Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
European Ban on E-Cigs?
Options
Comments
-
When will we hear some official news on the outcome of these negotiations? i am a very concerned vaper today, vaping has transformed my health in the last few months and now they want to take that away from me:mad:
That depends on whether the trilogue with the member states (the Council) reaches a conclusion, and when. That will tell us what's going to be put to the vote, and give us some idea of when.
I'll keep an eye out for it.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
-
Hmm. Commission are obviously concerned about the public reaction:Tweeted by EU Commission wrote:On #eucigban, priority is to ensure safety for all, so negotiations are ongoing – work in progress. #ecigs #EUecigBAN
That's unusual, because they wouldn't normally make any statement in the middle of a trilogue. Admittedly that tweet is very noticeably politically neutral between the Parliament and Council positions.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Their was a press conference today at 2.30 Belgum time, haven't heard anything definite yet. Twitter is too short for anything more than sound bytes, but as far as I know the MEP's stood their ground and the whole thing is in stalemate. Which is good, I think? I'v been aftk for most of the day. Might be something on VTTV tonight.0
-
Their was a press conference today at 2.30 Belgum time, haven't heard anything definite yet. Twitter is too short for anything more than sound bytes, but as far as I know the MEP's stood their ground and the whole thing is in stalemate. Which is good, I think? I'v been aftk for most of the day. Might be something on VTTV tonight.
As far as I can see, yes, it's a stalemate. Lithuania and Belgium both seem to be hardline on the subject:I get out of the trialogue tobacco. We advance on a series of points, advanced or compromised. But on the electronic cigarette that health ministers want de facto ban (rechargeable), it's downright nightmare. Under Lithuanian leadership, State in the war against the e - cig, no possible salvation in my opinion. Lithuanian Ambassador believed that I insultais him by describing his proposals for bad farce. No, it of very politely and very firmly that I refuse to condemn a sector that finally offers a real alternative to all those who are trying to quit otherwise, to reduce the risks. And that the Taliban's tobacco, sincere or less clear reasons want to penalize. It is more than a mistake, misconduct.
Bing translation of frederique ries facebook comment. She was in trilogue meeting today.More from Frederique
Just out of the Press Conference on e-cigs with Professor Bertand Dautzenberg, prominent scientif and President of the French Office for the Prevention of Smoking, author of the offficial report on e-cigs presented to the French Health Minister Marisol Touraine. Business as usual, European press present, France 3, France 2, Les Echos... but only Marianne from Belgium, Health Minister's integrist position percolated all right! Let them go on, she and her Colleagues from the Health Council, de facto banning for smokers the right to choose an alternative that DOES NOT KILL! At the end of the day, EP will oppose, and then what??? It will be THEIR responsability.
Electronic cigarette:-200,000 lives saved in Europe with my amendment,-60,000 lives saved with the new paper of the Commission, - 20,000 lives saved with assimilation into a drug.
It is the Dautzenberg professor who has just said.
It is the first time in my life in politics that I feel so useful. Talking about lives, quality of life, freedom, security...
What think Laurette? And his colleagues in the Council?
In Belgium the cigarette is over-the-counter at checkout of the Delhaize. It kills 50 Belgians per day, 50,000 per year.
Electronic cigarette, no tar, no heavy metals, no combustion, no victim, is prohibited, continued, stalked, seizure (8 officers of the SPF health of Laurette Onkelinx in a dispensary of 15 m2!), like hard drugs. The Belgium walk on his head, Europe walk on his head. And this is not this Europe-which I defend
It doesn't sound like there's a compromise in the offing, which would mean the Parliament votes on the Council's position. While it would be nice if a rejection by the Parliament was a foregone conclusion, it's not - the original amendment vote was pretty much 50:50. However, some MEPs mightswing in favour of rejection because of the Council's unwillingness to move.
No official outcome as yet.
Presumably this:Electronic cigarette:-200,000 lives saved in Europe with my amendment,-60,000 lives saved with the new paper of the Commission, - 20,000 lives saved with assimilation into a drug.
It is the Dautzenberg professor who has just said.
reflects the two sides' positions and the Commission's compromise suggestion, and the estimated number of lives saved depending on how available the legislation makes e-cigs.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Advertisement
-
Amazing how good Phillip Morris is to Lithuania currently, here we see how Lithuania gets reimbursed by Phillip Morris for seized illegal cigarettes!
Not an enormous amount of money involved.....more the ass-kissing I think......0 -
i am hoping there will be a positive outcome in all this and common sense will prevail over money and power0
-
i am hoping there will be a positive outcome in all this and common sense will prevail over money and power
I don't think it's a case of common sense versus money and power. The tobacco companies welcomed the Parliament's amendments, because they made e-cigs available in consumer outlets, whereas the Council proposals would restrict them to medical outlets.
