shall wait and see ...
sylvia2406
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2015
- Messages
- 4
This is my reply to Heidi Alexander:
Dear Heidi Alexander,
Thank you for your reply the contents of which confirmed to me that you do not understand the TPD Article 20.
Article 20, is the section that applies solely to e-cigarettes, it does not affect the new TPD regulations for tobacco cigarettes or loose tobacco. So your comment that Lord Callanan's fatal motion would also remove these is incorrect.
The size of an eliquid container does not make the slightest difference to the quality of the e-liquid contained therein. I can see no reason for this ruling apart from bureaucratic harrassment. Why ban smaller packets of 10 cigarettes but, at the same time, ban larger bottles of eliquid. This is just contradiction in its worst form coming from incompetent regulators that do not know what they are doing!
The 20mg maximum nicotine limit is another example of poor regulation. Any smoker that has switched to vaping will tell you that heavy smokers need a higher 24mg and upwards nicotine content. If they cannot get satisfaction when switching to ecigarettes they are unlikely to persevere and will relapse to smoking. Low nicotine content and slow delivery is also the cause of the low success rate of NRT products. I know vapers will be able to get a prescription from their local GP for higher mg nicotine but who is going to be producing it? Bearing in mind the future regulatory costs for eliquid approval, producers will be unlikely to offer this type because it will not be cost effective. The EU appears indifferent to the costs and burdens that will break many of the e-liquid companies -- a great gift to the tobacco companies who do have vast sums to spend on such.
Excessive warnings on eliquid containers and packages is totally unnecessary when there is nothing like equivalent risk. A child-proof cap and "keep out of children's reach" is all that is necessary. Off-the-shelf medications do not contain large excessive warnings and many are within easy reach for children in supermarkets..
The so-called dangers and highly addictive designations attached to nicotine has now been scientifically disproved. It is no more addictive than caffeine. However, it is highly addictive when mixed with chemicals found in a tobacco cigarette. I have done my research and suggest that you do yours. The stigma attached to nicotine and tobacco should not be applied to vaping products.
To sum up, I think the TPD Article 20 is bad regulation. It breaches most principles of good policy-making. The secretive "behind closed doors" approach that the EU took ensured that we were uninformed and were unable to participate in the process.
Regards,
Dear Heidi Alexander,
Thank you for your reply the contents of which confirmed to me that you do not understand the TPD Article 20.
Article 20, is the section that applies solely to e-cigarettes, it does not affect the new TPD regulations for tobacco cigarettes or loose tobacco. So your comment that Lord Callanan's fatal motion would also remove these is incorrect.
The size of an eliquid container does not make the slightest difference to the quality of the e-liquid contained therein. I can see no reason for this ruling apart from bureaucratic harrassment. Why ban smaller packets of 10 cigarettes but, at the same time, ban larger bottles of eliquid. This is just contradiction in its worst form coming from incompetent regulators that do not know what they are doing!
The 20mg maximum nicotine limit is another example of poor regulation. Any smoker that has switched to vaping will tell you that heavy smokers need a higher 24mg and upwards nicotine content. If they cannot get satisfaction when switching to ecigarettes they are unlikely to persevere and will relapse to smoking. Low nicotine content and slow delivery is also the cause of the low success rate of NRT products. I know vapers will be able to get a prescription from their local GP for higher mg nicotine but who is going to be producing it? Bearing in mind the future regulatory costs for eliquid approval, producers will be unlikely to offer this type because it will not be cost effective. The EU appears indifferent to the costs and burdens that will break many of the e-liquid companies -- a great gift to the tobacco companies who do have vast sums to spend on such.
Excessive warnings on eliquid containers and packages is totally unnecessary when there is nothing like equivalent risk. A child-proof cap and "keep out of children's reach" is all that is necessary. Off-the-shelf medications do not contain large excessive warnings and many are within easy reach for children in supermarkets..
The so-called dangers and highly addictive designations attached to nicotine has now been scientifically disproved. It is no more addictive than caffeine. However, it is highly addictive when mixed with chemicals found in a tobacco cigarette. I have done my research and suggest that you do yours. The stigma attached to nicotine and tobacco should not be applied to vaping products.
To sum up, I think the TPD Article 20 is bad regulation. It breaches most principles of good policy-making. The secretive "behind closed doors" approach that the EU took ensured that we were uninformed and were unable to participate in the process.
Regards,
learnincurve
Achiever
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2016
- Messages
- 1,013
I vote @sylvia2406 writes all vaping campaigning letters from this point on.
spikeuk
Postman
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2015
- Messages
- 854
@sylvia2406 Niclely put lets hope she takes some notice or at least reads it and it makes her think
Poor Heidi, looking at her Twitter account she does have her hands full with all those obsessions with eating and dieting and then sitting among NHS staff looking very bored. Now she will have to deal with your very well written letter. Whatever will she do?
steamchimp
Postman
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2016
- Messages
- 65
I got the same e-mail also. It seems it's a generic response which is understandable really considering the volume of e-mails she must be recieving.
At least she is reading them and replying, that's a positive.
Well written reply sylvia!
At least she is reading them and replying, that's a positive.
Well written reply sylvia!
Similar threads
