EU draft directive to be presented on wed 19th Dec

Lucutus

The lash back against the 'anti-choice' tobacco directive is what's important there.

If the use of NHR products like ecigs and snus is to be restricted, then perhaps cigarettes should be treated in the exact same manner.

Plain packaging is one thing, that's fine across the board, but I dare any EU member state to try getting all smokers to buy their smokes in a chemist with the need for a prescription, (maybe impose a 20 per day limit, the 40 a day crowd would take up arms.)

Good ecig advert:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BOsK9K8uYg

Mr. Chrome

Lucutus wrote: »

This here is an interesting development, a rejection of the directive, from a politician, no less.

Hopefully they follow through and make it official.

Forget ecigs, I would vote for her on looks alone.
I also think snus should be banned worldwide, I once saw a snus movie and it was vile and disgusting, oh hang on, that was snuf....

was.deevey

Good ecig advert:

Adverts like that are part of the problem IMHO - There's no studies to support they are "That" safe despite e-cig companies advertising.

Remember there was a point in time where cigarettes were considered good for you and recommended by doctors (watch the kings speech).

tommy2bad

Denmark, Italy, Holland and predictably enough Sweden have all 'expressed concern' (deliberate rob) about the TPD.
Borg meets resistance.*
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=da&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.180grader.dk%2FUdland%2Fholland-undsiger-eu-kommission-naegter-at-stramme-rygelov
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=da&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.180grader.dk%2FPolitik%2Feu-tobaksdirektiv-vil-kvaele-e-cigaretten-amp-give-monopol-til-nicorette
BTW check out the Danish MP's FB page, wish we had politico like her http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151354697493090&set=a.100749468089.91980.685998089&type=1
Love her pic and I wouldn't kick her out of bed for eatin taytos ither
*Field day for puns this!

P_1

Ok I have come up with a hopefully interesting counterargument for the 'ban them' argument, feel free to shoot any holes into it.

First of all what is the main reason people smoke? A - for the nicotine, B - for the taste, C - out of habit.

Now why do people drink tea? A -for the caffeine, B - for the taste, C - out of habit.

Now what do tobacco and tea leaves have in common? They both contain a mild naturally occurring stimulant (nicotine in the case of tobacco, caffeine in the case of tea). This stimulant is extracted from the leaf to be consumed (by burning it in the case of tobacco and by adding hot water in the case of tea). I'm sure that caffeine can also be extracted by smoking tea leaves and nicotine can also be extracted by adding hot water to tobacco leaves (cup of Marlboro anybody :pac: )

Now, who in their right minds is going to want to smoke tea leaves or apply caffeine patches to get their fix of caffeine? They don't work.

Why therefore does it make any sense to do the same with nicotine?

E-Cigs are as relatively harmless to you as drinking a cup of tea. Would you like to ban drinking tea or perhaps limit the amount of caffeine that is contained in each tea bag?

Would this logical argument work in our favour?

tommy2bad

@P-1
Not sure that would work just put like that, this might end up in courts yet. This blog by Clive Bates shows the double standard being used on ecigs;
http://www.clivebates.com/?p=973

P_1

tommy2bad wrote: »

@P-1
Not sure that would work just put like that, this might end up in courts yet. This blog by Clive Bates shows the double standard being used on ecigs;
http://www.clivebates.com/?p=973

Thanks for the link, I'm still angling to try put together an 'everyman's argument' to use in a constituency clinic meeting with Reilly. Personally I think that would have more of an impact than letters emails etc.

Out of interest is anybody else from these parts living in North Dublin?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

the tea argument doesn't work, you drink tea and you inhale vapour. lungs are magical places where pixies and unborn babies live, they have to be protected. no one gives a toss what happens to stomachs.

grindle

There's only one truly valid argument, give them an inch more and they take a mile (as we can see).

Repeat after me: You have no fùcking right to tell me what to do.

Repeat three times while pissing into Dr James Reilly's gaping maw then force a gargle out of him.

Every day I see this weird, binding, tacit acception that they have the right to order you about.
"But the government says..."
What a bunch of pussies.
"They wouldn't try to ban it unless it was dangerous!"
What a world we live in. Full to the brim with brain-dead idiots.

tommy2bad

Repeat three times while pissing into Dr James Reilly's gaping maw then force a gargle out of him.

Words make pictures, Brain bleach needed now!

fannywart

If eliquid is banned in EU.

I would think an American style hording of e-liquid in a shelter of some sort would be required.

The next bit is to prepaire for the ban buy stoking up.

