On 16th September, it’ll be 17 years since I last had a cigarette. I was one of those smokers who never really wanted to give up, who really enjoyed a cigarette. However, my consumption was a bit worrying – at least a pack of 20 a day.
It was pregnancy which forced my hand. From the moment I saw the positive test, I have not had another cigarette. That doesn’t mean that I never want one. Even after all this time, the smell can (especially after a few wines) set off all the old cravings. Giving up just like that was far from easy and I doubt I would ever have managed it if I hadn’t had that overwhelming incentive to do so. I daren’t have even one or I think that road back to a pack a day would be very short.
I had no choice but to just give up without any help other than the daily “I really want a cigarette, talk to me until the craving goes away” phone calls to various people. They were remarkably effective, by the way. In the same circumstances, that would be the same today. I wouldn’t be able to use e-cigarettes. Evidence suggests, however, that they are 95% less harmful than ordinary cigarettes and can help people give up smoking for good.
Public Health England have summarised all the current evidence relating to e-cigarettes in a report published today, which says:
- Smokers who have tried other methods of quitting without success could be encouraged to try e-cigarettes (EC) to stop smoking and stop smoking services should support smokers using EC to quit by offering them behavioural support.
- Encouraging smokers who cannot or do not want to stop smoking to switch to EC could help reduce smoking related disease, death and health inequalities.
- There is no evidence that EC are undermining the long-term decline in cigarette smoking among adults and youth, and may in fact be contributing to it. Despite some experimentation with EC among never smokers, EC are attracting very few people who have never smoked into regular EC use.
What is particularly important to me is the argument that provision of e-cigarettes by the NHS could reduce health inequalities:
Smoking is increasingly concentrated in disadvantaged groups who tend to be more dependent. EC potentially offer a wide reach, low-cost intervention to reduce smoking and improve health in disadvantaged groups.
Some health trusts and prisons have banned the use of EC which may disproportionately affect more disadvantaged smokers.
I’m also interested that the report busts many of the myths surrounding e-cigarettes. There is no evidence to support the idea that people who have never smoked cigarettes are starting to smoke e-cigarettes, nor are young people becoming hooked on them.
All of this means, says Welsh Liberal Democrat Leader Kirsty Williams, that the Labour Government in Wales should step back from its proposal to ban e-cigarettes from public places:
This report completely contradicts all of Labour’s rhetoric on e-cigarettes.
The truth is that Labour want to ban e-cigarettes because it doesn’t like them, rather than basing the decision on evidence – it’s as simple as that. As a liberal, I don’t think it’s the government’s job to go around banning things just because it wants to. The Welsh Liberal Democrats will continue to take an evidence based approach.
Time and time again we have argued that the use of e-cigarettes can help people quit smoking. This report supports that argument.
Labour Ministers in Wales need to take heed of the evidence that is stacking up against them and scrap these proposals at once.
So, the question for today is do you think that the NHS should be prescribing e-cigarettes as part of its strategy to reduce smoking? Or do you think that health choices should be up to the individual and the state shouldn’t poke its nose in? Over to you.
* Caron Lindsay is Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs at Caron's Musings
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Lord Bonkers Diary: The only estate in England with a breeding population of corkindrills
Renters Rights Bill long overdue
Michael's weekly ward surgeries today! #dundeewestend
John Grout
Cassie
Peter Hirst
Joe Bourke
56 Comments
It would be NHS money well spent. Caron had the strength of character to give up (for a very good reason) and then the willpower not to go back. Not everyone has that fortitude.
Wanting to ban e-cigs is simply control for control’s sake, supported by people whose mindset is that e-cig users are somehow cocking a snoop at the laws they’ve created and thus not ‘getting with the programme’.
Making a case for them could be a nice little vote winner for the LDs, aside from the long-term health benefits and savings.
E cigs should not be prescribed on the NHS.
In my experience if a smoker wants to quit,they will have sufficient willpower to do so alone.
The NHS cannot pay for everything,there are already too many things the NHS pays for imo.
I’m not sure it’s about strength of character, because I wouldn’t suggest that anyone who couldn’t give up was somehow weak of character. I was able to more by good fortune than anything else.
I am particularly interested in the way in which provision of ecigs could help tackle health inequalities and I think that the evidence clearly points to doing that – and we believe in evidence based policies.
Not even if it saves money in the long-run, Richard, cos you don’t have to treat people for smoking related illnesses?
Most people who want to quit real ciggies,have probably already done so,by switching to e cigs or just quitting.
Most people who want e cigs,just buy them themselves because they save money.
Not a cost effective idea at all.
Now a sugar tax,that’s whole new ball game,which would seriously save the country millions.
This is a no-brainer, switching to vaping is easy while giving up is at least as hard as dropping heroin use. The studies suggest that 2 or 3 fags are enough to get you hooked- thats one hell of of a powerful “drug”.
