The Australian ban

[Dogsbody]

Question: If nicotine e-cig cartridges are banned because they contain the poison nicotine, how does that affect the status of Nicotrol inhalers? How about tobacco cigarettes? I've heard they contain nicotine .

If all the poisons are banned in Australia, how do you folks get anything clean? Unstop your clogged drains?

Nicotrol inhalers are classed as a cessation device and sold through pharmacies.
Tobacco cigs have enjoyed a special classification of "Tobacco Product" and are available to 18+ (used to be 16+) The e-cig isn't classed as a tobacco product, but rather... an unclassified drug delivery device so it can't be sold or as a cessation device (if the manual states it may help smokers quit) so it cannot be sold as it hasn't passed the necessary tests needed.

All poisons are not banned... but I am sure they all have to be tested, graded and recommendations need to be followed. ie bottles/labeling/warnings/medical advice etc..

As this is poison for consumption.. I am sure it just raised some "too scary" flags and no-one saw how any good could come of it.

I too received a shipment on Monday that had been opened and inspected and released from customs, so I guess it is good that they are allowing people to import it for personal use, until they can work out if it is really a good or bad thing.

[brick420]

From the aussie forums I havent seen any reports of siezure (liquid or otherwise)

edit: also LOTS of reports of "got mine today" etc etc.. /edit

My stuff is getting through customs just fine.
I'm considering selling PV's on the sly (purely by word of mouth among friends and aquantainces) They're even more unheard of here than in other countries but everyone I've talked to about them (esp. smokers) have been very interested.

Considering that the "toxic" or "carcinogenic" properties of nic-juice are at the same levels as NRT and that PG is the same stuff that I inhaled through my ventolin nebulizer during childhood asthma, I'm fairly sure I could develop a small customer base of people who want their nicotine without the extra cancer.

- Guv

thats all well and good mate. one suggestion, take down the pic first.

[Ghetto_Cowgirl]

I'm wondering if there's anyone here in Melbourne? Close to Frankston? I'd LOVE to get my mum into PVs but she's about the worst person when it comes to technical stuff, yes even this I'd love to hook her up with another vaporer to try it and learn how to use it. I know this sounds strange lol but being in another country makes it extremely difficult

[matt_2250]

I've had 2 shipments come in without dramas, waiting on a 3rd. That said, one of the reasons I order from BE is they claim they'll resend the whole order if it doesn't make it through customs

Perhaps I'm just overly optimistic about our leaders, but they'll have to unban them when the rest of the world finally realises how many millions of people can make an easy transition from smoking tobacco and dying slow horrible deaths, to vaping. Damn shame they won't even be slightly sheepish about contributing to to deaths of anyone who would've switched to vaping.

Unless they think they will be able to take tobacco off the market anytime soon and have a nicotine addict free Australia, an outright ban is just ridiculous. What's the world gonna think of us when the research is complete, and vaping is found to be significantly less harmful than inhaling burning plant material, and we just dismissed them without second thought. Surely the prospect of giving our country's citizens a viable option to smoking tobacco would be worth second look. That's my 2c anyway. Come on Australia.

[matt_2250]

Taken from 3w's.health.gov.au/internet/preventativehealth/publishing.nsf/Content/96CAC56D5328E3D0CA2574DD0081E5C0/$File/tobacco-3.pdf

PROGRESS AGAINST INTERNATIONAL COMPARATORS
Oral tobacco products are sold in the US, Sweden and much of Asia and Africa. In Australia, a ban in place since 1989[238] on the retail supply of oral tobacco products (snuff/snus and chewing tobacco) under the Trade Practices Act 1974 permits individuals to import only small quantities for personal use under the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956. Other oral products, where tobacco is not the primary constituent – such as betel nut, pan masala and other products imported from Africa, Asia and the Indian subcontinent – are not captured. In mid- 2006 the duty payable on these products was aligned with that on loose tobacco. Changes in custom codes over the past few years make it difficult to assess the extent to which imports of these products is increasing. Some health experts, including some in Australia,[239] have called for the wider availability of low-nitrosamine smokeless tobacco.[240-245] Others are more cautious, not least on the basis of the risks from these products themselves, as well as the manner in which they might be promoted.[245, 246] For the moment, most health agencies and advocates[247, 248] support the continuation in Australia of the restricted importation of smokeless tobacco products for personal use, ensuring that current users are not denied access, while deterring non-tobacco users (particularly youth) from commencing.