I presume PG , VG and flavours would not be banned.

So would you recomend a stockpile of 100mg/ml nicotine flavourless liquid that is diluted and mixed as required in my soon to be illegal nicotine lab/shed.

Or

Do you buy preflavoured liquids, thus require more volume to store.

So how much to stockpile?

Is the calculation based on number of years left vaping according to a life expectancy statistic X mls vaped / year.

Maybe I could hire, (in the future) nicotine drug mules, to carry the cargo from Afganistan.

I think the real solution is for a third world country to nominate itself as an e-liquid drug holiday destination a bit like holand is now for THC.

fannywart

Another thought to make a slow buck

Buy the eliquid now in bulk

Hord it

dont vape it

When the ban arrives, set up deals on Boards.ie at high profit margin.

Hope that moderators dont notice, or they too could be your future customers.

Dont forget to thank me now in the section below, so that when E-liquid is banned, you can be counted as already having subscribed to my pre-membership club for hypothetically illegal, futuristic, eliquid dogey vapors.

tommy2bad

An amendment to the TPD has been proposed by Internal Market and Consumer Protection IMCO .
It's actually far more draconian than what we have seen so far.
They ask that all ecigs be classed as medicinal, no more 4mg level. They also ask for a ban on Internet sales for all tobacco products, this will include 0 nic ecigs which fall outside of the medical definition.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/commissions/imco/projet_avis/2013/508048/IMCO_PA(2013)508048_EN.doc
That comes down as a Doc so read it for what it is. It is only a proposal and might not be accepted, theirs more to come from other EU committees, we were hoping that the market and consumer protection one would have been more favorable, the rest might not even be as considerate.

This is our right to use a safer alternative to smoking thats at stake. I urge people to step up the pressure on MEP and TD. Write again or for the first time if you haven't. Try to meet the buggers, they are dismissing our letters as lobbying by vested interests, OK, their right we are a vested interest, but just using that term they can ignore us as a lobby effort by the tobacco companies. Yes, they are that devious.

This thread has fallen down a bit for whatever reason , it might be time to sticky it.

P.I.T.A

For those who haven't seen it elsewhere yet they have finally given up and the 4mg limit is gone, whether down to vapers pressure or admitting that their legal arm are right and they can't win this in the courts.

But it is not entirely clear that the ban on flavourings includes tobacco as well and all we can buy is flavourless nic juice, if it does the fight will go on I'm sure, here is the full text of ENVI's amendments.


EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 2009 - 2014

Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety
08/05/2013
AMENDMENTS 1 - 4
Linda McAvan
Approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products
Proposal for a directive COM(2012)0788 - C7-0420/2012 – 2012/0366(COD)



Amendments created with

Go to http://www.at4am.ep.parl.union.eu

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety
08/05/2013
Linda McAvan
Approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products
Proposal for a directive COM(2012)0788 - C7-0420/2012 – 2012/0366(COD)

Amendment 1
Linda McAvan

Proposal for a directive
Recital 33

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment
(33) Nicotine-containing products are sold on the Union market. The different regulatory approaches taken by Member States to address health and safety concerns associated with these products have a negative impact on the functioning of the internal market, in particular considering that these products are subject to significant cross-border distance sales including via the internet. (33) Nicotine-containing products are sold on the Union market. However, Member States have taken different regulatory approaches which is undermining the internal market, in particular considering that these products are subject to significant cross-border distance sales including via the internet. There is a need for harmonized rules, and given the potential of these products to aid with the harm reduction agenda, there should be an option for a light-touch regulatory regime to guarantee safety and quality, which is a middle-way between medicines and tobacco regulation.
Or. en


EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety
08/05/2013
Linda McAvan
Approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products
Proposal for a directive COM(2012)0788 - C7-0420/2012 – 2012/0366(COD)

