Richardpruen (talk | contribs) (removed gallery, doesn't work with PDF files) Tag: Manual revert |
Richardpruen (talk | contribs) (Add NSW consultation submitted comment) |
||
| Line 48: | Line 48: | ||
[[File:Letter to pm 16 sept 2023.pdf|thumb|alt=Sent to The Prime Ministers office FAO The Prime Minister No10 downing street (via official contact form) 14:30 on 16th Sept 2023 Subject: The continuing debate around banning disposable vaping and flavoured vaping. This is continuing from my note of the 25th May 2023, I hear worrying noises around an outright ban on disposable vapes. As a consumer myself, who would surely be dead now without vaping, 15 years more smoking (I started 2008) would have seen me off, but not a user of disposables. Please however consider the following. First; evidence from Australia where vaping is prescription only and prescriptions are hard to obtain (a de-facto ban), shows that illicit markets step in to fill demand, and have done so with the cheapest and least safe disposable devices. It is entirely probable bans here would result in more disposable vapes than less. Second; There are disposable vapes designed for high security locations, such as prisons and mental health units, particularly secure ones. Please do not inadvertently ban a much safer than smoking option in such places, some of these people are suffering enough, and require our assistance. Third; Prohibition is not effective, please see the situation in Australia again, the failed implementation of alcohol prohibition, and more than 6 decades of drug war. Not one of these things has reduced the supply of the substances trying to be controlled, and there is no reason to assume it will be effective for disposable or flavoured vaping. Fourth; There are measures, some that I suggested to APPG Vaping on 28th Feb this year, the link is safernicotine.wiki/mediawiki/index.php?Title=File:Email_to_appg_vaping_28th_Feb_2023.pdf Should you wish to read it. These measures would significantly reduce the environmental impact (by a factor of 10), and place the legal devices better able to compete with illicit imports (these generally have more puffs than the UK rules currently allow), has the effect of increasing the initial cost of the device but not the cost per puff. By such changes to legal devices three main goals can be achieved 1) Compete out the illicit and illegal products that are not safety tested and approved. 2) Reduce the environmental cost, and quantity of vapes in need of recycling. 3) Reduce the affordability of such devices to young people particularly children. Legal devices could then be mandated to contain information on refillable devices that are just as easy to use, cheaper and more environmentally responsible. Measures to drive consumers to more environmentally sound products should absolutely be considered, such as paying more initially and receiving a repayment on return for recycling. This should be done with care for unintended consequences. I have kept this short as you are busy, but if there is any further information you would like please feel free to contact me by email richard@pruen.co.uk. Thank you for your time.|Letter to pm 16 sept 2023]] | [[File:Letter to pm 16 sept 2023.pdf|thumb|alt=Sent to The Prime Ministers office FAO The Prime Minister No10 downing street (via official contact form) 14:30 on 16th Sept 2023 Subject: The continuing debate around banning disposable vaping and flavoured vaping. This is continuing from my note of the 25th May 2023, I hear worrying noises around an outright ban on disposable vapes. As a consumer myself, who would surely be dead now without vaping, 15 years more smoking (I started 2008) would have seen me off, but not a user of disposables. Please however consider the following. First; evidence from Australia where vaping is prescription only and prescriptions are hard to obtain (a de-facto ban), shows that illicit markets step in to fill demand, and have done so with the cheapest and least safe disposable devices. It is entirely probable bans here would result in more disposable vapes than less. Second; There are disposable vapes designed for high security locations, such as prisons and mental health units, particularly secure ones. Please do not inadvertently ban a much safer than smoking option in such places, some of these people are suffering enough, and require our assistance. Third; Prohibition is not effective, please see the situation in Australia again, the failed implementation of alcohol prohibition, and more than 6 decades of drug war. Not one of these things has reduced the supply of the substances trying to be controlled, and there is no reason to assume it will be effective for disposable or flavoured vaping. Fourth; There are measures, some that I suggested to APPG Vaping on 28th Feb this year, the link is safernicotine.wiki/mediawiki/index.php?Title=File:Email_to_appg_vaping_28th_Feb_2023.pdf Should you wish to read it. These measures would significantly reduce the environmental impact (by a factor of 10), and place the legal devices better able to compete with illicit imports (these generally have more puffs than the UK rules currently allow), has the effect of increasing the initial cost of the device but not the cost per puff. By such changes to legal devices three main goals can be achieved 1) Compete out the illicit and illegal products that are not safety tested and approved. 2) Reduce the environmental cost, and quantity of vapes in need of recycling. 3) Reduce the affordability of such devices to young people particularly children. Legal devices could then be mandated to contain information on refillable devices that are just as easy to use, cheaper and more environmentally responsible. Measures to drive consumers to more environmentally sound products should absolutely be considered, such as paying more initially and receiving a repayment on return for recycling. This should be done with care for unintended consequences. I have kept this short as you are busy, but if there is any further information you would like please feel free to contact me by email richard@pruen.co.uk. Thank you for your time.|Letter to pm 16 sept 2023]] | ||
[[File:NSW Consult 30 sept.pdf|thumb|alt=Vaping is a direct substitute for smoking that is able to compete with cigarettes on the open market, it is unbeatable on cost compared to subsidised NRT, and far more effective, the UK NHS find 2/3 (66%) effective with support. With regulated vaping in UK youth: 0.5% use > once weekly and are never smokers (see ASHuk graph attached). Driving the product to illicit markets and criminal gangs seems to have resulted in greater access for Australian youth. While vaping is not entirely risk-free, it is known now that it poses a fraction of the risk of smoking (please see the attached risk map). Waiting for a perfect solution that may never be found is counterproductive, the reduction in risk is known to be large that much is proven (the unknown part is, is it 90% reduction in risk or 99%, to be sure will take time) While youth should not vape or smoke, some will end up doing both. If there is no safer alternative available they will all be smoking. It is also worth remembering dependence on nicotine while not desirable can be reversed, death is final, and it is smoking that kills. Like it or not vaping has a built-in off-ramp. Use an open-system vape, and use the liquid you need to prevent cravings. Then slowly reduce the nicotine strength at your own pace. On reaching zero nicotine, stop. This is also ample evidence it was developed by smokers, to help stop smoking, and then to stop vaping if that is desired. Would a tobacco company ensure a way out was built in? The population has resoundingly refused the prescription model, any of the many reasons pointed out repeatedly or all of them are to blame. They deserve a fair regulated market they can trust, if you cannot provide a better solution than criminal gangs, then that is a failure on your part. |NSW Vaping submission 30 september 2023]] | |||
edits