European Ban on E-Cigs?

iba · 17-12-2013 2:38pm

tommy2bad wrote: »

Some more detail here;
http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/2013/december/e-cigarette-decision-kicked-to-member-states/79100.aspx
The problem with this compromise is it moves regulation from parliament to the commission from now on. The commission as we know are so against ecigs as are the member country governments that this effectly is a cart blanch for them to regulate them out of existence. The medicalization of ecigs isn't gone away, now any state can declare them medicinal and ignore the EU directive. Worse if 3 members ban refilliables then they all must to ensure market harmonization.

The whole thing has to go back to parliament as this went farther than the commission had authority to do so it might get some further amendments, I doubt it though as the main objective for the EUP is getting the actual cigarettes part of the tpd done and dusted. We have been out maneuvered.

I haven't seen any mention of the advertising restrictions or anything else so it could be worse than what we see here.
We have a fight on our hands to just get what is in this proposal as any government can add restrictions as they see fit. What they can't do is take a more lenient approach even if they wanted to.

No because 1) ecigs can still fall under medical regs in any state that decides to do so. 2) for two years unless 3 states decide to ban them,then all must ban them 3) unless individual states reduce the number of flavors alowd 4) 20 is too low for anyone starting out and no good for diy, black market on the way.
Basically what this dose is set maximum limits on ecigs and leaves the rest to member states.

Points taken; however those points were not outlined in the article I read and referred to.

BTW I have never gone higher than 18mg and I smoked Golden Virginia with no filters.

StickyIcky · 17-12-2013 2:41pm

iba wrote: »

Points taken; however those points were not outlined in the article I read and referred to.

BTW I have never gone higher than 18mg and I smoked Golden Virginia with no filters.

You may not have but the people that do do and the people that find 18mg not strong enough are not going to benefit from this.

What we should be focusing on is not what we as individuals want and are happy with because that's a very ego centric way of looking at this.

We need to be focusing on what they're trying to take away from us as a collective and act as a collective.

First they came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the Socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.

iba · 17-12-2013 2:43pm

What does the 1st sentence in the 4th para mean - copied below:

'The deal would allow refillable cartridges, but they must be in self-contained packets that would avoid spilling'

And this also from teh 4th para is well small:

'Cartridges could have a maximum size of 1ml containing up to 20mg of nicotine, roughly equivalent to one pack of cigarettes'.

I would be refilling every few hours.

iba · 17-12-2013 3:35pm

Is it officials from D/Health that attend this working group?

What is the name of the working group?

Does anyone know where to get a copy of the latest proposal i.e. with the latest amendements made at working group level?

Does anyone know what is the Irish position on this proposal?

Thanks

tommy2bad · 17-12-2013 4:47pm

iba wrote: »

Is it officials from D/Health that attend this working group?

What is the name of the working group?

Not sure how the working group will pan out. It could be 'experts' from the various health bodies or it could be just a few civil serpents from within the eu. No idea probably working group on new and novel tobacco products, don't tend to get a lot of imagination in these things.

iba wrote: »

Does anyone know where to get a copy of the latest proposal i.e. with the latest amendements made at working group level?

The deal is expected to be confirmed in COREPER tomorrow and will then be voted on in the European Parliament in spring next year.

iba wrote: »

Does anyone know what is the Irish position on this proposal?

Thanks

James Rielly has strongly stated that his position is medical authorization and prescription only. The various health groups are in support of this obviously and senator John Crown is campaigning strongly against tobacco, he will go for medical regs too. iIrc he said so on Morning Ireland a few weeks ago.

tommy2bad · 17-12-2013 4:52pm

iba wrote: »

What does the 1st sentence in the 4th para mean - copied below:

'The deal would allow refillable cartridges, but they must be in self-contained packets that would avoid spilling'

Means they don't have a clue what a refillable is!

iba wrote: »

And this also from teh 4th para is well small:

'Cartridges could have a maximum size of 1ml containing up to 20mg of nicotine, roughly equivalent to one pack of cigarettes'.

I would be refilling every few hours.

