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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

European Ban on E-Cigs?

1234568

Comments

  • #352
    was.deevey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,213 ✭✭✭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


  • #353
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭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.


  • #354
    was.deevey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,213 ✭✭✭was.deevey


    then the minister would weight in

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


  • #355
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭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


  • #356
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭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


  • #357
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭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.


  • #358
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭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


  • #359
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭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.


  • #360
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Advertisement
  • #361
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭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


  • #362
    jakdublin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,066 ✭✭✭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


  • #363
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭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.


  • #364
    masonchat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 663 ✭✭✭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 ?


  • #365
    masonchat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 663 ✭✭✭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


  • #366
    grindle
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,026 ✭✭✭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!


  • Advertisement
  • #367
    iba
    Registered Users Posts: 2,629 ✭✭✭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.


  • #368
    masonchat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 663 ✭✭✭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


  • #369
    thbb
    Registered Users Posts: 8 ✭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


  • #370
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭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.


  • #371
    masonchat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 663 ✭✭✭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


  • Advertisement
  • #372
    iba
    Registered Users Posts: 2,629 ✭✭✭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.


  • #373
    thbb
    Registered Users Posts: 8 ✭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.


  • #374
    grindle
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,026 ✭✭✭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


  • #375
    masonchat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 663 ✭✭✭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


  • #376
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭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;


  • #377
    masonchat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 663 ✭✭✭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,


  • #378
    grindle
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,026 ✭✭✭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.


  • #379
    masonchat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 663 ✭✭✭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


  • #380
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭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.


  • #381
    masonchat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 663 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #382
    was.deevey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,213 ✭✭✭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 ?


  • #383
    masonchat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 663 ✭✭✭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


  • #384
    MonstaMash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,443 ✭✭✭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.


  • #385
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭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.


  • #386
    MayoSalmon
    Registered Users Posts: 2,325 ✭✭✭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.


  • #387
    grindle
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,026 ✭✭✭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?


  • #388
    visual
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,267 ✭✭✭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


  • #389
    MayoSalmon
    Registered Users Posts: 2,325 ✭✭✭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

    :confused::confused:


  • #390
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭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

    :confused::confused:

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

    Drug_danger_and_dependence.png

    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


  • Advertisement
  • #391
    ardle1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,521 ✭✭✭ardle1


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

    Drug_danger_and_dependence.png

    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'.....


  • #392
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


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

    Drug_danger_and_dependence.png

    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
    Actually neither as addictive or dangerous as it's made out to be. Nicotine also has benefits in brain function.

    Remember all these claims come from a time when nicotine was only available in combination with smoke. The health lobby thought it an acceptable lie to exaggerate the adictivness and toxicity of nicotine. If it lead to people becoming negative towards nicotine then it would lead to negativity to smoking.

    The propaganda went on so long that the problem is now seen as not smoking but nicotine addiction.

    Yes theirs lobbying from vested interests, pharma needs smokers to buy both it's nrt and chemo, this alone doesn't account for the massive resistance to ecigs though. It the years of producing a pavlovian response to anything that looks like smoking that's driving the hesitation to embrace ecigs for what they are a safe recreational nicotine system.

    Anyway a bit from the topic at hand, the EU TPD and what needs to be done about it.
    Once the TPD is rubber stamped by the council it will be EU law and must be implemented in member state legislation within 2 years. Until a member state enacts legislation, their can't be a legal challenge.
    In the meantime the EU European Citizens' Initiative, a mechanism provided by the EU that allows its concerned citizens to express their common opinion on how the European Parliament should approach certain subjects allows a process that can challenge this if 7 states can produce enough support.
    It's all we have so get your friends, family, strangers on the bus, anyone at all who has an email addy. I am taking it for granted you have already signed it your self.
    Sign here; https://ec.europa.eu/citizens-initiative/REQ-ECI-2013-000024/public/signup.do
    And read all about it here; http://www.efvi.eu/


  • #393
    Orion
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,807 ✭✭✭✭Orion


    I look forward to EU candidates calling to my door to ask them about this. My first question will be to ask why e-cigs are included in a Tobacco Products Directive.


  • #394
    masonchat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 663 ✭✭✭masonchat


    The only possible way that ecigs will ever become a gateway to smoking ,ironically is if they ban ecigs (which could happen at any time remember if 3 or more EU states bans them) or if they regulate them down to the useless ineffective standards of the woeful patches,gum,lozenger etc.

    I got my dad started on a cigalike he has been a 40 a day smoker for 51 years, he didnt start with the intention of quitting cigs only wanted to cut down.

    He hasnt touched a fag since sat, not even remotely tempted, i know how good the ecigs are but even im impressed .

    The fags are not as satisfying as the ecig,more harmful more expensive less socially tolerable , only a fool who started vaping (traditionally this person would have become a smoker instead) would decide to take up smoking .

    Can ecigs become a gateway to smoking ? ONLY if you ban them you F#'#'#/#/##'#'']IN IMBECILE


  • #395
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    ardle1 wrote: »
    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'.....

    Not from the perspective of people who've spent years fighting smoking you're not.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #396
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    masonchat wrote: »
    The only possible way that ecigs will ever become a gateway to smoking ,ironically is if they ban ecigs (which could happen at any time remember if 3 or more EU states bans them) or if they regulate them down to the useless ineffective standards of the woeful patches,gum,lozenger etc.

    I got my dad started on a cigalike he has been a 40 a day smoker for 51 years, he didnt start with the intention of quitting cigs only wanted to cut down.

    He hasnt touched a fag since sat, not even remotely tempted, i know how good the ecigs are but even im impressed .

    The fags are not as satisfying as the ecig,more harmful more expensive less socially tolerable , only a fool who started vaping (traditionally this person would have become a smoker instead) would decide to take up smoking .

    Can ecigs become a gateway to smoking ? ONLY if you ban them you F#'#'#/#/##'#'']IN IMBECILE

    Sure - and even if you do believe it's a gateway, it would make more sense to ban smoking entirely, which would prevent vaping being a gateway to smoking rather more effectively than the other way round.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Advertisement
  • #397
    fayvirtue
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 28 ✭fayvirtue


    I don't really see the problem. It definitely is safer, no bothersome second hand smoke and is not a gateway for people to start smoking real harmful cigarettes !


  • #398
    fayvirtue
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 28 ✭fayvirtue


    I was in Canada and Jamaica last year and they have banned e-cig from all public places including the beach - Ridiculous !


  • #399
    Didihno
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 790 ✭✭✭Didihno


    fayvirtue wrote: »
    I was in Canada and Jamaica last year and they have banned e-cig from all public places including the beach - Ridiculous !
    Shocking how nazi some places are getting (about more than just vaping).
    Whats next? No tee shirts allowed on the bus? No helping old ladies across the street?


  • #400
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    Didihno wrote: »
    Shocking how nazi some places are getting (about more than just vaping).
    Whats next? No tee shirts allowed on the bus? No helping old ladies across the street?

    Feeding the homeless! http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/27299-why-did-fort-lauderdale-police-arrest-an-old-man-for-feeding-homeless-people


  • #401
    J Mysterio
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,035 ✭✭✭✭J Mysterio


    Yeah that Ft. Lauterdale thing is a blooming disgrace!


  • Advertisement
Advertisement