ASH UK report endorses e-cigarettes

[Bill Godshall]

ASH UK issues objective report on e-cigarettes
http://ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_715.pdf

Conclusion

ASH believes that e-cigarettes, properly regulated to ensure safety and efficacy, should be
made available as part of a harm reduction approach to tobacco. That is, we recognise that
whilst efforts to help people stop smoking should remain a priority, many people either do not
wish to stop smoking or find it very hard to do so. For this group, nicotine substitution products
should be made available that deliver nicotine in a safe way, without the harmful components
found in tobacco smoke. Most of the diseases associated with smoking are caused by
inhaling smoke which contains thousands of toxic chemicals. By contrast, nicotine is relatively
safe.

E-cigarettes, which deliver nicotine without the harmful toxins found in tobacco smoke, are
likely to be a safer alternative to smoking. In addition, e-cigarettes reduce secondhand smoke
exposure in places where smoking is allowed since they do not produce smoke. Nonetheless,
nicotine is an addictive substance, e-cigarettes currently available are of highly variable safety
and efficacy, and smokers are uncertain about the effectiveness of the product.

In the UK smokefree legislation exists to protect the public from the demonstrable harms
of secondhand smoke.ASH does not consider it appropriate for electronic cigarettes to be
subject to this legislation.

Although this report was cited in another thread (on Brad Rodu's blog posting), it deserves its own thread.

The only caveat about ASH UK's report (and previous ASH UK statements on e-cigs) is that it advocates "proper" regulation by MHRA (but doesn't delineate what regulations they consider are "proper").

 

[sonicdsl]

ASH UK issues objective report on e-cigarettes
http://ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_715.pdf




Although this report was cited in another thread (on Brad Rodu's blog posting), it deserves its own thread.

The only caveat about ASH UK's report (and previous ASH UK statements on e-cigs) is that it advocates "proper" regulation by MHRA (but doesn't delineate what regulations they consider are "proper").

Baby steps, Bill!

 

[Paulette]

It will be interesting if this report gets to the EU Parliament?

 

[rothenbj]

Proper regulation in health speak is Pharmacological type approval to me and I understand that one company is currently working toward that in the UK, probably looking for a big payday from someone like GSK.

 

[Lilkurty]

Article is saved in my "I am good" file for e cigs for quick reference!

 

[tommy2bad]

Indeed pharma type regulation but it doesn't have to be so. Asking for regulation is par for the course with these groups and if thats just a sticker saying that the product is 'approved as a smoking alternative but not a means of quiting, call quitline 007 100' then they will be just as happy as if it meant full medical licensing and available on prescription only. They just need to be seen to have done something.

 

[rolygate]

ASH UK is on the right track here, thanks to honest and clear-thinking health advocates such as Clive Bates.

However, many (perhaps even all) of these groups, and their medical and health policy advisors, live in a fairytale world where truth, facts and ethics win out. They can't conceive of a world where government agencies are bought and paid for, and whose only agenda is to remove any competitor for their client: the pharmaceutical industry.

I don't know what it will take for these people to wake up to the fact that the only regulations our government agencies are interested in are stealth regs that end by removing ecigs from the marketplace. ASH UK, like others, seem absolutely blind to the fact that corruption runs health policy, not science.

If we fast-forward five years and look at how things will play out if an agency like the MHRA get their wish to control ecigs, we'd find that in Year 1 their regs would be 'light-touch', but by Year 5 those same regs would now ban internet sales, any ecig model larger than a cigarette, refill liquids, nicotine strengths over 6mg, and any flavour apart from tobacco or menthol. In other words ecigs would be useless for 95% of potential users; the success rate for switching (at 20 months) would be 5% (about the same as pharmacotherapies); and ecigs will be seen as a useless waste of time.

Will ASH UK still fully support 'light-touch' regulations by government bodies? Probably, yes - because ecigs will certainly be 'safe' at that stage. So safe in fact that most of them stay in the box.

 

[Petrodus]

ASH UK is on the right track here, thanks to honest and clear-thinking health advocates such as Clive Bates.

However, many (perhaps even all) of these groups, and their medical and health policy advisors, live in a fairytale world where truth, facts and ethics win out. They can't conceive of a world where government agencies are bought and paid for, and whose only agenda is to remove any competitor for their client: the pharmaceutical industry.

I don't know what it will take for these people to wake up to the fact that the only regulations our government agencies are interested in are stealth regs that end by removing ecigs from the marketplace. ASH UK, like others, seem absolutely blind to the fact that corruption runs health policy, not science.

If we fast-forward five years and look at how things will play out if an agency like the MHRA get their wish to control ecigs, we'd find that in Year 1 their regs would be 'light-tough', but by Year 5 those same regs would now ban internet sales, any ecig model larger than a cigarette, refill liquids, nicotine strengths over 6mg, and any flavour apart from tobacco or menthol. In other words ecigs would be useless for 95% of potential users; the success rate for switching (at 20 months) would be 5% (about the same as pharmacotherapies); and ecigs will be seen as a useless waste of time.

Will ASH UK still fully support 'light-touch' regulations by government bodies? Probably, yes - because ecigs will certainly be 'safe' at that stage. So safe in fact that most of them stay in the box.

AGREE ...
Bottom line is BP will NOT stop until e-cigarettes are banned
OR
The effectiveness of e-smoking is reduced to or below the levels
of the almost useless cessation gums/patches and poison pills.

This is not limited to the UK ... it's a world-wide war against e-cigarettes.
It's all about money and NOTHING to do with health.

 

[rothenbj]

I sure hope we're just being old cynical farts and conspiracy theorists. However when you put all the various attacks coming from all sides and the global nature of the effort, I seriously doubt it.

 

[Petrodus]

I sure hope we're just being old cynical farts and conspiracy theorists. However when you put all the various attacks coming from all sides and the global nature of the effort, I seriously doubt it.

Many conspiracy theorists of the past ...
today are referred to as prophets.

 

[wv2win]

I guess ASH in the UK and ASH in the US don't talk to each other and have nothing in common.

And I also believe that Big Pharm and the zealots would dominate any regulation and the end result would be as rolygate described.