Notice that the new enemy is “nicotine addiction”, when for years we have been told that it is not the nicotine which causes harm. I guess this is why nicotine gum can be handed out at school and can be more easily purchased in large quantities than paracetomol. A few decades ago, this addiction was described as a “nicotine habit”, which I think is more accurate and certainly less perjorative. Whether a habit, dependency or addiction, I don’t see it matters how many people are afflicted – probably would naturally settle around 25%. The World Anti-doping Agency WADA has investigated nicotine as performance enhancing, so it can’t be all bad. A few months ago, I would have said that nobody bothers about the widespread caffeine habit, but now concerns are being raised about it. These developments appear to be manifestations of a new puritanism – a ban on anything seen as a crutch to make life easier and more enjoyable and which does not involve fresh air and exercise. I’ll refrain from making the obvious historical reference.

The idea of ecigs as a gateway to tobacco smoking will have great difficulty in gaining credence. Why switch from a harmless, almost undetectable habit costing £5 a week to a harmful, very detectable habit, banned in non-residential buildings, which, if legally engaged in, costs £50 a week?

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/3801/big_pharma_more_conflicts_of_interest

“Consumers would have a more limited choice, but a higher degree of health protection“.
“In particular NCP with characterising flavours are unlikely to be authorised under the medicinal products’ legislation.“.

And they think that’s a good thing.

Those who stopped at about age 50 gained about six years of life expectancy; those who stopped at about age 40 gained about nine years; and those who stopped before middle age gained about 10 years and had a pattern of survival similar to that of men who had never smoked

As I say, it’s not a conclusion you hear stated very much. Note that premature mortality is not the only health and welfare impact or risk associated with smoking – but it relates the the ‘dread’ risks of cancer, cardiovascular and lung disease.

And I got another, quite simple point against the fatal ‘gateways 6′: E-cigs taste much better. Well, usually. There are some liquids with flavours that appeal to just a few individuals. Most vapers find that they are an interresting experience of the ‘once is enough’ kind. But at least there is a great variety. Tastes are different.

But wait a minute!

There is the fatal amendment 1250 prohibiting flavours and mean Mr Mean meaning to pummel e-cigs into medical regulation, which would have the same effect: They would become as bland and unappealing as any of the useless, expensive NRT’s. Especially when those licencing requirements effectively demolish all the small innovative tinkeres who currently improve the e-cig daily. What would be left? Only those by now obsolete, inferior designs by Big Tobacco and Big Pharma that wouldn’t have any long term chance on the current market.

Knock, knock! Anybody home?

Killing this advantage will throw ‘gateway 6′ wide open!

Whoever tries those tasteless, unsatisfactory remainders will soon be looking for something with a bit more sensational input.

Is there much/any wider support for your interpretation of Doll et al 2004 as demonstrating that quitting smoking by age 35 reduces elevation of risk to about the same as a never-smoker? (Assuming I’ve got that encapsulation right?)

Also, e-cigs and snus shouldn’t be banned or half-banned because they are not harmful enough, period. Snus or e-cig cannot by themselves create a public health problem like smoking is supposed to do, so there shouldn’t be any need to argue about it.

Obviously, in the real world, there is, but I feel the same way as if I had to negociate with a thief to give him my money and keep my watch.

Tobacco controllers don’t seem to really want to win the argument. They probably think that they no longer need to. When the French govenrment banned smoking in bars some years ago, they went to some extent to assure us that the ban was only justified on health grounds and they used figures from the “smokescreen” report. When they announced the extension of the very same measure to e-cigs some weeks ago, they didn’t even pretend to pursue any health-related aim, they just used the very unconvincing “normalisation” routine.

In 2003 the MHRA was formed by the merger of the Medicines Control Agency (MCA) and the Medical Devices Agency. The National Audit Office was moved to say “The Agency is also unusual in having a stated objective to facilitate the development of the UK pharmaceutical industry.”

http://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2003/01/0203255.pdf

The current Chair of the MHRA Alasdair Breckenbridge said in 2005 “In addition, from November 2005, European regulations will require that staff have no financial or other interests that could affect their impartiality.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1246088/#ref2

It gets worse.

Sir Alasdair Breckenridge was a “Q780 John Austin: Can I raise the issue of Seroxat and your knowledge and involvement. In 1998, I believe you were on the advisory board of GlaxoSmithKline or SmithKline Beecham, as it was at the time.

Professor Sir Alasdair Breckenridge: No, let me just clarify that. From 1992 to 1997 I was a member of a scientific advisory committee of SmithKline. I resigned from that in 1997. This had been an extremely valuable exercise for my development in medicines regulation. We did not discuss specific products on that board; it was a matter of the larger picture of industry. I resigned from that in 1997 and this post had been taken up with the full cognisance of the then MCA. I discussed this with the MCA and I acted in a totally appropriate manner with respect to the decisions that I was party to there and in drugs and medicines regulation.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmhealth/42/5012003.htm

What is going on here?

http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2013/06/12/licensing-e-cigarettes-opportunities-and-risks/#comment-12576

Many thanks – that’s clear now that you’re not recommending we support 1156. I was particularly struck by the opening sentence “The only justification for allowing NCPs is for cessation purposes”, since that’s the polar opposite to my view!

Clive

“10. Drop the Commission’s proposal to have a threshold for nicotine liquids and regulate all liquids as consumer products, drawing on existing directives to require safe packaging and labelling. Many MEPs have recognised the absurdity of the Commission proposal (eg. 1156)”

I can’t claim to follow the logicical outcome of the proposed amendment 1156, but the justification seems to be aimed at classifying ALL nicotine products as pharmaceuticals:

“The only justification for allowing the marketing of nicotine containing products (NCPs) is for cessation purposes. It is very difficult to assess the nicotine delivery of NCPs. An intensive use of NCPs with a low level of nicotine could still lead to significant nicotine intake. It is
thus appropriate to subject all NCPs to pharmaceutical legislation. This would ensure the quality, safety and efficacy of NCPs, as well as a
level playing field for all nicotine containing products”.

Your interpretation of this amendment is important to me (so do tell me if I’ve misunderstood), because one of its sponsors is one of my MEPs who I’m writing to!

I’ll be interested to hear how they would apply that to companies operating out of Hong Kong. I have no intention whatsoever of buying BT and BP’s overpriced, tedious products; I’ll simply buy my supplies from overseas and trust that enough makes it through customs to keep me going.