Well, the EU have cocked it up again.

Over the last 6 months or so they've been working on the Tobacco Products directive and today they've been voting on the amendments (basically, finalising the Directive), before it's put in front of the MEPs who'll vote on whether or not it should be drafted into EU law in September.

The main items that they voted for today was to ensure that menthol cigarettes would be banned, as would "slim" cigarettes. Oh, and that ecigarettes would be deemed "medicinal" devices.

What, you might ask, is the problem with that? They help people to stop smoking, so doesn't that make them the same as patches and gum?

In short, No.

Ecigs aren't a quitting method. I don't wish to quit enjoying nicotine, and I never bought them, and don't use them, as a quitting method. They're an alternative to smoking, to burning tobacco leaves and inhaling the smoke to get my nicotine fix. In this, they're excellent and I'm delighted that I finally have the smoking monkey off my back after 29 years. 29 years, I might add, through which the patches and gums were utterly useless.

Ok, you say, so what if they (the EU) force ecigarettes to be medicalised, isn't that a good thing? Aren't I just getting the same devices, with a degree of confidence in it's "efficacy"?

Again, No. I don't need convincing of their efficacy, because I know they work for my partner and I. We switched from smoking to ecigs 7 months ago absolutely painlessly. There're 1.3 million other people in the UK who feel the same way.

If a device like an ecig is medicalised (i.e. be given a license to show that it's a medicine) the producers of those devices will have to pay an absolute fortune to get their devices licensed. Don't believe me? Here're the (estimated) figures :

"The annual cost of a company that tries to keep up with innovation, and stocks the latest developments would have 4 new products a year, so would be expected to pay:

(4 x £252,000) + (4 x £65,000) = £1,268,000 (low estimate)

(4 x £390,000) + (4 x £249,000) = £2,556,000 (high estimate)"

That's just for the hardware. For eliquids, it looks like

"Then of course, there are the liquids to use in the hardware; most vendors have more than one flavour, and some have literally hundreds. Not only will a cost of between £87,000 and £266,000 per flavour, per strength, per year be a major disincentive to having flavours (and indeed having different nicotine levels), the MHRA has made clear that it views flavours as a potential problem, due to an evidence-free assertion that these only appeal to children. (After all, adults don’t have any interest in things that taste nice; everyone apparently eats bland food and drinks only water)."

What this means is that my dozens of different devices, which I can chop and change to find exactly the right mix for me, will almost certainly no longer exist. It'd simply be too expensive for the SMEs that currently make little drip tips, tanks, atomisers and battery MODs individually. The only companies that'd be able to get a license would be the companies who sell the cig-a-like devices that are sold as one unit. These are horrible for several reasons, not least because the batteries don't pump out a fraction of the power that a proper ecig battery does, and because the batteries simply don't last very long so they contribute to pollution when these batteries are thrown into the bin. Oh, and those lovely flavours like strawberry, and cherry and chocolate cake? You can forget them, it'll be tobacco flavour only.

Now, if you know me, you'll know that I have a good supply of ecig DIY liquids and hardware, enough to last me for a few years yet, so I'm alright Jack. It's the other millions of people who're currently smoking that I'm worried about. These are the millions who're much less likely to turn to ecigs because people like the MHRA say irresponsible things like "Our research has shown that existing electronic cigarettes and other nicotine containing products on the market are not good enough to meet this public health priority". That's utter, complete, cobblers! To date, in the UK alone there are 1.3 million regular ecig users, if ecigs didn't work as advertised do you really think they'd still be puffing away on their plastic fags?

As of the year 2000 there were estimated to be 1.2 billion smokers in the world. Imagine if half of those 1.2 billion people switched to vaping, something I believe entirely possible if the EU embraces e-cigarettes properly. I'm sure many other countries would soon follow suit and you'd quite likely have a chance of, instead of helping 24 million smokers to quit the hard way, to help 600 million quit the easy way.

The TPD's stated aim is to reduce smoking levels by 2%. JUST two percent! This is such a colossal expenditure for such a small gain. If vaping were properly encouraged by the EU, instead of controlled into obscurity, you have a chance to convert that paltry 2% to 50%, all at no cost to the public purse.

How should the EU regulate e-cigarettes? Rebecca Taylor's blog

An interesting blog post by Rebecca Taylor MEP Yorkshire, here's my reply to her section on "Considerations for the regulation of e-cigarettes":

Rebecca, I can't tell you what a pleasure it is to see an MEP with an open mind.

