European Ban on E-Cigs?

jakdublin

So, it's finally got Parliament approval and should be rubber stamped by the council in March. Here's a quick summery. I can live with that, but haven't seen the full detail.

http://ec.europa.eu/health/tobacco/docs/tobacco_mythbuster_en.pdf

tommy2bad

jakdublin wrote: »

So, it's finally got Parliament approval and should be rubber stamped by the council in March. Here's a quick summery. I can live with that, but haven't seen the full detail.

http://ec.europa.eu/health/tobacco/docs/tobacco_mythbuster_en.pdf

Oh man I could do a point by point destruction of that PDF, but what's the point, the legal egeals will be doing so soon enough.

You might be able to live with an ego and clearo using 18mg juice but I won't. And yes that's the max legal ecig now, at best, we haven't seen the requirements for efficacious doses yet, even egos might be too irregular in the way they drop voltage to qualify as legal.

!0 ml bottles are not that big a problem, I'm sure multi packs will be available at discounted rates to replace the single 50ml bottles.

The DIY market is now a black market and high strength juices are gone in direct contravention of the scientific evidence as to the strength needed to reach equivalent nic delivery with smoking.

Never before have I see how protectionism of vested interests coupled with the ignorance of elected representatives works. I'm not naive, I always thought that they were all crocked bastards, now I know a lot of them are well intentioned fools as well.
To hell with em, I'm stocking 100mg nic and they can sue my arse if they don't like it.

masonchat

Mech mods are fairly durable are they ?, and rebuildable tanks are well rebuildable .

they cant ban 18650's and the like can they ?

can/will they ban the concentrates ?

nicotine is the only thing i can see becoming hard to get, or am i just very naive ?

masonchat

Its enough to make your blood though , when its so clearly all about money not health, they dont give a dam about anyone health, if they did they would have banned tobacco 50 years ago.

I hope we can keep vaping , they should be tried for crimes against humanity though for all those people who will never get the chance to switch or those that revert to smoking, soooo much blood on these scumbags hands not that they care

grindle

masonchat wrote: »

Mech mods are fairly durable are they ?, and rebuildable tanks are well rebuildable .

Yes.

masonchat wrote: »

they cant ban 18650's and the like can they ?

No--> flashlights, radio-controlled vehicles, electric cars and laptops use them.

masonchat wrote: »

can/will they ban the concentrates ?

No, they're needed for food and the like.

masonchat wrote: »

nicotine is the only thing i can see becoming hard to get, or am i just very naive ?

"Dear vendor, please mark as [whatever's legal]."

Good luck checkin' all those bottles, customs!

iba

I understand that it should be adopted by Council in March.

So then it will still take another two years before it is transposed into Irish law.



When the politicians come knocking on my door for the European Parliament elections, I for one will be querying them about this and voicing my strong disappointment.

masonchat

I like the cut of your jib grindle : - ) im going to have a nice stock of nic though can see a lot of panic buying in the future

thbb

The European Free Vaping Initiative is *the* best way to have the EU Parliament just undo what it has done today for vaping.

Please read the following thread, sign, and, if at all possible, volunteer to help spread the world to your local vape shop, friends and all who may see vaping under a positive light.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057156938

tommy2bad

iba wrote: »

I understand that it should be adopted by Council in March.

So then it will still take another two years before it is transposed into Irish law.



When the politicians come knocking on my door for the European Parliament elections, I for one will be querying them about this and voicing my strong disappointment.

Most EU law takes until the deadline to be implemented, sometimes long after fines have been imposed, but I have a feeling that this could get a rush through. It's a popular measure, easy to defend the tobacco bits and the EU gets the blame for the ecig bits which is a minority concern so no impact to the government.
I'm not so sure it just money, though that played a part, it's more the WHO and the framework for tobacco control which is obliging on the EU. Unfortunately this framework was written before ecigs came on the market and the WHO are reluctant to adjust to the change. In fact they are the main drivers of opposition to ecigs. The loud antz like Glantz, Talbot, Chapman and McKey would be just ignored if not for the huge influence the WHO has.

masonchat

thbb wrote: »

The European Free Vaping Initiative is *the* best way to have the EU Parliament just undo what it has done today for vaping.