It clears up the maximum nic content and volume restrictions, we now know that only 1 ml sized cartos can be sold with a max 20mg nic.
The 20 cig equivalent is based on nothing more than the notion that a cig contains 1 mg nic. I knew the cig equivalent claims of the cigalike vendors would come back to bite us.
Oh and I suspect it's put their to justifiy taxing each carto at the same rate as 20 fags. But I'm a cynical bastard.

DubTony · 17-12-2013 5:39pm

tommy2bad wrote: »

Oh and I suspect it's put their to justifiy taxing each carto at the same rate as 20 fags. But I'm a cynical bastard.

And if that happens it will remove one of the incentives for people to give up cigarettes in favour of vaping. My first reason for changing was to see if I could save money. If the VIP starter pack I got to begin with had been comparable to a "similar" amount of cigarettes, I'd never have gotten started, and would probably still be making a daily trip to the local Spar.

iba · 17-12-2013 5:50pm

tommy2bad wrote: »

Not sure how the working group will pan out. It could be 'experts' from the various health bodies or it could be just a few civil serpents from within the eu. No idea probably working group on new and novel tobacco products, don't tend to get a lot of imagination in these things.

The deal is expected to be confirmed in COREPER tomorrow and will then be voted on in the European Parliament in spring next year.

James Rielly has strongly stated that his position is medical authorization and prescription only. The various health groups are in support of this obviously and senator John Crown is campaigning strongly against tobacco, he will go for medical regs too. iIrc he said so on Morning Ireland a few weeks ago.

Ok, so I guess we do not know if it will be an 'I' point or an 'II' point at Coreper.

And it will still have to go to Council, after Coreper, before it is adopted so there might be hope yet.

So perhaps we should all be writing to D/Health and Minister Reilly and ask a TD to put forward a PQ questionning the Minister on Ireland's stance. Perhaps the FF spokes person on Health whoever that is.

iba · 17-12-2013 5:56pm

tommy2bad wrote: »

Means they don't have a clue what a refillable is!

Yeah, guess so - the sentence totally baffled me too

It clears up the maximum nic content and volume restrictions, we now know that only 1 ml sized cartos can be sold with a max 20mg nic.
The 20 cig equivalent is based on nothing more than the notion that a cig contains 1 mg nic. I knew the cig equivalent claims of the cigalike vendors would come back to bite us.
Oh and I suspect it's put their to justifiy taxing each carto at the same rate as 20 fags. But I'm a cynical bastard.

1ml is unbelievably small.

I guess we will all be buying from fasttech now - no way will customs be opeing up every little small packet that comes from singapore.

And the gov. will not get any tax because it will be under the gift threshold.

dePeatrick · 17-12-2013 7:03pm

iba wrote: »

1ml is unbelievably small.

I guess we will all be buying from fasttech now - no way will customs be opeing up every little small packet that comes from singapore.

And the gov. will not get any tax because it will be under the gift threshold.

What you say

it is completely silly and I think it is way too late as well, this is not under the control of governments nor vendors, this one flew over the cuckoos nest

tommy2bad · 17-12-2013 7:16pm

A better explanation here from Chris Davies. It seems that this went on till this morning. Who would have thought that a small nich product would cause so much bother for them. I bet they didn't

http://officeofchrisdaviesmep.createsend4.com/t/ViewEmail/j/F85AF8D7F8C5649A

It's going to take until the actual full wording is released that we will know anything, it'll be spin and counter spin and look how good we are until then.

wingnut32 · 17-12-2013 7:20pm

tommy2bad wrote: »

A better explanation here from Chris Davies. It seems that this went on till this morning. Who would have thought that a small nich product would cause so much bother for them. I bet they didn't
http://officeofchrisdaviesmep.createsend4.com/t/ViewEmail/j/F85AF8D7F8C5649A

It's going to take until the actual full wording is released that we will know anything, it'll be spin and counter spin and look how good we are until then.

I just hope his interpretation is the same as everyone else's if this goes through.

dePeatrick · 17-12-2013 7:22pm

tommy2bad wrote: »

A better explanation here from Chris Davies. It seems that this went on till this morning. Who would have thought that a small nich product would cause so much bother for them. I bet they didn't
http://officeofchrisdaviesmep.createsend4.com/t/ViewEmail/j/F85AF8D7F8C5649A

It's going to take until the actual full wording is released that we will know anything, it'll be spin and counter spin and look how good we are until then.

