Rules of trade by xtreme binary bottles
This white paper is notable rules of trade by xtreme binary bottles its cleverly disguised disinformation and establishment view of regulation, mixed with an occasional dose of reality. This tends to give the impression that it is a reasonable opinion on ecig regulation, when in fact it contains a catalogue of errors and disinformation or lies, depending on your point of view. Rules of trade by xtreme binary bottles this really is their honest view, they are so ignorant of every one of the multitude rules of trade by xtreme binary bottles issues that it would be difficult to find anyone so utterly devoid of the rules of trade by xtreme binary bottles basic appreciation of the problems.
Such ignorance is unlikely, so the document's position is probably based on expediency. Luckily, medicalisation is unlikely to prevail, due to the universal rejection by courts everywhere of the use of the law for commercial purposes by the pharmaceutical industry. The courts have very clearly demonstrated that e-cigarettes are a consumer product and not a medical product rules of trade by xtreme binary bottles alcohol beer, decaff coffee, e-cigarettes, and other consumer Harm Reduction products are clearly not medicines.
You will probably be aware by now that anything from the tobacco control industry of which ASH are full members contains more lies per square inch than the cigarette industry itself ever managed; this document is a typical example. It could be argued that such documents simply contain honest errors and a poor appreciation of likely outcomes; if so, they are remarkably consistent in that regard. A less charitable opinion of documents such as this is that they are full of lies, published by liars, for reasons unconnected with public health.
If that were to be your opinion then it would be hard to challenge it on a factual basis: As an example, most of the 1 million plus UK e-cigarette users would probably return to smoking.
It is not normally regarded as a good thing for public health when millions of people return to smoking or don't stop smoking; though in ASH's fantasy world, it may be - things are so far from reality here that anything is possible.
Above all, this is a template for how to protect cigarette sales against serious threats and in the UK, from the only significant threat. ASH apparently support e-cigarettes but now reveal that they also support extreme regulation; they are either unable to see that one negates the other, and regulation essentially removes e-cigarettes from access by those who need them, or this was the plan all along - appear to support rules of trade by xtreme binary bottles use of e-cigarettes but then have them removed by regulation.
Its main effect would be to dramatically reduce sales and remove e-cigarettes as a threat to tobacco cigarette sales ignoring the growth of a significant black market, which is assured.
ASH are working to protect cigarette sales and working against public health by publishing this opinion piece in support of e-cigarette bans i. The complexity of the situation The whole situation is now so complex that it is impossible, at this time, to say what will happen: For this reason it would be perfectly acceptable to argue each and every point in ASH's document and my responses and say: Because of this it has been necessary to make some assumptions about the future, or one version of it, in order to be able to comment at all.
Some of it is bound to be wrong; please see a more detailed explanation in General Notes at the foot of the page. It did have the desired effect, as ENVI voted to medicalise e-cigarettes. The UK government has previously blocked this action by the MHRA, indicating that it does not agree; the MHRA has been looking for a way to outmanoeuvre government in order to please its funders, the pharmaceutical industry. No one who knows the issues believes that pharmaceutical licensing can successfully remain imposed on any e-cigarette product; but life is certainly about to become more difficult for the UK vaping, ex-smoking community of several hundred thousandwho will probably experience strong pressure to return to smoking from aroundas various regulatory schemes will start to influence the consumer market at that point; some of the regulations may be unjustifiably severe and hard to challenge.
The principal stakeholders in discussions about consumer products are the consumers; unfortunately, the 1 million UK ecig users did not have any realistic input, and therefore the statement that a 'comprehensive consultation' took place, and especially that the major stakeholders had any significant effect on the decision, is simply a lie.
However I could be mistaken: To suggest that hundreds of thousands of people who may be forced back to smoking are not stakeholders is the most egregious lie, and this appears to be what ASH is saying.
An 'in-depth analysis' would have revealed that there are no concerns for public health, or any credible evidence there might be any concerns. Perhaps this may have slightly more weight. The UK government has previously blocked e-cigarette medicalisation, on multiple grounds see the Rules of trade by xtreme binary bottles decision, It therefore appears that the Dept of Pharmaceuticals - I beg your pardon, the Dept of Health - appear to assume rules of trade by xtreme binary bottles are the government.
In fact, rules of trade by xtreme binary bottles to recent events, Mrs Soubry appears to think she alone is the government.
It seems rather propitious for the pharmaceutical industry that they appear to be such very good friends with Mrs 'Government' Soubry. A unilateral decision by the MHRA to take this action has already been defeated and would easily be defeated again. The answer rules of trade by xtreme binary bottles this is patently obvious: Why else would the Dept of Pharmaceutical Health act?
To suggest otherwise, as ASH appear to be doing, is a lie. There is a small problem here: I think this is what is popularly referred to as a 'no-contest'. Examples Prof Hajek opposes medicalisation because in his words it will "fossilise" the products and make them impossible to improve. In practice it might even make them almost as ineffective as current NRTs; licensed e-cigarettes will hardly be as effective as good consumer models.
We can certainly expect that medical e-cigarettes will save 5, lives, but there is a slight difference between 5, and 5 million. We assume that ASH is working on behalf of rules of trade by xtreme binary bottles, since it seems less likely they are working for the cigarette trade; although since the direct result of their interference is that smoking is protected from its most capable rival, we can legitimately question their motives.
If they are not, in fact, corrupt - then they are stupid beyond belief. Firstly, the government has already decided against regulation of e-cigarettes as a medicinal product.
