European Ban on E-Cigs?

was.deevey

The issue is not existential for big pharma, because not only are quitting aids such as patches and tablets and gum only a part of their market, they can and will continue alongside e-cigarettes.

Lets not forget that if it was the case was that ecigs were regulated as medicinal devices and developed/distributed by Big Pharma and they turn out to be as expensive and unsuccessful in getting hardcore smokers to quit (like patches, gum and inhalers), they stand to GAIN billions more thorough the other multitude of products they sell to smokers who cannot quit for example super expensive Chemotherapy drugs.

IF they were ever regulated as medical devices, Big Pharma has much more to lose than gain by developing an ecig that conforms to the rules that are proposed and actually is effective as some of the current electronic cigarettes as it would cannibalize sale of far more than just their NRT range of products.

Effectively both Big Tobacco and Big Pharma Stand to gain more by flooding the market with non-effective (but ones that confirm to the new rules) devices.

tommy2bad

Scofflaw wrote: »

Hmm. OK, I can see why you need this to be true, but I don't think your reasoning works, because it involves denying some basic commercial realities as well as quite a lot of facts.

You seem to have a nice black and white narrative of "big bad tobacco" versus "our saviour the nice and small e-cig people", and you don't want that boat rocked. But that boat will be rocked, because denying reality isn't the same as changing it.

If that comes off as harsh, I don't mean it to be - to be honest, I find it interesting. But I think I might repeat your advice to me back to you - be more cynical. I think you're not "following the money" here in favour of a constructed narrative with clearly delineated and convenient heroes and villains, leading to your preferred outcome of being able to vape legally while feeling that a cancerous evil has been banished from the world.

Big tobacco don't care about tobacco. It's what currently delivers them money, but if alternative nicotine delivery systems deliver them money, they'll happily fight big pharma for that pie, and if they can get consumer-style legislation for e-cigs, then they'll win - and conversely if they can't, they'll probably lose. Since losing on that front will probably go hand in had with increasing restrictions on actual tobacco use, this is an existential issue for them. They know that in the long term, they're fighting a rearguard action to keep smoking alive - but if they can break out again through vaping, they can stay in business.

The issue is not existential for big pharma, because not only are quitting aids such as patches and tablets and gum only a part of their market, they can and will continue alongside e-cigarettes.

Smokers are nicotine addicts - the idea that they're anything else is actually tobacco company propaganda. Nicotine addicts are the target market for big tobacco, not tobacco addicts, because there's no such thing. If they can't reach their market of nicotine addicts using tobacco, they will be perfectly happy to reach them using vaping, and they have the money, in a field currently occupied by small companies, to buy their way in. But they can only do so if the basis of e-cigarette regulation is consumer, not medical.

They are fighting against the "nicotine interests" of big pharma for legislative freedom in a lucrative market, and they are also fighting health groups who, while they may also be representing pharma interests, have put their finger on a quite genuine issue, which is that the tobacco companies see this as a way to continue inducting new addicts. And while their prohibitionist instincts may not relate to being correct, they are correct.

While smoking remained not only legal but socially acceptable, there was no real impetus for the tobacco companies to follow up their patents with action, because they would have had to create the market for e-cigs from scratch. But in the developed world, not only is legislation closing in on them, so is social acceptability - but addicts remain addicts, and if they can continue to get their drug in a delivery system which promises to abolish all the old ills, they will do so. So the market is creating itself, and now the tobacco companies are buying into it. And they know - who better - that nicotine addicts will persuade themselves of the safety and desirability of e-cigs.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scoffaw, that's exactly what I'm saying. I have no interest in defending big tobacco or vilifying it. As far as I can tell it's just doing what any big business would, defend it's patch. Same as big pharma do. You say the issue is not existential for big pharma, I would differ, if ecigs or any other clean nicotine delivery system overtakes smoking then they stand to see their sales for treatments of smoking related illness reduced to the level of their take from caffeine related illness.
As to "have put their finger on a quite genuine issue, which is that the tobacco companies see this as a way to continue inducting new addicts."
This is only a genuine issue if nicotine addiction has a public or personal health consequence. Their is no evidence of any once smoke is removed. Which is why I accuse the health lobbies of ideology. As to smokers being nicotine addicts, that's true and false, if it were just nicotine then NRT would work far better than it dose. Snus has shown that nicotine is a major part of the addiction but not the only part. Theirs a social and community part as well, even the smoking cessation people realize that community support is the most important part of quitting. It's why they want to denormalize smoking. It might be the main contributor to ecigs success. And it why they are framing the legislation to remove all community support from ecigs. Witness the restriction on forums and advertising.