Here's my two pennarth (actually, more than two pennarth, more like a couple of bob's worth, it's hard to stop evangelising about something that's changed my life) :


* While it is clear that e-cigarettes are far less harmful than tobacco, nicotine does have some negative health effects, but the long term health impacts of using e-cigarettes are currently unknown;

The general consensus is that e-cigarettes are not just far less harmful, they're probably in excess of 99% less harmful. Maybe about as dangerous as a cup of tea.

* Expanding on the previous point, it may be appropriate to require e-cigarettes to come with a general health warning such as "may damage your health" until evidence is available to make a more precise warning;

The danger of this is that if you tell people who already smoke that e-cigarettes may damage your health, you're effectively telling them that there's no point in switching, as they're already using a nicotine delivery system (analogue cigarettes) that harms them anyway. There's a very real possiblity that you'll discourage the very people you're trying to reach.


* There are currently no standards in relation to the quality and safety of e-cigarettes, something which needs to be rectified for reasons of consumer protection;

As others have said, e-cigarettes are already covered by Trading Standards, in much the same way as bleach and other household items are covered.

* The aim of regulation should be to keep e-cigarettes available as a harm reduction tool for adult smokers,

Agreed.

* while taking every precaution to ensure their use does not "renormalise" smoking and that they are not marketed in a way that broadens their appeal to non-smokers, especially young people.

The downside of this approach is that you're effectively pushing ex-smokers who now vape to the fringes. This is exactly the opposite of what (I believe) you should be doing. What (I believe) you should be considering is NORMALISING vaping. By doing that you'll help current smokers to see that vaping is a socially acceptable activity. As more and more people begin to vape, those people who, like myself, didn't want to quit the pleasures of nicotine but wanted the smoking monkey off my back will see that they'll achieve public approval instead of the sneers and fake coughs that us vapers are currently subjected to by ignorant anti-smokers and smokers alike.

I'm probably not phrasing that very well. Let me try to say it another way.

If you normalise vaping, you're more likely to get current smokers to make the switch. By denormalising it, you're just giving the less adventurous smokers another reason to not try these newfangled devices.

* it may be necessary to subject e-cigarettes to marketing restrictions such as minimum age of purchase requirements,

Agreed, makes sense.

* forbidding free samples or below cost pricing,

This doesn't, you want to encourage people to make the switch, not discourage it.

* a ban on characterising flavours (e.g. chocolate)

This would be a terrible mistake. Once that I'd discovered vaping could genuinely take the place of smoking for me, the very first thing I did was go on a journey to find out exactly what flavours I could vape all day. Like other users here have said, it doesn't take long for your sense of taste to come back when you stop smoking and it was the very variety of different flavours that encouraged me to invest money in vaping instead of smoking. I've just checked my tackle box, which holds the majority of my vaping gear, and I'm the proud (and probably slightly insane) owner of some 122 different flavours. Now, most folks won't need that many, however I was determined that vaping is going to work for me, and fiddling with receipes is one of the things that help.


* Following on from the previous point, e-cigarettes used in public places where smoking is forbidden or in front of children would also contribute to "renormalisation", so steps should be taken to avoid this, for example restricting the use of e-cigarettes in public places.

If you do this, you're placing barriers in the way of the very people you're trying to save. One of the many advantages of taking up vaping instead of smoking was that I'm now able to enjoy a pint and a puff in my local pub again, without standing out in the cold (of which we've had far too much this winter). Like many smokers, there was little I enjoyed more than "a fag and a pint", and the smoking ban pretty much put a stop to that, indeed I can count on two hands how many times my partner and I went to the pub after the ban, before we took up vaping. Since discovering e-cigarettes we've found that we're able to enjoy our drinks again without dreading the trip to stand outside the door. If you renormalise vaping, then you can be sure that others will feel the same way and this can only be a good thing for our flagging pub trade.




In the end, you'll do what you feel you should do, however I hope that you'll consider some of the things that vapers have been trying to tell you. We're not saying these things because we resist change, if we did, we wouldn't have taken up vaping in the first place, instead we would have stuck to burning tobacco. E-cigarettes have proven phenomenally effective at removing smoking from the lives of so many people who enjoy using nicotine. Research has shown that they're probably AT LEAST 50% effective, some estimates suggest that they can be up to 80% effective although IMO that's probably a little high. I can tell you that of the 4 people I've encouraged to switch, 3 of them have done so.

