Regulation of e-cigarettes

Pat Mustard

The European Commission has proposed a revision of the Tobacco Products Directive, which proposes to reclassify e-cigarettes as medicinal products. Summary.

For those who are not familiar with e-cigarettes, they are essentially battery operated inhalers which work by using a heating element to vapourise a liquid solution in order to deliver nicotine. Hence the phrase; 'vaping'. Combustion does not take place, and therefore using an e-cigarette is not 'smoking' for the purposes of anti-smoking legislation. Tobacco and other chemicals are not used. As I understand it, health benefits have not yet been conclusively proved, at this point.

Here is a link to an EU blurb regarding the proposed directive.

The Telegraph's Martin Banks writes that the proposed directive will restrict the availability of e-cigarettes from those who want to kick their smoking habit. He quotes Conservative MEP, Martin Callanan:

The world has gone mad when tobacco is less regulated than products designed to end tobacco use. Thousands of people have given up smoking thanks to e-cigarettes. For the EU to over regulate them is completely counter-productive and hypocritical.

Writing for Forbes, Dr. Gilbert Ross writes:

Continuing the ban on smokeless tobacco in the EU is antithetical to public health for many reasons. Adding what amounts to a ban on e-cigarettes will tie the hands of millions of EU smokers desperate to quit, and force a like amount of successful quitters back on to lethal addictive cigarettes. The bottom line is that the current TPD draft, if approved by the nations of the EU, will allow the continued sale of pharmaceutical products sold as aids to smoking cessation, which have been shown over and over again to be largely ineffective. Cigarettes will remain available on every street corner, and lack of effective cessation aids will help the cigarette industry maintain its hugely profitable European markets. Big Pharma and Big Tobacco will be the winners, while condemning millions of smokers to cruel death or disability.


Relaxing, not tightening, strictures against harm reduction products should be implemented in the EU, and as soon as possible, as thousands die needlessly each day from inhaling smoke.

This all seems to make sense, on the face of it.

But look at this from Reuters:

"There is an unprecedentedly intense lobbying campaign from the industry going on inside the European Parliament with the express intention of trying to frustrate this legislation," a senior Irish official said on Friday, briefing journalists on condition of anonymity.


"This is completely on a scale way beyond lobbying that normally goes on."
He said officials had been surprised to discover that cigarette manufacturers and their lobbyists had knowledge of precise elements of the law barely 24 hours after they were agreed behind closed doors.

I realise that the regulation of e-cigarettes is just one element of the proposed legislation, but I still wonder.

There is a thread on the Vaping and E-Smoking Forum, which seems to carry a body of opinion which is against regulation of e-cigarettes.

Cody Pomeray

There is no doubt but that tobacco lobbyists are tugging at the arms of international governments to clamp down on e-cigarettes. But there's no doubt, either, but that the e-cigarette lobby is tugging at the other arm.

I would approach this from a whole other perspective. The hype around e-cigarettes is damping all awareness of their dangers, as your OP illustrates.
http://www.examiner.com/article/e-cigarettes-health-carcinogens-found-e-cigarettes-a-danger-study-finds

This hype and excitement around what is clearly not a safe product has allowed e-cigarettes to really push back the tide on how far we've come in campaigns to reduce harmful nicotine and associated tobacco toxin or carcinogenic consumption in the past 70 years.

There is a danger of e-cigarettes, which are demonstrably harmful products, undermining the smoking ban, and creating a whole new generation of addicts.

Legislate away, imo. This is one time where I'd be happy for the tobacco lobbyists to be bending the ear of the state.

E Cigarettes are dangerous, addictive products. That can't be said enough times. The fact that people still don't know it is reminiscent of the tobacco industry of the 1950s.

drkpower

The reality is that the dangers of ecigarettes are not yet precisely known. However, calling them 'demonstrably dangerous products' is misleading when you consider the context. They certainly may have dangers - and they need to be explored - but we are talking about a device that is at the very least has the potential to be a significant aid to smoking cessation. The fear of the ecig lobby (which is of course tiny compared to the tobacco lobby) is that the proposal to regulate within medicinal products legislation imposes too heavy a burden on a nascent industry which will inevitably lead to a monopolisation of ecigarettes within the tobacco or pharmaceutical industries who have reason not to promote ecigarettes as a cost effective alternative to smoking. That outcome would be bad for public health. Which at the end of the day should be the primary aim.

It seems to me that they should be regulated under the general product regulations. That, together with eu funded independent research should be sufficient to ensure public health and consumer safety while ensuring that a potentially very positive aid to smoking cessation remains cost effective.

I don't see how regulation under medicinal products regulation necessarily safeguards public health anymore than my own proposal.

Steve

The truth is they don't care about whether there are any health benefits or not, they just want an excuse to tax them.

I spoke to a doc about them recently - he said that nobody knows if their less harmful than real smokes and that's the gamble you take. They do nothing for the addiction, they just feed it in a different way.

If our leaders were truly concerned about health then they'd ban the use of diesel on carcinogenic grounds instead of actively promoting it because it emits less carbon when combusted.

P_1

Steve wrote: »

The truth is they don't care about whether there are any health benefits or not, they just want an excuse to tax them.

I spoke to a doc about them recently - he said that nobody knows if their less harmful than real smokes and that's the gamble you take. They do nothing for the addiction, they just feed it in a different way.

If our leaders were truly concerned about health then they'd ban the use of diesel on carcinogenic grounds instead of actively promoting it because it emits less carbon when combusted.

Have to say that I agree completely with this post. As things currently stand, a 30ml bottle of e-liquid (roughly the equivalent of 200 cigarettes) costs in and around €10. As we know 200 cigarettes would set you back roughly €90. Immediately we have two major stakeholders (government exchequers and the tobacco companies) massively out of pocket.

Pharmaceutical companies also have a lot to lose with people switching to e-cigarettes. Anybody who has tried to quit knows how expensive and ineffective the established 'quit smoking' products that they offer are.