"Niche product" There is a couple of billion up for grabs here....expect an influx of sharks..........I have swam with them many times.......I am not one despite my scaly wet appearance...He he heeeeee......:)

iba · 17-12-2013 7:31pm

dePeatrick wrote: »

What you say it is completely silly and I think it is way too late as well, this is not under the control of governments nor vendors, this one flew over the cuckoos nest

It is not silly.

The proposal has not been adopted by Coreper yet and would still have to be adopted by Council.

iba · 17-12-2013 7:48pm

tommy2bad wrote: »

A better explanation here from Chris Davies. It seems that this went on till this morning. Who would have thought that a small nich product would cause so much bother for them. I bet they didn't
http://officeofchrisdaviesmep.createsend4.com/t/ViewEmail/j/F85AF8D7F8C5649A

It's going to take until the actual full wording is released that we will know anything, it'll be spin and counter spin and look how good we are until then.

Totally. Maybe it is possible to get it from DG Health, D/Health or the Permanent Representation in Brussels.

tommy2bad · 18-12-2013 12:25am

iba wrote: »

Totally. Maybe it is possible to get it from DG Health, D/Health or the Permanent Representation in Brussels.

Might be available tomorrow before the discussion but it will have to be available before the Parliament votes again and no matter what happens tomorrow they will have to vote again.
More letters and emails and tweets and face to face meetings if possible needed.

Scofflaw · 18-12-2013 2:39am

Afaik, it goes to COREPER again this morning, and still needs Council acceptance, otherwise they go to another, sixth, trialogue.

cordially,
Scofflaw

tommy2bad · 18-12-2013 11:10am

We can take it as read that council will accept this, it's pretty much what their proposals were. Linda just tweeted "Delighted that national governments have just accepted the deal we reached on #TPD on Monday. A huge step forward for tobacco control" So we can take it that it's now past COREPER.
Next step will be the vote in the Parliament. This is where theirs a small chance that NCP would be removed. Can't see this happening tbh most mep will want the TPD out of the way, they are not end users and don't understand the product so will assume that a 20mg in max 2ml volume limit is enough for us to have.

dePeatrick · 18-12-2013 12:20pm

Got a response from Nicky McFadden TD, she sent me a copy of a letter where she brought it to the attention of the Minister for Health James Reilly. Not sure what good it will do at this stage but....

Anyway, I will keep haranguing them

tommy2bad · 18-12-2013 12:56pm

It becomes clearer, the text of the proposal is up on Clive Bates blog,
http://www.clivebates.com/?p=1747
The refillable thing seem to be not the product restricted to the 2ml limit, that seem to apply only to prefilled clearos (is their such a thing?).

Advertising in or on any medium is banned including the promotion of ecigs indirectly. So all the sponsorship deals are gone as are all tv radio and newsprint adds. Internet adds and possibly sponsored shows like VTTV.
" any form of public or private contribution to radio programmes with the aim or direct or indirect effect of promoting electronic cigarettes and refill containers is prohibited;" First rule of fight club? Any organised opposition to any further legislation will have to be organised by snail mail.

Ecig will fall under this directive unless and here's the catch they are medicines by form or function. Here in Ireland we use the medicine by function to remove things from the market e.g. St Johns Worth, I think we are in for a battle.
Then further down it states maximum sizes for containers and tanks so the 2ml might be for everything, messy legalese designed to confuse.

Electronic cigarettes can develop into a gateway to nicotine addiction and ultimately traditional tobacco consumption, as they mimic and normalize the action of smoking.

Note the word can, not might or could but can, a complete lie without any foundation or evidence, getting mad now.
And of course the 3 strikes rule! if 3 member states place a justified ban on any product then it will be enforced across all member states because of course this helps the free movement of goods and services.

Define the ecig as a restricted and un inovatable product, then reduce the nic to levels comparable to tobacco cigarettes and all you do is legislate for the take over of ecigs by tobacco companies especially with the advertising restrictions and behind the counter rules.

