or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › Do you use electronic cigarettes? Please sign this petition..
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Do you use electronic cigarettes? Please sign this petition.. - Page 2

post #16 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mshenay View Post
 

I'm down for ANYTHING that get's ppl to stop blowing Sig Smoke in my face! I honestly HATE being ANY where near Smoked Tabcco Cigurates 

 

A few of my co-workers have eCigs. And they are, imo, MUCH less invasive then traditional Cigs! That said, ironically I'm friends with a good number of smokers ;/ 

After your upstart costs on your PV if you DIY your own juice the savings can really add up. Per smoke in your face, most of the really commercial offerings like

Njoy, Blue, etc are the smaller pen size devices they absolutely produce little flavor and vapor not to mention throat hit than the bigger counter parts.

 

Vaping provides a much more convenient and a cleaner way for us to get our fix.

post #17 of 34
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by paradoxper View Post
 

After your upstart costs on your PV if you DIY your own juice the savings can really add up. Per smoke in your face, most of the really commercial offerings like

Njoy, Blue, etc are the smaller pen size devices they absolutely produce little flavor and vapor not to mention throat hit than the bigger counter parts.

 

Vaping provides a much more convenient and a cleaner way for us to get our fix.

 

This is why people should sign the petition, even if you do not use vaping... It is not acceptable for the government to do this and it is not because of public health, it is because they want to regulate / tax it and get revenue from it. You can buy a decent vaping device and a DIY juice kit for around £80 and then the running costs will be less than £5 a week. This is taking lot of people away from smoking so the tobacco companies and governments are losing a lot of money due to it. With smoking cigarettes it will cost you at least £20 a week and the government are getting 80% tax revenue from it. If the government were bothered about public health they would be banning smoking, not vaping.


Edited by nicholars - 11/30/13 at 10:51am
post #18 of 34

I understand the social aspect of it completely as it was the reason i started and one of the reasons i didn't consider quitting for so long. To be honest I'm just trying to get my post count up enough to post pictures of some DIY cables i just made . If its just about regulating another way to smoke what they're already smoking then I'll sign the petition. I'm also going to insist that we start manufacturing/selling insulin pumps that administer nicotine on a clock. May not be social but it sure will be efficient.:gs1000smile:

post #19 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by nicholars View Post
 

 

This is why people should sign the petition, even if you do not use vaping... It is not acceptable for the government to do this and it is not because of public health, it is because they want to regulate / tax it and get revenue from it. You can buy a decent vaping device and a DIY juice kit for around £80 and then the running costs will be less than £5 a week. This is taking lot of people away from smoking so the tobacco companies and governments are losing a lot of money due to it. With smoking cigarettes it will cost you at least £20 a week and the government are getting 80% tax revenue from it. If the government were bothered about public health they would be banning smoking, not vaping.

In the proposal they're aiming to outright ban all vaping devices and accessories.

It doesn't seem like they're considering regulating/taxing it.

post #20 of 34
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by paradoxper View Post
 

In the proposal they're aiming to outright ban all vaping devices and accessories.

It doesn't seem like they're considering regulating/taxing it.

 

No they want to ban refillable tanks and DIY juices and make it so that you can only buy sealed 10mg tanks in NRT flavours only... Sort of like nicotine gum or patches. It does not make sense to ban vaping as a hobby but still allow the sale of cigarettes and claim this is for public health and not money.


Edited by nicholars - 11/30/13 at 11:04am
post #21 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by nicholars View Post
 

 

No they want to ban refillable tanks and DIY juices and make it so that you can only buy prefilled tanks. Sort of like nicotine gum or patches.

My understanding is an outright ban because of the nicotine levels per Article 18. I haven't found anything relating to just restrictions on prefills, etc or regulating/tax.

post #22 of 34
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by paradoxper View Post
 

My understanding is an outright ban because of the nicotine levels per Article 18. I haven't found anything relating to just restrictions on prefills, etc or regulating/tax.

 

Hmm I am pretty sure what they are trying to do is ban all DIY juices / flavours / refillable tanks....

 

And introduce regulated / prefilled tanks in 10mg strengths and only in NRT flavours...

 

I expect these will be expensive and pretty much make vaping as expensive as smoking...

 

You do not have to agree with my opinion but personally that is what it looks like to me, there is NO LOGIC at all in keeping tobacco legal but banning electronic cigarettes.... Other than tax revenues or influence from tobacco companies.


