Nicotine as a Pharmaceutical in the UK

[rothenbj]

Having read Roly's post at option 4, making nicotine a pharma drug in the UK, I can't help to wonder how they could declare it a Pharma only drug in all products EXCEPT cigarettes and other tobacco products. I realize that we have some wording here in the use where a tobacco product is defined as a tobacco product or a product derived from tobacco which has given E liquid some leeway. However, if nicotine is a classified as a pharma drug in the UK, it seems that that would move cigarettes et al into that same pharma category thus getting an ally in BT.

Oregon is attempting such a maneuver right now which would make obtaining cigarettes a prescription only product but I don't believe that will ever fly. Just curious what your perception is?

 

[renstyle]

Cigarettes via prescription only? Would never fly.

(in dreamland now...)
How cool would it be to have your health insurance cover your prescriptions for your e-liquid!

All I can see are two words for Oregon: Black Market.... this would make prohibition look like a 5year-olds birthday party by comparison.

 

[renstyle]

It is hard to see how they can make two camps, one with actual tobacco products (cigs, cigars, chew, etc), and nicotine containing products (lozenges, e-liquid, etc).

The only plant that nicotine can be extracted from in any reasonable quantity is the tobacco plant. You can get minute quantites from a tomato plant, but nothing that makes it worth the effort.

Do you need a prescription for a poppy seed muffin now? It's the same stuff that they make "Harry O. Wynn" and his buddy "Coe Deen" out of!

 

[rolygate]

With reference to:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...k-regulation-reports-updates.html#post2839802

I'm not entirely sure about this, but right now that looks how it will play out, to me.

The interesting question is why the MHRA have revealed their hand so early, and given the industry time to prepare. It must be because they had to, as nothing like that would be done unless it was forced on them. The reasons might be twofold:

- They cannot operate clandestinely in this environment because that will increase the amount of comment on their pharma industry-led agenda, therefore some measure of openness is required.
- If they divert too far from the Public Consultation terms of reference then they may receive censure from the RPC and other groups.

We have to assume that there is no real reason for them to have to stay strictly within the terms of reference of the Public Consultation - because they have abandoned that, and discarded all the three listed options since the result was clearly a fail: the regulation of e-cigarettes as a pharmaceutical was rejected by the RPC. Strictly speaking the exercise has now terminated, the result being that regulation has been refused.

The current move seems to be a smooth transition to another route of attack while loosely maintaining a connection with the Consultation, as if it were linked in some way.

I think a legal challenge as to their authority to depart from the options of the Consultation would fail, as the Consultation has no legal basis, and is basically an intra-governmental process. This means that a regulatory proposal can be rejected, and simply restarted again the next year or whenever convenient. Next year they will try again, but this time avoid all government controls by going to law instead. I think that's a good approach for them, and seems the best route to success. Unless the government changes or the EU bans e-cigarettes, it's most likely the only way forward for pharma to kill e-cigs.