So in a nutshell, this so-called regulation has nothing to do with any concern over the health of the general public but a lot to do with the financial health of three major stakeholders in the tobacco industry, which could provide a very interesting legal case if someone were to have the resources (and balls) to take it.

grindle

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

The hype around e-cigarettes is damping all awareness of their dangers, as your OP illustrates.
http://www.examiner.com/article/e-cigarettes-health-carcinogens-found-e-cigarettes-a-danger-study-finds

Wow. Citing the study whose authors had to backtrack and admit manipulative reporting of results (once they'd bothered to release their results after the hyperbolic and wildly inaccurate headlines were pushed to the front pages) and also messed up the method of testing leading to them analysing "vapour" produced from dry wicks? (clue:hot coil + dry wick = smoke, not vapour - some of their set-ups specifically meant some of their ecigs couldn't work properly)

Why are you so biased against them?
With facts to back up what I can only presume to be baseless assertions based on your current schtick, please.

drkpower

Seems that MEPs have today voted against the proposed reclassification of ecigarettes and nicotine juice as medicinal products.

Victor

The Telegraph's Martin Banks wrote:

The world has gone mad when tobacco is less regulated than products designed to end tobacco use.

Designed to end tobacco use or maintain nicotine addiction amongst existing users and create new addicts?

Some tobacco companies appear to be involved in e-cigarettes.

drunkmonkey

Bit of an under statement there Victor, it's the holy grail of big tobacco.
It's more addictive than normal cigarettes, there's no marketing restrictions and it's cheap to produce.

I had to leave my seat in the pub last week for a breather as all the vape smoke at the table was getting to me, I went out to get some fresh air with the smokers.
The current situation is daft, smoking is smoking is smoking.
eCigs should be taxed to the hilt just like Cigs and the same marketing and usage location restrictions should apply.

grindle

Victor wrote: »

Designed to end tobacco use or maintain nicotine addiction amongst existing users and create new addicts?

Designed to end tobacco use, Hon Lik created the first modern ecig due to his father dying of lung cancer.
Fairly shortsighted plan to addict people giving them the choice to wean down to zero nic as well. Tin-foil hat theory.

Victor wrote: »

Some tobacco companies appear to be involved in e-cigarettes.

Yup. If I owned a business I wouldn't let it die, would you? I'd want to dominate the threat.
If you could be bothered googling "history of ecig" you'll see that BT didn't get involved until last year.
A product invented 10 years ago & popularised 4/5 years ago is somehow the progeny of companies that only got involved last year?
Right this way sir...

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Bit of an under statement there Victor, it's the holy grail of big tobacco.
It's more addictive than normal cigarettes, there's no marketing restrictions and it's cheap to produce.

No, it's not their holy grail. But seeing as they're lumped with the reality of their existence they (as any business should and would) are entering the area and they'll probably dominate it unless some law comes into effect that precludes them from saturating and dominating the market.
ALL anecdotal evidence suggests they're much, much less addictive, why you keep pulling this out of your hole I'll never know.
I couldn't've gone a couple of hours without a smoke before, and if I had to the cravings were ridiculous. I've gone a full day without the ecig and apart from wanting to do something with my hands when on a break it had little effect. I missed the stimulation but had another coffee to compensate.
There are (wrongly and immorally) going to be subject to the same marketing restrictions as tobacco has in a couple of years.
They're generally cheaper to buy than tobacco due to the tobacco tax, they're much more expensive to produce than tobacco.

Does anything actually enter your head or is there a filter for all thoughts non-drunkmonkey?

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I had to leave my seat in the pub last week for a breather as all the vape smoke at the table was getting to me, I went out to get some fresh air with the smokers.
The current situation is daft, smoking is smoking is smoking.
eCigs should be taxed to the hilt just like Cigs and the same marketing and usage location restrictions should apply.

You must have to leave the kitchen when there's a pot or kettle boiling also... Cough profusely when an asthmatic takes a pull on their inhaler? Yeah?
That'd be psychosomatic. Might want to go to a psychiatrist about that.

Smoking is smoking, vapourisation is vapourisation - you're doing the anti-tobacco movement a great disservice by frothing at the gash with your irrational hate for nicotine, you're the epitome of a zealot.
A product comes along that could eradicate the use of a known killer within a generation and you're willing to handicap or ban that product due to hysterically baseless & unscientific assertions.
Wildly ignorant wouldn't quite cover it.

dublinbhoy88

grindle wrote: »

Designed to end tobacco use, Hon Lik created the first modern ecig due to his father dying of lung cancer.
Fairly shortsighted plan to addict people giving them the choice to wean down to zero nic as well. Tin-foil hat theory.

Yup. If I owned a business I wouldn't let it die, would you? I'd want to dominate the threat.
If you could be bothered googling "history of ecig" you'll see that BT didn't get involved until last year.
A product invented 10 years ago & popularised 4/5 years ago is somehow the progeny of companies that only got involved last year?
Right this way sir...


No, it's not their holy grail. But seeing as they're lumped with the reality of their existence they (as any business should and would) are entering the area and they'll probably dominate it unless some law comes into effect that precludes them from saturating and dominating the market.
ALL anecdotal evidence suggests they're much, much less addictive, why you keep pulling this out of your hole I'll never know.
I couldn't've gone a couple of hours without a smoke before, and if I had to the cravings were ridiculous. I've gone a full day without the ecig and apart from wanting to do something with my hands when on a break it had little effect. I missed the stimulation but had another coffee to compensate.
There are (wrongly and immorally) going to be subject to the same marketing restrictions as tobacco has in a couple of years.
They're generally cheaper to buy than tobacco due to the tobacco tax, they're much more expensive to produce than tobacco.

Does anything actually enter your head or is there a filter for all thoughts non-drunkmonkey?


You must have to leave the kitchen when there's a pot or kettle boiling also... Cough profusely when an asthmatic takes a pull on their inhaler? Yeah?
That'd be psychosomatic. Might want to go to a psychiatrist about that.