Edited by nicholars - 11/30/13 at 11:10am
post #23 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by nicholars View Post
 

 

Hmm I am pretty sure what they are trying to do is ban all DIY juices / flavours / refillable tanks....

 

And introduce regulated / prefilled tanks in 10mg strengths and only in NRT flavours...

 

I expect these will be expensive and pretty much make vaping as expensive as smoking...

 

You do not have to agree with my opinion but personally that is what it looks like to me, there is NO LOGIC at all in keeping tobacco legal but banning electronic cigarettes.... Other than tax revenues.

All I am saying is based on the current proposal: Article 18 of the Tobacco Products Directive. 

 

Article 18 of the proposal prohibits nicotine-containing products (NCP) such as e cigarettes containing a certain nicotine level if they are not authorised pursuant to Directive 2001/83/EC (the Medicinal Products Directive). It is, however, quite unclear if these products (which are much less harmful than tobacco products) even fall under the scope of the Medicinal Products Directive.1 For products that do not fall under the Directive, this would effectively constitute a ban. 

 

The solution is to have Article 18 removed from the Directive, thus leaving all regulations under the existing consumer protection laws.

 

I understand your opinion on the mater and do agree, I am just sifting out the facts.

post #24 of 34
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by paradoxper View Post
 

All I am saying is based on the current proposal: Article 18 of the Tobacco Products Directive. 

 

Article 18 of the proposal prohibits nicotine-containing products (NCP) such as e cigarettes containing a certain nicotine level if they are not authorised pursuant to Directive 2001/83/EC (the Medicinal Products Directive). It is, however, quite unclear if these products (which are much less harmful than tobacco products) even fall under the scope of the Medicinal Products Directive.1 For products that do not fall under the Directive, this would effectively constitute a ban. 

 

The solution is to have Article 18 removed from the Directive, thus leaving all regulations under the existing consumer protection laws.

 

I understand your opinion on the mater and do agree, I am just sifting out the facts.

 

link...

 

http://www.clivebates.com/?p=1655#more-1655

 

Late last week the European Commission circulated a confidential new proposal for regulating e-cigarettes.   The document was sent only to those negotiating the future of e-cigarettes behind closed doors in Brussels – representatives of the European Parliament and European Council.  This isn’t a final proposal, but it provides the negotiators with something to discuss. The Nicotine Science and Policy website has obtained the document, and it is here.  It is quite frankly appalling – lacking any legitimacy in public health or internal market policy-making… Make no mistake, if implemented this proposal bans every product on the market today and would severely limit options for future products - and may make it commercially unviable to develop in future.

The main troubling features include:

 

  • Allows only single-use cartridges.  No refillable units or tanks will be permitted and so the most effective devices will be removed from the market.
  • Allows only flavours already approved for use in NRT. Hands control to pharma companies and against the view of the Parliament that recognised the importance of flavours.
  • Limits nicotine density to 20mg/ml maximum with no justification, cutting out the stronger liquids that appeal more to heavily addicted smokers and those just switching
  • Limits nicotine content of any container to just 10mg/unit – this is extremely low and arbitrary (see new paper on lethal doses for nicotine) and makes no sense
  • Allows only devices that “deliver nicotine doses consistently and uniformly” – a completely unnecessary, severe and limiting technical challenge derived from medicines regulation – unlike with medicines, e-cigarette users control the dose.
  • Bans advertising in press or printed publications (except trade), on radio, TV and other audiovisual services and the internet (through “information society services“) – this just protects incumbents (tobacco industry) and those who can rely on established distribution channels (tobacco industry)
  • Bans e-cigarette sponsorships that have cross border impact (e.g. anything that might be shown on TV) – reduces competitiveness of disruptive technology
  • Applies onerous and unnecessary warning, labelling and leaflet requirements that may be impractical and are disproportionate to risk deterring smokers who may wish to switch
  • Bans cross border distance sales (internet etc) in clear contravention of the aims of the internal market
  • Requires manufacturers to track so-called ‘adverse effects’ even though nicotine is widely used and understood
  • Requires the submission of  large quantities of seemingly irrelevant technical and commercial data despite recent high level commitments to reduce red tape
  • Asserts (against the evidence) that e-cigarettes “simulate smoking behaviour and are increasingly used and marketed to young people and non-smokers” continuing the European tradition of smearing valuable harm-reduction option, notably snus, to the detriment of health in Europe.