Therefore, the sentence could rules of trade by xtreme binary bottles more accurately read: Secondly, the problem with this is that e-cigarettes were invented for and are used for the purpose of replacing smoking, for ongoing use. People need dietary nicotine supplementation, and like most things it is harmless when not abused. Smokers who want to quit totally by the use of a medical e-cigarette should be allowed to do so. Unfortunately, many existing products do not meet these standards.
You can establish whatever standards you like for medicines. The market determines what consumer products survive or fail - and in an extremely efficient manner, where e-cigarette products are concerned and it may be unique in this respect.
As Prof Hajek has pointed out, there is no danger from nicotine over-consumption with these products; issues with inconsistent nicotine delivery or incorrect labelling are for the consumer market and this includes consumer product regulation to resolve - as it does very well. Consumer products such as e-cigarettes especially in the UK, where they are stringently regulated are provably thousands of times safer than equivalent pharmaceutical produsts such as Chantix.
Thus, medicalisation is a step backward for safety as any ecig vendor who sold products one-thousandth as dangerous as Chantix would be in jail. Quality is a consumer market factor influencing success or failure and may be dependant on price. It is not relevant for any purpose other than product success, in an environment where product safety is rigidly controlled such as the UK consumer products market, where, incidentally, products are clearly safer than pharmaceuticals.
Well, when it does come into effect it will be overturned by the courts, as they always do - quite rightly. Unless of course the pharmaceutical industry manages to buy the courts this time round. That is always a possibility, of course: If such a judgement does obtain, it will look very strange indeed: However, the MHRA is currently accepting applications for licences and expects the first licensed NCPs to be on the market within 12 months.
Not really relevant to a consumer product chosen as a Harm Reduction substitution product. If patients wish to consult their doctor on how to quit, they can go the Harm Management route if they so wish.
The medical version of harm reduction, with total cessation as the desired endpoint, is called Harm Management; it has no relation to the consumer process called Harm Reduction, which by definition means ongoing consumption by substitution using consumer products, and nothing else. E-cigarettes, upon gaining a licence, would therefore be prescribable on the NHS to enable smokers to reduce their smoking with a view to quitting.
This is the definition of Harm Management: It has no relevance to consumer Harm Reduction, which does not encompass cessation in this instance, of supra-dietary nicotine supplementation by inhalation delivery using a cigarette clone system.
Prof Hajek for example states that licensing will fossilise the products and make then unalterable and possibly as unattractive to consumers as current NRTs. Any licensed product is a 4-year old obsolete old clunker, as a direct result of the protracted licensing process; deliberately unattractive to consumers as an integral part of the process; unchangeable and unmodernisable due to the extensive cost and extended timescale for approval; useless compared to modern products since the products will be obsolete and comparatively poor in effectiveness; unattractive and therefore ineffective since flavours are an integral part of the system and will be prohibited.
Luckily, at present, it appears that the hardware will not need to be licensed, just the refills. Unfortunately all useful and attractive refills will be banned and will not be able to rules of trade by xtreme binary bottles a license in any case as all flavours will be prohibited.
Therefore, concerns about a couple of unattractive unflavoured refills replacing multiple e-liquid base types with thousands of flavours and multiple strength options - in all, many thousands of options - are entirely justified. An extended and expensive process to license a single new tobacco-flavour refill of one single strength, which the MHRA seem rules of trade by xtreme binary bottles to do in any case, is not good news for the consumer.
If ASH are saying that concerns are unjustified, they are clearly lying since the result of removing half of a binary system is obvious. This is an egregious and blatant lie by ASH: This is what their funders demand.
How exactly do you think Rules of trade by xtreme binary bottles feels about it when on Day 1 of the first medically-licensed e-cigarette appearing in the MIMS book every other smoking cessation product is instantly rendered obsolete ?
The MHRA would prefer that e-cigarette consumers go away, or preferably die as this is what their actions will result in. Consumer products and their users are seen as a direct threat by the pharmaceutical industry and their government poodles, and together they try to eliminate them in any way possible; it always was so, is now, and always will be.
The MHRA are not interested in 'balancing' anything - they do what their funders demand which in the first case is to remove ecigs in any way possible. Unfortunately, in this case their hands are tied and they will eventually have to license an ecig as an NRT. The idea that the MHRA are interested in 'minimising the burden of regulation' in some way is plainly farcical: Please stop these jokes now, it is becoming tedious.
It is hard to know how to answer this because there is a point at which something becomes so ridiculous, it simply stops all sane discussion. This sounds like an advert for the MHRA, phrased in terms of such elegance that a master of propaganda could not aspire to their construction. It is completely opposite to the truth and that's all there is to it. A blatant and outrageous lie. The MHRA fully intends to destroy the existing ecig industry and replace it with crippled NRT products if forced to do so ; that has always been their intention and always will be.
Or to be slightly rules of trade by xtreme binary bottles accurate: Please note that the MHRA does not work for the public or for public health in this area at any rate: The aims of the pharmaceutical industry, by definition, are opposed to public health: Nowhere do they achieve this aim better than in the area of smoking: Smokers can be sacrificed without penalty.
People like ASH do their work for them, willingly; and by doing so, they protect cigarettes sales. You might, after all, say that this is understandable: Take a look at the future: Not much use for ASH there. You can bend reality as far as you like, to try and make the Dept of Health look as if they are promoting public health instead of protecting pharma income, but you can't make e-cigarettes into an NRT. They are a consumer product designed for permanent smoking replacement.