The other easy thing we can do is reverse the tendency to treat vaping & smoking as indistiguiashable, seen most recently with the decision to ban vaping on the London Transport network.
Caron Lindsay 19th Aug ’15 – 1:34pm
Not even if it saves money in the long-run, Richard, cos you don’t have to treat people for smoking related illnesses?
I thought it was generally accepted that smokers pay far more into the nation’s coffers than they cost in health care – they also tend to die younger so do not use a range of social services for as long as non smokers.
In this study the ‘What smoking costs the UK’ can safely be broadly ignored and viewed as government propaganda:
https://fullfact.org/factchecks/does_smoking_cost_as_much_as_it_makes_for_the_treasury-29288
I smoke a pipe – on the rare occasions that I do go to the doctors – my doctor tries to get me to quit quoting the life threatening consequences. When I ask him what are the government’s approved causes of death [since we all will die] – he does not seem to have an answer.
Could a smoker not afford the e-cigarettes themselves with the money they save from not buying cigarettes?
Why do they need to get them from the NHS?
Those who favour so-called “VAPING” including my old friends in ASH do so because they believe in “harm reduction”.
The logic of “harm reduction” — is a bit like saying one broken arm is less harmful than all the bones in your body being broken, so it would be a good idea to get the NHS to break just one arm of every smoker.
I still believe that it is better not to break any bones at all.
Presumably those who don’t think doctors should be able to prescribe e cigs also think it should not (as at present) be able to prescribe nicotine patches and gum ?
Having listened to a debate on the radio on this subject today, it would seem the main areas of concern are: the initial cost of the vaping kit and the quality of the nicotine substitute. Basically, vaping, like tobacco products in general isn’t particularly well regulated with respect to the ingredients used. Hence having a medical grade vaping product would enable a person to have a real choice between nicotine patches and vaping.
I think that with some treatments, such as those aimed at giving up smoking, we should be providing them on the NHS, only that they shouldn’t be available as a free prescription.
I agree with the NHS *recommending* e-cigarettes to smokers, whether as an aid to cessation or alternatively as a long-term healthier lifestyle choice (some smokers may not otherwise consider quitting), but I don’t believe the NHS should be doling e-cigs out at Joe Public’s expense, as that seems tantamount to publicly funded recreational drug use. Smokers should pay for them with their own money; if they can afford cigs, they can afford a vape pen, and should be encouraged in that direction through other forms of pressure.
With that in mind, what would be a better idea is relaxing regulations/controls on e-cigarettes, such as tax breaks, less restrictions (NOT a free-for-all) on advertisement & on where they can be used/bought, as well as possibly making the laws on tobacco products *more* punitive – a two-hit combo of the carrot and the stick. Welsh Labour & others suggesting e-cigarettes be as tightly controlled and equally ostracised as smoking – or even banning them altogether – are clearly barking mad.
E-cigarettes represent a golden opportunity to greatly improve the nation’s health, while not significantly infringing on anyone’s basic liberties ~ smoking could be reduced, greatly even, and nicotine aficionados can still get their fix (and why not?) This opportunity must not be allowed to be snatched away by well-intentioned fools, because their program of prohibition will not work, just like it hasn’t worked with other drugs.
It seems to me that the Party should examine carefully what is behind the EU’s plan to eventually ban smoking completely.
Whereas I can see that to make clear the potential damage caused by the habit is commendable – however, it strikes me as being far from liberal to instigate laws to prevent individuals – who are fully aware of the risks of a habit – from continuing nevertheless.
Isn’t it a basic freedom to risk your life? If not why isn’t climbing Mount Everest banned, or rowing across the Atlantic single handed or any other of the many high risk activities?
Also if the concern is for others safety – why isn’t alcohol banned? I have never heard of a smoker making a violent attack on someone else because they have had too many cigarettes or getting into their car and causing an accident involving many deaths because the have smoked too much. What about gambling? The damaged caused to a gambler, their partner and family can be horrific – if huge debts are created through being addicted to gambling.
Knowing as we do that it is the corporate lobbyists who are designing the secret TTIP agreement [like much else that goes on within the EU] – I suspect that if the issue were investigated to its roots – the ban on smoking would be found to be initiated by the same group – because it benefitted the vast majority of corporations in some way.
Following on from…..Dav 19th Aug ’15 – 2:41pm…Why not fund the ‘initial kit’ (£20) and allow the user to pay for the ongoing fluid (approx. the cost of 20 cigs per week )…After all, if it reduces the consumption of traditional tobacco the NHS’s £20 initial outlay sounds like a good idea..
John Roffey 19th Aug ’15 – 5:02pm
John, your theory breaks down when you check which lobbyists are most enthusiastic about TTIP.
The manufacturers of cigarettes are the keenest of the keen. They also have more experience of attempting to make democratic governments jump through legal hoops than any other sector. TTIP is what the Cigarette Manufacturers are lobbying for.