 

Dr Farsalinos, an expert in the field, politely sums it up: The European Union ignores science and common sense by making proposals that will damage the health of smokers and vapers

Basically, the Commission has tried to smuggle in as much medicine-style regulation as possible, and then added the most restrictive commercial aspects of tobacco regulation on top – thus imposing the worst of both worlds for this most promising product. There are one or two acceptable things in the new draft, of course, but the very bad things listed above hugely outweigh them all.  The total effect of this would be:

  • to leave millions of smokers without an effective and reduced risk alternative to cigarettes;
  • to close many businesses throughout the EU and beyond; and
  • to greatly limit the potential for genuine harm reduction through alternatives to cigarettes in the future.

 

It’s a proposal based on ignorance of how e-cigarettes work and why they are increasingly successful.  If anything, it looks like a spiteful  tantrum from Commission officials who didn’t like having their really poor idea of mandatory regulation these products as medicines entirely rejected by the European Parliament in October – see 8 reasons why e-cigarettes should not be regulated as medicines Buzzfeed by Rebecca Taylor MEP (@RTaylor_MEP).   When will they get it… regulation of harm reduction products involves a perilous ‘double negative’: tough on harm-reduction is… easy on harm… and  therefore …tough on health.

post #25 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by nicholars View Post
 

 

link...

 

http://www.clivebates.com/?p=1655#more-1655

 

 

 

Thanks for the link, nicholars. This is even more unsettling.

 

It seems they are still pursuing the medicinal regulations. Either way, this is tragic corruption if passed.

 

Some good-ish news. There is pushback. 

 

Medicalisation of e-cigs has been successfully challenged by 5 courts in the EU.

 

Netherlands Court of the Hague
The ruling of Administrative Court of Köln
The Supreme Court of Sachsen-Anhalt State
NRW Higher Administrative Court in Germany
Tartu Administrative Court on behalf of the Republic of Esto

 

Won't go down without a fight*


Edited by paradoxper - 11/30/13 at 11:36am
post #26 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by nicholars View Post
 

It is not acceptable for the government to do this and it is not because of public health, it is because they want to regulate / tax it and get revenue from it. You can buy a decent vaping device and a DIY juice kit for around £80 and then the running costs will be less than £5 a week. This is taking lot of people away from smoking so the tobacco companies and governments are losing a lot of money due to it. With smoking cigarettes it will cost you at least £20 a week and the government are getting 80% tax revenue from it. If the government were bothered about public health they would be banning smoking, not vaping.

 

That^s what it comes down to. It's all about the money :angry_face: Signed the petition.

post #27 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by pingguoyons View Post
 

The reason i call it a fad, and will continue to call it a fad is because nicotine inhalers exist--no smoke, no vapour--so it seems to me that the vapour concept and fancy little pens are totally unnecessary. 

vrt

Nictotine inhalers aren't exactly the same as ecigs.


Edited by paradoxper - 12/1/13 at 10:35am
post #28 of 34
Thread Starter 

Mmm yes sit there chilling out with your nicotine inhaler nice

post #29 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by nicholars View Post
 

 

Hmm I am pretty sure what they are trying to do is ban all DIY juices / flavours / refillable tanks....

 

And introduce regulated / prefilled tanks in 10mg strengths and only in NRT flavours...

 

I expect these will be expensive and pretty much make vaping as expensive as smoking...

 

You do not have to agree with my opinion but personally that is what it looks like to me, there is NO LOGIC at all in keeping tobacco legal but banning electronic cigarettes.... Other than tax revenues or influence from tobacco companies.

+1. Crappy tanks are the ban of e-cigs. My e-cig set-up performs great at sub-$50. I love my mini vivi nova clearomizers!!!

 

I wouldn't mind some regulation into e-juice tho... god knows what some of the less reputable companies put in their juice.

post #30 of 34
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by money4me247 View Post
 

+1. Crappy tanks are the ban of e-cigs. My e-cig set-up performs great at sub-$50. I love my mini vivi nova clearomizers!!!

 

I wouldn't mind some regulation into e-juice tho... god knows what some of the less reputable companies put in their juice.

 

Yeh well it looks like the EU have not banned it for now, although it still may happen in 2016.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › Do you use electronic cigarettes? Please sign this petition..