Please read the following thread, sign, and, if at all possible, volunteer to help spread the world to your local vape shop, friends and all who may see vaping under a positive light.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057156938

Can i sign up other family members with legit emails ? problem with this is not everyone is computer savy, hard to believe these days but true

iba

tommy2bad wrote: »

Most EU law takes until the deadline to be implemented, sometimes long after fines have been imposed, but I have a feeling that this could get a rush through. It's a popular measure, easy to defend the tobacco bits and the EU gets the blame for the ecig bits which is a minority concern so no impact to the government.
I'm not so sure it just money, though that played a part, it's more the WHO and the framework for tobacco control which is obliging on the EU. Unfortunately this framework was written before ecigs came on the market and the WHO are reluctant to adjust to the change. In fact they are the main drivers of opposition to ecigs. The loud antz like Glantz, Talbot, Chapman and McKey would be just ignored if not for the huge influence the WHO has.

I think Health Directives are transposed ust about on time. It is Enviroment Directives that Ireland falls down on a lot and we are being fined thousands of euros everyday for non-transposed Enviroment Directives.

thbb

masonchat wrote: »

Can i sign up other family members with legit emails ? problem with this is not everyone is computer savy, hard to believe these days but true

Definitely, provided they are of voting age, and, of course, you have their consent... This is an easy way to get lots of votes.

grindle

masonchat wrote: »

I like the cut of your jib grindle : - ) im going to have a nice stock of nic though can see a lot of panic buying in the future

Mmm, it's already happening abroad. As long as I can get 140ml of 100mg or 200ml of 72mg every year I'm good.

Shameful that I'd have to do it all the same - apparently the 20% of vapers who might want or need high-nic as much as they want or need a double espresso deserve to either be gouged in a pharmacy or sent to an early death. #progress

masonchat

tommy2bad wrote: »

Most EU law takes until the deadline to be implemented, sometimes long after fines have been imposed, but I have a feeling that this could get a rush through. It's a popular measure, easy to defend the tobacco bits and the EU gets the blame for the ecig bits which is a minority concern so no impact to the government.
I'm not so sure it just money, though that played a part, it's more the WHO and the framework for tobacco control which is obliging on the EU. Unfortunately this framework was written before ecigs came on the market and the WHO are reluctant to adjust to the change. In fact they are the main drivers of opposition to ecigs. The loud antz like Glantz, Talbot, Chapman and McKey would be just ignored if not for the huge influence the WHO has.

I strongly feel some of the advertising i have seen, probably from the tobacco companys products, really are not helping the cause though and could help kill what they are advertising.

I as an x smoker and current vaper i find it disturbing how some adds/web sites glamourise vaping and can see why it would send alarm bells ringing for the neutral weather vaping is safe or not

tommy2bad

masonchat wrote: »

I strongly feel some of the advertising i have seen, probably from the tobacco companys products, really are not helping the cause though and could help kill what they are advertising.

I as an x smoker and current vaper i find it disturbing how some adds/web sites glamourise vaping and can see why it would send alarm bells ringing for the neutral weather vaping is safe or not

This I don't get, why should an advertisement glamorising not smoking ring alarm bells? The ads glamorising smart phones, wine, cars, cloths, or the nicorette inhaler don't set of alarm bells so why should ecigs. They don't even use the cig word or the smoking word in the adds. Have we been propagandised so much that we are hyper sensitive to anything that resembles smoking? Which by the way isnt even seen in the adds here in europe.
It's different in the USA but then again our citizens don't see the US adds so what's the problem?
Never mind this one;

masonchat

Because glamorising smart phones, wine, cars, cloths isnt chemically addictive.

Vaping is addictive as we know even though much MUCH MUCH better for us and virtually risk free bar the addiction of nicotine.
There isnt much chance of anyone thinking the nicorette inhaler is cool or enjoyable no matter how much they might try to make it look so.

And i would say that adds shouldnt try to glamorise the inhaler either or any NRT products.

No one who never came into contact with nicotine is going to go out and buy a patch and stick them on for the fun of it.