What you're actually up against here are national and international health bodies - and their view is that the tobacco industry wants to delay or destroy the overall Directive. These quotes are in respect of the original Parliament vote:“The strong mandate given to take the next step of negotiations forward is a good signal that despite the intense lobbying, the weakening of the provisions and the failure to ensure the highest level of health protection, the overall strategy of the tobacco industry to delay this Directive has so far failed,” Monika Kosińska, Secretary General of the European Public Health Alliance (EPHA).
“This is a bittersweet moment. Today’s vote in the EP plenary was not ideal for public health, but it does advance tobacco regulations in many areas. The overwhelming majority to allow the Rapporteur to start negotiating with the Council on a compromise is a crucial result as it makes it possible to adopt a final Directive before the end of the Parliamentary mandate. That in itself is a victory as it means there is no need for further delays,” Florence Berteletti, Director, Smoke Free Partnership
“We very much regret that the European Parliament did not adopt 75% mandatory warnings. This was a significant element in the European Commission’s proposal. But we do welcome the strong mandate given to the rapporteurs to take the negotiations forward. We recommend that all EU Member States follow in the footsteps of Ireland and adopt proposals for plain packaging,” Susanne Logstrup, Director, European Heart Network
And with respect to where we are now:“Strict marketing limits - similar to tobacco and medicine marketing rules - are essential so that NCPs do not promote smoking behaviour either in a direct or indirect way, and appropriate measures put in place to allow a regulatory response to the future and fast development of this market ”, said Cornel Radu-Loghin of the European Network for Smoking and Tobacco Prevention (ENSP).
"We have long argued for harm reduction in tobacco policy and for radical reform of nicotine regulation to enable effective alternative nicotine products to replace smoking. Regulation is needed to ensure appropriate standards of quality and safety, and to protect against market abuse arising from unscrupulous commercial interests. We therefore support proportionate regulation that enables smokers to access affordable nicotine replacement products as easily as possible while ensuring purity, safety and responsible marketing," stressed Professor John Britton CBE, Royal College of Physicans (RCP).
Given the relative short market presence of some NCPs, in particular e-cigarettes, regulation on NCPs will be based on incomplete evidence on the long-term health consequences of their use. “Appropriate monitoring and impact assessment mechanisms, including surveys and data on the health risks, benefits and unintended consequences of the use of NCPs, should be an essential part of the EU regulation on these products,” stressed Deborah Arnott of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH). “The Commission must be empowered to adopt new legislation in order to maintain a high level of human health protection in this fast changing field” concluded Luk Joossens of the Association of European Cancer Leagues (ECL).
The original Commission proposal was based first and foremost on input from groups such as those, and, as you can see, their view is that while e-cigs are a good method for getting off tobacco, they're also a possible way for the tobacco companies to substitute a different drug delivery system for getting people hooked on nicotine. The controversy over a recent 'sexy' e-cig ad during "I'm a Celebrity" in the UK gives an idea of what they're concerned about.
So the battle lines here really are between enabling smokers to get off cigarettes versus enabling non-smokers to get on them.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
ok well i wont debate that.i do agree, it needs regulations, age restrictions, what goes into e liquids, marketing etc but i m concerned that they want to ban refillable vapourizers, which would mean in effect; all of them, i may be misinformed about that last point, anyway i dont want to get in a discussion where i may not know what i am talking about. i just want to vape man
0 -
ok well i wont debate that.i do agree, it needs regulations, age restrictions, what goes into e liquids, marketing etc but i m concerned that they want to ban refillable vapourizers, which would mean in effect; all of them, i may be misinformed about that last point, anyway i dont want to get in a discussion where i may not know what i am talking about. i just want to vape man
Heh. Well, you can see why I mod Politics....
wonkishly,
Scofflaw0 -
Advertisement
-
What is the full name of the original proposal please or can someone post a link to it please?
Thanks0 -
I don't think it's a case of common sense versus money and power. The tobacco companies welcomed the Parliament's amendments, because they made e-cigs available in consumer outlets, whereas the Council proposals would restrict them to medical outlets.
What you're actually up against here are national and international health bodies - and their view is that the tobacco industry wants to delay or destroy the overall Directive. These quotes are in respect of the original Parliament vote:
cordially,
Scofflaw
For the most part I agree with you too Scofflaw (regarding the directive as a whole), but I'm still somewhat bemused by the Lithuanian's refusal to budge on some issues, specifically regarding their position on refillable devices. I would be very interested to hear their logic behind this proposal.