Amendment 2
Linda McAvan

Proposal for a directive
Article 18 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment
Article 18 a
Nicotine-containing products
1. Nicotine-containing products may only be placed on the market if they are authorised pursuant to:
(a) Directive 2001/83/EC, or
(b) The simplified procedure as set out in paragraph 2 and 3.
Simplified procedure
2. Under the simplified procedure, Member States shall require manufacturers and importers of nicotine-containing products to submit an application for a marketing authorisation, which shall contain the following:
a) Evidence that the product is manufactured in accordance with the principles and guidelines of Good Manufacturing Practice;
b) A detailed description of the product in question, including all ingredients and quantities thereof, as well as information on emissions;
c) A Risk-Management Plan, including a system for monitoring and recording any adverse reactions;
Member States shall be entitled to charge a fee for processing the application. They may also require manufacturers or importers to carry out additional tests or submit additional information. Each Member State shall take due account of authorisations previously granted by another Member State.
3. For products authorised under the simplified procedure, Member States shall ensure that the following conditions are fulfilled:
a) the product is clearly labelled with the nicotine content, instructions for use, instructions for reporting adverse reactions, and details of the manufacturer;
b) each unit packet and any outside packaging shall carry the following health warning:
This products is intended for use by existing smokers aged 18 or over as an alternative to tobacco cigarettes. It contains nicotine which is a highly addictive substance. Consult your doctor if you are pregnant, breast feeding, allergic to nicotine or propylene glycol, or have high blood pressure.
c) flavourings shall not be allowed;
d) the sale of the product shall be restricted in line with the legal age for sale of tobacco products in the relevant Member State;
e) the products shall be available to be sold outside pharmacies;
f) advertising and promotion shall be appropriately regulated;
4. Member States shall monitor the development of the nicotine-containing products market, including any progress made in harm reduction, as well as any evidence of gateway use amongst young people. Based on the evidence, the Commission shall report back to the European Parliament and the Council 5 years after the transposition date of this Directive. The report shall assess whether amendments to this Directive are necessary.
Or. en
Justification
There is evidence that e-cigarettes may help with harm reduction strategies, and so they should be allowed to compete more freely with cigarettes - in terms of where they are sold etc. However products should still comply with appropriate safety and quality standards. The option of a simplified authorisation procedure takes elements from medicines regulation as well as tobacco regulation. We should proceed cautiously, given the lack of data, especially on long-term effects. There is a need for further monitoring, and the regulatory regime for NCPs should be reviewed in five years time.


EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety
08/05/2013
Linda McAvan
Approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products
Proposal for a directive COM(2012)0788 - C7-0420/2012 – 2012/0366(COD)

Amendment 3
Linda McAvan

Proposal for a directive
Article 26 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment
Member States may allow the following products, which are not in compliance with this Directive, to be placed on the market until [Publications Office, please insert the exact date: entry into force + 24 months]: Member States may allow the following products, which are not in compliance with this Directive, to be placed on the market until [Publications Office, please insert the exact date: entry into force + 36 months]:
Or. en


EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety
08/05/2013
Linda McAvan
Approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products
Proposal for a directive COM(2012)0788 - C7-0420/2012 – 2012/0366(COD)

Amendment 4
Linda McAvan

Proposal for a directive
Article 26 – paragraph 1 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission Amendment
(b) nicotine containing products below the threshold set out in Article 18(1); (b) nicotine containing products;
Or. en

grindle

The flavour thing is far beyond retarded but extremely easy to get around so it makes no difference. Rejoice!

P.I.T.A

grindle wrote: »

The flavour thing is far beyond retarded but extremely easy to get around so it makes no difference. Rejoice!

Agreed Grind's it's a whooopppee for us and DIYers, but I think this is aimed at the future vapers who will try an ecig cigalike and find no taste and think fek that it's bloody awful and go and buy another pack of 20 fags.
Looks like it damage limitation, let the ones in the know get on with it, but it will die a death in the future.

grindle

Maybe if the only contact they have with ecigs are through a Londis or something (although we've already got that cigalike problem), but more and more vape shops will open and the only difference with buying a 30ml bottle of juice if the powers that be don't allow flavouring will be a package with a 30ml bottle and two 15ml vials saying "Mix Together In Empty Bottle".
If people aren't willing to put that much energy into lengthening their lives I have zero sympathy. Rejoice!

tommy2bad

No flavorings? presumably that means no flavoring other than tobacco and menthol, I doubt they mean flavorless liquid only.
As this will apply to nic containing products then flavors will be ok for 0nic juice.
Sounds made up while eating cornflakes tbh. I think this will have more amendments coming.

Anywaay a win for us, shows how kicking a fuss up works.

stevenmu

I'm sure that in the finest traditions of EU (and Irish) lawmakers, they won't make any attempt to clarify the flavourings rules, leaving everybody unsure exactly what is and isn't allowed.

Good news over all though. I look forward to ordering a bottle of base liquid and a Wingnuts Select Flavour Shot. (I wonder can I trademark that name )

P.I.T.A

tommy2bad wrote: »

No flavorings? presumably that means no flavoring other than tobacco and menthol, I doubt they mean flavorless liquid only.
As this will apply to nic containing products then flavors will be ok for 0nic juice.
Sounds made up while eating cornflakes tbh. I think this will have more amendments coming.