dePeatrick

It's the Rumble in the Jungle folks....In the Red corner we have Big Tobacco, and taking the Green corner we have Big Pharma...who will win, my money is on Big Tobacco......cos they're hungrier...and who will watch....yes you the consumer, and who will pay, yes you the consumer, and who will get the best product..........best product! Don't be ridiculous, no one ever got rich by delivering the best product to the masses.......silly boy........:o

Occam

dePeatrick wrote: »

It's the Rumble in the Jungle folks....In the Red corner we have Big Tobacco, and taking the Green corner we have Big Pharma...who will win, my money is on Big Tobacco......cos they're hungrier...and who will watch....yes you the consumer, and who will pay, yes you the consumer, and who will get the best product..........best product! Don't be ridiculous, no one ever got rich by delivering the best product to the masses.......silly boy........:o

It is much more accurate to say that in one corner we have "Big Tobacco and other manufacturers of e-Cigs" and in the other corner we have "Almost every major health promotion body in the world, and Big Pharma".

tommy2bad

Occam wrote: »

It is much more accurate to say that in one corner we have "Big Tobacco and other manufacturers of e-Cigs" and in the other corner we have "Almost every major health promotion body in the world, and Big Pharma".

Actualy it's not. Turns out that one of the pharma co's lobbying the MEP is owned by...Good ol Philip Morris. So who's in bed with who or should that be WHO?
http://www.ecigarette-research.com/web/index.php/2013-04-07-09-50-07/142-scandalous-propaganda-from-a-pharmaceutical-company

Scofflaw

tommy2bad wrote: »

Actualy it's not. Turns out that one of the pharma co's lobbying the MEP is owned by...Good ol Philip Morris. So who's in bed with who or should that be WHO?
http://www.ecigarette-research.com/web/index.php/2013-04-07-09-50-07/142-scandalous-propaganda-from-a-pharmaceutical-company

I'm impressed you manage to divine that information from the linked article, which not only doesn't state that the pharma company in question is owned by Philip Morris, but carefully doesn't even give the name of the pharma company it's referring to.

Were you thinking of another link? Because that one contains nothing related to the argument you're making.

cordially,
Scofflaw

tommy2bad

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm impressed you manage to divine that information from the linked article, which not only doesn't state that the pharma company in question is owned by Philip Morris, but carefully doesn't even give the name of the pharma company it's referring to.

Were you thinking of another link? Because that one contains nothing related to the argument you're making.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Do your own googling
Farsalinos hints at the companies name by using the term "the world's leading B2B supplier of nicotine replacement therapy" Google this and first hit is;
http://www.fertin.com/Products/Pharmaceutical/NRT/Pages/default.aspx
A little more searching for news on Fertin and you find this;
http://www.tobaccotoday.info/2012/01/28/altria-partners-with-fertin-pharma/
It's a mucky business, business. But it dose explain why the Lithuanian presidencies proposals chime so well with both Philip Morris product and still meet the requirements not to compete with pharma products. PM are I think the largest foreign investor in Lithuania or at least one of the largest.

Scofflaw

tommy2bad wrote: »

Do your own googling
Farsalinos hints at the companies name by using the term "the world's leading B2B supplier of nicotine replacement therapy" Google this and first hit is;
http://www.fertin.com/Products/Pharmaceutical/NRT/Pages/default.aspx
A little more searching for news on Fertin and you find this;
http://www.tobaccotoday.info/2012/01/28/altria-partners-with-fertin-pharma/
It's a mucky business, business. But it dose explain why the Lithuanian presidencies proposals chime so well with both Philip Morris product and still meet the requirements not to compete with pharma products. PM are I think the largest foreign investor in Lithuania or at least one of the largest.

No, it doesn't. Again, your links don't carry the weight your claims require. On Fertis - assuming that they are the people concerned:

Okono A/S, an affiliate of Fertin Pharma A/S, has entered into an agreement with a subsidiary of Altria Group Inc., to develop innovative, non-combustible nicotine-containing products for adult tobacco consumers. This new product initiative combines the product development and manufacturing capabilities of Okono and its affiliates with the expertise of the Altria of companies. Altria Group, Inc. is the parent company of Philip Morris USA (PM USA), U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Company (UST) and John Middleton.

That's an affiliate of Fertis entering an agreement with Philip Morris' parent group. Your claim that "one of the pharma co's lobbying the MEP is owned by...Good ol Philip Morris" is factually inaccurate even if your guesswork on the name is right, and even your implication, that the lobbying in question is proxy lobbying for Philip Morris, is not sustained by that very slight connection. It's a minor business venture at more than one remove, and Fertis' interests remain firmly in line with those of pharma - medical regulation of e-cigs.

