UK Competance of EU Statements

[WhichWitch]

I can appreciate your points Anna but I'm of the opinion that this is already a done deal... the pharma corps want medically licensed devices and restrictions on 'free' vaping so that they can produce cheap lookalikeys and flog em for an inflated price. I don't think any amount of evidence will change this... they won't allow anything to stand in the way of their profits if they can help it. They don't give a monkey's about restricted nic, in fact, the more restricted the better for them probably (less nic means less production cost and more profit). The fact that low nic might not be effective won't bother them either... they don't care that 'traditional' NRT isn't effective so I can't see em caring about the effectiveness of medically licensed devices.

Given that I think the process and most of the key participants are corrupt, I can't see any point in providing evidence.

That said, I'm a very bitter and cynical old cow and it would be nice if they did listen.

The thing is, even if it's a done deal, we don't want to provide them with a reason to say 'but we asked you for your side and you didn't provide it'. I think it's important for the opinions of vapers to be represented, even if they are ignored. At least that way we are upholding our end of the bargain - call it taking the moral high ground if nothing else.

 

[steffijade]

If you think it'll help then go for it WW.

Personally, I don't think that morality counts for a lot where officialdom is concerned these days... the only things the powers that be care about are power, control and profit. I can understand that you think doing the 'right thing' is important and I wish I still had the gumption and belief to do so as well, but I'm world weary.. bitter twisted cynical etc.

Good luck and I hope you make a difference.

 

[WhichWitch]

Ok, right. I'm going to take it on myself to write a response (modmins, please excuse my presumption, but the deadline is really close). But I'm going to need as many people's help as possible, and I'm going to start compiling a list of questions now which I would really appreciate responses to (it might take half an hour or so, though, because the baby's being demanding!).

 

[OccultScientist]

Ok, right. I'm going to take it on myself to write a response (modmins, please excuse my presumption, but the deadline is really close). But I'm going to need as many people's help as possible, and I'm going to start compiling a list of questions now which I would really appreciate responses to (it might take half an hour or so, though, because the baby's being demanding!).

Ah ha! You still have a love of government policy then?
Crack on!

 

[WhichWitch]

Ah ha! You still have a love of government policy then?
Crack on!

A love of it? No way (never did)! But I've been dealing with this sort of cr*p for the majority of my professional life, so I might as well make use of it for a good cause (particularly as I'm no longer politically restricted)!

 

[Bryan123456]

Ok, right. I'm going to take it on myself to write a response (modmins, please excuse my presumption, but the deadline is really close). But I'm going to need as many people's help as possible, and I'm going to start compiling a list of questions now which I would really appreciate responses to (it might take half an hour or so, though, because the baby's being demanding!).

Here's my response - which isn't particularly polished - which I sent them and posted on the other thread on this:

The crux of the article is a call for action - here

http://www.dh.gov.uk/health/2012/11/...etence-review/

A response:

I write with respect to evidence of the EU Competencies regarding the Tobacco Products Directive.

In 1992 the EU banned the sales of snus – without full and proper research. There was no evidence that properly prepared snus created the major health risks of smoking, Sweden, refused to implement this law and as a result, has the lowest adult male lung cancer rates in the developed world.

The EU is now proposing to implement a similar directive on electronic cigarettes. The main components of the vapour in these is proplylene glycol and / or vegetable glycerine. Both these are known to be benign and are used, for example in inhalers and nebulisers produced by the pharmaceutical industry and in wide use. The third component is nicotine, typically at a dose of 12 mg/ml to 36 mg /ml. At these dosages the toxicity is low and as users are ex (or current) smokers with high tolerance ,the LDA levels for nicotine are not an issue. The forth component(s) are flavourings and those produced by major flavour houses within the EU are tested for toxicity and potentially harmful materials such as diacetyl excluded or removed. The potential benefits of this emerging market are substantial – the health risks several thousand times lower than smoking. Additionally the products are self adopted self purchased and self administered and proven to have a far more effective result at keeping users off cigarettes than any of the NRT products on the market and are far less dangerous to use than some of these. The EU proposes to remofe the efficacy of these and hand the product over to the pharmaceutical industry to exploit.

It is difficult to see how this is either in the interest of the public or public health. The only beneficiaries will be the pharmaceutical companies that will, have an effective competitor for NRT removed and be free to adopt and develop the technologies to their own profitable ends. Users, meanwhile have indicated that their likely recourse if this takes place will be to return to cigarette consumption, increasing the health burden and presumably guaranteeing the market for COPD and cancer treatments that electronic cigarettes threatened to reduce.

The proposal under the Tobacco Products Directive can be seen to be against public interest, against public health and as illogical as the EU’s earlier ban on snus.

As a user of a personal vaporizer I have found many benefits – I have now ceased smoking and feel healthier. I had previously tried prescription and non prescription nicotine replacement therapies to little effect. Possibly the worst of these was varenicline (Champix) which made me feel miserable and led to some strange behaviour. In contrast the personal vaporizer (electronic cigarette) was easy to adopt and as I increased my usage, my desire for cigarettes fell. Over the next year I plan to reduce the nicotine levels I use overall. Having the freedom to control these is important – the most difficult cigarettes to eliminate were the work tea break ones and a high (relative) nicotine content solution (42 mg /ml) was the course to this, whereas in the evenings I found I was content with 12 mg /ml and a 24 mg /ml for general daytime use. Not only does the EU propose to deny me access to this device and the nicotine ‘e liquids’ I need to use it, it proposes to make the solutions available at such low concentrations that they will be ineffective.