Smoking is smoking, vapourisation is vapourisation - you're doing the anti-tobacco movement a great disservice by frothing at the gash with your irrational hate for nicotine, you're the epitome of a zealot.
A product comes along that could eradicate the use of a known killer within a generation and you're willing to handicap or ban that product due to hysterically baseless & unscientific assertions.
Wildly ignorant wouldn't quite cover it.

He is obviously pulling your leg

grindle

dublinbhoy88 wrote: »

He is obviously pulling your leg

Victor? Maybe...

drunkmonkey? Nope, his thought processes are actually that deranged.


Moderator: this member was infracted for this post, along with previous posts in this thread.

dublinbhoy88

grindle wrote: »

Victor? Maybe...

drunkmonkey? Nope, his thought processes are actually that deranged.

Plenty of medical help available out there for those kind of illnesses

drunkmonkey

4 nicotine addicts blowing vaporised antifreeze around you in a confined space is the same as the vapour from a kettle of water or the mist from someone with asthmas inhaler, pretty naive for anyone to think so.

After seeing the venom above from Grindle, it's high time boards management took a hard look again at allowing the eCigs forum to stay in giving up smoking section. It's a disgrace that someone can come to boards looking for help to stop smoking and gets encouragement from the new nicotine lobby to take up Vape and ends up with a new addiction.
It's highly addictive and shouldn't be any way considered a cure for smoking.

Time for a new forum, "Giving up Vape"

Pat Mustard

I have only located this abstract of the article, but it shows that second hand e-cigarette vapour poses no significant risk to human health.

CONCLUSIONS: For all byproducts measured, electronic cigarettes produce very small exposures relative to tobacco cigarettes. The study indicates no apparent risk to human health from e-cigarette emissions based on the compounds analyzed.

grindle

drunkmonkey wrote: »

4 nicotine addicts blowing vaporised antifreeze around you in a confined space is the same as the vapour from a kettle of water or the mist from someone with asthmas inhaler, pretty naive for anyone to think so.

Used as an anti-freeze for food safety purposes - ever have an ice-cream? You've had some anti-freeze then.
Ever used lube for sex? Anti-freeze.
Been to a club? What? Anti-freeze?
Washed your hair?
Brushed you teeth?
Wow, shampoo and toothpaste usually contain that very same anti-freeze! It's almost as of you're intentionally trying to misguide people, how unusual and unlike such a fine, upstanding human.

drunkmonkey wrote: »

After seeing the venom above from Grindle, it's high time boards management took a hard look again at allowing the eCigs forum to stay in giving up smoking section. It's a disgrace that someone can come to boards looking for help to stop smoking and gets encouragement from the new nicotine lobby to take up Vape and ends up with a new addiction.
It's highly addictive and shouldn't be any way considered a cure for smoking.

Time for a new forum, "Giving up Vape"

The clue is in the name. Try to follow the words.
Giving.
Up.
Smoking. That's not so hard to grasp is it?

And it is FAR less addictive. How many times does this have to be repeated?
Also, ecigs aren't prone to causing suicidal thoughts unlike your favoured quitting method, Champix.

Pat Mustard

grindle wrote: »

And it is FAR less addictive. How many times does this have to be repeated?

Posters on this forum have no idea whether any assertion is correct or not, until it can be supported by linking to evidence from reliable sources.

Can you link to a study from a peer reviewed scientific/medical journal which conclusively shows that e-cigarettes are less addictive than cigarettes?

Pubmed may be a start if you are aware of such a study.

drkpower

Obviously you and Grindle are carrying forward a long-held dispute (and perhaps animosity towards each other) from elsewhere so i will ignore the rest of your post which was mainly sniping.

drunkmonkey wrote: »

It's highly addictive and shouldn't be any way considered a cure for smoking.

But on this point, im sure you are aware that nicotine replacing therapy is not new. Ecigs are simply a different mechanism; many would say a far more effective mechanism in that they mimic smoking more closely, and are therefore more likely to keep people off cigarettes.

Harm is, of course, relative. While nicotine is harmful, when placed beside the harm caused by tar etc it is like comparing the harm caused by a pipe bomb vs a nuclear bomb.

So while you are right to say that ecigs are addictive, and yes, they are 'harmful', both of those points are effectively pointless in the context in which they are used.

What you need to show if you want to convince anyone is either
(1) they are anywhere near as harmful as real cigarettes; or
(2) they are uttely ineffective as a smoking cessation aid; or
(3) they are attracting a significant cohort of non-smokers and acting as a 'gateway' to smoking

If you have anything to show any of the above, you are worth listening to; otherwise, you are just a noise in the crowd.

drunkmonkey

drkpower wrote: »

What you need to show if you want to convince anyone is either
(1) they are anywhere near as harmful as real cigarettes; or
(2) they are uttely ineffective as a smoking cessation aid; or
(3) they are attracting a significant cohort of non-smokers and acting as a 'gateway' to smoking

Grindle and me have a difference in opinion about what constitutes giving up smoking, nothing more to it and certainly nothing to warrant the abuse he threw above.

On your points above the data just isn't there to prove them one way or another but for what I've seen,heard and experienced.

(1) they seem to be safer than smoking cigarettes, that does not mean they are safe. There also unregulated and there are no safety standards and testing in place.

(2) They seem utterly useless at getting people off their nicotine addiction, so no they don't cure the root cause of smoking. They remove some or the worse sides to smoking but don't cure it.

(3) I've witnessed teenagers pass around eCigs at lunch time from school, that tells me a real cigarette is either not available or the school kids are now getting addicted to eCigs. It seems pretty wide spread just have a look at any secondary school kids these days.

There is no thread in the eCig forum about giving up vape completely and there are no users encouraging each other to quit.

The message that Nicotine is highly addictive and it's Nicotine that people need to break the addiction with is being completely lost in the new found fame or eCigs.

Esoteric_

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Grindle and me have a difference in opinion about what constitutes giving up smoking, nothing more to it and certainly nothing to warrant the abuse he threw above.

On your points above the data just isn't there to prove them one way or another but for what I've seen,heard and experienced.

(1) they seem to be safer than smoking cigarettes, that does not mean they are safe. There also unregulated and there are no safety standards and testing in place.