The TPD's stated aim is to reduce smoking levels by 2%. JUST two percent! This is such a colossal expenditure for such a small gain. If vaping were properly encouraged by the EU, instead of controlled into obscurity, you have a chance to convert that paltry 2% to 50%, all at no cost to the NHS. I'll bet in your wildest dreams, you never thought that was a realistic goal.

As of the year 2000 there were estimated to be 1.2 billion smokers in the world. Imagine if half of those 1.2 billion people switched to vaping, something I believe entirely possible if the EU embraces e-cigarettes properly. I'm sure many other countries would soon follow suit and you'd quite likely have a chance of, instead of helping 24 million smokers to quit the hard way, to help 600 million quit the easy way.



I am not affiliated with the vaping, smoking or pharma industries, just an extremely relieved user of e-cigarettes (26mg).

EU Tobacco Products Directive 25th Feb 2013

Criminal irresponsibility at the highest levels.

 Well, I watched the entirety of the Mickey Mouse show yesterday.

Oh, I'm sorry, did I say Mickey Mouse? I meant the one and only public hearing about the EU Tobacco Products Directive revision.

It left me....sad. Sad, and frankly with a very sick feeling in the pit of my stomach.

Let me explain.

 

This hearing was about the EU getting together to discuss some revisions to the Tobacco Products Directive, which sets out how it tells member countries to legislate on tobacco (or, it legislates then tells governments to enforce the rules, I'm slightly hazy on the details, but I digress).

If you're interested in the agenda, you can visit this page  but to summarise everybody in that meeting, save one brave soul, is a rabid anti-nicoine and tobacco zealot (ANTZ).

So, why has it left me in the doldrums?

Because this hearing (gang of ANTZ) spent three and a half hours wittering on about plain cigarette packaging, and how they plan to reduce the numbers of smokers in the EU by a staggering 2% by removing virtually all branding from the cover of the fag packet. Two, whole, percentage points.

Millions of Euros, to stop 2% of people from smoking.

What if I told you that there are products already available on the market that are much more effective than existing, approved Nicotine Replacement Therapies (NRT), and already governed by existing consumer protection legislation? You'd think the ANTZ would jump at the chance of converting even more of their precious citizens away from smoking, wouldn't you?

Current HRT cost and efficacy.

 

Before we look at these other products, let's take a quick look at the current, "approved" methods of quitting smoking championed by the UK's NHS. How much do they cost, and how effective are they?

1. It appears the total cost for England, for the NHS main programme, was about £165m in 2009/2010. (For all SSS in England it may approach or exceed £200m - we do not know exactly what smoking-related treatment is or is not included in the SSS figures, in terms of all GP, clinic and hospital provision.)

...

3. The actual cost per successful NHS main programme participant in England was several thousand £s in 2009/10, not £224. It may be £2,178 as a minimum, but is likely to be £3,111 or more.

4. More than 90% of participants are likely to fail and return to smoking.

So, expensive and not very effective then. More than 90% of participants return to smoking. That means that 90% of the money spent on "encouraging" smokers to quit is wasted. In plain terms, that's £145.6 million thrown at those lovely people like Glaxo Smithklein for products with dubious efficacy.

I wonder if anybody's considered talking to the Trade Descriptions people about them.

Ok, onto the alternatives I mentioned.

Snus.

Snus is only legal to sell in Sweden. It's an exception the Swedes negotiated as part of joining the EU club. It's a tobacco based product that's not burned, instead it's in a small pouch that's tucked under the lip and allows the user to enjoy the nicotine in tobacco without infringing on anybody else's freedoms.

If you look at the above graph you can see that Sweden, the only country in the EU that uses Snus, is also the country with the lowest incidence of smoking related deaths.

(Source : http://www.clivebates.com/?p=434)



Additionally, it has the lowest number of daily smokers. I doubt that this is a coincidence.

Yay! A safe(r) way to  enjoy nicotine. The ANTZ are all over this like a rash, aren't they?

Actually, no.

Here's what the TPD document actually says :

"The current ban was seen as proportionate by the Court of Justice of the European Union in 2004 due to the harmful effects, the uncertainty of oral tobacco as a substitute for cigarettes, the addictive and toxic properties of nicotine, oral tobacco's risk potential for young people and the novelty of the product . This reasoning is still valid today."

Wut?

That's really weird, because Commissioner John Dalli (the guy who wrote the TPD) was more than happy to remove the ban in exchange for 60 million euros.