I think you're grasping at straws, to be honest. If the companies involved were people, the relation would be a little like claiming that you have a letter from this guy Fertis, and you believe that because someone in their first cousin once removed's family has done business with the parent of Philip Morris, this guy Fertis is clearly working for Philip Morris, even though Fertis' business interests are diametrically opposed to those of Philip Morris, and even though the letter from Fertis is clearly in line with Fertis' own business interests. That is classic conspiracy theory stuff - attaching extraordinary and tenuous special explanations to things that require no special explanation because they fit with a preconceived narrative.

cordially,
Scofflaw

tommy2bad

Scofflaw wrote: »

No, it doesn't. Again, your links don't carry the weight your claims require. On Fertis - assuming that they are the people concerned:



That's an affiliate of Fertis entering an agreement with Philip Morris' parent group. Your claim that "one of the pharma co's lobbying the MEP is owned by...Good ol Philip Morris" is factually inaccurate even if your guesswork on the name is right, and even your implication, that the lobbying in question is proxy lobbying for Philip Morris, is not sustained by that very slight connection. It's a minor business venture at more than one remove, and Fertis' interests remain firmly in line with those of pharma - medical regulation of e-cigs.

I think you're grasping at straws, to be honest. If the companies involved were people, the relation would be a little like claiming that you have a letter from this guy Fertis, and you believe that because someone in their first cousin once removed's family has done business with the parent of Philip Morris, this guy Fertis is clearly working for Philip Morris, even though Fertis' business interests are diametrically opposed to those of Philip Morris, and even though the letter from Fertis is clearly in line with Fertis' own business interests. That is classic conspiracy theory stuff - attaching extraordinary and tenuous special explanations to things that require no special explanation because they fit with a preconceived narrative.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Er no.
What I'm saying is that the lobbying on behalf of the pharma co is in favor of regulation that would favor tobacco companies. I'm not saying that they all got together in a smoke filled room to plan a line of attac against something that threatens both their product lines. What I am saying is that their is a coincident of interest between the pharma and tobacco industry that lead both of them to require the same end result.
I'll go further and say that anyone who thinks that pharma and tobacco are deadly enemies are wrong, they hold no animosity for each other, to them it's just business. Money is the product they both try to produce and they will compete and cooperate as and when nessary.
What this shows is how hard it is for politicians to know who they are dealing with and what interest they serve.

Scofflaw

tommy2bad wrote: »

Er no.
What I'm saying is that the lobbying on behalf of the pharma co is in favor of regulation that would favor tobacco companies. I'm not saying that they all got together in a smoke filled room to plan a line of attac against something that threatens both their product lines. What I am saying is that their is a coincident of interest between the pharma and tobacco industry that lead both of them to require the same end result.
I'll go further and say that anyone who thinks that pharma and tobacco are deadly enemies are wrong, they hold no animosity for each other, to them it's just business. Money is the product they both try to produce and they will compete and cooperate as and when nessary.
What this shows is how hard it is for politicians to know who they are dealing with and what interest they serve.

I know what you're saying - my point is that your evidence for it is extremely slim, and what you quote as evidence isn't. That leaves you just basically saying it.

Sure, I agree that both big pharma and big tobacco are against the idea of e-cigs as a market separate from them, dominated by other people. That doesn't make what they want out of it the same, because they each want to dominate that market themselves. Certainly, if they have to share the market they'll do so, and do so through joint ventures - but each would rather dominate the market themselves, or if they have to do joint ventures, to be holding the whip hand.

And that's what gives them different interests here, specifically with respect to the current EU legislation. Because what's being debated, in essence, is medical versus consumer regulation of the e-cig market. Yes, there's a side issue with respect to refillables, which neither big pharma nor big tobacco necessarily want, but the main issue is whether vaping is a medical product or a consumer one.

If vaping is a medical product, then the advantage is very strongly to the pharma companies, because the point of sale will be pharmacies, the regulatory environment will be one the pharma companies are familiar with, and the product will be packaged and marketed as a pharmaceutical product. There's very little room in that for the tobacco companies unless they buy up small pharma, and there they'll be competing against big pharma, with pockets as deep as their own.

If vaping is a consumer product, then the advantage is somewhat to the tobacco companies, because the point of sale will be newsagents, the regulatory environment will be one the tobacco companies are familiar with, and the product will be packaged and marketed as a consumer product. There will still be room for medical vaping products along with other NRT products, but the dominant market will be the consumer one.