If you are seriously concerned about avoidable deaths you must know that smoking cigarettes kills far more people in this country and wordwide than any of the other causes you mention. The statistics are freely available.
The NHS should NOT supply Electronic (cigarettes) vaping devices BUT the NHS and GP’s should be recommending them as a heather alternative and a effective way to stop smoking that is 100% better than gum or patches. I smoked my last cigarette nearly 4 years ago ( I was a 20 a day, for best part of 30years ) on the very day I bought my first e-cig and have not even had a puff of a cigarette since and more importantly never wanted to and defo will never smoke again, BUT I am not planning on giving up vaping any time soon . Gum,Patches,Nicotine spray are just there to create more revenue for the companies that produce these alternatives and creating yet another possible dependency problem ( which companies and government love ) .We all know that the government don’t really want everyone to stop smoking as it generates to much income for them and this is also true with all the prescribed quit smoking methods, its paralleled to heroin ( illegal , so no money being generated) , methadone ( prescribed, and legal but still controlling, but now generating money for the government ) .
E-cigs should be promoted as a alternative to smoking or aid to quite smoking ,but as of this moment in time nobody is allowed to promote that.
I wish people will stop linking smoking with vaping in pubs and other pubic places as this just do not help anyone that is using a e-cig to kick the cigerettes..
I’m not convinced that the NHS should pay. I know that giving up is very difficult. I tried to give up smoking cigarettes for years, then I tried a pipe until it started ruining my teeth. Then I tried the odd cigar. When I was smoking nearly ten cigars a day and inhaling them, I knew I should quit.
Smoking addiction is mainly down to nicotine, but it has social and psychological habit forming consequences too. Lighting up after a meal, in the pub, in times of stress, and so on. I doubt if e-cigs will make in difference in these respects.
Nicotine is a highly toxic liquid alkaloid with a fatal dose of about 30-60mg. It is fatal by ingestion or skin absorbance. I therefore find it incredible that e-cigs are deemed safe. Given the choice, I would prefer to use patches to help me give up than replace a cigarette habit with an e-cig habit. Patches do not have all the psychological habit forming baggage.
The key thing when giving up is to really want to give up. Read the five words at the end of my first paragraph. You have to stop pretending that you want to give up and be determined to get through the suffering. Warn everyone that they have to support you. I’m afraid that e-cigs just prolong the pretence.
One further point. Nicotine patches were designed to help you stop smoking. e-cigs were designed to keep you smoking – and keep the revenue stream coming in for the former cigarette companies and other suppliers.
Of course the NHS should help smokers stop smoking – there is no difference from supplying nicotine patches to e-cigarettes.
Personally I believe that the tobaco companies should be forced to contribute to a fund for the vaping products.
@ Peter
What are you on about how was e-cigs designed to keep smoking!! perhaps you need to do some research on how and why they came about.
Nicotine is toxic as you say but so is lots of other stuff.. nicotine is also found in a lot of root vegtables that are consumed by a lot of people , caffeine is very Very similar to nicotine , but you don’t seem to have all the do gooders moaning about that. Patches are nicotine and patches can be just as harming as smoking ( if your just look at the nicotine and forget about all the other toxic stuff that happens when you spark up ) .. at least you are in total control as to how much nic you are getting with a e-cig . I had no intention of giving up smoking when I bought my first e-cig ,I just never went back to it . If E-cigs where on the NHS then it will be supporting there habit ( whether you think it good or bad ) just as methadone is
It should not be on the NHS. People can pay for their own e-cigs with the money they saved from smoking. The government shouldn’t ban it either. Maybe for once we can believe some good will be done without government intervening for it or against it. If that wouldn’t be illiberal.
Although tobacco is allegdly addictive many people have given it up, including lifelong smokers who may have been initially attracted by lifestyle advertisements.
Even heroin is not addictive. it is possible to give it up with gradually reducing dosages, although the undelying lifestyle may cause recurrence.
Our political leaders should be careful. For instance Antony Eden was PM during the Suez crisis.
“Problems with health
He was also prescribed Benzedrine, the wonder drug of the 1950s. Regarded then as a harmless stimulant, it belongs to the family of drugs called amphetamines, and at that time they were prescribed and used in a very casual way. Among the side effects of Benzedrine are insomnia, restlessness and mood swings, all of which Eden suffered during the Suez Crisis; indeed, earlier in his premiership he complained of being kept awake at night by the sound of motor scooters. Eden’s drug use is now commonly agreed to have been a part of the reason for his bad judgment while Prime Minister Eden was secretly hospitalised with a high fever, possibly as a result of his heavy medication, on 5–8 October 1956. He underwent further surgery at a New York hospital in April 1957.
