UserWiki:Richardpruen: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Richardpruen (talk | contribs) m (minor text to explain letters below) |
Richardpruen (talk | contribs) (Add letter) |
||
| Line 62: | Line 62: | ||
[[File:Letter sec state health and social care 14 March 2024.pdf|thumb|alt=Subject: Youth vaping Please see the above graph, so far regular use (greater than once a week) is not high and may be displacing cigarettes, cigarettes are the worlds most deadly consumer product. Infrequent and trial use (once in 30 days, or ever use) while undesirable does not lead to dependence, only those in the graph above can possibly be ‘hooked’, but not all will be. I do not think young people should be encouraged to vape, but I would like to know your answer to one question, please. If a young person is determined to use nicotine, would you advise them to smoke cigarettes instead of safer alternatives, and a what age should harm reduction products like vaping be made available. I look forward to receiving your answer. Please feel free to ask others what they think should be done. Personally I feel the situation in Sweden is close to the best balance, accepting some use of low risk Snus, in order to reduce the uptake of deadly smoking. This will take effect far faster than the generational tobacco ban, Sweden will be a non smoking nation this year, although nicotine use remains, they have the lowest cancer rate in Europe. The UK can easily and quickly achieve the same with vaping. I note also Sweden reduced the tax on Snus to accelerate uptake. Yours sincerely, Richard Pruen|Letter sec state health and social care 14 March 2024]] | [[File:Letter sec state health and social care 14 March 2024.pdf|thumb|alt=Subject: Youth vaping Please see the above graph, so far regular use (greater than once a week) is not high and may be displacing cigarettes, cigarettes are the worlds most deadly consumer product. Infrequent and trial use (once in 30 days, or ever use) while undesirable does not lead to dependence, only those in the graph above can possibly be ‘hooked’, but not all will be. I do not think young people should be encouraged to vape, but I would like to know your answer to one question, please. If a young person is determined to use nicotine, would you advise them to smoke cigarettes instead of safer alternatives, and a what age should harm reduction products like vaping be made available. I look forward to receiving your answer. Please feel free to ask others what they think should be done. Personally I feel the situation in Sweden is close to the best balance, accepting some use of low risk Snus, in order to reduce the uptake of deadly smoking. This will take effect far faster than the generational tobacco ban, Sweden will be a non smoking nation this year, although nicotine use remains, they have the lowest cancer rate in Europe. The UK can easily and quickly achieve the same with vaping. I note also Sweden reduced the tax on Snus to accelerate uptake. Yours sincerely, Richard Pruen|Letter sec state health and social care 14 March 2024]] | ||
[[File:Letter sec state health and social care 11 May 2024.pdf|thumb|alt=Subject: Tobacco and vapes bill Dear Victoria Atkins, I am contacting you as a vaping consumer, and advocate for saving lives, vaping saved my life (happy to share medical records to prove that) and I aim to pass that on to as many as possible, I am not paid in any way by anyone to do so. I was disturbed to hear some of the testimony given in parliament, much of the information was incorrect, or deliberately misleading. This is not good enough when debating a serious matter of health, accurate and science backed information is critical to saving lives. I would like an answer to the following question: What was the reason to justify excluding stakeholders, the users of vaping products, other safer tobacco products, and even people who smoke? User funded charities such as New Nicotine Alliance, who take no money from the tobacco or vaping industry should have been consulted. Users themselves or NNA would have been able to counter some of the poor information given and also to provide a view from those directly affected by the legislation being discussed. Much of the information could have been corrected, quickly and easily. The main issues with the unopposed debate (no stakeholder representative, or consideration given to stakeholders, it seems); the conflation of illegal/criminal imports of untested and illegal drug products, and legal UK nicotine vaping; the lack of separation between the independent vaping industry and tobacco multinationals (they are not the same thing); the potential to harm the UK government stop to swap scheme (saving lives of people who smoke now, not a future population, years from now)… I could go on, but others like UK Vaping Industry Association have pointed out the issues, no need for a repeat. My most important question; What is being done to ensure that stakeholders are heard, and the users of these products are not swept aside? Particularly what is being done to ensure false/misleading statements are not made to parliament by the experts, or that at least someone is included on behalf of users to set the record straight? I look forward to your responses. Yours sincerely, Richard Pruen|Letter sec state health and social care 11 May 2024]] | |||