So the interests of big pharma and big tobacco are not aligned, as you claim, except in certain small respects which are a long way from vital. The vital issue - more vital for big tobacco - is that of consumer versus medical regulation.

cordially,
Scofflaw

tommy2bad

That would be a fine argument if it held water. However the evidence is against it.
First the only ones seeking medical regs were the pharma side, but the only ones applying for medical authorization were tobacco.
Second. Now that medical regs are dead and burred (in the small print), the lobbying from both is producing regs suitable to both tobacco and pharma. Their interest coincide far to well for anything else to come out of this.
The shocking thing is the one party to the whole thing that has been ignored completely is the consumer. Again I assert that legislative bodies who claim (and in fact are elected) to represent us have failed spectacular to do this.
With the exception of about 6 mep all the rest have had to be dragged kicking and screaming to our side and even then couldn't hold out against the pressure from the rest and get sensible regs.
You have to suspect that democracy is being undermined when the will of the people is so abandoned.
I am in no doubt that the EU commission and council are working to the agenda off business and blindly so.
I am not surprised by the commission doing this, that's what they were set up for but that the council of ministers would adopt the same attitude is not excusable by pleading public health as their is no case to be made on those grounds, it must be vested interests that is driving their stance.

was.deevey

Health Orgainizations : Everything Potentially harmful should be Banned unless proven otherwise

Big Pharma : You should make an effort to quit everything harmful (but only with our drugs).

Tobacco Companies : Do what you enjoy, its your choice (but only with our recreational adult targeted products).

EU: Really, do whatever the hell you want so long as it looks like we made a reasonable effort to stop your bickering, we can eventually tax the final solution(s) and its not going to cost us politically or financially in the long run.

dePeatrick

Scofflaw wrote: »

I know what you're saying - my point is that your evidence for it is extremely slim, and what you quote as evidence isn't. That leaves you just basically saying it.

Sure, I agree that both big pharma and big tobacco are against the idea of e-cigs as a market separate from them, dominated by other people. That doesn't make what they want out of it the same, because they each want to dominate that market themselves. Certainly, if they have to share the market they'll do so, and do so through joint ventures - but each would rather dominate the market themselves, or if they have to do joint ventures, to be holding the whip hand.

And that's what gives them different interests here, specifically with respect to the current EU legislation. Because what's being debated, in essence, is medical versus consumer regulation of the e-cig market. Yes, there's a side issue with respect to refillables, which neither big pharma nor big tobacco necessarily want, but the main issue is whether vaping is a medical product or a consumer one.

If vaping is a medical product, then the advantage is very strongly to the pharma companies, because the point of sale will be pharmacies, the regulatory environment will be one the pharma companies are familiar with, and the product will be packaged and marketed as a pharmaceutical product. There's very little room in that for the tobacco companies unless they buy up small pharma, and there they'll be competing against big pharma, with pockets as deep as their own.

If vaping is a consumer product, then the advantage is somewhat to the tobacco companies, because the point of sale will be newsagents, the regulatory environment will be one the tobacco companies are familiar with, and the product will be packaged and marketed as a consumer product. There will still be room for medical vaping products along with other NRT products, but the dominant market will be the consumer one.

So the interests of big pharma and big tobacco are not aligned, as you claim, except in certain small respects which are a long way from vital. The vital issue - more vital for big tobacco - is that of consumer versus medical regulation.

cordially,
Scofflaw

It is the food industry who should be regulating this then, not the Tobacco or Pharma. It is about time we all copped on that the regulation of what people want to do as opposed to what people should do has reached a loggerhead. And none too soon......I vape and will continue to vape while some idiot somewhere decides whether I am breaking some law or other.....like I give a .......bet you thought I was going to use the F word there, didn't you? No, not a ****ing chance.......He he heeeee.....

Scofflaw

tommy2bad wrote: »

That would be a fine argument if it held water. However the evidence is against it.
First the only ones seeking medical regs were the pharma side, but the only ones applying for medical authorization were tobacco.

I'm not sure what that would be evidence of, other than the tobacco companies hedging their bets.

Second. Now that medical regs are dead and burred (in the small print), the lobbying from both is producing regs suitable to both tobacco and pharma.

Medical regulation is anything but dead and buried. There is no final outcome at this stage, and medical regulation is very clearly still on the table.

Their interest coincide far to well for anything else to come out of this.

So you keep saying, but not demonstrating.

The shocking thing is the one party to the whole thing that has been ignored completely is the consumer. Again I assert that legislative bodies who claim (and in fact are elected) to represent us have failed spectacular to do this.
With the exception of about 6 mep all the rest have had to be dragged kicking and screaming to our side and even then couldn't hold out against the pressure from the rest and get sensible regs.
You have to suspect that democracy is being undermined when the will of the people is so abandoned.
I am in no doubt that the EU commission and council are working to the agenda off business and blindly so.
I am not surprised by the commission doing this, that's what they were set up for but that the council of ministers would adopt the same attitude is not excusable by pleading public health as their is no case to be made on those grounds, it must be vested interests that is driving their stance.

There is of course a case to be made on public health grounds. E-cigs aren't tobacco, but that doesn't make them automatically healthy, and the long-term effects of them hasn't been studied in anything approaching sufficient detail to make a judgement on whether they are.

You can't simply ignore arguments that don't suit your preferences. Well, OK, you are, which is what leads you to your complex conspiracies.