But let me play devils advocate, if vaping is accepted indoors publicly and glamorised,

5, 10 years down the line the teens coming through are less aware of the dangers of the curse of cigs ( because ecigs have demolished them) and all the current vapers are merrily vaping away in the pubs like we X smokers use to do .

Can you not see teens in a pub not saying whats that give me a go, just like i did with the cigs when i was a teen.

So in other words vaping would replace smoking.

Would that be a better situation than what we have today, MILLION times better as we all know a nicotine addiction pales in comparison to the disease that is tobacco.

But For these reason i would have no problem with vaping not being allowed indoors publicly and neither to be glamorised in the media.
Because smoking/ vaping nothing would be the ideal picture but thats not going to happen.

I love my vaping and feel very strongly about our right to do it, and do it how we want to do it.
But im probably a bit right wing on the public vaping side,

Dont get me wrong i enjoy vaping in the pub and so on , but can see why a non smoker might not want me to,

grindle

masonchat wrote: »

But For these reason i would have no problem with vaping not being allowed indoors publicly and neither to be glamorised in the media.
Because smoking/ vaping nothing would be the ideal picture but thats not going to happen.

I love my vaping and feel very strongly about our right to do it, and do it how we want to do it.
But im probably a bit right wing on the public vaping side,

Extreme left wing oddly enough (the liberal-conservative dichotomy is a strange, nonsensical beast), but I get what you mean.
I don't think not-vaping is the ideal any more than I think a butterless existence would be ideal.
Living life will become a joyless trudge if we keep thinking everything we like should be annihilated based on puritanism, in this case compounded or fuelled by outdated presumptions about nicotine addiction. This popular notion that nicotine is as addictive as heroin is 100% unfounded and misrepresentative bollocks based on a delivery method that has thousands of chemicals produced in the smoke.
I'm sure it's addictive, but nowhere near what people think, and definitely no reason to demonise it the way our resident lunatics do from what I (and the scientific community at large) can see.

masonchat

I often confuse my left and right Grindle : - ) .

I agree with you 100% , im just trying to see where some of the, short sighted possibly well intentioned , lesser informed nah sayers might be coming from.

Even a pancake has 2 sides

tommy2bad

masonchat wrote: »

Because glamorising smart phones, wine, cars, cloths isnt chemically addictive.

Vaping is addictive as we know even though much MUCH MUCH better for us and virtually risk free bar the addiction of nicotine.
There isnt much chance of anyone thinking the nicorette inhaler is cool or enjoyable no matter how much they might try to make it look so.

And i would say that adds shouldnt try to glamorise the inhaler either or any NRT products.

No one who never came into contact with nicotine is going to go out and buy a patch and stick them on for the fun of it.

But let me play devils advocate, if vaping is accepted indoors publicly and glamorised,

5, 10 years down the line the teens coming through are less aware of the dangers of the curse of cigs ( because ecigs have demolished them) and all the current vapers are merrily vaping away in the pubs like we X smokers use to do .

Can you not see teens in a pub not saying whats that give me a go, just like i did with the cigs when i was a teen.

So in other words vaping would replace smoking.

Would that be a better situation than what we have today, MILLION times better as we all know a nicotine addiction pales in comparison to the disease that is tobacco.

But For these reason i would have no problem with vaping not being allowed indoors publicly and neither to be glamorised in the media.
Because smoking/ vaping nothing would be the ideal picture but thats not going to happen.

I love my vaping and feel very strongly about our right to do it, and do it how we want to do it.
But im probably a bit right wing on the public vaping side,

Dont get me wrong i enjoy vaping in the pub and so on , but can see why a non smoker might not want me to,

I kinda see the problem but it's only a problem if nicotine abstinence is the end goal. That's the reason NRT is advertised the way it is and the real reason it's failure rate is so high. The goal of permanent cessation of nicotine use.
The trouble with this goal is it's about as realistic as caffeine cessation or sugar or alcohol, it's not realistic.

Why should abstinence be the best outcome? because it eliminates the risk of harm? Then why not adopt the same principal with caffeine, sugar, alcohol, high risk sports, fat, and any of the many things people do that carry risk?

We have adopted a moderation principal to all other risky behaviours why not nicotine.