And with all the talk of 'the children' one glaring omission. No recommendation or mention of an age limit. Dear God, I'm loosing all faith in the EU, not that I had much anyway.

Still I have to hand it to big tobacco and big pharma, well played sirs. well played.

Scofflaw · 18-12-2013 1:01pm

Dual route for E-cigarettes

As proposed by MEPs, e-cigarettes should be regulated either as medicinal products, if they are presented as having curative or preventive properties, or alternatively as tobacco products.. In the latter case, they should not contain nicotine in a concentration of more than 20 mg/ml. Refillable cartridges would be allowed, albeit with a clause enabling the Commission to extend the ban if such cartridges are prohibited in at least three member states.

A single cartridge should contain the equivalent in nicotine of a pack of cigarettes. Electronic cigarettes should be childproof and should carry health warnings. They would be subject to the same advertising restrictions as tobacco products.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news-room/content/20131216IPR31001/html/Tobacco-directive-MEPs-reach-agreement-with-Council-of-Ministers

Practically speaking, that's not as bad as it could be - although the potential for a blanket refillables ban is pretty bad. I doubt the e-cig companies will be happy with the advertising restriction, but I think it's fair enough.

With respect to the 20mg/ml limit, and the limit on the amount in a cartridge, it will certainly hit the vapers who like stronger liquids (I liked the 24mg/ml myself), but I'm not sure that's a huge proportion of vapers.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw · 18-12-2013 1:07pm

tommy2bad wrote:

Ecig will fall under this directive unless and here's the catch they are medicines by form or function. Here in Ireland we use the medicine by function to remove things from the market e.g. St Johns Worth, I think we are in for a battle.

I don't think that's the explanation of that part of the text - see the EP press release, which says that e-cigarettes where presented as having a medical function should be regulated accordingly, and where not, regulated under this directive.

That doesn't seem to mean that Ireland can declare that e-cigs are medical, but that if a pharma company wants to market them as a "stop smoking" aid, then they get medical regulation. Conversely, if an e-cig company wants them to be available directly to the consumer, they cannot market them as an aid to stopping smoking.

That seems neat and fair to me. Helping you stop smoking is a medical function, vaping for pleasure isn't. But someone who is selling you a product for pleasure should not be able to claim that it's medicinal, and someone who is selling you a product for medicinal purposes should not be selling it on street corners.

cordially,
Scofflaw

tommy2bad · 18-12-2013 1:11pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

I don't think that's the explanation of that part of the text - see the EP press release, which says that e-cigarettes where presented as having a medical function should be regulated accordingly, and where not, regulated under this directive.

That doesn't seem to mean that Ireland can declare that e-cigs are medical, but that if a pharma company wants to market them as a "stop smoking" aid, then they get medical regulation. Conversely, if an e-cig company wants them to be available directly to the consumer, they cannot market them as an aid to stopping smoking.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Again no.
The article specifically states where they are medical by form or function. It's the medical by function bit that's the problem. All it takes is for the dep of health in any state to declare nic a medicine by function, it's already the justification for bans in Finland, I think. Their is no requirement for the manufacture or vendor to make any claim for this to happen.

Xmass shopping to do now so I'll add another rant tonight.

Samba · 18-12-2013 2:13pm

Here's a brief run down from my understanding of the the final text.

Juice, max 20mg nicotine and 10ml refil bottles, but no limits on how many you can buy (que?:eek:)

E-cig Max capacity will now be set at 2ml.

If three States discover safety issues with any particular model or brand, the EU has the power to ban it, but only that specific model or brand, the parliament still has the power to veto any ban proposals.

Tommy2bad is right. Governments will have the power to classify e-cigs as pharmaceutical products, but they would potentially leave themselves open to a legal challenge if applied to e-cigs.

Everything else has already been discussed.

eeloe · 18-12-2013 2:29pm

Juice, max 20mg nicotine and 10ml refil bottles, but no limits on how many you can buy (que?)