The question of the wishes of the consumer, by the way, are taken into account. If they weren't, the whole question wouldn't even arise. What you mean, I think, is that the wishes of the consumer aren't paramount - which is also the case for tobacco, alcohol, and a wide variety of other substances. These days, governments don't see the wishes of the consumer to use harmful substances as something they automatically accept.

cordially,
Scofflaw

tommy2bad

Scofflaw;
There is of course a case to be made on public health grounds. E-cigs aren't tobacco, but that doesn't make them automatically healthy, and the long-term effects of them hasn't been studied in anything approaching sufficient detail to make a judgement on whether they are.

So if their is a case for public health why isn't anyone making it?
I have seen no evidence, no studies to back up the 'concerns' expressed by the so called health bodies, in fact so far all the studies and research refutes the claims of the health bodies.
Other than emotive concerns about children and vague intonations of normalizing smoking behavior, not one shred of actual evidence. Could it be because their is no evidence and nothing to support their claims? Why haven't they done any research themselves. oh yes the burden of proof is on the ones not making any claims in this case!.
As to long term effects, 7 years not enough? We know enough to make an informed judgment at this stage.We know the ingredients and their properties, we know the demographic that uses the product and we know the outcome the alternative produces. I fail to see how regulating ecigs out of existence is of any benefit to anyone other than pharma and tobacco (and tax revenue) Oh and medicalization is history as far as the EU and the TPD is concerned. Individual states may try that route but once the overall EU legislation is established, it will be a harder case for them to make. Free trade and internal markets and all that.

These days, governments don't see the wishes of the consumer to use harmful substances as something they automatically accept.

Then they need to make the case that harm exists.

I never once mentioned a conspiracy, just followed the trail of breadcrumbs and presented the case that a coincidence of interests exists. You keep assuming conspiracy. Or is trowing in the conspiracy word just a way to dismiss an argument?

grindle

Scofflaw wrote: »

You can't simply ignore arguments that don't suit your preferences.

These days, governments don't see the wishes of the consumer to use harmful substances as something they automatically accept.

1. Which arguments? The arguments from emotion? For somebody who always spouts on about logic (which I love) you show a distinct lack of concern for it here. Which arguments are we ignoring?

2. Quantify the harm it causes please, otherwise (again) your argument is baseless and without evidence which makes a mockery of your strident search for logical conclusions (much like Occam's insistence on choosing the most convoluted answer as the most likely...sweeeeetdelicioussssssironnnny...)

Scofflaw

grindle wrote: »

1. Which arguments? The arguments from emotion? For somebody who always spouts on about logic (which I love) you show a distinct lack of concern for it here. Which arguments are we ignoring?

2. Quantify the harm it causes please, otherwise (again) your argument is baseless and without evidence which makes a mockery of your strident search for logical conclusions (much like Occam's insistence on choosing the most convoluted answer as the most likely...sweeeeetdelicioussssssironnnny...)

Heh. There's a short summary of the problem that goes like this - "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

The public health case with respect to vaping is that the effects of vaping aren't known. That's it, pure and simple.

Am I arguing that therefore national governments are right to ban vaping or heavily restrict it, and to press for the EU to do the same? No, I'm not, so relax.

Would I agree that a large part of the response to vaping is based on assuming it's basically smoking - without any evidence to show that that's so? Sure - so, again, relax.

Does that mean there is not public health case? No, I'm afraid not. Vaping involves inhaling a highly addictive toxic substance. If those words give you no pause at all, chances are you're already a vaper, and an ex-smoker - and I hate to say it, but chances are you're applying exactly the same kind of cognitive dissonance as you did to smoking (and yes, I'm an ex-smoker and occasional vaper myself).

The public health bodies are calling for regulation on two bases - one is the precautionary principle ("first, ensure it does no harm"), and the second is the gateway principle that vaping can be a route into smoking as well as out.

Vapers need to address those issues, rather than putting their hands over their ears and shouting that they can't hear those arguments. And really, that's what I'm getting from this thread.

cordially,
Scofflaw

tommy2bad

Scofflaw wrote: »

Heh. There's a short summary of the problem that goes like this - "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

The public health case with respect to vaping is that the effects of vaping aren't known. That's it, pure and simple.

The trouble is that 'we dont know' is a lie. We do know as much as we need to know. Vaping is 99 times safer than smoking. Their is no historical evidence of any of the ingredients causing problems and they all have been in use for over 50 years. We know that the people using ecigs are frormer smokers with no takeup among non smokers.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Am I arguing that therefore national governments are right to ban vaping or heavily restrict it, and to press for the EU to do the same? No, I'm not, so relax.

Would I agree that a large part of the response to vaping is based on assuming it's basically smoking - without any evidence to show that that's so? Sure - so, again, relax.

So what exactly are you saying because so far all you have done is defend the decision to ban ecigs.?