[tinfoilhat]
The reason I brought up PM is because incidentally they recently launched their own ecig brand called Mark Ten, which also happens to be a disposable device.
[/tinfoilhat]
Perhaps John Dalli is perfectly innocent and he was falsely accused like he claims, and maybe it was indeed the tobacco industry that attempted to derail the directive through the OLAF report. I'm not sure to be perfectly honest.
Either way, what it demonstrates is the extent to which external or internal sources can sometimes try to influence the process of policy making for economic gains.0 -
What is the full name of the original proposal please or can someone post a link to it please?
Thanks
It's the Tobacco Products Directive, or rather the revision of it: http://ec.europa.eu/health/tobacco/products/revision/
From the specifics on e-cigarettes:• Consumers view E-cigarettes as products that primarily help to quit smoking or reduce the harm associated with smoking
• However, E-cigarettes also have potential to be used as “fun products”. This means they could develop into a 'gateway' to nicotine addiction and ultimately smoking, in particular amongst young people.- A Hungarian survey of 2012 found that 13% of 13-15 year old children had experimented with an E-cigarette.
- A French study of 2013 revealed that the number of Paris students experimenting with E-cigarettes has doubled in 1 year reaching 18%. Among the representative sample, 34% were non-smokers.
Presumably that's from the original Commission reasons for including them in the legislation.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
For the most part I agree with you too Scofflaw (regarding the directive as a whole), but I'm still somewhat bemused by the Lithuanian's refusal to budge on some issues, specifically regarding their position on refillable devices. I would be very interested to hear their logic behind this proposal.
[tinfoilhat]
The reason I brought up PM is because incidentally they recently launched their own ecig brand called Mark Ten, which also happens to be a disposable device.
[/tinfoilhat]
Perhaps John Dalli is perfectly innocent and he was falsely accused like he claims, and maybe it was indeed the tobacco industry that attempted to derail the directive through the OLAF report. I'm not sure to be perfectly honest.
Either way, what it demonstrates is the extent to which external or internal sources can sometimes try to influence the process of policy making for economic gains.
To be honest, I would be amazed if a piece of legislation has ever passed without lobbying, and commercial organisations do tend to do so for commercial reasons. What the health groups are doing, though, is also lobbying - and here they are lobbying against the interests of those leaving smoking through vaping, on behalf of those who might come to smoking through vaping.
Insofar as there is any simple line in this tangle, it would be tobacco companies (more broadly, nicotine companies) versus health groups. Big pharma is probably on the side of the health groups, but for the commercial reason that a large market of ex-smokers would be handed over to them under medicalising legislation. Which might not be so bad if their products didn't look and taste like surgical appliances, but they do - and presumably in the spirit of the legislation would continue to do so.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
To be honest, I would be amazed if a piece of legislation has ever passed without lobbying, and commercial organisations do tend to do so for commercial reasons. What the health groups are doing, though, is also lobbying - and here they are lobbying against the interests of those leaving smoking through vaping, on behalf of those who might come to smoking through vaping.
Actualy on behalf of their paymasters the pharma industry. Remember that most of the funding for these groups comes from pharma and the revolving door between pharma and the boards of these groups further complicates things.
Actually tobacco groups would be just as happy to see ecigs rid off, they fear a Kodiak moment and are scrambling to get aboard now. Their best hope is to slow ecigs down before they become too much competition for their products.Insofar as there is any simple line in this tangle, it would be tobacco companies (more broadly, nicotine companies) versus health groups. Big pharma is probably on the side of the health groups, but for the commercial reason that a large market of ex-smokers would be handed over to them under medicalising legislation. Which might not be so bad if their products didn't look and taste like surgical appliances, but they do - and presumably in the spirit of the legislation would continue to do so.
cordially,
Scofflaw
And no tobacco is not part of the nicotine companies as such, that's the market held by pharma and it's one they are trying to defend. They want nic declared a medicine so they have sole access to the market. Whats more they have no intention of making it an attractive option (they havn't done so with any other nrt) as it would remove potential customers for their cancer cures.
As to lobbying, well the entire EU commission is a lobby group by design. Some good reading here as to how the eu operates.
http://morningstaronline.co.uk/a-7db9-What-goes-on-behind-closed-doors-in-the-ECs-expert-groups#.Up-Bw3y358G0 -
-
Just browsing the reports that the Trialouge are using and....