This is what's worrying me, buying 10ml bottles becomes quite expensive, over the course....expecially when one uses 10ml of liquid in a day...

grindle · 18-12-2013 2:33pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

I doubt the e-cig companies will be happy with the advertising restriction, but I think it's fair enough.

Why do you think it's fair enough? Would it be fair enough to restrict Nespresso and Maxwell House ads?

Scofflaw wrote: »

With respect to the 20mg/ml limit, and the limit on the amount in a cartridge, it will certainly hit the vapers who like stronger liquids (I liked the 24mg/ml myself), but I'm not sure that's a huge proportion of vapers.

Anything from 12-36% of vapers based on this poll (although very unlikely to be 36% - the way the poll was split up was unusual mg-wise) and 25% would be affected according to this poll. We've seen the headlines they make out of 0-1% of never-smokers taking up vaping - a potential 25% remaining on tobacco should be a world-ending figure for them, no?

Scofflaw wrote: »

That seems neat and fair to me. Helping you stop smoking is a medical function, vaping for pleasure isn't. But someone who is selling you a product for pleasure should not be able to claim that it's medicinal

Again, what's fair abut it?
What reason is there to view stopping smoking as medicinal? Cold turkey and Alan Carr aren't medicinal, surely? But they've helped people quit smoking and they're espoused as a means to quit. They must be medicinal if that's the criteria to be met.
The EU definition of what's medicinal in this case is quite broken and I've no idea why anybody would toe the line on it unless they like to be drawn in as a sucker. That it is the definition as they've outlined it isn't in question, but the fact that it's so readily accepted as the definition and considered fair is pretty disgusting.
Smoking has the potential to make you sick, it's not a guarantee and it's not an actual illness in itself - prevention of a disease isn't/can't be a medicine, otherwise never-smokers have been self-medicating their whole lives.

Scofflaw wrote: »

someone who is selling you a product for medicinal purposes should not be selling it on street corners.

It won't be for a medicinal purpose but it looks like it's street corners or smuggling from China for me.

*the sound of a plan backfiring in the distance*

What would be "neat and fair" and "fair enough" is for them to let these products grow naturally whilst continuing research into their effects with an unbiased scientific eye that pays no heed to hypothetical (and demonstrably biased) "think of the children!" concerns.

Scofflaw · 18-12-2013 2:53pm

tommy2bad wrote: »

Again no.
The article specifically states where they are medical by form or function. It's the medical by function bit that's the problem. All it takes is for the dep of health in any state to declare nic a medicine by function, it's already the justification for bans in Finland, I think. Their is no requirement for the manufacture or vendor to make any claim for this to happen.

Samba wrote: »

Tommy2bad is right. Governments will have the power to classify e-cigs as pharmaceutical products, but they would potentially leave themselves open to a legal challenge if applied to e-cigs.

Yes, it looks as if tommy is right and I'm wrong - Member States that want to regulate e-cigs as pharma products can continue to do so. Interesting that the Parliament sources I was looking at has that somewhat differently from the Council and naitonal sources.

I don't see the "medical by form or function" anywhere in the text quoted on Clive Bates' site, though, or in the Parliament text. What I see is this:

Electronic cigarettes and refill containers should be regulated within this Directive, unless they are due to their presentation or function subject to Directive 2001/83/EC or to Directive 93/42/EEC.

That's not the same as "form or function", and to me would seem to leave open the question of whether the "presentation and function" is decided by the MS. The Presidency website certainly has it that:

e-cigarettes included into the scope of the Directive; Member States which regulate the e-cigarettes as pharma products will be able continue;

And European Voice also has:

The deal would allow e-cigarettes with a nicotine content below 20mg/ml (or 18mg per unit) to be regulated for general sale, rather than treating them as medicinal products as proposed by the European Commission – according to sources who were at the meeting.

This was a key demand of the European Parliament, as member states were demanding a limit of 3mg/ml. However, individual member states will be free to regulate all e-cigarettes as pharmaceuticals if they so choose.

The Parliament has this:

As proposed by MEPs, e-cigarettes should be regulated either as medicinal products, if they are presented as having curative or preventive properties, or alternatively as tobacco products.

which is rather less definitive, but more explanatory, and seems, unlike the others, to directly relate to the agreed text.