In November 2006 private papers uncovered in the Eden family archives disclosed that he had been prescribed a powerful combination of amphetamines and barbiturates called drinamyl. Better known in post-war Britain as “purple hearts”, they can impair judgement, cause paranoia and even make the person taking them lose contact with reality. Drinamyl was banned in 1978.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Eden
Valium was also a prescription drug.
I don’t believe that smokers ‘enjoy’ a cigarette. What they ‘enjoy’ is the relief from the craving for nicotine. I have enjoyed going to the dentist when I have had tooth ache for a week!
I don’t think the NHS should spend scarce resources on e-cigarettes unless it’s part of a programme to get someone off their nicotine addiction. Cigarettes are a drug delivery system as are e-cigarettes which may be ‘cleaner’ but I can’t see the point of just switching one for the other and then funding it on the NHS.
I also think that e-cigarettes should be restricted to areas that allow tobacco smoking as it shouldn’t make any difference to a smoker. As a non-smoker I sat in a cafe recently that allowed vaping indoors and it was a very uncomfortable experience, as four diners blew out clouds of vapour across the restaurant and other diners.
It appears clear that E-Cigarettes are cheaper overall and therefore “at most” the cost of the initial unit might be funded by the NHS as part of a program of quitting.
If Nicotine is so dangerous perhaps an evidence based answer might be to tax in relation to the amounts of harm each individual product does, which would point to some level of tax on EC, which should help to pay for ongoing studies and controls.
Given that EC could yet become a gateway for the young, via flavoured use (perhaps not containing any nicotine) I see no reason to treat them differently from an advertising perspective, though I’d be willing to concede banning advertising should perhaps wait for the evidence to be gathered.
As for sugar, as another mentioned, I see no reason not to apply a tax on products containing added sugar, in proportion to the amount contained, with a view to it raising the extra funds needed to cover the costs of diabetes. I would be slightly concerned if all it did was to switch to manufacturers adding artificial sweeteners to maintain the level of sweetness unless doing so were “completely safe”
Both of these might impact the disadvantaged most – on EC in an advantageous way, the reverse for sugar – though from figures I’ve seen, the savings on smoking could easily offset the increased cost of maintaining a serious sugar habit. Obviously mileage may vary from person to person.
I won’t give up chocolate, there are some brands which are way too sweet and should they choose to cut down on sugar might have a chance of my custom. And its the cutting down, in order to hold prices down, that might be the most effective way to cut sugar consumption.
Oh, and I’d exclude honey from extra taxation, who knows, perhaps increased demand/prices might lead to effective measures to protect our bee population who do so much good!
Why on earth would you think ecigs should be funded by the taxpayer? I stopped smoking about 40 years ago and I did so myself. It was not easy, but with the right attitude anyone can do so.
However, I know little about ecigs but I discovered this morning that they are much cheaper than cigarettes. Is that not an incentive? I was horrified to find that cigarettes today cost over £8.00 for 20!
I know a few people who have their ecig in their mouths almost constantly but if a refill costs as little as £3.99 then surely they can fund it themselves.
People have to take some responsibility for themselves and to add another taxpayer-funded crutch is ludicrous.
The issue with e-cigs is the lack of evidence one way or the other. They haven’t been around for long enough for safety or otherwise to be proved. They certainly have not gone through a process rigorous enough to enable them to be prescribed. In particular we don’t know if passive vaping is harmful to those in the same room as someone smoking an ecig. ‘Less harmful’ doesn’t mean ‘safe’ At the moment the advice given to pharmacists is that they should not sell e cigs even tho they sell other nicotine replacement products. I do think it would be useful if that advice could be reversed so that someone wanting quit smoking could be offered the e-cig option as part of a formal quit smoking programme.
But there is one way in which ecigs are just as harmful as normal ones….they contain nicotine and are addictive. Essentially you replace one addiction with another safer one….That needs to be born in mind whatever their status
http://www.univadis.co.uk/medical-news/287/Stopping-smoking-should-be-e-cig-friendly?utm_source=newsletter+email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=medical+updates+-+daily&utm_content=316380&utm_term=automated_daily
http://www.univadis.co.uk/jama-network/15/Teens-Using-E-Cigarettes-More-Likely-to-Start-Smoking-Tobacco?u=g7Nnk16ewgsb%2BfdYm8axg7NXHqW0iXkCaCBTEv%2BIiil4n6Q%2F8gTTxk%2FXfabvi%2FpJ&ll=eng-GB&utm_source=newsletter%20email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=medical%20updates%20-%20daily&utm_content=316380&utm_term=automated_daily
sally haynes-preece 20th Aug ’15 – 2:35pm
“….there is one way in which ecigs are just as harmful as normal ones….they contain nicotine and are addictive. Essentially you replace one addiction with another…”
Exactly right, sally haynes-preece.
Do we really need another chemical addiction on the market to make the manufacturers richer and the rest of us poorer? I don’t think so.