.Hungarians consume almost exclusively manufactured cigarettes. Less than 2% of smokers use other tobacco products (cigar, pipe or hand-rolled cigarettes), the use of the latter is, however, increasing. Use of oral tobacco products is negligible
Yet....in the group 13-15yo's6% smoked cigars/mini-cigars, cigarillos (Boys: 9%, Girls: 3%)
13% smoked hand-rolled cigarettes during the past 30 days (one month) (Boys: 15%, Girls 10%)
20% smoked tobacco in a pipe or used water-pipe during the past 30 days (Boys: 24%, Girls: 15%) 13% smoked e-cigarette during the past 30 days (Boys: 16%, Girls: 10%)
4,7% of the 13-15 years old Hungarian young people who never smoke tobacco product used e- cigarette in the last 30 days
Anyone else find it odd that one in five Hungarians between the age of 13 & 15 have smoked tobacco in a pipe......or a water pipe!!!!
Are 13-15yo's prone to a little exaggeration ?.?0 -
Actualy on behalf of their paymasters the pharma industry. Remember that most of the funding for these groups comes from pharma and the revolving door between pharma and the boards of these groups further complicates things.
While I can't help but laugh at some of the conspiracy theories around that point, it's true enough. And it's hard not to imagine that pharmaceutical companies - even with the best will in the world, and without the simplistic evil of the conspiracists - would use the influence they have through such groups (and patient groups) for their commercial interests. Independence is hard to maintain from one's paymasters.Actually tobacco groups would be just as happy to see ecigs rid off, they fear a Kodiak moment and are scrambling to get aboard now. Their best hope is to slow ecigs down before they become too much competition for their products.
If that is the case, it's hard to see why the tobacco companies would be opposing the regulation of e-cigarettes, yet everyone closely involved in the process of the Directive seems convinced that's exactly what they're doing. For example:European officials complained on Friday that legislation regulating the sale of tobacco products is being held up in the European Parliament because of intense lobbying by cigarette manufacturers.
Philip Morris and other manufacturers have been widely criticized by officials, diplomats and some MEPs for the extent and intensity of their lobbying against the legislation.
Internal Philip Morris documents leaked to the media and seen by Reuters show that lobbyists have held over 250 meetings with members of parliament to discuss the legislation, especially with conservatives.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/04/us-eu-tobacco-idUSBRE9930MQ20131004And no tobacco is not part of the nicotine companies as such, that's the market held by pharma and it's one they are trying to defend. They want nic declared a medicine so they have sole access to the market. Whats more they have no intention of making it an attractive option (they havn't done so with any other nrt) as it would remove potential customers for their cancer cures.
There I think we agree, but not on the role of the tobacco companies. I think they'll be perfectly happy to get into e-cigarettes, and would rather not see them regulated as medical products.As to lobbying, well the entire EU commission is a lobby group by design. Some good reading here as to how the eu operates.
http://morningstaronline.co.uk/a-7db9-What-goes-on-behind-closed-doors-in-the-ECs-expert-groups#.Up-Bw3y358G
It's no more a lobby group by design than any other body with legislative responsibilities - and all such bodies suffer from the effect described in the article, whether they're EU or national. But I can't take the article entirely seriously, because it tells a very simplistic story:I raised this matter with a commission official a couple of years ago and he said they simply couldn't find anyone outside the industry who had the necessary expertise.
I gave him the name and details of Testbiotech, a Munich-based group which employs a number of experts in the relevant sciences and which is very critical of the industry.
Perhaps he followed this up and perhaps he didn't, but the point is, when doing my own research it had taken me less than five minutes of online searching to find this body, which isn't even the only place where critical scientists can be found.
The first point is a true observation, and the fact that the author of the article can then find him one "in five minutes online searching" is quite meaningless, because there's nothing to tell you that Testbiotech is in any way a reputable NGO as opposed to a shower of loons. Doing so would require, on the contrary, quite a bit of proper careful research, and the construction of a solid reasoning for the inclusion of the group in the expert advisory group. Unfortunately, a big pharma company has, in effect, created extremely solid bona fides beforehand - the tobacco company Philip MOrris puts it well:In a statement last month responding to criticism, Philip Morris said it was merely trying to express its views on the legislative proposals, and pointed out that it employed 12,500 people in the EU and had invested hundreds of millions of euros.
NGOs, on the other hand, are extremely easy to create. As such, the serious ones like the WWF are taken seriously, while small ones are not, because they could easily be a half-dozen eccentrics with a rented one-room office and a tea budget. That doesn't mean they're not passionate, or concerned, or quite possibly correct, but it does mean their views haven't necessarily any more backing (and therefore political validity) than someone raving on a street corner.
