European Ban on E-Cigs?

iba

So I am walking down the street vaping using my 2.8ml clearo. A guard sees me. Is the guard really going to come over to me and check the size of my clearo? Is the guard going to take me down the station and measure my clearo? What will my punishment be, a fine, a jail sentence? Will I have to go to court?

Point is, how the hell will the guards regulate\control this?

And just for comparison, if I hail cig smoke from a passerby in the street there is no issue.

If the cost of 30ML bottles goes up too much, then people will just buy from China. Customs would never be able to check every package. The cost and resources required would just be too much.

The whole thing really is a joke. And as someone mentioned earlier, there is no mention of over 18s anywhere or again to compare, no restrictions on caffeine.

Regards

tommy2bad

iba wrote: »

So I am walking down the street vaping using my 2.8ml clearo. A guard sees me. Is the guard really going to come over to me and check the size of my clearo? Is the guard going to take me down the station and measure my clearo? What will my punishment be, a fine, a jail sentence? Will I have to go to court?

Point is, how the hell will the guards regulate\control this?

And just for comparison, if I hail cig smoke from a passerby in the street there is no issue.

If the cost of 30ML bottles goes up too much, then people will just buy from China. Customs would never be able to check every package. The cost and resources required would just be too much.

The whole thing really is a joke. And as someone mentioned earlier, there is no mention of over 18s anywhere or again to compare, no restrictions on caffeine.

Regards

No their wont be guards measuring clearos, their will be trading standards checking stock in shops. Same as they check the measures for spirits.
The small bottles won't be a big dea,l vendors will just make up packs with 2,3, 5 10ml bottles at bulk prices. Like the gift tins that some do already.
It will be slightly more expensive but shouldn't be 5 times the price of 1 10'ml bottle.

I am wondering about importing stuff, but as that would be for personal use as opposed to placed on the market it probably isn't affected. Something for the vendors to be concerned about would be the move to non EU sources if 50ml in 5 10ml bottles isn't as good a value as 1 50ml bottle from the US or china.

You are right it's a mess and not what was needed. We were never going to get regulation that reflected the ecig for what it is, all the confusion with quitting and smoking made that impossible. Vaping is seen as smoking or quitting smoking and is being treated as both. It is neither in fact but that's hard to make obvious to anyone who smokes or who dosn't smoke.
Pity the damn things were ever called electronic cigarettes.

iba

tommy2bad wrote: »

No their wont be guards measuring clearos, their will be trading standards checking stock in shops. Same as they check the measures for spirits.
The small bottles won't be a big dea,l vendors will just make up packs with 2,3, 5 10ml bottles at bulk prices. Like the gift tins that some do already.
It will be slightly more expensive but shouldn't be 5 times the price of 1 10'ml bottle.

I am wondering about importing stuff, but as that would be for personal use as opposed to placed on the market it probably isn't affected. Something for the vendors to be concerned about would be the move to non EU sources if 50ml in 5 10ml bottles isn't as good a value as 1 50ml bottle from the US or china.

You are right it's a mess and not what was needed. We were never going to get regulation that reflected the ecig for what it is, all the confusion with quitting and smoking made that impossible. Vaping is seen as smoking or quitting smoking and is being treated as both. It is neither in fact but that's hard to make obvious to anyone who smokes or who dosn't smoke.
Pity the damn things were ever called electronic cigarettes.

Maybe they could just rename them Vapourisers.

grindle

iba wrote: »

Maybe they could just rename them Vapourisers.

We might annoy all the American weed-vapers. For some reason adding the word 'Personal' before it doesn't get their goat, but 'PV' sounds like 'PeeWee'.

Nic-Vapers.
Nic-Wands.
Mild-Stimulant-Twigs.
Unreasonable-Amount-Of-Hassle-Sticks.
The-Hopeful-Cause-Of-An-Early-Heart-Attack-For-Linda-McAvan...erisers.

StickyIcky

I prefer the "Unreasonable Amount of Hassle Sticks" name myself, it's a perfect description for them as much as I love them

grindle

StickyIcky wrote: »

I prefer the "Unreasonable Amount of Hassle Sticks" name myself, it's a perfect description for them as much as I love them

Two in agreement, the vote has been decided unanimous between those known to be in this particular room at this particular time, Unreasonable-Amount-Of-Hassle-Sticks is the new name going forward, so lets get all our ducks in a babygro and bash them off the wall as a sacrifice to Hon Lik and his descendants Mewso and Digby. HUZZAH!

tommy2bad

They can take my Unreasonable-Amount-Of-Hassle-Sticks from my cold dead lips.

StickyIcky

Jaysus you fupping crack me up Grindle. I'd love to take you with me on every session I go too.

It is agreed then since no one else in this room at this time is here to disagree and hence it is so for now and forever until someone else comes along who disagrees

*bows head in silence for two minutes in the memory of Mewso and Digsby*

StickyIcky

iba wrote: »

Maybe they could just rename them Vapourisers.