Well im very disappointed in the last fewposts and with attitudes like this nothing will change.. caffeine is just as addictive as just as harmful as nicotine. ( some reports say that caffeine is more harmfull ) .. please dont say its not true unless you have evidence to support it. Why should people that vape be pushed into vaping in the vicinity of smokers just because uneducated people dont understand e-cigs, thats just madness and for anyone that thinks this is the way to go is just plain ignorant to the real facts, smokers that are jealous, ex-smokers that are bitter and non-smokers that think they are better than everyone else. Why would nic that is in vaper be harmful to others ?. inhalation is one of the most efficent delivery method to get nic into the blood stream the vaper is only generated when you are vaping ( unlike burning cigerettes ) and of the exhaled vaper it would have been stripped of 99.9999% of any nic contain within the vaper .. and the 0.000001% of whats left dont have a carrier anymore as its water vaper that disperses very quicky. Of coarse there is also the fact that some people vape without any nicotine in there e-cig as its not all about nicotine addition.. everybody has a addition/habbit of some sort or another.. so is nicotine really harmful ? no not really but you can over dose on it but you can overdose on caffeine, alcohol .. well nearly anything really.
A gateway to smoking is a lot of rubbish there are just as many studies that has found that there is no gateway effect you just need to do your research. Why on earth would someone on e-cigs ( in my case £30-£40 every 6 months and I am a heavy vaper) swap for something that taste really bad makes you smell really bad cost maybe £7.00 A DAY and make you have breathing problems .. its a no brainer.
@ sally haynes-preece
your very mis-informed and are not looking in the correct place for the positive studies that support e-cigs
@ Richard
you are also very mis-informed and are not willing to find out the truth, your attitude is very much that of a non smoker that don t really understand the chemistry behind e-cigs . those clouds of vaper was water .. get a life .. god help you if you come across a smoke machine in a threater/nighclub/disco or on a fairground attraction or anywhere.. its the same stuff !!.
even though I am a 100% vaper and 100% support the benefits of vaping ( over smoking) there is no way they should be available on the NHS … what ever next .. will they be prescribing bottles of whisky,vodka,or wine for alcoholics….
Opps sorry I meant Robert .. in the above post…
Sorry Richard
There are no health benefits from nicotine addiction – but e-cigarettes are proving to be a significant way forward in reducing tobacco consumption which has many harmful effects (including killing half of the people who consume it). Prescribing e-cigarettes as a way of breaking the link with tobacco, and ensuring that there is some control over the strength of nicotine etc., may be a very good way forward in terms of improving public health. It would need to be done in such a way as not to boost the profits of the tobacco companies who now put great emphasis on peddling their poisonous products in developing countries.
Kevin:
Are you sure you have not confused caffeine with cocaine?
“please dont say its not true unless you have evidence to support it”
Since you have not provided any evidence yourself why do you ask others to meet a higher standard?
http://www.alternet.org/10-hardest-drugs-kick or http://www.drugaddictiontreatment.com/addiction-in-the-news/addiction-news/the-top-10-most-addictive-drugs-an-introduction/ are both based on a comparative study which estimates a dependency rating for each drug. Other studies giving different weightings to objective criteria of addiction can give a different order of the most addictive drugs, but in all nicotine rates very highly with caffeine either absent or far behind.
Animal studies show that the addictive mechanism for nicotine (known as tolerance) is very rapid, only taking a few days.
I doubt you will find anything of substantive merit to back up your assertions.
Chris Reynard: one of the problems with vaping is that it is such an effective method of delivery and moreover one produces the concentration spikes that readily induce addiction; moreover, I strongly agree with you that there is a very big danger that the large companies will market the product in a way that exploits the addictive characteristics. Patches and possibly nicotine chewing gum have a better claim to be available on prescription, however I do not think any alternative nicotine sources should be on prescription unless there is active supervision. Someone who wears a nicotine patch (or some other nicotine delivery) but continues to smoke cigarettes wold only exacerbate their addiction.
Smokers already have a financial incentive to quit as smoking costs a fortune. They also already have a financial incentive to switch to vaping. As far as I can see the jury is out on harmful effects of vaping, and it looks like vapers will have far more nicotine than smokers, so the NHS shouldnt push people into a vaping habit.
The evidence is very hard to find in black and white, but it is out there .the chemical makeup of caffeine and nicotine is very similar both produce the same effects on the body and both have the same with draw effects . After a quick search http://www.druginfo.adf.org.au/drug-facts/caffeine
I have read a medical research paper that directly compares the 2 drugs , but can’t find it at the moment.
The chances of caffeine ever appearing in a list like you linked to would be very rare as caffeine is in so much stuff and its seen as not that harmful well just about the same as nicotine.
A Social Liberal .Agree tobacco companies should contribute .Alcohol companies should also do the same for a problem that is often under reported .E cigs if they help reduce consumption and are part of a planned course of treatment could help to break the addiction cycle .Like most addictions very few people can go cold turkey but have to wean themselves off gradually .