(2) They seem utterly useless at getting people off their nicotine addiction, so no they don't cure the root cause of smoking. They remove some or the worse sides to smoking but don't cure it.

(3) I've witnessed teenagers pass around eCigs at lunch time from school, that tells me a real cigarette is either not available or the school kids are now getting addicted to eCigs. It seems pretty wide spread just have a look at any secondary school kids these days.

There is no thread in the eCig forum about giving up vape completely and there are no users encouraging each other to quit.

The message that Nicotine is highly addictive and it's Nicotine that people need to break the addiction with is being completely lost in the new found fame or eCigs.

The reason for the bolded part is simple enough, from what I've experienced in work (I work for an electronic cigarette retailer) - parents buy them for their kids. Really difficult to imagine, and believe me, I was shocked when parents approached me wanting to buy them for their children. The part that really shakened me is that in all bar one case, the mothers said it was just to stop the kid from getting detention, they'd still have real cigarettes at home.

I refuse to sell them to minors or their parents, and ask for ID if somebody looks young, but not all retailers are as scrupulous, unfortunately.

drkpower

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Grindle and me have a difference in opinion about what constitutes giving up smoking, nothing more to it and certainly nothing to warrant the abuse he threw above.

On your points above the data just isn't there to prove them one way or another but for what I've seen,heard and experienced.

(1) they seem to be safer than smoking cigarettes, that does not mean they are safe. There also unregulated and there are no safety standards and testing in place.

(2) They seem utterly useless at getting people off their nicotine addiction, so no they don't cure the root cause of smoking. They remove some or the worse sides to smoking but don't cure it.

(3) I've witnessed teenagers pass around eCigs at lunch time from school, that tells me a real cigarette is either not available or the school kids are now getting addicted to eCigs. It seems pretty wide spread just have a look at any secondary school kids these days.

There is no thread in the eCig forum about giving up vape completely and there are no users encouraging each other to quit.

The message that Nicotine is highly addictive and it's Nicotine that people need to break the addiction with is being completely lost in the new found fame or eCigs.

So to summarise your points:
On 1. They are safer than cigarettes.
On 2. To you, they seem useless. But would you accept that to many others, they seem quite effective.

From my own experience, for instance, I haven't smoked a single cigarette after 10 months, not even tempted (despite a lads weekend to New York and Vegas in that 10 months!). And in that time I have gone from 24 mg juice to 6mg and using the ecig half the time overall. Next step is 0mg and then only with pints. And then nothing.

On 3. I'm not sure what that adds when we don't know if these kids smoked usually or before. Certainly if the evidence shows that cigs are introducing a significant cohort to nicotine, or the real thing, I would be concerned but I will wait to see if that actually is the case.

Finally, why would it be advantageous to public health to have cigs and juice regulated under medicinal products legislation rather than under general product regulations particularly if that is accompanied by eu funded research on their possible dangers?

drunkmonkey

I think Esoteric experience backs up what I witness on a daily basis. It is happening.

@dkrpower, I agree I don't see any point in making them medicinal products or allowing them to be marketed and sold as such.
Regulate and tax them the same as cigarettes, id make them the same price just to not allow people to fall into a false sense of security with them.
You yourself are 10mts on them, and still have the smokers mindset of "I'll give them up tomorrow" it never happens. Just quit, start getting those nicotine levels down tomorrow.
I don't envy you, it's probably one of the hardest things you'll ever do.

Esoteric_

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I think Esoteric experience backs up what I witness on a daily basis. It is happening.

@dkrpower, I agree I don't see any point in making them medicinal products or allowing them to be marketed and sold as such.
Regulate and tax them the same as cigarettes, id make them the same price just to not allow people to fall into a false sense of security with them.
You yourself are 10mts on them, and still have the smokers mindset of "I'll give them up tomorrow" it never happens. Just quit, start getting those nicotine levels down tomorrow.
I don't envy you, it's probably one of the hardest things you'll ever do.

Well no, it completely disregards your point that they are encouraging a generation of people who were previously non smokers. Kids who have their parents buy them for them were ALREADY smokers.

drkpower

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I think Esoteric experience backs up what I witness on a daily basis. It is happening.

@dkrpower, I agree I don't see any point in making them medicinal products or allowing them to be marketed and sold as such.
Regulate and tax them the same as cigarettes, id make them the same price just to not allow people to fall into a false sense of security with them.
You yourself are 10mts on them, and still have the smokers mindset of "I'll give them up tomorrow" it never happens. Just quit, start getting those nicotine levels down tomorrow.
I don't envy you, it's probably one of the hardest things you'll ever do.

Why would you tax them to the level of cigarettes? You have accepted that they are nowhere near as dangerous as cigarettes. Even if they have a small hope of helping people to give up, taxing them at that level would serve no purpose.

As for myself, from the very beginning, I had a one year plan. I am directly on target. I'll fill you in in 3 months as to whether I am fully off ecig as well. But even if I am not, surely i am better off on an ecig at 6mg than on 20 a day?

You seem to have a somewhat blinkered view of this and rather than letting the evidence (which is evolving) lead you to a solution, you have started with a preordained solution and are reading the evidence in that light.

Pat Mustard

drunkmonkey wrote: »

tax them the same as cigarettes, id make them the same price just to not allow people to fall into a false sense of security with them.

Certain smokers are currently switching to use e-cigarettes instead of cigarettes. Much like margarine and butter, e-cigarettes appear to be substitute goods for cigarettes. I am not suggesting that they are perfect substitutes.

If the price of e-cigarettes increases, we could reasonably expect that demand for cigarettes should increase, as fewer smokers purchase e-cigarettes and more of them purchase cigarettes instead.

Surely, this scenario should not be encouraged.