For the serious vote I call for

"Nicotine Vapourisers"

That's what I've been calling mine for the past several weeks to anyone who asks "what's that?!" and they seem to understand immediately what I mean by their 'ooh' sounds.

iba

Can we call them 'Hassle Sticks' for short?

iba

StickyIcky wrote: »

For the serious vote I call for

"Nicotine Vapourisers"

That's what I've been calling mine for the past several weeks to anyone who asks "what's that?!" and they seem to understand immediately what I mean by their 'ooh' sounds.

I usually tell people iy is Crystal Meths

tommy2bad

The EU used to call them NCPs, now it seems that is gone. Hope Unreasonable-Amount-Of-Hassle-Sticks sticks, I'd love to hear Jimmy Rielly wrap his tongue around that one.

Scofflaw

tommy2bad wrote:

BTW 'form' was shorthand for presentation. I was not quoting directly but paraphrasing for the sake of brevity.

Legalese is always better quoted verbatim!

The presentation aspect is that it claims to cure, treat or alleviate a disease or condition. Even NRT doesn't claim to replace smoking or stop you smoking, it's medical claim is that it helps alleviate the cravings caused by nicotine withdrawal.

That's a reasonable view of it.

The function aspect is based on the principal that a product has a pharmacological effect, i.e. it reduces blood pressure, it increases blood pressure, it increases heart rate , it increases or reduces blood sugar, cholesterol, whatever. Nicotine can be shoe horned into this category as it can have a physiological effect but so can salt, sugar, caffeine and alcohol. The pressure to impose a medical definition comes when the effect mirrors an existing medical product's effect. Thus St John's Worth got classed as a prescription only medicine.

Sure - and see the Dutch judgement I quoted. If you class e-cigs as medical on the basis of that effect, you'd have to class coffee, tea, alcohol, and existing tobacco products as medical, because the effects are similar in scope/degree.

cordially,
Scofflaw

grindle

tommy2bad wrote: »

They can take my Unreasonable-Amount-Of-Hassle-Sticks from my cold dead lips.

tommy2bad

Scofflaw wrote: »

Sure - and see the Dutch judgement I quoted. If you class e-cigs as medical on the basis of that effect, you'd have to class coffee, tea, alcohol, and existing tobacco products as medical, because the effects are similar in scope/degree.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Which is why I mentioned that it becomes a problem when it serves the same purpose as a current medical produce. Salt caffeine alcohol don't overlap with any medicine. Either dose nicotine in use in ecigs as they don't lead to nicotine cessation. One of the main causes of failing to achieve the stated end goal of smoking cessation for nrt has been the insistence on corresponding nicotine cessation.
That's now, in the future nicotine may be used as a treatment for a set of diseases, they are researching it as a treatment for alzheimer's , Parkinson's and weight control. This complicates things legally as we have a precedent set with St Johns Worth. A pharma company could seek to have nicotine declared a medicine by function and never produce an ecig themselves. They would not have a case against smoked tobacco as it has a historical context and a public profile that renders it no competition to their propritery produce.
No one is ever going to suggest taking up smoking to cure anything. Though theirs the well known connection between weight gain and quitting smoking, no one ever said "why don't the fattys smoke to loose weight".

was.deevey

No their wont be guards measuring clearos, their will be trading standards checking stock in shops. Same as they check the measures for spirits.

haha that should be interesting - what if its for non-nicotine juice ?

Scofflaw

tommy2bad wrote: »

Which is why I mentioned that it becomes a problem when it serves the same purpose as a current medical produce. Salt caffeine alcohol don't overlap with any medicine. Either dose nicotine in use in ecigs as they don't lead to nicotine cessation. One of the main causes of failing to achieve the stated end goal of smoking cessation for nrt has been the insistence on corresponding nicotine cessation.
That's now, in the future nicotine may be used as a treatment for a set of diseases, they are researching it as a treatment for alzheimer's , Parkinson's and weight control. This complicates things legally as we have a precedent set with St Johns Worth. A pharma company could seek to have nicotine declared a medicine by function and never produce an ecig themselves. They would not have a case against smoked tobacco as it has a historical context and a public profile that renders it no competition to their propritery produce.
No one is ever going to suggest taking up smoking to cure anything. Though theirs the well known connection between weight gain and quitting smoking, no one ever said "why don't the fattys smoke to loose weight".

Actually - caffeine: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/drug-information/DR602089

cordially,
Scofflaw

tommy2bad

@Scoffaw, but the difference is no one is selling caffeine as a drink or powder other than as an ingredient in a product.
Red Bull comes the closest to making a medicinal claim 'gives you wings' but red bull only replicates a set of existing products. This is why ecigs with nic can't be considered medicines other than by decree. As I said if it went to court, it would depend not so much on the legal arguments as much as the bias of the judge.
Oh and in case you didn't catch it, I was implying that any such medicine by function claim would be at the behest of pharma companies, not health bodies based on health needs or concerns.