Scofflaw wrote: »

Does that mean there is not public health case? No, I'm afraid not. Vaping involves inhaling a highly addictive toxic substance. If those words give you no pause at all, chances are you're already a vaper, and an ex-smoker - and I hate to say it, but chances are you're applying exactly the same kind of cognitive dissonance as you did to smoking (and yes, I'm an ex-smoker and occasional vaper myself).

Well , I'v addressd this above but it won't do any harm to repeat it. Your assertion that nic is a highly addictive toxic substance is without foundation as an argument, the same apply to caffeine and alchol, should they be restricted to medical regs or restricted so much that only heroin is more freely available?

Scofflaw wrote: »

The public health bodies are calling for regulation on two bases - one is the precautionary principle ("first, ensure it does no harm"), and the second is the gateway principle that vaping can be a route into smoking as well as out.

No that's not the precautionary principal, that's the Hippocratic oath. The precautionary principal explicitly allows that where a lack of evidence of no harm exists this should not be used as justification to prevent an action that would reduce or prevent a current harm. This is the situation with vaping as it is a replacement for a proven harm.
I think their is enough evidence at this stage to show that ecigs are not attracting non smokers and I seriously doubt that medical regs would help even if this were not the case. Anyway restrictions on sales to minors would cover this. Odly the only opponents of restriction of sales to minors are the health bodies.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Vapers need to address those issues, rather than putting their hands over their ears and shouting that they can't hear those arguments. And really, that's what I'm getting from this thread.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Addressed.
As to covering our ears and singing lalala, I think you confuse us with the health bodies and various anti smoking groups.

Scofflaw

tommy2bad wrote: »

The trouble is that 'we dont know' is a lie. We do know as much as we need to know. Vaping is 99 times safer than smoking.

Really? That's a peer-reviewed figure, is it?

Their is no historical evidence of any of the ingredients causing problems and they all have been in use for over 50 years.

That avoids the issue.

We know that the people using ecigs are frormer smokers with no takeup among non smokers.

And that's incorrect. There is takeup amongst non-smokers, and there is takeup amongst teenagers.

So what exactly are you saying because so far all you have done is defend the decision to ban ecigs.?

Personally, I'm happy to see them sold through consumer outlets - but that doesn't mean there isn't a case the other way.

Well , I'v addressd this above but it won't do any harm to repeat it. Your assertion that nic is a highly addictive toxic substance is without foundation as an argument, the same apply to caffeine and alchol, should they be restricted to medical regs or restricted so much that only heroin is more freely available?

If they were being introduced as a new market product, that's exactly what would happen to them. As for nicotine being (a) addictive and (b) toxic, those are just basic facts, and you don't get to have your own version of them.

No that's not the precautionary principal, that's the Hippocratic oath. The precautionary principal explicitly allows that where a lack of evidence of no harm exists this should not be used as justification to prevent an action that would reduce or prevent a current harm. This is the situation with vaping as it is a replacement for a proven harm.

Again, no:

The precautionary principle or precautionary approach states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking an action.

I think their is enough evidence at this stage to show that ecigs are not attracting non smokers and I seriously doubt that medical regs would help even if this were not the case. Anyway restrictions on sales to minors would cover this. Odly the only opponents of restriction of sales to minors are the health bodies.

You may think so, but others apparently disagree.

Addressed.
As to covering our ears and singing lalala, I think you confuse us with the health bodies and various anti smoking groups.

No, there's measures of it on both sides.

cordially,
Scofflaw

tommy2bad

Scofflaw wrote: »

Really? That's a peer-reviewed figure, is it?

Yes http://antithrlies.com/2013/08/08/breaking-news-new-study-shows-no-risk-from-e-cigarette-contaminants/
Read the PDF included.
That avoids the issue.
No that is the issue, claiming that we dont know the longterm effects while data on long term effects exists is lieing.


And that's incorrect. There is takeup amongst non-smokers, and there is takeup amongst teenagers.
Not acording to ASH UK or the CDC.


Personally, I'm happy to see them sold through consumer outlets - but that doesn't mean there isn't a case the other way.

I think their is enough evidence at this stage to make an informed decision, any evidence of potential harm has to be judged against potential benefits and considered in relation to the product it is most likely to replace smoking not quitting.

If they were being introduced as a new market product, that's exactly what would happen to them. As for nicotine being (a) addictive and (b) toxic, those are just basic facts, and you don't get to have your own version of them.

Basic assumptions, no studies back up the claim that nicotine in the doses delivered by ecig is toxic or that nic sans the other contents of smoke is adictive. And even if it were a simple warning would cover it. Their is no equivalence between harm and addiction to nic or caffeine.

Again, no:
Again no, this has been settled in court and the interpretation I gave was the courts decision. As our blueshirt overlords keep saying "it's the law".