A substitute good, in contrast to a complementary good, is a good with a positive cross elasticity of demand. This means a good's demand is increased when the price of another good is increased. Conversely, the demand for a good is decreased when the price of another good is decreased. If goods A and B are substitutes, an increase in the price of A will result in a leftward movement along the demand curve of A and cause the demand curve for B to shift out. A decrease in the price of A will result in a rightward movement along the demand curve of A and cause the demand curve for B to shift in.

drunkmonkey

I get you point Mustard but Isn't the ideal scenario one that doesn't involve being a slave to nicotine. That's the goal I see.
Tax Cigarettes and Variants such as eCigs into the history books.
Taxing one highly to encourage the other is madness. There both highly addictive.

There are no benefits of either, granted one has a benefit over the other but that had no benefit in the first place.
I can't think of one reason anybody would use either regularly for any reason but to feed an addiction.

Pat Mustard

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Isn't the ideal scenario one that doesn't involve being a slave to nicotine. That's the goal I see.

That doesn't sound practical to me. Can you point to a country where nicotine addiction has been eradicated, or even mostly eradicated, by taxation?

drunkmonkey wrote: »

There are no benefits of either, granted one has a benefit over the other but that had no benefit in the first place.

What you propose would tar both goods with the same brush. Currently, I know of no good evidence to suggest that e-cigarettes are as harmful as cigarettes, do you? We already know that many of the harmful ingredients of cigarettes are not used in the solutions used in e-cigarettes. Conversely, the dangers of cigarettes are well known, yet you suggest treating both goods the same.

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Taxing one highly to encourage the other is madness.

You previously stated that you were in favour of taxing them both equally, so it seems incongruous that you appear to condemn the idea, subsequently. However, it seems that you propose to fully eradicate demand for both goods by means of taxation, so we will move on to that.

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Tax Cigarettes and Variants such as eCigs into the history books.

This sounds very much like you propose to raise the tax on cigarettes and e-cigarettes so high as to effectively eradicate demand.

I have no difficulty with raising tax on cigarettes in order to reduce demand, in theory, as far as may be practicable. I don't know what that level of tax should be, as I'm no economist. I'm not in favour of raising tax on e-cigarettes, at least until more is known about them. However, I don't think that your idea is practical.

Economists might point to the price elasticity of demand (PED). Cigarettes are relatively demand inelastic (wikipedia quotes Perloff*) with general PED figures ranging from 0.3 to 0.6.

Being relatively demand inelastic, price increases will have a relatively small effect on demand for cigarettes when compared to goods which are relatively demand elastic, such as restaurant dinners. Although if you increase the price, you will reduce demand, it seems likely that you would have to tax the hell out of cigarettes (and e-cigarettes as well, being substitute goods for cigarettes) in order to effectively stop overall demand.

I will suggest two reasons why I think that this probably has not been done already:
1. The government wants the revenue.
2. If the tax on legally available cigarettes and e-cigarettes goes so high as to effectively all but stop demand, only richer people would be able to afford to smoke, legally. Effectively, it would be Prohibition, which didn't work out well in the USA. In such a situation, the black market would be likely to flourish, by supplying cigarettes at lower prices.

An interesting question might arise as to who might become the next Nucky Thompson. Retired Republican figures might be interested. I like Boardwalk Empire on the TV, but I wouldn't like to see it become reality in 21st century Ireland.:D



*Perloff, J. (2008). Microeconomic Theory & Applications with Calculus, p.97, Pearson. ISBN 978-0-321-27794-7.

Steve

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I get you point Mustard but Isn't the ideal scenario one that doesn't involve being a slave to nicotine. That's the goal I see.

In the context of the forum, from your point of view, what difference is there between e-cigs (not legally a medicinal product) and nicotine patches & chewing gum etc (legally classed as medicinal products)?
They all deliver nicotine and feed the drug addiction.

Tax Cigarettes and Variants such as eCigs into the history books.
Taxing one highly to encourage the other is madness. There both highly addictive.

By your reasoning, nicotine patches and other official stop smoking products should also be 'taxed into the history books.' They all contain nicotine and are addictive.

There are no benefits of either, granted one has a benefit over the other but that had no benefit in the first place.

Which is it? no benefits or some benefits? Can't be both.

I can't think of one reason anybody would use either regularly for any reason but to feed an addiction.

Aha, some sense at last! I suggest you google "addiction" and it might shed some light on it.

Something to note: "addiction" means dependancy in most cases. Addiction is not always a bad thing. For example, a human's addiction to oxygen is one of the strongest known. When deprived of it, well, hold your breath and after a while you'll begin to feel the same craving as any addict.

Victor

Steve wrote: »

In the context of the forum, from your point of view, what difference is there between e-cigs (not legally a medicinal product) and nicotine patches & chewing gum etc (legally classed as medicinal products)?
They all deliver nicotine and feed the drug addiction.

Not quite the same. surely e-cigs reinforce the whole hand-mouth thing.

drkpower

Victor wrote: »

Not quite the same. surely e-cigs reinforce the whole hand-mouth thing.

As do nicorette inhalers (albeit less effectively).

drunkmonkey

Steve wrote: »

Something to note: "addiction" means dependancy in most cases. Addiction is not always a bad thing. For example, a human's addiction to oxygen is one of the strongest known. When deprived of it, well, hold your breath and after a while you'll begin to feel the same craving as any addict.

Are you some how trying to spin an addiction to Nicotine as a good thing? What complete nonsense.

As for comparing nicotette gum and patches to vape is another crock of crap both of them have an exit strategy, vape doesn't
Take power above with his 1 year plan he's living in a fantasy land, if someone tried some other method of stopping smoking it would be considered a failure at this stage.

It really is a case of the blind leading the blind.

Esoteric_

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Are you some how trying to spin an addiction to Nicotine as a good thing? What complete nonsense.

As for comparing nicotette gum and patches to vape is another crock of crap both of them have an exit strategy, vape doesn't
Take power above with his 1 year plan he's living in a fantasy land, if someone tried some other method of stopping smoking it would be considered a failure at this stage.

It really is a case of the blind leading the blind.