Anyway a win for us, shows how kicking a fuss up works.

I dare say your right Tommy, just seems nearly everyone that read item C: on the document took it as being no flavourings at all, not even those twots in the EU would be stupid enough to only allow sales of flavourless e-liquid.

I would really like to know what in the end changed their minds about a 4mg/ban, was it common sense, vaper pressure or admiting if it went to court they would be soundly beaten?

BTW Probably menthol would be out too as they are looking to ban menthol from real cigs as part of the TPD.

tommy2bad

I have a feeling that the legal basis for the medical route became too big an obstacle. And the panel at the ENVI workshop was so embarrassingly poor that they just said 'f*ck it'.
It's not over yet, each member state will put qualifications to what ever EU reg are passed so we will see a lot of inclusion in smoking bans and such like at state level (isn't this whole EU starting to sound american).
My concern now is how restrictive the production standards will be? food grade or medical cosmetic level which is expensive and onerous. Small boutique producers could be out of the market soon. No more GVC or wingnuts selection.
Also no mention of steeped juices, is this an admission that smoke not tobacco is the problem or just ignorance of the fact that some juices are produced by steeping.

Vaperus

why wouldn't there be any Wingnuts, he only has to have it made by somebody else, which i think he is looking to do anyway.
Yeah we are not there yet but its a step in the right direstion

was.deevey

My concern now is how restrictive the production standards will be?

Individually each of the ingredients is already food/medical grade with the exception of Nicotine Base which is already medical grade in its 100% form before being watered down by resellers so far as I know.

However hopefully they will simply be conforming to the existing "standards" for cancer causing cigarettes

Steeped Juices may be an issue unless the flavor is being sold separately to the base juice but only time will tell, and there are plenty of juices out there that don't require steeping to taste good so for the majority of new vapers it will not be an issue.

Good news though - at least the nicotine nail has been hit on the head as "harm prevention" in competing with cigarettes head on.

tommy2bad

From a view of the big players, Elites, Blu and the cig alike market, no flavors is a big issue unless it means as I'm presuming falvor not found already in cigs in which case this is exactly what they wanted.
The pharma NRT people can't be happy and won't stop pushing for restriction, probably through their lobby groups ASH, Lung association and all the heart health groups, to have them now treated as smoking with all the bans on use and other restrictions i.e. taxes.

All presuming this will be accepted by the committee pushing this TPD revision through.
And as above good news that harm reduction is now policy as far as this implies it is.

Mr. Chrome

Is the flavour ban there to stop kids taking up vaping, kinda like alco-pops?
Fantastic news btw :-D

Vaperus

I would say so yes,just shows their narrow mind

stevenmu

Yeah, they seem to be very concerned that vaping could be a "gateway drug" to real smoking. It makes very little sense, but that seems to be their biggest concern. In the article above they propose that they will review the situation in 5 years, and examine the data from both a harm reduction point of view and from a gateway point of view. So we will want to have lots of statistics ready showing how many people have stopped smoking thanks to vaping, and hope they can't find any/many cases of people (kids in particular) who started vaping.

was.deevey

In the article above they propose that they will review the situation in 5 years, and examine the data from both a harm reduction point of view and from a gateway point of view.

My question would be what data exactly ? .. What studies are being proposed, who is involved, are they independent universities, state/eu run, by medical commissions or big pharma directly.

Anyhow for now we are out of the woods and 5 years is a long time for independent studies to be done IF the process is started now to get ahead of them.

stevenmu

was.deevey wrote: »

My question would be what data exactly ?

Well they're politicians, so the data will be probably be a combination of hysterical callers to Joe Duffy and scaremongering tabloid articles.

The sad part is, I'm not even joking.

tommy2bad

stevenmu wrote: »

Well they're politicians, so the data will be probably be a combination of hysterical callers to Joe Duffy and scaremongering tabloid articles.

The sad part is, I'm not even joking.

Well thats all they had at the workshop and that ended badly for them. I think the studies bit is just a fob for now as both sides will be monitoring things from here on.
Get ready for taxes and bans in the meantime. Oh and the gateway thing is just a rouse, to prove a gateway their would have to be a transition from vaping to smoking not just a take up of vaping.
This is about money, pharma money tobacco money and government money, if they can secure any of those revenue streams then we are safe. If any or all fall then a complete ban is inevitable, by hook or by crook.