As to advertising, I'm not bothered, vaping is growing without advertising and will continue, it's not the restriction on advertising per se I object to. It's the idea that a safe alternative to smoking must be restricted so as to protect some hypothetical non smoker from using nicotine even at the cost of denying information that would help current smokers.

masonchat

tommy2bad wrote: »

I kinda see the problem but it's only a problem if nicotine abstinence is the end goal. That's the reason NRT is advertised the way it is and the real reason it's failure rate is so high. The goal of permanent cessation of nicotine use.
The trouble with this goal is it's about as realistic as caffeine cessation or sugar or alcohol, it's not realistic.

Why should abstinence be the best outcome? because it eliminates the risk of harm? Then why not adopt the same principal with caffeine, sugar, alcohol, high risk sports, fat, and any of the many things people do that carry risk?

We have adopted a moderation principal to all other risky behaviours why not nicotine.

As to advertising, I'm not bothered, vaping is growing without advertising and will continue, it's not the restriction on advertising per se I object to. It's the idea that a safe alternative to smoking must be restricted so as to protect some hypothetical non smoker from using nicotine even at the cost of denying information that would help current smokers.

I think and this is only my theory, that we are a generation of understandably sceptical people, and as such these sceptics may not be ready to accept widespread public vaping, so soon after rightly ridding public places of smoking.

I see these type of glamourised ads as potentially swaying the uninformed fresh air brigade against vaping, because all they will see is a different version of the marlboro man, and we all know how that turned out.

We have a RIGHT to vape and should defend it
We have a RIGHT vape how we want to and we should defend it.

Do we have a RIGHT to vape publicly ? i dont know , we the informed users know why it should be allowed just as we are allowed to have a coffee publicly.

Do i have a right to wave my todger in public ? no , why not its not harmfull ?

No its not but the public dont want to see my todger and thats fair enough, what is or isnt acceptable in public should be agreed by the majority.

I think the vaping community should concentrate on securing what we have a right to do first before we blow vapor in their faces.

And a little down the line when we have all the time proven facts and an even larger converted community, then maybe we could look for vaping to be enjoyed and advertised as coffee is.

was.deevey

Can you not see teens in a pub not saying whats that give me a go, just like i did with the cigs when i was a teen.

I would say that the vast majority of teen smokers start off in school, not in the pub though

Do we have a RIGHT to vape publicly ? i dont know , we the informed users know why it should be allowed just as we are allowed to have a coffee publicly.

Do i have a right to wave my todger in public ? no , why not its not harmfull ?

I also don't think Vaping should not be seen as "the norm", however either should the cigarettes which are freely available in every newsagent, unregulated in dosage I might add, beside every school, college and supermarket in the country.

As to advertising, I'm not bothered, vaping is growing without advertising and will continue, it's not the restriction on advertising per se I object to. It's the idea that a safe alternative to smoking must be restricted so as to protect some hypothetical non smoker from using nicotine even at the cost of denying information that would help current smokers.

Precisely !

What they should be doing is regulating the outlets in which cigarettes are sold to specific tobacco shops ONLY and only stocking the unregulated safer alternative in the newsagents and making it visibly available to the public.

Essentially what they have now done is block even the awareness of the safer alternative to the point where ecigs may in fact be the Nicotine delivery devices to die out !

Bit of a Concorde move - How the fcuk are new vapors supposed to even find out about ecigs as a possible alternative now huh - word of mouth only, adult websites only ?

masonchat

Deevey i agree with more or less every word you said.

There are some very powerful people and groups against ecigs for VERY sinister self invested interests and i feel these people should be in jail for some form of manslaughter if they are successful in their ploys

My points above are more about how we as a community must and can get the smokers, non smokers and fresh air brigade onside, and we need them on our side, because make no mistake, anyone that doesnt have a vested interest and has an ounce of sense. should be on our side.

But it is up to us to convince and prove to them the benifits of vaping compared to smoking because the people who should have our best interests at heart or the publics best interests at heat simply dont.

So what im saying is, lets not give these people a stick to beat us with e.g over glamourised ads and the like, we have a big enough fight on our hands as it is

MonstaMash

History has proven that legislation/prohibition changes nothing when it comes to peoples vices, the status quo remains the same due popular demand & the black market supplying it...