Finally, I know quite a few people in Brussels-based NGOs who sit on, or advise those from their NGOs who sit on, such expert groups (mostly in environmental fields, given my own background), so I have to say that had the author done a little more research, he might have found that other expert groups don't all follow the same pattern as those he was familiar with - which is slightly ironic, given his criticism of the Commission for the same failing.
Anyway, my apologies - I don't mean to turn this into a Politics debate!
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
dePeatrick wrote: »Just browsing the reports that the Trialouge are using and....
.
Yet....in the group 13-15yo's
Anyone else find it odd that one in five Hungarians between the age of 13 & 15 have smoked tobacco in a pipe......or a water pipe!!!!
Are 13-15yo's prone to a little exaggeration ?.?
Funnily enough, I think a survey of the people I knew at that age would have produced similar results. When a country is poorer (as Ireland, and even the UK was when I was that age), there's not much money for young teens, so most of us got our 'smoking experience' from the stuff we could nick from our parents or grandparents - and rolled tobacco and pipes featured a lot. Water pipes featured pretty heavily for those with slightly older siblings, for obvious reasons.
Certainly by the age of fifteen I had probably smoked nearly as much tobacco in pipes, hookahs, hand-rolled cigarettes, and the like (such as Gideon's Bible pages) as in pre-mades, which were costly and likely to be noticed if pinched. Smoking actual packet cigarettes was either sophisticated and luxurious or the sign of particularly light fingers.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Evidence of pharma lobbying and using lies to boost their claims.
http://ecigarette-research.com/web/index.php/2013-04-07-09-50-07/142-scandalous-propaganda-from-a-pharmaceutical-company
As to the tobacco co lobbying on behalf of ecigs, it dosn't say that, it says they lobbyied against the proposals in the TPD. Their was a lot more than ecigs in their, plain packaging, menthol bans and restriction on sizes.
No it is, the EU was set up to regulate markets not be a political body. By it's nature it is set up and run on behalf of business interests, not consumer or citizens. Yes it an opinion piece and simplifies things. It's core point remains, regulatory capture and money used to influence policy set by an unelected body who as we have seen reject democratic decisions and seek to usurp parliment. I doubt that the EU is unique in this, we see the same methods in all countrys and states.It's no more a lobby group by design than any other body with legislative responsibilities0 -
Advertisement
-
Evidence of pharma lobbying and using lies to boost their claims.
http://ecigarette-research.com/web/index.php/2013-04-07-09-50-07/142-scandalous-propaganda-from-a-pharmaceutical-company
As to the tobacco co lobbying on behalf of ecigs, it dosn't say that, it says they lobbyied against the proposals in the TPD. Their was a lot more than ecigs in their, plain packaging, menthol bans and restriction on sizes.
Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that tobacco companies are in favour of e-cigarettes. I appreciate that this particular debate has decided to paint the tobacco companies as being against them, but everything (including tobacco company lobbying elsewhere and commercial logic) says that the tobacco companies are happy with consumer regulation of e-cigarettes.
See, for example:Anyone trying to figure out how much clout Big Tobacco can carry into the nascent market for electronic cigarettes might want to check out Colorado.
Lorillard Inc.LO -0.43%, the No. 3 U.S. tobacco player and maker of Newport cigarettes, acquired the blu e-cigarette brand last year and has spent heavily to boost blu’s distribution and marketing. Blu is now the clear national leader, ahead of other major e-cigarette brands such as NJOY, Logic, Fin and Mistic that aren’t owned by a major manufacturer of traditional cigarettes.
Now comes news from Colorado, where Reynolds American Inc.RAI +0.86%, the No. 2 U.S. tobacco player and maker of Camel cigarettes, launched its Vuse e-cigarette in stores in July.
http://blogs.wsj.com/corporate-intelligence/2013/11/18/big-tobacco-begins-its-takeover-of-the-e-cigarette-market/
andTobacco industry lobbyists and public health advocates battled it out Thursday in a D.C. Council committee chamber over whether the city should restrict electronic cigarettes from all of the same places that it bans those rolled with tobacco.
In the absence of any federal guidelines on the increasingly popular devices, states and cities have scrambled to decide how to treat them. On Thursday, those for and against a bill to create “parity” with tobacco cigarettes, restricting them from all indoor areas, patios and bus stops, presented wildly different views of the battery-operated inhalers.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/lobbyists-clash-over-proposed-e-cigarette-restrictions-in-dc/2013/11/21/7fbeaeec-52ee-11e3-9e2c-e1d01116fd98_story.html
This isn't going to be a David and Goliath story with 'good' e-cigarette makers versus 'bad' tobacco companies. Commercial stories don't work that way, because if David's shareholders can make more money selling out to Goliath, that's what happens.
