The DH and MHRA intent is to ban recreational nicotine but allow tobacco and medicine.

Actions speak louder than words and all the nice words in the world don't result in support for tobacco alternatives.

No ecigs are approved and to get approval each flavour will cost around £24,000 a year (I think but haven't checked that figure) plus proof of effectiveness as a medical treatment trials and standardisation of dose, ingredients, design and other medicalisation like tamperproofing. This will take the fun from the habit and make it as ineffective as NRT I believe. The likely beneficiaries of restricting the nicotine market will be pharmaceutical companies who have no interest in promoting a product that will work and encourage people to quit their product and the tobacco companies who will have the only satisfying nicotine delivery system – smoke.

Innovation, competition and harm reduction are being stopped.

Plus, when people can't buy liquid nicotine legally they will turn to the completely unregulated black market. At the moment the Poisons Act 1972 regulates the nicotine market and general trading laws say the product must be fit for purpose and not likely to cause harm during normal use. Ethical traders would be protected even at the moment as the law stands if Trading Standards weren't trying to avoid doing their job properly.

What's missing is an international standard of what is an acceptable level of toxicity, contamination and permitted ingredients.

Banning recreational nicotine won't create a standard and won't promote tobacco alternatives.

http://vapersnetwork.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=174

Yes it is a bit confusing, isn't it?

This seems clear:

"The Citizens Council, a group which brings the views of the public to NICE’s decision-making, has voted overwhelmingly in favour of the use of harm reduction as a way to reduce the dangers of smoking."

But then this doesn't:

"Overall, the Citizens Council supported the use of harm reduction in smoking but the idea of considering harm reduction as a way to provide a less harmful alternative to smoking – while accepting that nicotine addiction continues – proved relatively unpopular."

Regarding electronic cigarettes, I think some form of regulation which didn't involve banning electronic cigarettes would be a good thing. There are lots of cowboys out there who are giving the whole industry a bad name. This is not a move to ban the electronic cigarette – as we understand it the MHRA sees the additional regulations and finance halving the number of online retailers. This may not be a bad thing. We have heard quality concerns from even e-cig supporters about cheap alternatives (not ours!) and we have heard from customrs who have been scammed by 'free' e-cig trials.

I know you are concerned about this move. Can you explain your concerns?

In fact the MHRA have issued a consultation about banning all recreational nicotine except for tobacco products. All non-tobacco nicotine will be classified as medicine and will be subject to medical registration criteria.

The Department of Health also announced on Monday that they will remove non-medical nicotine from the market. Unapproved ecigs will be banned.

http://vapersnetwork.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=166