I'm not overly concerned regards the forthcoming legislation, my only concern is, when the legislation does come into effect, the amount of unregulated/safely tested nicotine bases hitting the open market from the usual sources ie., China/eastern Europe.

I think the way forward for the vaping community eventually is the 0% nicotine route, which will not be acceptable to most & I understand & empathize with this.

Quitting smoking for vaping is a personal choice, I assume for most of us, for the health/wealth benefits it affords us.

Personally for me, it is the way forward to not only a tobacco free existence but also a nicotine free existence.

The reason I got into DIY mixing was due to the lack of 0% nicotine juices available & also because the 0% range that was available, I just found to be diluted versions of their nicotine infused namesakes...less flavour, no hit.

As I have found through my own experimentation, this does not have to be the case, but I still support the right of other vapers to get their nicotine fix through the medium of vaping.

tommy2bad

Hmm 0 nic is not regulated, ironical if 'smoking behavour' is the objection then it should include 0 nic. Alowing a product to be available to everyone no age restriction creates the very thing they object to, the gateway ecig. The only difference is that it will be a gateway to vaping not smoking.

Their seem to be a knee jerk reaction to the evil nicotine in the health industry, egged on by vested interest of pharma they lost the plot and the point of these regulations.

MayoSalmon

Vaping and smoking are intrinsically linked. Are we propagandised to anything resembling smoking? I don't know... but honestly after the damage smoking has done to society especially over the last 100 years, I don't blame governments being extremely careful when trying to determine the legislation for Vaping.

grindle

MayoSalmon wrote: »

...after the damage smoking has done to society especially over the last 100 years, I don't blame governments being extremely careful when trying to determine the legislation for Vaping.

But they're not being careful in determining anything, they're either genuinely stupid or wilfully and maliciously negligent. Basing any legislation on half-thought suppositions and concerns rather than research using the correct methodology is intrinsically wrong. Negative value.
They've already set their standard (lies and deceit), why are we trying to see it from their incorrect point of view as if they're suffering from some harmlessly innocent brain-fart?

visual

It all comes down to money
Cigarettes is a very good earner for every government
E cigs and liquids is a fraction of the tax take
So regulate it impose standards that have to be paid for, restrict sales forcing price up, more tax take. Finally make them less effective so forcing smokers to revert to tobacco products where there is highest tax take.

No one gives a toss you end up back on cigarettes as society likes a 2nd class mug to kick

MayoSalmon

grindle wrote: »

legislation on half-thought suppositions and concerns rather than research using the correct methodology is intrinsically wrong.

Unfortunately they see e-cigs as a way for tobacco companies to recruit the next generation of smokers.

Recent quote from The Department of Health said that in its view, e-cigarettes contained a “highly addictive and dangerous drug”, nicotine

Scofflaw

MayoSalmon wrote: »

Unfortunately they see e-cigs as a way for tobacco companies to recruit the next generation of smokers.

Recent quote from The Department of Health said that in its view, e-cigarettes contained a “highly addictive and dangerous drug”, nicotine

Highly addictive, yes - dangerous, also true, although not more than many other substances:



Death directly from nicotine poisoning is very rare, though. A couple of individuals who smoked vast numbers of cigarettes for bets or in competitions is all I'm aware of.

However, I don't think one can just wave away the issue that you're allowing companies to sell a highly addictive substance, and one where there is a well-established, ubiquitously available, and highly dangerous alternative delivery system.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ardle1

Scofflaw wrote: »

Highly addictive, yes - dangerous, also true, although not more than many other substances:



Death directly from nicotine poisoning is very rare, though. A couple of individuals who smoked vast numbers of cigarettes for bets or in competitions is all I'm aware of.

However, I don't think one can just wave away the issue that you're allowing companies to sell a highly addictive substance, and one where there is a well-established, ubiquitously available, and highly dangerous alternative delivery system.

cordially,
Scofflaw

We can wave away whatever we like, and we'r waving away the filthy numerous disease causing, cancer killing chemicals that come with the tobacco cigarette nicotine 'delivery system'.....