Scofflaw

tommy2bad wrote: »

@Scoffaw, but the difference is no one is selling caffeine as a drink or powder other than as an ingredient in a product.
Red Bull comes the closest to making a medicinal claim 'gives you wings' but red bull only replicates a set of existing products. This is why ecigs with nic can't be considered medicines other than by decree. As I said if it went to court, it would depend not so much on the legal arguments as much as the bias of the judge.
Oh and in case you didn't catch it, I was implying that any such medicine by function claim would be at the behest of pharma companies, not health bodies based on health needs or concerns.

Not sure anyone is selling nicotine except as an ingredient in a product either, though. Vaping juice isn't pure nicotine.

cordially,
Scofflaw

tommy2bad

Scofflaw wrote: »

Not sure anyone is selling nicotine except as an ingredient in a product either, though. Vaping juice isn't pure nicotine.

cordially,
Scofflaw

That's what I said, however we now have a category of 'nicotine containing products' not 'caffeine containing products'.
Do you really think this happened without someone advising that it should be so? And that that someone is someone with a vested interest in restricting these products not on health grounds but removing competition for their particular set of NCP.
As you said your self, follow the money.

was.deevey

but the difference is no one is selling caffeine as a drink or powder other than as an ingredient in a product.

Proplus

tommy2bad

was.deevey wrote: »

Proplus

Eh that's from Bayer, not likely to object to themselves are they. If tommy2bad started bottling caffeine in 50ml bottles and described it as a pick me up, then you can bet some one would call Joe, then the minister would weight in (see what I did their?) next thing you know tommy would need a medicine licence to sell his watered down extract of coffee grinds.

was.deevey

then the minister would weight in

Well theres a lot less to weigh than the last one :P

Scofflaw

tommy2bad wrote: »

That's what I said, however we now have a category of 'nicotine containing products' not 'caffeine containing products'.
Do you really think this happened without someone advising that it should be so? And that that someone is someone with a vested interest in restricting these products not on health grounds but removing competition for their particular set of NCP.
As you said your self, follow the money.

"Caffeine containing products" is also a widely used category: https://www.google.ie/search?num=100&newwindow=1&safe=off&site=&source=hp&q=%22caffeine+containing+products%22&btnG=Search

You should follow the money via the facts.

cordially,
Scofflaw

tommy2bad

Scofflaw wrote: »

"Caffeine containing products" is also a widely used category: https://www.google.ie/search?num=100&newwindow=1&safe=off&site=&source=hp&q=%22caffeine+containing+products%22&btnG=Search

You should follow the money via the facts.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ahem I'm not sure you getting my point because theirs no specific regulation for a category referred to as C.C.P.
This from Down Under is a demonstration of what I am taking about. The 'concerns' are much the same as for N.C.P. and the instance that causes this concern is that these products directly compete with existing pharma products. It seems the money trail always end in pharm's back yard.
http://www.tga.gov.au/safety/ews-medicine-caffeine-oxedrine-131015.htm#.UrShCny358E

tommy2bad

Quick update, the TPD with the amended ecig article 18 was passed by the ENVI comity stage today. It now goes to plenary sometime in Feb and that's a full parliament vote.
Probably at nothing but still worth writing to MEP before then. Though I have a feeling it's a done deal and done behind closed doors with disregard for the evidence.

Scofflaw

tommy2bad wrote: »

Quick update, the TPD with the amended ecig article 18 was passed by the ENVI comity stage today. It now goes to plenary sometime in Feb and that's a full parliament vote.
Probably at nothing but still worth writing to MEP before then. Though I have a feeling it's a done deal and done behind closed doors with disregard for the evidence.

Well, they have to have something that both the Parliament and the Council will pass, which given their two distant positions necessarily makes a compromise deal the likely outcome.

cordially,
Scofflaw

tommy2bad

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, they have to have something that both the Parliament and the Council will pass, which given their two distant positions necessarily makes a compromise deal the likely outcome.

cordially,
Scofflaw

This is true and as the Kaiser reportedly said 'To retain respect for sausages and laws, one must not watch them in the making.'
Was hoping that the whole thing would get it own bespoke regulations or subset of such based on the actual evidence and without the obvious politicking but as we were always dealing with a political issue dressed up as health and market harmonization that was a vain hope.

Scofflaw

tommy2bad wrote: »

This is true and as the Kaiser reportedly said 'To retain respect for sausages and laws, one must not watch them in the making.'
Was hoping that the whole thing would get it own bespoke regulations or subset of such based on the actual evidence and without the obvious politicking but as we were always dealing with a political issue dressed up as health and market harmonization that was a vain hope.

Ah, now, policy made according to evidence...well, we just couldn't have that. At least sausages have to use real ingredients.

cordially,
Scofflaw

tommy2bad

Scofflaw wrote: »

Ah, now, policy made according to evidence...well, we just couldn't have that. At least sausages have to use real ingredients.

cordially,
Scofflaw

That's what we thought about lasangnia :P