Tipp-Ex away the truth about safer alternatives to smoking

"Campaigning by so-called health groups to ban much less hazardous alternatives to smoking is dangerous, unethical, lazy with facts and utterly without regard for the people they are supposedly trying to help"

It stinks, it really does.

Electronic Cigarettes (e-cigs).

I know a lot of vapers don't like using "Ecig" to describe their Personal Vaporisers, however if you mention ecig everybody knows what you mean so it makes more sense to call them ecigs instead of their proper name.

Here's where my story comes in.

I've been smoking since I was 15. I've tried to quite many times but those quit attempts were at best half-hearted because I enjoy the whole process of smoking. The little rituals of getting a cig out of the packet, or rolling one up. Flicking the lighter and taking that first drag. Feeling the nic coursing into my veins, creating that buzz. Playing with the smoke as I breathe out.

Bliss, especially after a good meal or with a pint.

Of course, smoking has it's bad points, not least the fact that it'll kill me and it's bloody expensive, so I was stuck between a rock and a hard place until I became dimly aware of electronic cigarettes. In November 2012 I bought a electronic cigarette, mainly out of curiosity, to see if they were any good. From the very first drag I realised that the ecig vaping experience was sufficiently close enough to the smoking experience to give me a chance to finally get away from the harmful effects of smoke while still allowing me to enjoy the positive effects of nicotine (nicotine, by the way, is about as harmful as caffeine in your cup of tea or coffee).

TL;DR smoked for 29 years, tried to give up many times. Eventually found e-cigarettes and quit immediately with absolutely no withdrawal effects. Amazing invention.

Are they dangerous?

Now, I'm not going to go into whether or not ecigs are dangerous. There's just so much written about it that it'd take up way too much space, suffice to say the overwhelming evidence is that they're not dangerous. All of the substances are well understood, and expert opinion usually agrees that vaping ecigs is at least 99% safer than smoking.


Ecigs are relatively new (compared to other options), but it seems that if somebody wants to use them to help them cut down smoking, or even stop using burning tobacco altogether they're very helpful. Informal research seems to show them to be roughly 75% effective, because vaping is so much like smoking it's easy to switch. In our household of two the switch was 100%.  Even if we were to be ultra-conservative and halve that 75% number, then halve it again, you're still looking at roughly 20% effectiveness in reducing smoking rates.

Brilliant, you might say. A market driven (so it's not paid for by your taxes, as the existing NHS therapies are now) solution that's at least ten times as effective, and has the potential to save 5 million lives in the UK alone.

"If all the smokers in Britain stopped smoking cigarettes and started smoking e-cigarettes we would save 5 million deaths in people who are alive today. It's a massive potential public health prize."

Guess what. The bureaucrats rewriting the TPD don't agree. In the hearing yesterday Tonio Borg dismissed ecigarettes as dangerous because it gives people "a false sense of security". Actually, he said this several times, but he didn't actually produce any evidence to say that ecigarettes are in-and-of themselves dangerous. The assumption must be that he simply doesn't like the idea of somebody using ecigs because it's cheating, side-stepping his attempts to enforce his Tobacco Control efforts onto the rest of us.

"The people you need to blame are the people in high places, in the medical profession, and in the media, and ultimately in the WHO’s Tobacco Control. They’re the people who are doing this to you. Blame them if your marriage breaks down, and you lose all your friends. This is what they did to you. And this is exactly what they wanted to do. Because they set out to demonise you and exclude you and crush you."

So, what're the bureaucrats planning to do with ecigs?

Before I answer that, I've got to explain something.

The fuel, for want of a better word, that generates the vapour in an ecig is a combination of nicotine in a solution that's heated by a coil. Typically when somebody switches to ecigs from tobacco cigarettes they use solutions of between 16mg to 24mg to replicate the smoking experience. Too little nicotine in the solution, and the craving for the drug will not be satisfied, forcing the user to go back to smoking tobacco.

The geniuses who wrote the TPD have decided that 24mg is too high (think of the children/les enfants, they might try to drink it, bleach in every household not withstanding), and that vapers shouldn't get access to solutions greater than 4mg without a prescription.

The utter folly of this draconian decree of course is that people who use ecigs to avoid smoking tobacco while they enjoy recreational use of nicotine will no longer be able to (safely) source nicotine solutions and will either turn to the unregulated black market for these solutions, or go back to smoking cigarettes.


This is quite frankly criminal, and I hope that the Powers That Be can be persuaded by some real experts, rather than the paid shills we listened to yesterday, to re-consider their position.

I'm not holding my breath.