I find the EU competence in this to be lacking. I question the motivation and given the recent levels of bribery and corruption within the Commission concerned, have to question whether there is a vested commercial interest behind this proposal. Electronic cigarettes may be good for the public and public health, but they pose a threat to the revenue streams of the pharmaceutical industry.

In contrast NICE has evaluated electronic cigarettes from the point of their risks, their relative risks in comparison to cigarette smoking and the potential role they could play in the Tobacco Harm Reduction strategy. It’s findings are both credible and balanced and take into account the best public interest.

XXXXXXXXXXX
User of a personal vapourizer (electronic cigarette)

The key point (I think) is the comparative competency between the EU and NICE.

 

[OccultScientist]

Here's my response - which isn't particularly polished - which I sent them and posted on the other thread on this:

The crux of the article is a call for action - here

http://www.dh.gov.uk/health/2012/11/...etence-review/

A response:



The key point (I think) is the comparative competency between the EU and NICE.[/COLOR]

I just like the fact you added loads of kisses to the end

 

[AnnaLaw]

I've borrowed this from a UKV post and hope the poster has no objection, as this provides all of the info.
This is the UK asking if the EU is competent (in the legal sense) to rule on national health policy, including tobacco control.
It is not an EU request, but I only found and highlighted it yesterday, and the time for having our say ends on the 28th.
It can't do amy harm and could do a lot of good as the current government wants to limit EU powers.

"The Department of Health (London) has published a call for evidence on the EU balance of competence review health report. The health report will cover the overall application of EU competence in health. Responsibility for health policy is a matter for individual member states, but the EU has an important role in various issues related to public health and healthcare. The health report is an opportunity to look at this role and to examine the evidence concerning the impact of EU competence in health on the UK’s national interest"


I think this is a VERY good opportunity for us all to chip in as it is directly related to the EU's short-sighted and misinformed policy making.

How?
First- Read THIS

Second,
Email to: [email protected] to send your opinion

 

[WhichWitch]

Below is the list of questions I need answers for. Please note that this is a call for evidence, so wherever possible I need facts and data to back up any claims. However, I would still welcome opinions as these can hopefully be collated.

How would the EU directive (ban) on vaping impact your health?
Would you use your doctor to get vaping prescriptions, and why?
Have you quit smoking as a result of vaping, and how many people do you know who have?
Do you know anyone who has gone on to quit vaping?
Do you prefer tobacco flavoured eliquid and why?
Do you refer to your devices as ecigs, or as something else?
Do you use cigalikes, and/or did you start off on cigalikes?
What would you do if there was a ban (I know there's a thread on this as well!)?
Can you think of any ways this ban would impact -
- government policy?
- the UK economy?
- society?
- technology?
Can you think of other (valid and referenceable) reasons why the EU are not competent to interfere with UK health policy?


For people with vaping related buinesses, I realise that some of these questions are exceptionally delicate, but answering in the fullest way would enable us to make a stronger case. If you would rather PM me or email me at [email protected], then that would be fine.
How would it effect your business?
How many people would it put out of work in your business?
What impact would it have on those in your supply chain (eg the people you buy components off)?
How much tax do you pay as a result of your vaping business?
Have you had any government support (grants/advice, etc) in setting up your business?

The government deadline for responses is midday on Thursday, so I really need your answers by the end of Wednesday at the latest. I will try to sort out some sort of prize draw for all those who enter as a way of saying thank you!

 

[Bryan123456]

Below is the list of questions I need answers for. Please note that this is a call for evidence, so wherever possible I need facts and data to back up any claims. However, I would still welcome opinions as these can hopefully be collated.

How would the EU directive (ban) on vaping impact your health?
Would you use your doctor to get vaping prescriptions, and why?
Have you quit smoking as a result of vaping, and how many people do you know who have?
Do you know anyone who has gone on to quit vaping?
Do you prefer tobacco flavoured eliquid and why?
Do you refer to your devices as ecigs, or as something else?
Do you use cigalikes, and/or did you start off on cigalikes?
What would you do if there was a ban (I know there's a thread on this as well!)?
Can you think of any ways this ban would impact -
- government policy?
- the UK economy?
- society?
- technology?
Can you think of other (valid and referenceable) reasons why the EU are not competent to interfere with UK health policy?


For people with vaping related buinesses, I realise that some of these questions are exceptionally delicate, but answering in the fullest way would enable us to make a stronger case. If you would rather PM me or email me at [email protected], then that would be fine.
How would it effect your business?
How many people would it put out of work in your business?
What impact would it have on those in your supply chain (eg the people you buy components off)?
How much tax do you pay as a result of your vaping business?
Have you had any government support (grants/advice, etc) in setting up your business?

The government deadline for responses is midday on Thursday, so I really need your answers by the end of Wednesday at the latest. I will try to sort out some sort of prize draw for all those who enter as a way of saying thank you!

Great and very logical. I will mail you. I also herby rename you WhichWitch PollyC