And the e-cigarette people are lobbying just as assiduously as anyone else:Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) report free e-cigarettes delivered to their letter boxes; unsolicited tobacco lobbyists turning up in their offices; numerous invitations to drinks, dinners and cocktail events; targeted social media and email campaigns coordinated by tobacco companies; indirect lobbying through small retailers, anti-counterfeiting firms and farmers’ groups; and, allegations of industry-sourced amendments.
http://corporateeurope.org/lobbycracy/2013/07/tobacco-lobbyists-all-fired-ahead-key-vote
That article is a rather better view of the lobbying going on than the Morning Star one, and from a source that is definitely critical of lobbying.No it is, the EU was set up to regulate markets not be a political body. By it's nature it is set up and run on behalf of business interests, not consumer or citizens. Yes it an opinion piece and simplifies things. It's core point remains, regulatory capture and money used to influence policy set by an unelected body who as we have seen reject democratic decisions and seek to usurp parliment. I doubt that the EU is unique in this, we see the same methods in all countrys and states.
That still doesn't make it a lobby group, but a lobbied group, the same as any legislative body. I'm not saying regulatory capture and decision-making inside a lobbyist-influenced bubble isn't an issue, but it's not a particular issue for the EU Commission - probably the reverse, in fact, since the Commissioners do not need any re-election help.
In this case, I think we can easily dismiss the claim that the Commission is particularly susceptible to tobacco industry lobbying by reference to their original proposals, which were very much stricter on controls for tobacco than the amended versions preferred by either the Parliament or the Council. If we measure the success of the tobacco lobbyists by how friendly the legislation is to them, which seems to me how you would measure it, then the lobbyists have had much less effect on the Commission than on the national governments or the Parliament.
Nor does the Commission "usurp Parliament". The current Commission proposal is not something the Commission can make happen against the wishes of the Parliament - it is a proposed compromise between the Parliament position and that of the Council (that is, the national governments).
It is the Council and the Parliament that are at loggerheads here, not the Parliament and the Commission. The Commission made the original legislative proposal that Parliament and the Council have amended, and the Commission's part as a legislator is already done with at this stage. It is currently acting as a mediator between the two democratic bodies.
There are certain narratives which are politically more acceptable than others, and they're definitely in play here. The Commission is unelected (self-evidently bad), and therefore it's useful to put it into the narrative as an antagonist - tobacco companies are definitely evil, so it's also useful to have them as antagonists. But these are just political tropes with no real nearing on the reality. This is not a simple story.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Well it nice to meet someone with faith in our overlords. Eicgs are a revealing product as like most new things they upset the applecart for the current system. Big tobacco had no interest in ecigs until about 12 months ago. Now that they see the possibility of cigarettes going the way of film, they want in. But for them this means replicating the business model they currently run. Disposable ecigs or at least use once cartos and rechargeable battery. The notion of having to cater to a diverse and changing market is anathima to them. So we end up with regulation that delivers exactly this model. Big tobacco-1 Consumer-0. Medicalization would have achieved the same result but for the tobacco cos would mean opening a new distribution chain, one largely controlled by pharma. Remember that the only ecig that applied for a medical licence was from a tobacco companies.Originally Posted by Scofflaw
There are certain narratives which are politically more acceptable than others, and they're definitely in play here. The Commission is unelected (self-evidently bad), and therefore it's useful to put it into the narrative as an antagonist - tobacco companies are definitely evil, so it's also useful to have them as antagonists. But these are just political tropes with no real nearing on the reality. This is not a simple story.
This started with pharma lobbying to protect their hold on nicotine. That they failed in courts around the world led someone somewhere to try slipping the medicalization regs into the tobacco regs hoping it would go unnoticed. It didn't and now we are at the stage where the original intention (to eliminate effective ecigs) is being attempted under tobacco regs. Suits big tobacco fine as they don't care if ecigs disappear and are happy to work with the model on offer.
The looser in all of this is the consumer whos interests are not being represented. If we didn't make the noise we have this would be a done deal.
Tell me again how this isn't an example of business interests using a legislative body for it own agenda? And how the EU commission has defended the interests of the consumer, seeing as how they don't depend on any support from business to run election campaigns? They have not only proposed the original regs but when these were rejected had a hissy fit and countered with harsher tobacco regs. Don't tell me that they are not trying to undo the democratic vote of the parliament and expect me to believe it when the opposite is true.
You need to get more cynical.
At this stage I think the ecigs (article 18) bit will get dropped allowing the rest of the TPD to go through so Lithuania can claim some credit before the presidency falls to Greece but this is not over. We have seen what they want to achieve and just because we win this time doesn't mean they wont come back again.0 -
Big tobacco had no interest in ecigs until about 12 months ago.