You may think so, but others apparently disagree.

Simply repeating that you disagree without any evidence is not enough, in fact it the essence of covering your ears and shouting lalala.

No, there's measures of it on both sides.
Most on the public health side tbh.
cordially,
Scofflaw

Sorry but I don't acept that someones concerns based on an uneasy feeling is justification. That the EU do is demonstration that I was right from the start. This whole debacle is driven by lobbying of the currently vested internists. Coupled with the ignorance of the politicians and their desire to be 'right on' in the climate of denormalization.

Going Forward

Scofflaw wrote: »

Heh. There's a short summary of the problem that goes like this - "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

The public health case with respect to vaping is that the effects of vaping aren't known. That's it, pure and simple.

Am I arguing that therefore national governments are right to ban vaping or heavily restrict it, and to press for the EU to do the same? No, I'm not, so relax.

Would I agree that a large part of the response to vaping is based on assuming it's basically smoking - without any evidence to show that that's so? Sure - so, again, relax.

Does that mean there is not public health case? No, I'm afraid not. Vaping involves inhaling a highly addictive toxic substance. If those words give you no pause at all, chances are you're already a vaper, and an ex-smoker - and I hate to say it, but chances are you're applying exactly the same kind of cognitive dissonance as you did to smoking (and yes, I'm an ex-smoker and occasional vaper myself).

The public health bodies are calling for regulation on two bases - one is the precautionary principle ("first, ensure it does no harm"), and the second is the gateway principle that vaping can be a route into smoking as well as out.

Vapers need to address those issues, rather than putting their hands over their ears and shouting that they can't hear those arguments. And really, that's what I'm getting from this thread.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I find it hard to accept with today's medical and technical advances that it cannot be determined whether there is a public health risk.

Yes the substance is toxic, but so are many many substances handled by adults every day. Is the nanny state over-stepping here?

People were genuinely scared of electricity once upon a time too!

So what's to be done? Make vaping so full of hassle (e.g. ease of purchase) and expensive that those still smoking couldnt be bothered changing, or those vaping will return to smoking?

What's better, seeing young people who "might smoke" vaping or actually smoking?

Perhaps if all vaping products were hidden behind closed cabinets, plainly packaged, carrying a health warning (?) and age regulated etc. those with objections might be pacified.

It's amazing, I can't remember seeing an ingredients list on cigarettes when I was a smoker!

Health warnings might also be put on coffee, tea, alcohol, salt, vinegar, Red Bull, the list would be endless but would certainly do no harm, keeping officials busy and the issue at hand in some context.

Many problems can be created with the right attitude than can be solved.

Thinking aloud, I wonder why are there no high profile politician smokers anywhere turning to vaping? Surely some have changed over...

tommy2bad

Going Forward;
Thinking aloud, I wonder why are there no high profile politician smokers anywhere turning to vaping? Surely some have changed over...

Admitting to smoking would be seen as bad for a politician, the denormalization has become so invasive that nowadays people are ashamed to admit to smoking. They apologies for smoking and throw in an "I know I shouldn't but.."
Smokers are the new unclean, people almost them to ring a bell as they walk around.

was.deevey

Thinking aloud, I wonder why are there no high profile politician smokers anywhere turning to vaping? Surely some have changed over...

Obama - President of the United States (if you didn't know) used one extensively during campaigning, however relaseped to analogs once he got into office.

Aquino - President of Philippines, tried one for a while, but again relapsed to analogies citing "he's not ready to quit lest his decision making skills be affected"

Stress is a big factor into actually making a decision to stop, and while e-cigs are a good alternative they do lack some of the "I need something nasty in my system" factor. I guess the main reason being, you don't want your next cigarette to be on your mind when you are in a position of making decisions for millions.

Scofflaw

Going Forward wrote: »

I find it hard to accept with today's medical and technical advances that it cannot be determined whether there is a public health risk.

Long-term effects are hard to gauge in the short term...

Yes the substance is toxic, but so are many many substances handled by adults every day. Is the nanny state over-stepping here?

Possibly.

People were genuinely scared of electricity once upon a time too!

So what's to be done? Make vaping so full of hassle (e.g. ease of purchase) and expensive that those still smoking couldnt be bothered changing, or those vaping will return to smoking?

What's better, seeing young people who "might smoke" vaping or actually smoking?

Tricky one, because you can't definitely show that someone who has taken up vaping would have smoked if vaping were inaccessible.

Perhaps if all vaping products were hidden behind closed cabinets, plainly packaged, carrying a health warning (?) and age regulated etc. those with objections might be pacified.

It's amazing, I can't remember seeing an ingredients list on cigarettes when I was a smoker!

Health warnings might also be put on coffee, tea, alcohol, salt, vinegar, Red Bull, the list would be endless but would certainly do no harm, keeping officials busy and the issue at hand in some context.