Vaping does have a method to stop. Wean down to a nicotine free. As it stands, plenty of people don't want to stop vaping, they enjoy smoking and see vaping as a better alternative. In my line of work, out of people who buy starter kits, about 90% of them switch successfully to vaping from smoking, and I'd estimate from my customer base that about 20% have now weaned off of vaping completely, starting on a high strength and eventually coming down the strengths and then quitting vaping completely. Please educate yourself if you're going to make unfounded statements like that.

drunkmonkey

Esoteric_ wrote: »

Vaping does have a method to stop. Wean down to a nicotine free. As it stands, plenty of people don't want to stop vaping, they enjoy smoking and see vaping as a better alternative.

Most people I know don't wean down, your 20% figure doesn't agree with my friends and family who are still vaping over 2 years later. As for most of the posters in the giving up smoking form, there forever weaning down but very few quit.
If we use power as an example, it's a one year plan that involves him still having to stop the habit of smoking, that is going to be next near impossible for him because of the nature of eCigs.
(1) he considers them harmless (2) he enjoys the art of smoking. (3) he likes the flavour .
I put it to you he would have been more motivated to end his nicotine addiction completely if it weren't for the lazy substitute of eCigs.

Your completely correct in your observation that people don't want to stop smoking. The reason being an addiction to nicotine not a love of smoking. People are being mislead with this new false prophet.

My brother freaks when he can't find his inhaler just like a man raging for a cigarette. He's 100% addicted just as he was to cigarettes and he has no intention of quitting. At least he used to try with cigarettes no he doesn't even bother.

Esoteric_

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Most people I know don't wean down, your 20% figure doesn't agree with my friends and family who are still vaping over 2 years later. As for most of the posters in the giving up smoking form, there forever weaning down but very few quit.
If we use power as an example, it's a one year plan that involves him still having to stop the habit of smoking, that is going to be next near impossible for him because of the nature of eCigs.
(1) he considers them harmless (2) he enjoys the art of smoking. (3) he likes the flavour .
I put it to you he would have been more motivated to end his nicotine addiction completely if it weren't for the lazy substitute of eCigs.

Your completely correct in your observation that people don't want to stop smoking. The reason being an addiction to nicotine not a love of smoking. People are being mislead with this new false prophet.

My brother freaks when he can't find his inhaler just like a man raging for a cigarette. He's 100% addicted just as he was to cigarettes and he has no intention of quitting. At least he used to try with cigarettes no he doesn't even bother.

Your family and friends are a very small sample in comparison to my average of 400-500 customers per week. I'm going based on what I've seen. Like ANY method used to quit smoking, it requires will power and a desire to quit. I'd gone from a 24mg to a nicotine free. I still use my nicotine free because although I'm no longer addicted to nicotine, I enjoy the feeling of having a cigarette.

either way, vaping is a much better alternative to cigarettes, and if you have such a vendetta against them I'd recommend you stop reading the vaping sub-forum!

hullaballoo

What's wrong with people choosing to maintain their addiction to nicotine if they are doing so in a way that is safer for them than smoking?

Is this not a bit like saying heroin addicts can't have methadone because they will still be addicted to an opiate? Irrespective of the social and health benefits of substituting one for the other, you can't have either because you're still an addict.

I would be uncomfortable with that sort of policy.

drkpower

drunkmonkey wrote: »

If we use power as an example, it's a one year plan that involves him still having to stop the habit of smoking, that is going to be next near impossible for him because of the nature of eCigs.
(1) he considers them harmless (2) he enjoys the art of smoking. (3) he likes the flavour .
I put it to you he would have been more motivated to end his nicotine addiction completely if it weren't for the lazy substitute of eCigs. .

Well, if you are going to use me as an example..... I have tried to give up my nicotine addiction (ie. cigarettes) many times. All have failed. This has succeeded (so far). And to me, what is crucially important; it was easy. Yes, easy; really easy. I literally have not looked back. And weaning from 24mg strength to 6mg; thats been easy too; really really easy. So, I am anticipating that step 3 (moving to 0mg juice) and step 4 (getting rid of the ecig entirely) shouldnt be hugely difficult. But even if it is, and i end up on the ecig forever, i will be infinitely better off than i was 11 months ago. That is the crucial factor and one that you have shut your eyes too.

You are right, I enjoy the art of smoking and the flavour; but I have enjoyed many things in my life that I have stopped when i have realised that the cons outwiegh the pros (the pub on a Sunday afternoon for instance, i loved that as a student, but when it became more trouble than it was worth, i stopped gradually).

As for whether i consider them harmless, well to be honest, i dealt with this already in the thread if you had stopped to look. Yes, they cause harm, but they are not even in the same league as cigarettes. And that is the key issue that you cant/wont face. Even if every smoker in the world moved to ecigs tomorrow, and even if the harm of ecigs was far worse than we expect, the public health benefit would be enormous.

Monkey, you seem to have developed an irrational and dogmatic view towards ecigs. By equating ecigs and cigarettes as being equally bad, you have simply robbed yourself of any credibility. Thats a shame because you clearly have an interest in the subject and if you could only be a little more rational and directed in your criticisms, people might listen to you. But they wont; and nor will I. So for that reason, I'm not going to bother replying to you anymore. I dont think it will get either of us anywhere.

Steve

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Are you some how trying to spin an addiction to Nicotine as a good thing? What complete nonsense.

As for comparing nicotette gum and patches to vape is another crock of crap both of them have an exit strategy, vape doesn't
Take power above with his 1 year plan he's living in a fantasy land, if someone tried some other method of stopping smoking it would be considered a failure at this stage.

It really is a case of the blind leading the blind.

I never said it was a good thing.
There is no proof anywhere that I have found to say that nicotine, in isolation, is harmful in any way other than it is addictive. It's all the other crap in cigarettes that get you.

Same can be said of caffeine if you think about it.

