VTTV meets Linda McAvan MEP

[Phartmaster]

Do you know what? Before I joined this forum I didn't even know who Linda McAvan was. Now she is the last person I think about before going to sleep and the first thing I think of when I wake up. Is that weird?, I think it's weird. Is it weird?

 

[Szaxe]

 

[Cabbo]

With respect, yes, you are pretty new to this whole thing if you believe that there is no sinister intent behind proposed regulation.

Vaping devices are already adequately regulated in the same way that any other consumer device is regulated. If there is an issue regarding safety, then that issue lies with the effective enforcement of those current regulations.

Ask yourself why the powers that be want to restrict access to vaping devices when tobacco and cigarettes which are proven to be harmful to health remain freely accessible.

There have been attempts world wide to classify vaping devices as both tobacco products and medicines when they are in actual fact, neither. They do not contain tobacco and they are not marketed as having medicinal properties. Also, if they are classed as a medicine, then what disease are they supposed to be curing?

Latest government estimates state that 1.3 million people in the UK currently use vaping devices, the vast majority of whom are former smokers. That is 1.3 million people who were contributing vast sums of money through the application of tobacco taxation but are now only contributing money through VAT at a much reduced rate. This represents a significant loss of revenue for the government (who are the major stakeholder in tobacco products in this country because they receive the largest proportion of cash from every cigarette purchased), the tobacco companies and also the pharmaceutical companies that make millions of pounds every year selling 'traditional' NRT products that have a DISMAL long term success rate.

All three of these interests are losing income to vaping and it is in their financial interests to perpetuate tobacco smoking to protect their income streams. If this sounds far fetched the just look at the current furore surrounding the alleged lobbying of government by tobacco companies. It's a sad fact that corruption is widespread the world over and individuals that can bring influence to bear have been found to pervert things for personal gain. Remember MPs expenses? cash for questions? cash for honours? and can it be mere coincidence that both current and former government ministers are given highly lucrative sinecures by large corporations with vested interests? Is it also coincidence that the MHRA, who are also proposing restrictive regulation, are largely funded by vested interests within the pharmaceutical industry?

I think not.

A lot of scientific data is being deliberately ignored/cherry picked/subverted to back up the spurious arguments for deliberately oppressive extra regulation. The people making the decisions that will affect all current and perhaps more importantly, potential future vapers, are ill informed and the checks and balances that are supposed to be built into the decision making process are being subverted as proposed legislation is rushed through without proper consultation.

These are just a few points that you can find out for yourself if you're prepared to actually take the time to do a little research.

I strongly suggest that you arm yourself with a few facts before meekly accepting that restrictive regulation is both a necessity and an inevitability.

Ouch! This argument from taxation is potent, but implying that money is the only possible motivator is (currently) just a bit closed-minded (just a bit). It does make sense, though. I will say if you're pinning your entire statement on a figure (the proposed cost of regulation), it would be helpful if you include it. Unfortunately even with this figure the argument is not definitive. The point made in the video is that external regulation would be required for the devices to be recommended by medical professionals, which seems sound. Although a high regulation price mixed with a reason to suspect corruption is alarming, it is not definitive. I'm not white-knighting the government, I'm just saying that there is reason to doubt both sides of this argument (however that doubt is weighted), and if you hope to prove anything then there cannot be. Sorry if this all comes off as obnoxious nonsense, but if you'd point me in the right direction to find out more about this myself I'd greatly appreciate it (as I appreciate your initial response). Side note: Not all medicines target disease, and not all medicines cure. The medicinal purpose of these devices is in the aid of tobacco cessation.

 

[ZT]

Ouch! This argument from taxation is potent, but implying that money is the only possible motivator is (currently) just a bit closed-minded (just a bit). It does make sense, though. I will say if you're pinning your entire statement on a figure (the proposed cost of regulation), it would be helpful if you include it. Unfortunately even with this figure the argument is not definitive. The point made in the video is that external regulation would be required for the devices to be recommended by medical professionals, which seems sound. Although a high regulation price mixed with a reason to suspect corruption is alarming, it is not definitive. I'm not white-knighting the government, I'm just saying that there is reason to doubt both sides of this argument (however that doubt is weighted), and if you hope to prove anything then there cannot be. Sorry if this all comes off as obnoxious nonsense, but if you'd point me in the right direction to find out more about this myself I'd greatly appreciate it (as I appreciate your initial response). Side note: Not all medicines target disease, and not all medicines cure. The medicinal purpose of these devices is in the aid of tobacco cessation.

Your assuming the argument we have is entirely money and corruption based, and missing some other key issues.

1: we personally do not use vaping as a quit smoking device, we vape as a safer alternative to tobacco because we enjoy it. Most if us have no inclination or wish to stop. This makes it a leisure product just like tobacco, therefore how can you regulate as a medicine while at the same time leaving tobacco on general sale.