ALTERNATIVE NICOTINE DELIVERY DEVICES
In the last couple of months a proliferation of new devices providing nicotine in products other than those that need to be lit and inhaled have been launched into various markets around the world. Alternative nicotine delivery devices (ANDS) include products such as sweets, hand gel,[249] mouth washes and electronic cigarettes.[249-251]
Electronic cigarettes consist of a tubing device resembling a conventional cigarette. This heats a replaceable cartridge filled with liquid nicotine and other chemicals (i.e. it does not contain tobacco leaf). The heating process
creates a mist that resembles cigarette smoke and is inhaled by the user. The e-cigarette is marketed by some companies as a healthier alternative; for example, ‘Egar Cigarette can be used legally indoors, in restaurants – ANYWHERE you wish, where traditional smoking is prohibited! ... Beat the smoking ban!’ 27

If e-cigarettes are marketed as an aid in withdrawal from smoking they will be considered a therapeutic good, and would have to be listed on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods before they could be imported and retailed in Australia. It seems unlikely that they would meet standards for safety and efficacy. If, on the other hand, e-cigarettes are marketed exclusively as recreational devices, they may not meet the definition of therapeutic use. The Standard for the Uniform Scheduling of Drugs and Poisons (SUSDP) currently categorises all nicotine products that are not tobacco products or are
used for NRT as falling under Schedule 7, which covers Dangerous Poisons. Therefore, at present, such products (not being clearly a tobacco product or NRT) would probably not satisfy the stated exceptions, and could not be retailed
under state and territory legislation.

As with smokeless tobacco, health experts have differing views about the usefulness of these products.[252, 253] Concerns are not easily dismissed about the potential of such products to attract young people who would not otherwise have used any form of nicotine, and to then act as a gateway to cigarettes.

Also worrying is the possibility that adults who might otherwise have given up tobacco completely could remain dependent on nicotine, helped by the availability of such products, and return to cigarettes, which are always likely to be a superior delivery device. [248, 254] Modelling of the potential benefits and harms suggests the need for restricting the availability of such products to long-time users who are unable to quit. However, such an approach would have few public health benefits unless large numbers of these smokers knew about such alternative products and were willing to try them. This conundrum will continue to be debated.[242, 244, 245, 255-261]

I can't create threads but I imagine this infomation warrants it's own thread... mod?

[matt_2250]

Again, new thread would be awesome mod.

Taken from
3w's.preventativehealth.org.au/internet/preventativehealth/publishing.nsf/Content/submissions-public-cnt-op/$File/D270-2008.pdf

PHILIP MORRIS LIMITED AND PHILIP MORRIS INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT SA’s
SUBMISSION TO THE NATIONAL DRUGS AND POISONS SCHEDULE COMMITTEE
ON THE PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE SCHEDULING OF NICOTINE
IN RELATION TO USE IN ELECTRONIC CIGARETTES

10 September 2008
Philip Morris Limited and Philip Morris International Management SA 1 offer these comments to assist the National Drugs and Poisons Schedule Committee (NDPSC) in considering a proposal to amend the scheduling of nicotine in relation to use in electronic cigarettes.2 Because Philip Morris does not have information on the specific nature of the product under consideration by the NDPSC, or of the specific nature of the scheduling proposed, our comments are premised on our understanding of electronic cigarettes currently advertised or marketed in Australia and elsewhere. Those products do not contain tobacco but rather provide nicotine to consumers by generating an inhalable aerosol using a battery-like energy source. Such products are seen with increasing regularity in various countries around the world. They are widely available via the Internet 3, and various claims are made about their benefits. For example, electronic cigarettes are purported to “provide similar enjoyment of smoking without tar and carbon monoxide and the other dangerous substances that are released in the burning of tobacco “4, and are claimed to allow both smokers and non-smokers to “smoke anywhere free-risk” and “smoke without fire.”5 Other consumer communications suggest that these products could aid in quitting smoking (“quit smoking easier”) and present the product as being “100% healthy.”6 Many of those products are designed to physically resemble cigarettes and may be marketed to and understood by consumers as cigarette substitutes that provide one or more of the following benefits: pleasurable alternative to cigarettes; reduced risk of disease; safe and effective smoking cessation therapies.

Electronic cigarettes have been described recently in Australian media. For example, the West Australian reported on 19 August 2008 that “Electronic ciggies ‘beat smoke bans’”.7 The article stated that manufacturers “market them as the healthier alternative to smoking” and “spruik[ ] them as a device to sidestep smoking bans.” An article in The Age said that although the device “is not intended as a nicotine replacement therapy,” the product’s distributor stated that the e-cigarette is “‘much more effective’ than any other quit product.”8 The products are reportedly already being sold in Australia. A caller to a morning radio programme in June 2008 said “I just bought one … a week ago, and I’m – yeah. I’m addicted…It looks like smoke, tastes like smoke. You get the same nicotine hit. But you can smoke it indoors …. “9 In New Zealand, an electronic cigarette is reportedly being tested in clinical trials in order to assess the product’s safety and efficacy.10

Regulatory assessment is needed to ensure that statements about these products are substantiated by sound scientific data and that consumers receive appropriate information about the risks, if any, posed by these products. However, it has not yet clearly been established which regulatory scheme – e.g., tobacco products or therapeutic goods – should apply to electronic cigarettes. On the one hand, electronic cigarettes cannot be regulated under tobacco product regulations in many countries, including Australia, because they do not contain tobacco and thus fall outside of the scope of tobacco product regulation. On the other hand, despite the fact that electronic cigarettes are similar to smoking cessation therapies, particularly nicotine inhalers, in that they deliver nicotine to consumers, many countries have not sought to regulate them under pharmaceutical regulations based in part on confusion about whether the products are being sold for therapeutic purposes. Recently a number of European governments have concluded that electronic cigarettes should in fact be regulated as pharmaceutical products or medical devices and have taken action to limit or prevent their sale until appropriate regulatory approvals have been obtained.11 We believe that for products such as electronic cigarettes that deliver nicotine but do not contain tobacco, this is the most appropriate option for regulation today.