If one does not present an e-cig as having a curative or preventive property, it doesn't seem to me to be open and shut that a national government can simply decide that they do.

I think, on the whole I'd go with Samba's view here, that national governments can classify them as medical products, but leave themselves open to a legal challenge on the basis that they do not in fact have any medical effect - something for which there is a precedent in a Dutch decision.

That Dutch case also clarifies the "presentation and function" part:

In this Act and the provisions based upon the following definitions apply:
(....)
b. medicine: a substance or combination of substances which is intended to be administered or used for or in any way is presented as being suitable for:
10, treatment or prevention of a disease, defect, wound or pain in humans,
20 asking eengeneeskundige diagnosis in humans, or
30 restoring, correcting or modifying physiological functions otherwise achieve by exerting a pharmacological, immunological or metabolic effect in humans;
The words "..... which is intended to be administered or used for ..." are also summarized as "the administration criterion" (see also the definition sub b in the above section 2.2. Directive), while the words "... or in any way be presented as suitable for ..... " also referred to as "the presentation criterion" (see also the definition of a sub in the aforementioned Directive). If a product meets the administration criterion is called a "medicinal product by function '.

To come back to my earlier interpretation, it seems to me to hold water. If the manufacturer of an e-cig does not present their product as being suitable for any of the medical effects, and it is not intended to be administered as a medicine, it seems to me that they have thereby established a prima facie case that their product is not a medical one.

That a government can regulate the product anyway as a medicine is a given arbitrary power of the state, but whether it would hold water legally I'm not so sure, assuming the manufacturer is careful not to present the product as a smoking cessation aid.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw · 18-12-2013 2:57pm

grindle wrote:

Scofflaw wrote:

I doubt the e-cig companies will be happy with the advertising restriction, but I think it's fair enough.

Why do you think it's fair enough? Would it be fair enough to restrict Nespresso and Maxwell House ads?

Because advertising is intended to attract you to buy the product - to make it attractive and appealing. Whatever about ex-smokers vaping, advertising will attract non-smokers to take up vaping, and will be intended to make vaping look cool and appealing. E-cig manufacturers are businesses, and their delivery of shareholder value will depend on their ability to grow their market. No inherent market effect restricts that market to ex-smokers - the invisible hand will not intervene to prevent non-smokers coming to a nicotine addiction through vaping.

What exactly is a good idea about encouraging non-smokers to take up vaping, and thereby a nicotine addiction? I have no objection to them taking it up of their own free will, but the idea that someone should be able to throw money at influencing them to do so in order to profit from their addiction (and it's a powerful addiction)seems pretty clearly reprehensible to me.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw · 18-12-2013 3:10pm

grindle wrote:

Scofflaw wrote:

That seems neat and fair to me. Helping you stop smoking is a medical function, vaping for pleasure isn't. But someone who is selling you a product for pleasure should not be able to claim that it's medicinal

Again, what's fair abut it?
What reason is there to view stopping smoking as medicinal? Cold turkey and Alan Carr aren't medicinal, surely? But they've helped people quit smoking and they're espoused as a means to quit. They must be medicinal if that's the criteria to be met.
The EU definition of what's medicinal in this case is quite broken and I've no idea why anybody would toe the line on it unless they like to be drawn in as a sucker. That it is the definition as they've outlined it isn't in question, but the fact that it's so readily accepted as the definition and considered fair is pretty disgusting.

They're not defined as medicinal because they're not products. If Alan Carr's method relied on taking, say, a particular brand of bottled water (Alan Carr Mountain Spring!), then that bottled water would be regulated as a medicine, because it would be presented as one.

But Alan Carr's method, and cold turkey, contain no product that can be regulated. That's the difference, and it seems neither unclear nor broken to me.

Smoking has the potential to make you sick, it's not a guarantee and it's not an actual illness in itself - prevention of a disease isn't/can't be a medicine, otherwise never-smokers have been self-medicating their whole lives.