Your refusal to discuss the topic objectively is not making me want to continue this so I wish you well in your quest

tommy2bad

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Most people I know don't wean down, your 20% figure doesn't agree with my friends and family who are still vaping over 2 years later. As for most of the posters in the giving up smoking form, there forever weaning down but very few quit.
Quit what? smoking or nicotine? or the behavior acociated with inhaling from a cylindrical object?
If we use power as an example, it's a one year plan that involves him still having to stop the habit of smoking, that is going to be next near impossible for him because of the nature of eCigs.
So it is the habit you object to! I would have thought your concern would be for health not habits
(1) he considers them harmless (2) he enjoys the art of smoking. (3) he likes the flavour .
So he is enjoying himself and you don't think he should?
I put it to you he would have been more motivated to end his nicotine addiction completely if it weren't for the lazy substitute of eCigs.
Well the motivation to quit smoking didn't work until he discovered ecigs so your point is moot.
Your completely correct in your observation that people don't want to stop smoking. The reason being an addiction to nicotine not a love of smoking. People are being mislead with this new false prophet.
Mislead? how? they know that it's an alternative to a known harmful delivery method for a drug they enjoy recreational. If we enjoyed caffeine by smoking Coffey beans would you object to the new fangled method of boiling them and drinking the infused water?
My brother freaks when he can't find his inhaler just like a man raging for a cigarette. He's 100% addicted just as he was to cigarettes and he has no intention of quitting. At least he used to try with cigarettes no he doesn't even bother.

Or he freaks like a man raging to avoid a cigarette.!
I don't think you understand the concept of harm reduction. It's whare you subistute a less harmful product for a more harmful one. In the case of ecigs the reduction is in the order of 99 times less harmful.
If you cared about your brother at all you would be happy he no longer smokes and stop getting upset about his 'habit'. It has no effect on you other than aesthetically.

Duno why this is so hard for some people. Smoking kills about half of it users, we need to stop this happening. Substituting ecigs for tobacco cigs would bring the death rate down to about the same level as an entire population of non smokers.
I suspect that before ecig the anti smoking rhetoric went too far towords demonizing both nicotine and the behavior associated with smoking, banning liquorice pipes and sweet cigerettes on the basis of the example they set. At the time it seemed like the only option to reduce the harm and a few lies to help the cause was understandable but now that a solution to the problem comes along and all that work seems like it will backfire and actually trap smokers in their habit, the one that kills them.
Or it could be that anti smoking zealots are just annoyed that smokers have found a way to both enjoy nicotine and thumb their noses at them.

Pat Mustard

tommy2bad wrote: »

Substituting ecigs for tobacco cigs would bring the death rate down to about the same level as an entire population of non smokers.

I don't think that the e-cigarette lobby are saying this. Can you support this with a link to a credible scientific source?

drkpower

The Mustard wrote: »

I don't think that the e-cigarette lobby are saying this. Can you support this with a link to a credible scientific source?

It would seem to the implication of the ecig lobby's position, namely that e-cigs are not carcinogenic and that their only active ingredient is nicotine which doesnt kill people.

Whether that is sustainable is another question of course and i dont think you will find any completed studies that will tell you definitively whether ecigs have no link to cancer, or not. Yet.

hullaballoo

drkpower wrote: »

It would seem to the implication of the ecig lobby's position, namely that e-cigs are not carcinogenic and that their only active ingredient is nicotine which doesnt kill people.

I'm in favour of eCigarettes because of the obvious benefits of them over and above tobacco but what I've highlighted above is incorrect.

Nicotine is poisonous in and of itself even in small doses with lengthy exposure. In larger doses it is fatal. It is part of the reason smoking is linked in particular with heart problems.

grindle

Dr. Farsalinos was sceptical of ecigs until he started testing them, then he made the switch himself.

Dr. Michael Siegel is one of the most influential researchers into the damage of smoking and specifically the damage of second-hand smoke - he has testified against big tobacco in several class-action lawsuits including the $145 billion Howard Engle case. If you read just about any post on ecigs he mentions the incredulity of banning or neutering them when they can improve and save so many lives.

Dr. Richard Carmona was formerly the US Surgeon General and works for NJoy in an advisory capacity (there are a few cases of this, experts in the field who once they leave political positions they grow some scruples).

Google "ecigs save lives" or "smoke without fire" if you think our lobby doesn't state all of this and more - people are allowed to say lives will be saved, businesses can't because of a broken distinction that requires you to believe a cigarette is a disease, therefore anything that helps you quit a cigarette is medicine (seriously twisted logic right there, a child couldn't begin to make sense of it).

While we don't have long term studies yet due to our human inability to fit a long term into a short term, there has to be evidence against something for the amount of squalling there has been about ecigs.
Pfizer settled out of court this year for their drug 'Champix/Chantix's highly suspected role in at least 2,700 deaths/suicides, possibly over 3,000.
Now, if I believed my drug was not responsible for those suicides I would not pay that settlement. How much did we hear of this story in the media compared to ecigs?
$273 million settlement for 2,700 suicides... Not much heard.
Ecigs, killer of pharma's revolving door policy - "OHMYGAWWWD, so dangeroussssss....!"
If that doesn't seem fishy to you, I don't know what to say.
Be sceptical of both sides, but read up on both sides and don't get swayed by buzzwords. There isn't any debate to be had - research to be done, yes, always - debate about their safety comparable to cigarettes?
Laughable.

tommy2bad

The Mustard wrote: »

I don't think that the e-cigarette lobby are saying this. Can you support this with a link to a credible scientific source?

No time to google the paper but this is based on ecigs having the same risk as snus which have the same statistical risk profile as not smoking.
Remember that this assessment is based on the ingredients and what we know now about them. Long term use of nicotine is not an issue population health wise, PG and VG not to mention the flavors used have no long term data for inhalation. But we can make a good assessment of the risk and it's such that we should alow the substitution of smoking with lower risk alternatives. Snus is a dead end politically but we have a chance to replicate it's success in Sweden through the rest of the world with Ecigs. Subject to ongoing study and reporting so as to evaluated long term risk.
Remember that 'safe' is always a relative term, nothing is 100% risk free, we have baterys exploding in laptops mobile phones and ecigs. We have air contamination from air fresheners, car exhausts and people breathing never mind radon. We judge the risk against the benefit and make a call as to whether one outweighs the other.
This is a good paper to start looking at harm reduction, specificaly ecigs.
http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/pdf/1477-7517-10-19.pdf

tommy2bad

hullaballoo wrote: »

I'm in favour of eCigarettes because of the obvious benefits of them over and above tobacco but what I've highlighted above is incorrect.

Nicotine is poisonous in and of itself even in small doses with lengthy exposure. In larger doses it is fatal. It is part of the reason smoking is linked in particular with heart problems.

Ahem this is just as true of anything. The fact that it's the dose that makes the poison seem to be missing from all references to the toxicity of nicotine.
The amounts ingested by smokers or snus users or ecig users is not poisonous.
Even at that the currently accepted LD50 for nicotine may be wildly inaccurate.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00204-013-1127-0/fulltext.html

drkpower

hullaballoo wrote: »

I'm in favour of eCigarettes because of the obvious benefits of them over and above tobacco but what I've highlighted above is incorrect.

Nicotine is poisonous in and of itself even in small doses with lengthy exposure. In larger doses it is fatal. It is part of the reason smoking is linked in particular with heart problems.

The dose makes the poison, as they say. The risks posed by nicotine are not zero but they are very small. And in the context of this discussion, they are negligible.

Pat Mustard

grindle wrote: »

Dr. Farsalinos was sceptical of ecigs until he started testing them, then he made the switch himself.

Dr. Michael Siegel is one of the most influential researchers into the damage of smoking and specifically the damage of second-hand smoke - he has testified against big tobacco in several class-action lawsuits including the $145 billion Howard Engle case. If you read just about any post on ecigs he mentions the incredulity of banning or neutering them when they can improve and save so many lives.

Thanks for the post, grindle. Interesting to see where you are getting your perspective.

I'm not sure if you were replying to me, but if you were, I didn't find material on e-cigarettes being far less addictive than cigarettes.

Also, I didn't open the first link, the one referring to Dr. Farsalinos. My web of trust firefox addon popped up a message with a virus/malware warning in relation to that site.

tommy2bad

drkpower;
As for whether i consider them harmless, well to be honest, i dealt with this already in the thread if you had stopped to look. Yes, they cause harm,

Broad claim, can you elaborate on the harm they cause and define harm, paper cut level or chainsaw to the groin level?
Yes I'm being facetious but this use of words like harm and addict and safe without any accurate context is bedeviling discussions about e cigerettes.

tommy2bad

The Mustard;
I didn't find material on e-cigarettes being far less addictive than cigarettes.

Theirs some coverage in the PDF I liked to.
http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/pdf/1477-7517-10-19.pdf
Nothing conclusive but as this is the first time we have any study on the adictiveness of nicotine absent smoking that's not surprising.

Pat Mustard

tommy2bad wrote: »

Theirs some coverage in the PDF I liked to.
http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/pdf/1477-7517-10-19.pdf
Nothing conclusive but as this is the first time we have any study on the adictiveness of nicotine absent smoking that's not surprising.

Interesting. P.4

The issue of abuse liability has been also used by
anti THR supporters to warn about potential risks of
e-cigarettes. However, in a recent randomized controlled
trial of 300 smokers [58], only 26.9% of those who switched
to e-cigs resulting in complete smoking abstinence were
still using the product by the end of the observational
period (week-52) with the 73.1% of users stopping vaping
as well. That many regular vapers were able to free
themselves also from the behavioral component of
smoking that was being reproduced by vaping the
product under investigation, indicates that the e-cigarettes
are not very "addictive"

Pat Mustard

Extract from article on the Lancet (free to join):

"Should e-cigarettes be regulated as a medicinal device?"

...in terms of the safety of ECs, there is no credible risk that normally used ECs can poison the user with nicotine. Much more dangerous chemicals such as bleach rely on packaging and common sense rather than on medicinal licensing...

...regarding attracting non-smokers and renormalising smoking, so far there are very few cases of never smokers using ECs regularly whereas many smokers have switched to ECs. These electronic products have not been attracting children, and, although sales to children should be banned, medicinal licensing is not needed to achieve this aim. Many of the never smokers are likely to try smoking tobacco, so it would be neither surprising nor a public health problem if some tried ECs instead.

The above article quotes ASH in the UK in relation to use of e-cigarettes by children:

Among children who have heard of e-cigarettes, sustained use is rare
and confined to children who currently or have previously smoked.

Of those who had heard of e-cigarettes, 7% (11% among 16-18 year olds) had
tried e-cigarettes at least once. Two percent reported using them monthly or
weekly. Among the 8% of children who reported some use of e-cigarettes,
only 28% had used them in the last month. Of those who had never smoked
a cigarette, 99% reported never having tried e-cigarettes and the remaining
1% reported having tried them “once or twice”. We found no evidence of
regular e-cigarette use among children who have never smoked or who have
only tried smoking once.

ASH had this to say in relation to adult use of e-cigarettes:

Use has increased among smokers and ex-smokers but not among those who have never smoked.
Use has increased steadily among smokers
and ex-smokers but current use among those who have never smoked
remains 0%

However, the Centres for Disease Control (CDC) in the USA had this to say:

E-cigarette experimentation and recent use doubled among U.S. middle and high school students during 2011–2012, resulting in an estimated 1.78 million students having ever used e-cigarettes as of 2012. Moreover, in 2012, an estimated 160,000 students who reported ever using e-cigarettes had never used conventional cigarettes. This is a serious concern because the overall impact of e-cigarette use on public health remains uncertain. In youths, concerns include the potential negative impact of nicotine on adolescent brain development, as well as the risk for nicotine addiction and initiation of the use of conventional cigarettes or other tobacco products.

tommy2bad

Well what the CDC didn't say was that they asked about ever use not regular use. Also as they conducted the survay on Middle and high school students a lot of the second year data included people from the first year so some double counting was going on. They didn't exactly spell out the fact that a lot of the ecig use was among current smokers or that ever use of tobacco products was higher that ever use of ecigs in the same cohort.
Nor did they compair it to the use of alcholl in the same group.
Cherry picking describes the 'findings' best.
The difference was ASH UK wanted ecigs as licensed products and the CDC want them as tobacco products. Both sides presented their results as would best serve their end goals.