“.Agree tobacco companies should contribute .Alcohol companies should also do the same for a problem that is often under reported.”
I thought they did, that was one of the reasons for retaining a higher level of duty on their products…
“As far as I can see the jury is out on harmful effects of vaping”
Whilst it will take time to uncover any long-term effects, there are results. However, one of the issues flagged is the lack of regulation of ingredients and levels of nicotine. So a concern isn’t that vaping as such is harmful, but that due to the use of poor quality ingredients it could be harmful. Remember in many of the recent ‘drug’ deaths, the cause of death wasn’t the active drug but a filler substance used to create a tablet/dose…
This is the main problem with anything like this.. the quality of ingredients is the key .. I mix my own juice for my e-cigs that are tested for inhalation safety and that are also pharmaceutical grade and from a reputable source, so I know exactly what quality I am vaping and at what levels. 99% of the scientific community agree that vaping is so much less harmfully than smoking .. about the addiction that people keep going on about , if nicotine is as addictive as some reports make out which I truly believe its not true based on reading medical reports and personal experience and think a lot of the addiction tests are based on cigarettes which also contain additional 3000+ chemicals/drugs and a lot of which the scientific community still don’t know what 100% of these chemicals ( cocktails ) are doing to the bodies and minds of users but its just very convenient to say nicotine is very additive, even though its not harmful if used at safe levels ( just like caffiene ) , A lot of people don’t mix nicotine into there vaping juice anyway .
If the NHS did supply e-cigs to help people kick the smoking habbit what ecig with they supply as there are so many different types and some are much better than others, who will decide which is the most effective e-cig for a certain person also what flavour of juices will they supply as everyone has different tasts. I was very lucky with the very first disposable ecig I bought as it was a very nice flavor (coffee flavor) and the whole tast and experience just made me think about why the hell was I smoking but being a disposable ecig it only lasted 2 days so I bought another disposable from the same shop, same flavour and same make and this was like a totally different experience and not in a good way, But I knew what ecigs could be like so started to research and tried may different designs and flavours until I found one that I was happy with whilst never smoking a single cigerette ever since I bought the first disposable ecig. That was 4 years ago ( and still have not smoked a real cig since and never will again) . If the first ecig I bought happend to be the second ecig I bought then I would probably will still be smoking . I know lots of people that have kicked cigs in favor for ecigs but its all about trial and error to find one that suits you.
I am a pharmacist……and also a therapist who deals with addiction….so with respect I do think I represent an informed viewpoint, I am not saying that ecigs should not be used…..just that prescribing them is probably not wise. Yes caffeine is also addictive, and I have seen the effects in my professional life. There already are NRT products around which can be supplied free by a pharmacist under some circumstances. Smokers already have a lot of options. E-cigs may be safer than the real ones…but if someone really wants to give up where is the evidence they are safer or more effective than current products? Also there is evidence from the uS that young people who try ecigs ARE more likely to go on to start smoking the real things…..
As someone who led the fight in the European Parliament against compulsory medicines regulation for ecigs, I would like to add my bit.
(1) ecigs don’t work for everyone, but do appeal to many who wouldn’t go near gum/patches or stop smoking services. Many vapers (they are NOT smokers) started vaping without any intention to quit tobacco, but ended up quitting accidentally (!!!).
(2) Nicotine on its own isn’t that harmful; similar to caffeine and far less harmful than alcohol. Original studies on nicotine toxicity are now in doubt; it’s very difficult to “overdose” on nicotine as you will vomit/be unable to continue before you reach a toxic dose. We don’t yet know the long term effect of vaping on lungs already been damaged by tobacco, but can be confident it’s infinitely less harmful than continuing to smoke.
(3) The “gateway” effect i.e. people starting vaping and switching to smoking doesn’t exist and I cannot see the incentive to switch from vaping to a habit 95% more harmful, most costly and which smells bad. “renormalisation” of smoking also hasn’t happened, as reliable sales data shows increased ecig sales are associated with declining tobacco sales indicating a replacement/switch effect.
(4) Ecig sales to minors are already illegal and strict marketing rules were introduced in 2014: https://www.cap.org.uk/News-reports/Media-Centre/2014/~/media/Files/CAP/Consultations/ecig%20consultation/Regulatory%20Statement.ashx
From 2016 the EU tobacco directive will regulate ecigs in the UK via a dual medicines or consumer approach. Medicines regulation is best suited to the disposable “cig-alike” products made by tobacco companies (who entered the market AFTER tobacco sales started to fall). No long term vapers use disposable cigalikes; they prefer customisable devices and e-juice.
(5) As the NHS already funds gum, patches and stop smoking services, why not ecigs? Most people who give up smoking by switching to ecigs don’t go near the NHS, so demand unlikely to be high, but may help some poorer people (more likely to smoke) to switch. Many stop smoking services are now “ecig friendly”.
(6) As Liberals, we should welcome the opportunity to support people to improve their health by switching from tobacco to ecigs (DIY harm reduction) and seek to regulate ecigs only where it is necessary.
I dont agree that gum and patches should be available on the NHS either but should still offer the stop smoking services what would really help is if gum,patches,spray and ecigs that can be bought in chemists were so much cheaper If you think that it will help people that don’t have enough spare cash to buy patches,gum or a ecig then they should not have enough cash to buy cigarettes. I know to many smokers that have tried to quit using patches and they normally end up still having a cigerette as well as wearing a patch , there is so much more to just having nicotine in stopping the craving for a cigerette and this is where ecigs has the edge .
Kirsty WIlliams: “The truth is that Labour want to ban e-cigarettes… The Welsh Liberal Democrats will continue to take an evidence based approach.”
Given that Labour do not want to “ban” e-cigarettes, I would suggest that Kirsty Williams needs to brush up on her fact-gathering techniques if she’s going to boast about following an evidence-based approach.
The idea that restricting these things in public places will stop people switching to them from tobacco is an obvious nonsense, since the e-cigs will not be banned anywhere where traditional cigarettes are not banned also. If people want to switch to these things, nobody is trying to stop them.
The big piece of evidence Kirsty Williams and other e-cig fans choose to ignore is that the vast majority of the public would apparently like to see restrictions on these revolting things in indoor public places (see https://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/10/21/ban-e-cigarettes-indoors-say-public/ ).
So long as e-cig users have plenty of other places where they can vape, a restriction in enclosed public spaces would be no more illiberal than, say, LDV’s moderation policy, for exactly the same reasons. It is the e-cig fans who are being illiberal here, because they’re trying to force people to breathe this stuff in whether they want to or not.
As one who has an asthmatic partner, tobacco smoke invokes a – probably – irrational anger in me because the partner is so sensitive to tobacco smoke. We have three animals, we live in a city, but those things aren’t triggers. However a room that’s been smoked in will lead to extensive inhalator sucking. Even if it hasn’t been smoked in for ages.
The worst time of my life was when the partner was brought to hospital and had tubes rammed down his throat so that air could get down into the lungs. That was a scary thing, and I don’t think I’ve ever moved as fast or as illegally when I rushed to the hospital.
I’d like to see the NHS prescrive e-cigarettes. Not only because I want to minimize situations like what I wrote about above, but also because cigarette smoke has 4000 carcinogenous substances in it aside from nicotine. And the health benefits, on a societal level, would be immense. It would simply be much cheaper to provide a life-long supply of e-cigarettes for everyone than to care for the cardio-vascular problems, cancer treatments, heart-failures of a large portion of smokers.
@ Stuart
If ecigs were banned in public places then this will have a knock on effect as the vaper from these machines also use the same tec as ecigs , so you would also have to ban the use of all these devices in public .. will that ever happen ? nope dont think so. You will also loose one of the intensives in swapping from tobbaco to ecigs..
the vast majority of the public don’t know the facts or are choosing to believe the hype from anti ecig campaigns lead by some world wide recognised organisations ( it also appears you also do not have a clue ) there is nothing to breath in by the non- users as ecigs have a very low vaper content.. certainly magnitudes less than smoke machines…
The only mainstream reporting about ecigs appear to negitive and unless joe public go out of there way to find the real facts then nothing will change all of the facts ( good and bad ) should be mainstream so joe pubic can make up there own minds.. Its still all about controlling the masses for profit . Im not going to say its totally harmless to the user but on the other hand there are far more harmless substances floating around in the air that no really seems to worry about.
There was a lot of typos in my last post ( typing on the phone just don’t do it for me :-)).. Smoke machines = large scale atomisers. More harmful chemicals in the air to worry about. Led by so called recognized worldwide wide organisations WHO have been blatantly been caught fudging the facts so many times ( and not just about ecigs) and have had to stand down on Nealy every negative report that they have put out into the mainstream but still these fabicated negative reports are still out there ( I wonder what could be in it for them …uhmmmmm)
Another completely wrong concept. Blame the elderly, moan about, the obese and tell diabetics, they are a problem. People dying on the NHS, while at the very same time some ‘expert’ (experts know less than the average person), ‘let’s prescribe nicotine freely’. When will the idiocy stop? when some people can’t get life saving cutting edge drugs and people with body parts, too large can’t get operations. I fear that, the lobby groups and financial gain, are behind this totally immoral, outrageous and scandalous idea. Enhaling anything is surely unhealthy. I just wonder what these people have been enhaling? to dream up a scheme, that will send more youths, to an early grave.
It seems ridiculous to spend money on these when people can afford to pay for them themselves.
As a former smoker, it is a prerequisite of actually giving up, that one wants to give up. No amount of hectoring of offering of support will help if there isn’t a determination to do so. I also believe that making the financial sacrifice ( although it is less than a financial sacrifice than buying cigarettes), is part of the determination process.
I see no other way than going ‘cold turkey’ with all the internal arguments as to why one might as well have another cigarette. It is horrid but worth it, and sometimes it takes more than one attempt.
If there is money to spare, there are NHS treatments that cannot be afforded by the individual and funding should be directed towards that.
I am not really addressing the NHS issue but rather the issue of vaping in enclosed public places. I am here very much with Stuart (about 5 posts ago) in having sympathy with the Welsh government intention to limit vaping in the same way as smoking. If it is true that the overwhelming purpose of vaping is to help existing smokers to stop smoking and to provide a less harmful option for people who might otherwise be tempted to start smoking,then surely it should be geared to replacing smoking in places where smoking already takes place – not extending the use of imitation (albeit clearly less unhealthy) smoking devices to places where smoking has been abandoned now for many years.
I do not want to be engulfed in vapour while eating or drinking in a restaurant or pub any more than I would want to see people beside me spitting or spraying drink or whatever. Why allow what would be – to some degree at least- a rowing back of the relief the vast majority of people have enjoyed from such practices going on beside them in enclosed public spaces? What on earth would this contribute to the stopping of smoking which only at present goes on (thank goodness) elsewhere?
There would be quite a few small businesses that will probably have to close down should the welsh enforce a ban on vaping indoors , would this be fair of these small businesses to be forced to close ?. If vaping in enclosed places were enforced where will vapers be able to vape i.e pubs and work premises normally have a designated smoking area do this mean they would also have to have a separate area for people that vape ? . I was told in a place where i was working recently that if I wanted to vape I either had to go to the smoking area or not vape at all on the sites premises during the working day, that is so wrong as Im not a smoker and have encountered this attitude in a lot of pubs also .
Why would you think that you would be engulfed with vaper if you were in a restaurant or pub ( or anywhere for that matter ) . One of my pet hates about the media is when ever you see a picture relating to e-cigs it normally shows someone exhaling lots and lots of vaper.. this is not the norm , cloud chasing has become a bit of a trend amongst some but not all vapers. The juice could be mixed so that very little visible vaper is exhaled.. Would you also support a indoor ban on aroma therapy, air fresheners and smoke machines ?
Would you still feel the same way if there was very little visable vaper ?
Is there anybody that has read or added to these comments that actually vapes ? there are over 2.5 million vapers in the uk and Im I the only one that have stumbled on this page and have posted 🙂 ?
Re the Welsh ban:
– A blanket ban on Ecig use in public (like current smoking ban) is not supported by any evidence of bystander harm, which is why Cancer Research UK and the British Heart Foundation (among others) oppose Labour’s proposal in Wales.
– Requiring vapers to stand with the smokers and be exposed to the product they seek to avoid seems perverse.
– Opposing Labour’s illiberal proposal does not mean allowing people to vape anywhere and everywhere. There are situations where prohibition would be appropriate eg in/near a school and in confined spaces (while vaping is not harmful to bystanders, many people vaping in a confined space could be rather unpleasant). This can be done on a case by case basis.
– Unlike cigarette smoke, vapour from ecigs (mostly water) disappears (evaporates) very quickly. That’s how p to tell, even at a distance, that someone is vaping rather than smoking.
@Jane, you say wanting to give up smoking is a preequistite to doing so. Interestingly there are many vapers who started vaping with no intention of giving up smoking (wanted to cut down or use ecig where they couldn’t smoke), who have UNINTENTIONALLY QUIT SMOKING!! As I said above, ecigs don’t work for everyone, but iif our aim is to reduce smoking related ill health and death (that’s mine), we should support people to stop smoking with any reasonable method they choose including ecigs, willpower alone and gum/patches.
@Jane As a health professional who is not yet convinced that ecigs are safer than tobacco (??!!), I suggest you read what Cancer Research UK, ASH, Public Health England and the Royal College of Physicians say and the research they cite. CR-UK are very good at debunking some of the junk science on ecigs that has disgracefully made it into peer review journals.
A final salient point: the more ecigs are restricted, the happier the tobacco industry will be. They only entered the market because they saw their sales falling dramatically eg in France, the greatest fall in tobacco sales since heavy price rises occurred at the same time as ecig sales rose. Tobacco companies support medicines regulation of ecigs as it is more suited to their cigalike products which no long term Vaper uses. In fact vapers tell me the cigalikes are “rubbish” and many said they tried them and went back to smoking before they discovered customisable devices.
I think the original cigalikes have done a lot of harm towards the positives good of e-cigs.. they just looked to much like real cigarettes. I feel that ecigs should not be a visual substitute to tobacco cigarettes , But from what I have been reading this appears that these cigalikes maybe the only thing that will be available.. the whole point of ecigs is to breakaway from all the habits and negative things that go with smoking tobacco products and not try to imitate it