Vaping is not the same as simply not smoking. If I marketed spearmint chewing gum as something that in itself prevented you taking up smoking, that would get regulated. If I just advise you not to do take up smoking - or show you pictures of lung cancer - that is not something which involves a product to be regulated as a 'medicinal product', because the effect depends entirely on you, not on the product.

That's why there's a presentation criterion. If I say "chew Scofflaw no-nicotine gum, it will prevent you smoking", then either I'm making a medical claim about my gum - that of itself, due to some property of the gum, it will prevent you from smoking - or I'm frankly just selling snake oil, claiming a medical effect with no basis in fact. And there are very good reasons why we don't want people claiming things that have no medical effect do have a medical effect.

The 'medical' claim about vaping is that the product - of itself, by virtue of being an alternative nicotine delivery system - displaces smoking. That is a medical claim. It doesn't depend on your psychology, it depends on the active and addictive ingredient of nicotine in e-cigs substituting for the active and addictive ingredient in tobacco. It's a pharmacological claim, one that says it will work independent of your psychology. That's what makes a medical claim.

cordially,
Scofflaw

tommy2bad · 18-12-2013 6:50pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

They're not defined as medicinal because they're not products. If Alan Carr's method relied on taking, say, a particular brand of bottled water (Alan Carr Mountain Spring!), then that bottled water would be regulated as a medicine, because it would be presented as one.

But Alan Carr's method, and cold turkey, contain no product that can be regulated. That's the difference, and it seems neither unclear nor broken to me.

Yes this is correct.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Vaping is not the same as simply not smoking. If I marketed spearmint chewing gum as something that in itself prevented you taking up smoking, that would get regulated. If I just advise you not to do take up smoking - or show you pictures of lung cancer - that is not something which involves a product to be regulated as a 'medicinal product', because the effect depends entirely on you, not on the product.

That's why there's a presentation criterion. If I say "chew Scofflaw no-nicotine gum, it will prevent you smoking", then either I'm making a medical claim about my gum - that of itself, due to some property of the gum, it will prevent you from smoking - or I'm frankly just selling snake oil, claiming a medical effect with no basis in fact. And there are very good reasons why we don't want people claiming things that have no medical effect do have a medical effect.

The 'medical' claim about vaping is that the product - of itself, by virtue of being an alternative nicotine delivery system - displaces smoking. That is a medical claim. It doesn't depend on your psychology, it depends on the active and addictive ingredient of nicotine in e-cigs substituting for the active and addictive ingredient in tobacco. It's a pharmacological claim, one that says it will work independent of your psychology. That's what makes a medical claim.

cordially,
Scofflaw

But this is not. The presentation aspect is that it claims to cure, treat or alleviate a disease or condition. Even NRT doesn't claim to replace smoking or stop you smoking, it's medical claim is that it helps alleviate the cravings caused by nicotine withdrawal.
The function aspect is based on the principal that a product has a pharmacological effect, i.e. it reduces blood pressure, it increases blood pressure, it increases heart rate , it increases or reduces blood sugar, cholesterol, whatever. Nicotine can be shoe horned into this category as it can have a physiological effect but so can salt, sugar, caffeine and alcohol. The pressure to impose a medical definition comes when the effect mirrors an existing medical product's effect. Thus St John's Worth got classed as a prescription only medicine.
The problem with including nicotine in this category is it is already available in it's natural form and in it's extracted form performs no medical function, it cures nothing, and is not used to alleviate the cravings. A legal challenge would be on a fifty/fifty chance depending on the bias of the judge.

This isn't a bad result from a public health perspective, whats left on the market will work as a replacement for smoking for most current smokers seeking to quit but not having had success with NRT.
It's bad for public health as it is a missed opportunity, it leaves the rest of the current smokers continuing to view vaping as a quit method or a poor replacement.

Presumably tobacco control see the value of ecigs as an aid for failed quitters. They are also putting all their eggs in the basket of tobacco denormalization which has been a complete failure. Education removed the majority of smokers, graphic warnings, public use bans, sin taxes, have had no actual effect but they make a good living from it and don't want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. (the ones they keep in the basket)

BTW 'form' was shorthand for presentation. I was not quoting directly but paraphrasing for the sake of brevity.

European Ban on E-Cigs?

Comments