This is laughable. Big Tobacco were researching them back in the fifties!
Look up project Ariel which used a water based nicotene aerosol, and the contents of the Phillip Morris documents refferring to "aerosol replacing tobacco smoke".
Also, from BAT in 1979 :
"We are searching explicitly for a socially acceptable addictive product involving:
• a pattern of repeated consumption
• a product which is likely to involve repeated handling
• the essential constituent is most likely to be nicotine or a direct substitute for it
• the product must be non-ignitable (to eliminate inhalation of combustion products and passive smoking)."
The above describes an e-Cig pretty accurately !
E-Cigs were invented by Big Tobacco companies, don't kid yourself.0 -
Well it nice to meet someone with faith in our overlords. Eicgs are a revealing product as like most new things they upset the applecart for the current system. Big tobacco had no interest in ecigs until about 12 months ago. Now that they see the possibility of cigarettes going the way of film, they want in. But for them this means replicating the business model they currently run. Disposable ecigs or at least use once cartos and rechargeable battery. The notion of having to cater to a diverse and changing market is anathima to them. So we end up with regulation that delivers exactly this model. Big tobacco-1 Consumer-0. Medicalization would have achieved the same result but for the tobacco cos would mean opening a new distribution chain, one largely controlled by pharma. Remember that the only ecig that applied for a medical licence was from a tobacco companies.
I don't think opening a new distribution chain is that much of a problem, since I don't think the tobacco companies are involved to such a degree of detail as to have to worry about distributing to a pharmacy on the main street as opposed to the newsagent two doors down.
Nor am I sure that refillables would be much of an issue - how is it different from the current catering to rolled or pipe tobacco?
I don't think catering to a diverse and changing market is in any sense a problem for tobacco companies - they currently do so, and have shown their willingness to move with the times by getting into e-cigs as tobacco itself gets more tightly regulated. I think it's a mistake to hold onto the notion that they're "tobacco" companies in the sense of businesses that want to take tobacco and push it to you - their customer market is smokers, tobacco is just a raw material.This started with pharma lobbying to protect their hold on nicotine. That they failed in courts around the world led someone somewhere to try slipping the medicalization regs into the tobacco regs hoping it would go unnoticed. It didn't and now we are at the stage where the original intention (to eliminate effective ecigs) is being attempted under tobacco regs. Suits big tobacco fine as they don't care if ecigs disappear and are happy to work with the model on offer.
It's not exactly "slipping it in". Several EU countries were already regulating e-cigs - usually medically. Ireland was also making noises in that direction, so if the impetus for medical regulation of e-cigs stems from anywhere it most likely stems from those national governments in the first instance.
And at this stage, I don't see that a prohibitionist reflex towards any drug requires some kind of special explanation.The looser in all of this is the consumer whos interests are not being represented. If we didn't make the noise we have this would be a done deal.
Tell me again how this isn't an example of business interests using a legislative body for it own agenda? And how the EU commission has defended the interests of the consumer, seeing as how they don't depend on any support from business to run election campaigns? They have not only proposed the original regs but when these were rejected had a hissy fit and countered with harsher tobacco regs. Don't tell me that they are not trying to undo the democratic vote of the parliament and expect me to believe it when the opposite is true.
I have to tell you it, because it's what is the case. The Commission proposed the original legislation. That legislation went to the Council, who adopted their position on it in June, and the Parliament, who adopted their position on it in October. The Commission is not who is opposing Parliament at this stage, it's the Council.
That's how the process works - it's the "ordinary legislative procedure", and it goes like this:
1. the Commission creates a legislative proposal
2. the proposal is submitted to the Council and the Parliament for amendments (1st reading)
3. if the Council accepts the Parliament's amendments the legislation is passed
4. if the Council disagrees with the Parliament, it passes its own position back to the Parliament, which has three months to vote on it (2nd reading)
5. if the Parliament accepts this second Council version, or fails to make a decision, the legislation is passed
6. if the Parliament rejects the Council's version, the legislation fails
7. if the Parliament amends the Council's version, the Council has three months to approve it, in which case the legislation is passed
8. if the Council does not approve the Parliament's version, a Conciliation Committee is formed, which has six weeks to produce a joint text or else the legislation fails
9. if a joint text is produced the Parliament and the Council both need to pass it for the legislation to pass (3rd reading)
We are currently at Stage 3, a trilogue to see whether the Council can accept the Parliament's amendments. The Commission's input at this stage is limited to opinions and mediation. It has no power to overturn the legislation or the amendments, although it can require the Council to act unanimously rather than by majority - I'm not aware that's the case here.