Many problems can be created with the right attitude than can be solved.

Thinking aloud, I wonder why are there no high profile politician smokers anywhere turning to vaping? Surely some have changed over...

I'd agree that it has been denormalised to an extent where no politicians would want to be associated with it - except as part of a bad-boy image, of course, but vaping doesn't really do that.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Occam

tommy2bad wrote: »

I have seen no evidence, no studies to back up the 'concerns' expressed by the so called health bodies, in fact so far all the studies and research refutes the claims of the health bodies.

Yet again, you are pretending evidence which you do not like does not exist.

Have you somehow forgotten how earlier in this thread, when you discussed in some considerable detail :

• The adverse effects of e-Cigs recorded by the FDA
• A German study that linked e-Cigs and lipoid pneumonia
• The Gratziou study which claimed e-cigarette vapours contained some toxic substances

How can you possibly claim "I have seen no evidence, no studies to back up the 'concerns' expressed by the so called health bodies" when you have such a detailed understanding of the studies such as Gratziou?

Predictably, your reply will use your detailed knowledge of the above items to attack them, and tell us all why they should be discounted, but I'm guessing it won't explain why you are trying to pretend they don't exist.

Scofflaw

Occam wrote: »

Yet again, you are pretending evidence which you do not like does not exist.

Have you somehow forgotten how earlier in this thread, when you discussed in some considerable detail :

• The adverse effects of e-Cigs recorded by the FDA
• A German study that linked e-Cigs and lipoid pneumonia
• The Gratziou study which claimed e-cigarette vapours contained some toxic substances

How can you possibly claim "I have seen no evidence, no studies to back up the 'concerns' expressed by the so called health bodies" when you have such a detailed understanding of the studies such as Gratziou?

Predictably, your reply will use your detailed knowledge of the above items to attack them, and tell us all why they should be discounted, but I'm guessing it won't explain why you are trying to pretend they don't exist.

And the contrary study cited by tommy2bad doesn't do what he claims for it. It is not a long-term study of the health effects of e-cigs. It is a 'desktop' study of the probable effects of the likely levels of specific chemicals in e-cigs.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Occam

Scofflaw wrote: »

And the contrary study cited by tommy2bad doesn't do what he claims for it. It is not a long-term study of the health effects of e-cigs. It is a 'desktop' study of the probable effects of the likely levels of specific chemicals in e-cigs.

In addition, the "study" has zero credibility due to the "frank discussion of relevant scientific matters" the author had with the scientific director of the organisation which bought the report , Dr. Carl Phillips.

Dr. Philips has previously received millions in funding from Big Tobacco, smokeless and e-Cigarette companies.

This is very simply a case of a report being bought, and saying what it is supposed to.

tommy2bad

Occam wrote: »

Yet again, you are pretending evidence which you do not like does not exist.

Have you somehow forgotten how earlier in this thread, when you discussed in some considerable detail :

• The adverse effects of e-Cigs recorded by the FDA
• A German study that linked e-Cigs and lipoid pneumonia
• The Gratziou study which claimed e-cigarette vapours contained some toxic substances

How can you possibly claim "I have seen no evidence, no studies to back up the 'concerns' expressed by the so called health bodies" when you have such a detailed understanding of the studies such as Gratziou?

Predictably, your reply will use your detailed knowledge of the above items to attack them, and tell us all why they should be discounted, but I'm guessing it won't explain why you are trying to pretend they don't exist.

Occam you need to read more carefully!
I never said that claims and studies didn't exist, I said they failed to support the claims. I'v dismissed all of the studies you cite and shown that the claims made by the authors in the press releases were not supported by the data in the studies.

tommy2bad

Scofflaw wrote: »

And the contrary study cited by tommy2bad doesn't do what he claims for it. It is not a long-term study of the health effects of e-cigs. It is a 'desktop' study of the probable effects of the likely levels of specific chemicals in e-cigs.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Again reading for comprehension should be necessary for some of the posters here.
I did not link the study as evidence of long term effects but as evidence of er evidence that their is no justification for the concerns about long term effects.That's not the same as saying that we know with certainty what they are, it's saying that with what we do know their is no cause for concern.

If long term effects are so concerning that we disallow every product that someone has concerns about we would not be talking now because the mobile network had no long term studies. The whole long term unknowns is a red herring.

tommy2bad

Occam wrote: »

In addition, the "study" has zero credibility due to the "frank discussion of relevant scientific matters" the author had with the scientific director of the organisation which bought the report , Dr. Carl Phillips.

Dr. Philips has previously received millions in funding from Big Tobacco, smokeless and e-Cigarette companies.

This is very simply a case of a report being bought, and saying what it is supposed to.

Oh come on! Ad hominem atacks do nothing for your argument!