2: You are also missing the banning of flavours that everyone forgets and is being snuck in by the backdoor, thereby making vaping less attractive to smokers who may otherwise swap.

both these issues make tobacco both easier to get hold of and a more attractive proposition to those who may otherwise stop.

not to mention the total destruction of established industry and business, which will then be taken by pharma and tobacco, THiS is aggressive monopolising.

3: another point which follows not only to vaping is liberty and freedom of choice - both in what we choose to buy an what we put in our bodies. This is supposed to be a free country is it not? We are talking about a substance that by itself had no worse effects than coffee as far as we know, not heroin.

 

[ZT]

On another note, sugar is one if the biggest traded commodities, yet there is a substance that has been in use for hundreds of years that is 400 times sweeter, has many times less calories a d is generally better for you.

until the last few years its sale and use in Europe and the us ha been restricted, ostensibly because the FDA refused to class it as safe, realistically because its effect on one of the major commodities trade woul hit some very big businesses. Only now is stevia starting to become available. If you think these whole ecig thing is powered by any more than very powerful companies you are wrong.

its not ecig related, but I very much recommend to read dr Ben goldacres "bad pharma" ad "bad science" they are quite an eye opener

 

[AndyC1971]

Ouch! This argument from taxation is potent, but implying that money is the only possible motivator is (currently) just a bit closed-minded (just a bit). It does make sense, though. I will say if you're pinning your entire statement on a figure (the proposed cost of regulation), it would be helpful if you include it. Unfortunately even with this figure the argument is not definitive. The point made in the video is that external regulation would be required for the devices to be recommended by medical professionals, which seems sound. Although a high regulation price mixed with a reason to suspect corruption is alarming, it is not definitive. I'm not white-knighting the government, I'm just saying that there is reason to doubt both sides of this argument (however that doubt is weighted), and if you hope to prove anything then there cannot be. Sorry if this all comes off as obnoxious nonsense, but if you'd point me in the right direction to find out more about this myself I'd greatly appreciate it (as I appreciate your initial response). Side note: Not all medicines target disease, and not all medicines cure. The medicinal purpose of these devices is in the aid of tobacco cessation.

So what do medicines do??

The definition of medicine is as follows: -

Medicine (ⁱ/ˈmɛdsɨn/, ⁱ/ˈmɛdɨsɨn/) is the applied science or practice of the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of disease

Now I am not ill, I want to use vaping as an alternative delivery method of nicotine.

Now it doesnt take a rocket scientist to understand that vaping has to be safer than smoking, end of, period, fact. The reason being is there are several chemicals absent from eliquid compared to tobacco and for that matter cessation products!! So the basic point of deduction is they have to be safer, wether its 1% safer of 99% safer it doesnt matter.

Now the Age argument, at present the industry self regulates over 18's only, but if these pass medical regulation, they can be supplied to children over the age of 12!

Now, the government, EU etc, hasnt come out and stated this is about money (other than an Italian MEP) but do you really expect them to?? The wo main councils around here, have both invested a significant portion of their pension funds into tobacco companies, so not only is it an issue of lost taxs, but that of profits too.

5 million people of this generation wont die prematurely, was a statement made by a professor when asked what would happen if smokers converted. Along with those 5 million will come addition financial burdens of care, NHS costs, pensions etc. Lets be honest life is just a business to governments and countries, like one big conveyor belt.

Add all of these items, and more that I cant be arsed to point out, and whilst its proven as definitive, its 'as close as a snakes arse to the ground', and thats good enough for me.

Show me where the eCig industry is dubious in its claims??

 

[ZT]

So what do medicines do??

The definition of medicine is as follows: -

Medicine (ⁱ/ˈmɛdsɨn/, ⁱ/ˈmɛdɨsɨn/) is the applied science or practice of the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of disease

Now I am not ill, I want to use vaping as an alternative delivery method of nicotine.

Now it doesnt take a rocket scientist to understand that vaping has to be safer than smoking, end of, period, fact. The reason being is there are several chemicals absent from eliquid compared to tobacco and for that matter cessation products!! So the basic point of deduction is they have to be safer, wether its 1% safer of 99% safer it doesnt matter.

Now the Age argument, at present the industry self regulates over 18's only, but if these pass medical regulation, they can be supplied to children over the age of 12!

Now, the government, EU etc, hasnt come out and stated this is about money (other than an Italian MEP) but do you really expect them to?? The wo main councils around here, have both invested a significant portion of their pension funds into tobacco companies, so not only is it an issue of lost taxs, but that of profits too.

5 million people of this generation wont die prematurely, was a statement made by a professor when asked what would happen if smokers converted. Along with those 5 million will come addition financial burdens of care, NHS costs, pensions etc. Lets be honest life is just a business to governments and countries, like one big conveyor belt.

Add all of these items, and more that I cant be arsed to point out, and whilst its proven as definitive, its 'as close as a snakes arse to the ground', and thats good enough for me.

Show me where the eCig industry is dubious in its claims??

Dont forget Dalli ... sacked for taking bribes from tobacco firms regarding ecig regulations ...

And also .. lets not forget the recent furore over one of Camerons advisers ... Tobacco again

 

[AndyC1971]

Dont forget Dalli ... sacked for taking bribes from tobacco firms regarding ecig regulations ...

And also .. lets not forget the recent furore over one of Camerons advisers ... Tobacco again

Oh yeah, and lets not forget the individual who voted on the TPD 'by mistake'.

Both the plain packaging got thrown out, followed closely by the minimum price of alcohol going the same way. So in short: -

Tobacco .. GOOD
Alcohol .. GOOD
Vaping .. BAD!!

What more evidence is needed

 

[steffijade]

Ouch! This argument from taxation is potent, but implying that money is the only possible motivator is (currently) just a bit closed-minded (just a bit). It does make sense, though. I will say if you're pinning your entire statement on a figure (the proposed cost of regulation), it would be helpful if you include it. Unfortunately even with this figure the argument is not definitive. The point made in the video is that external regulation would be required for the devices to be recommended by medical professionals, which seems sound. Although a high regulation price mixed with a reason to suspect corruption is alarming, it is not definitive. I'm not white-knighting the government, I'm just saying that there is reason to doubt both sides of this argument (however that doubt is weighted), and if you hope to prove anything then there cannot be. Sorry if this all comes off as obnoxious nonsense, but if you'd point me in the right direction to find out more about this myself I'd greatly appreciate it (as I appreciate your initial response). Side note: Not all medicines target disease, and not all medicines cure. The medicinal purpose of these devices is in the aid of tobacco cessation.

What I'm pinning my entire statement on is my belief that politicians are corrupt, power mad, greedy and have an insatiable lust to gain control of virtually every aspect of peoples' lives. That and the fact that corporate business exists for only one thing... to extract as much profit as possible, regardless of morality/ethics.

Both of these factors ensure that their stated concern for public health is a mere smokescreen for maximisation of profit for big tobacco/big pharma and the maximisation of control by big government.

Whilst you are fully entitled to your opinion that it 'seems sound' that devices should be 'recommended by medical professionals', I don't share it.

I'd rather have devices recommended by people who have firsthand knowledge of vaping and know what constitutes a decent device rather than someone who makes ill informed snap judgements without firsthand experience, and as is often the case, from a closed minded, ardent anti smoking/anti smoker biased viewpoint.

Furthermore, I reject the implied notion (not by you I hasten to add, but by the government and these so called 'experts') that I am incapable of making my own decisions when it comes to my own health. I am quite capable of researching, purchasing (at no cost to the taxpayer) and evaluating vaping devices/e-liquids and deciding what works best for me and will prevent me from returning to tobacco cigarettes.

In short, my viewpoint is that they (big tobacco/pharma/government) are bunch of corrupt, greedy, power crazed tossers that don't have my best interests at heart and as such, they should keep their fecking noses out of my life.

 

[VaperCaper]

2: You are also missing the banning of flavours that everyone forgets and is being snuck in by the backdoor, thereby making vaping less attractive to smokers who may otherwise swap.

It's worth noting that banning of flavours will also stop tobacco flavour. Like every other flavour used in vaping, tobacco vapes mostly use artificial flavourings to recreate a 'tobacco flavour'

There are some juices that use steeped tobacco leaves rather than flavourings, but, it turns out that when you involve tobacco in the process that a bunch of other tobacco alkaloids leech into your e-liquid as well, some of those are harmful, so 'natural steeped tobacco juices' could well turn out to be more damaging to health that artificially flavoured ones, and if the flavouring ban goes through you're pretty much only going to be able to get those types of e-liquids! The people who are writing this proposed regulation don't seem to understand that e-liquid with banned flavours means literally no flavours. they push the 'gateway'argument to forward their case at every turn and the gateway argument is a pile of steaming effluent.

Exactly what chemical compounds are in each individual liquids vary and more research is needed to determine which, if any, flavourings are harmful to health when inhaled. So far we're pretty sure diacetyl is very bad for you, but you still find that and similar acetoin compounds in a good many vapes. There is almost zero research on inhalation risks of compounds known to be safe for food use to date.

There are eerie paralells between vaping legislation and cannabis legislation, I can't help but wonder if the world is turning a corner and in a decade or two from now vaping will be everywhere, cannabis will be widely available and tobacco will be almost unheard of.


As far as politicians go I don't think they are quite as bad as they are made out to be. (the operative word here being quite)

I think that politicians want to be in power, and they want to stay in power, end of. I don't think they care so much about exercising their powers they just need to be seen to do the right thing by enough people so that they stay in power and can keep their noses in the trough. (There are of course a good number of honest decent politicians that try and do the right thing for the people that elected them but they are sadly a minority)

So because vaping is growing exponentially, and because in a couple of years time they will represent a significant voting block, especially in todays climate of political apathy where voter turnout is lower than it used to be, the politicians will have little choice but to listen to vapers and not to propose legislation that effectively bans vaping, or they'll find themselves booted out of office.