So no matter how justifiable you feel your cynicism is, your claim is not possible, because the Commission cannot overturn the Parliament's decision at this stage. It's not legally possible. The Commission's only legislative function is that of initiative. It has initiated, and the process has moved on.You need to get more cynical.
I'm probably the most cynical person I know, but "cynicism" which ignores facts is not something I consider even slightly valuable. In this case the Commission's legislative input is finished, and no amount of cynicism on your part changes the rules of procedure to allow them to be the villain you want them to be.At this stage I think the ecigs (article 18) bit will get dropped allowing the rest of the TPD to go through so Lithuania can claim some credit before the presidency falls to Greece but this is not over. We have seen what they want to achieve and just because we win this time doesn't mean they wont come back again.
I would say that's quite a likely outcome. Who exactly that will satisfy is obviously a matter for debate!
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
This is laughable. Big Tobacco were researching them back in the fifties!
Look up project Ariel which used a water based nicotene aerosol, and the contents of the Phillip Morris documents refferring to "aerosol replacing tobacco smoke".
Also, from BAT in 1979 :
"We are searching explicitly for a socially acceptable addictive product involving:
• a pattern of repeated consumption
• a product which is likely to involve repeated handling
• the essential constituent is most likely to be nicotine or a direct substitute for it
• the product must be non-ignitable (to eliminate inhalation of combustion products and passive smoking)."
The above describes an e-Cig pretty accurately !
E-Cigs were invented by Big Tobacco companies, don't kid yourself.
What a ludicrous thing to say.
The fact that the above statement from BAT describes ecigs accurately cannot, in any way, imply that Tobacco companies invented e-digs.
It wouldn't take a lot of research to find out that Tobacco companies' "search" for a safer alternative didn't involve electronics. They tried to remove certain carcinogens, and reduced tar while trying to increase nicotine, but they never went down the electronic route.
Their lack of commitment in the past to a safer alternative was hampered by the fear that by developing a safer cigarette, they were effectively admitting that cigarettes were dangerous.
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/05/13/us/method-to-produce-safer-cigarette-was-found-in-60-s-but-company-shelved-idea.html?pagewanted=all&src=pmAriel was developed in the 1960's, and after the early success of the prototype, the company applied in 1964 for a patent, which was granted in 1966.
The company at first had high hopes for the new cigarette, but in 1964, company executives in various memorandums expressed a fear of disclosing too much harmful information about smoking and of subsequent lawsuits. The research already completed on both the hazards of cigarettes and solutions was shelved, and the laboratories of the parent company in England, where much of the research on cigarettes was done, were closed down.
Despite that, in the '70s Brown and Williamson did bring the "safer" FACT to market but dropped it after 2 years.
There is no doubt that Big Tobacco was missing the e-cig bandwagon, which is probably why Lorillard splashed out over a $100 million for Blu.0 -
DubTony wrote:There is no doubt that Big Tobacco was missing the e-cig bandwagon, which is probably why Lorillard splashed out over a $100 million for Blu.
That's not very big money when you consider the size of the possible market that could transfer to e-cigs as tobacco regulation closes in. It also illustrates the point that in commercial David and Goliath stories, David sells out to Goliath. That's now a completely standard pattern in every innovation-oriented market - large companies let the small companies innovate, and buy them if it seems to be working out. It's so standard that it forms part of many startups' business plans - innovate, build market share for a couple of years, sell out to a major player.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Absolutely. It's a pittance compared to the potential market size. And it also saved Lorillard from having to develop its own. As you say, let the small guy do the R&D, because at the end of the day, everything is for sale.0
-
What a ludicrous thing to say.
The fact that the above statement from BAT describes ecigs accurately cannot, in any way, imply that Tobacco companies invented e-digs.
It wouldn't take a lot of research to find out that Tobacco companies' "search" for a safer alternative didn't involve electronics.
Ok, so how do you explain this patent application from Philip Morris which describes "an electrical smoking article, ....tobacco or tobacco-derived substances, is heated electrically to release a tobacco flavor substance . As the substance is heated, a smoker at the mouth or downstream end of the device draws air in and around the heating element by inhaling, and thereby receives the tobacco flavor substance ."
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/fnf56c00/pdf;jsessionid=D4C0B7926495326574E4C04ED830BB94.tobacco03
That device has a battery, circuitry, puff sensor, a heater. It is, very obviously, the precursor to the device we now know as an electronic cigarette.
As I said, and this patent proves, Big Tobacco invented e-Cigs.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement