Results 1 to 3 of 3
Like Tree6Likes
  • 4 Post By Old Dog
  • 1 Post By Olfella
  • 1 Post By Old Dog

Thread: The shock of the new how government copes with innovation

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Melbourne's leafy outer East
    Posts
    3,656

    The shock of the new how government copes with innovation

    Even after 50 years of throwing the policy book at cigarettes, around 20% of the population refuse to be priced, persuaded or regulated out of the habit despite that fact that that habit will end up prematurely killing around half of them. Smoking is increasingly the domain of the poor and the vulnerable e.g. self-medicating schizophrenics.

    For years, those concerned about smoking have been seeking a safe(r) alternative but they were badly bitten by their experience of low tar cigarettes sounded good but offered few health benefits. E-cigarettes which offer the nicotine (relatively harmless fun, or so I am told) without the smoke (the cause of death and disease) have the potential to be just that breakthrough. If lots of smokers switched to e-cigarettes, there would be very substantial gains to public health. The market in the UK has taken off in a regulatory vacuum which is where the argument starts.
    The shock of the new – how government copes with innovation | Blog

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    NANNY STATE W.A.
    Posts
    1,267
    Is the tide beginning to turn ???? Great article as usual Old Dog
    Old Dog likes this.
    I VAPE = I LIVE

    Started Vaping at 16:00 hrs on 11th April 2013...
    Saved poop loads of $ not buying stinkies since then.
    Spending poop loads of $ on shinies and juice etc since then
    But now I am happy...


  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Melbourne's leafy outer East
    Posts
    3,656
    Bump for this thread as more comments have been added to the article including this from Clive Bates .............


    Jill… very insightful account of this, with many lessons for open policy making. I think the story is being locked into a flawed paradigm and being unable or unwilling to escape as the signs pile up.

    The warning signs were there in 2010 when these products were seen by government as a threat and, well, a bit nasty. The government’s preferred approach was to ban them within 21 days by classing them as medicines and taking them off the market as unlicensed. The only trouble was that 100s of vapers responded to the consultation in personal and heartfelt terms pointing out that these products had transformed their health. It was no astroturf operation either: unnoticed by the health and medical establishment, consumers, vendors and Chinese innovators had come up with a promising solution to smoking, and all without any call on the taxpayer and with no approval of public health experts. It was and is a fantastic opportunity, but was treated in government from the outset as a threat to be contained.

    The key mistake was made at that point. As the vapers’ responses could not be ignored or explained away. – Department of Health asked the MHRA to look into it more and to study options. But consider the framing bias in that choice of specialist agency. To a hammer, every problem is a nail, and to the MHRA and its Commission on Human Medicines this problematic development unsurprisingly looked like it needed a dose of medicine regulation. What DH should have done was to look carefully at all options for regulation (and not ask the MHRA to do this); to try to understand these users’ experience much better, and to grasp how this nimble highly innovative industry was working in practice. Instead it appeared to indulge in one of the greatest of all civil service vices: continuing undaunted and trying to prove it was right all along, even as the testimonies piled up, the companies piled in and the users piled on the pressure.

    The October 2013 reversal in the European Parliament was met with more of the same – MHRA declaring it was still for medicines regulation, but without being able to answer its critics’ challenges. What they should do now is (i) pause and reflect on what happened and why; (ii) convene a broader stakeholder group and stop ignoring the user experience and small firms that make up this disruptive industry; (iii) properly assess regulatory options and perverse consequences of excessive regulation; (iv) at UK or EU level design a regulatory framework that is proportionate to risk and fit for purpose; (v) try to do things that won’t be struck down in court as disproportionate, discriminatory, or otherwise unlawful.

    Other lessons relate to the feebleness of the challenge to all this within the rest of government. Even though MHRA/DH were roasted for their 2010 consultation by the Regulatory Policy Committee, nothing much changed, and BIS continued to be satisfied too easily, doing nothing to assist this promising new industry. The ‘better regulation’ machinery was bypassed or didn’t work. Even the government’s ‘Red Tape Challenge’ appears ineffective even though it supposedly has a strand devoted to ‘disruptive challenger industries’ and tackling excessive or ill-fitting regulation holding back promising new business areas. E-cigarettes could not offer a better justification for a Red Tape Challenge – but there came none.
    The shock of the new – how government copes with innovation | Blog
    Fatman likes this.

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.4
Copyright © 2019 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0
All times are GMT +11. The time now is 10:42 AM.