Our support for such oversight for electronic cigarettes is not intended to place unreasonable or undue regulatory burdens on the marketing of legitimate smoking cessation products or products that have the potential to offer consumers safer alternatives to cigarettes. However, it is not tenable to permit products that deliver nicotine and are marketed with claims on the market without any regulatory oversight. Nevertheless, we recognize the imbalance between regulation of tobacco products and that of pharmaceutical products providing nicotine, especially products intended (and substantiated) as nicotine replacement therapies or safer alternatives to conventional cigarettes. One possible way of addressing this dilemma in the long term is to revise the pharmaceutical regulatory framework to accommodate tobacco harm reduction by liberalizing the restrictions on nicotine replacement therapies, as was recently done in Sweden.

Another approach suggested by some public health advocates would be to develop a single, broad regulatory framework covering both tobacco and nicotine products. Some public health groups have referred to this as regulation along a “risk continuum” – essentially establishing regulations of increasing (or decreasing) restrictions based on the risk presented by the product with, hypothetically, conventional cigarettes at one end and nicotine replacement therapies at the other. Philip Morris strongly supports efforts to develop and market products that may reduce the harm of tobacco use. A science-based regulatory framework could support this development by establishing clear rules for the manufacture and scientific assessment of novel products in order to obtain authorization to market these products with claims.12 This framework should also outline requirements regarding communication and labelling of novel products as well as require post-marketing surveillance of these products once on the market.

We believe government oversight is needed to ensure that claims made by manufacturers are substantiated by sound scientific data and that consumers receive appropriate information about the risk, if any, posed by the products. We recognise the technical, scientific, resource and enforcement challenges such a science-based regulatory framework would entail. However, the current availability of various new products, including electronic cigarettes, demonstrates the need for regulation that would provide for assessment standards for new products and determine the most appropriate regulatory requirements that would apply to them. We would appreciate the opportunity to share further information about similar products that we have encountered in several countries around the world, as well as our thoughts on a science-based regulatory framework for products with the potential to reduce the risk of tobacco related disease.

[fair dinkum]

From the aussie forums I havent seen any reports of siezure (liquid or otherwise)

edit: also LOTS of reports of "got mine today" etc etc.. /edit

My stuff is getting through customs just fine.
I'm considering selling PV's on the sly (purely by word of mouth among friends and aquantainces) They're even more unheard of here than in other countries but everyone I've talked to about them (esp. smokers) have been very interested.

Considering that the "toxic" or "carcinogenic" properties of nic-juice are at the same levels as NRT and that PG is the same stuff that I inhaled through my ventolin nebulizer during childhood asthma, I'm fairly sure I could develop a small customer base of people who want their nicotine without the extra cancer.

- Guv

You are of course entitled to do what you want. I would refrain from putting that suggestion on an open forum.

--------------

Each State has it's own health laws but a Federal law governing health issues or for example e-cigs covers all states, if that makes sense. A state can ban a product that is not banned Federally and I can give an example of that. The TGA (Therapeutic Goods Administration) is our version of the FDA. I doubt that the TGA will be influenced by any FDA decisions as there are many products legally sold in the US that have not been approved for sale here. However saying that, the TGA in some cases have allowed items from the US to be freely purchased and imported into Australia for personal use but have still not allowed for them to be sold here.

Total social costs including medical costs relating to tobacco for 2004/05 was $31.5 billion.
Federal and State tax revenues on tobacco for the same period of 2004/05 was $6.67 billion (Australian Bureau of Statistics).

That leaves a shortfall of $24.83 billion a year.

Smoking remains the leading preventable cause of death and disability in Australia, killing 15,500 Australians each year, most from cancer or cardiovascular disease.

Facts on Tobacco Tax in Australia

----------------

Yes, now I fully understand after looking at these figures why our government would want to ban e-cigs. It completely makes sense to me!

[Blackie]

From the aussie forums I havent seen any reports of siezure (liquid or otherwise)

There are a couple of posts on the WP thread from early this AM to the effect that a number of shipments have been stopped by customs. The reasons were reported as being 'misstatements' of the contents.

[fair dinkum]

Originally Posted by fair dinkum
From the aussie forums I havent seen any reports of siezure (liquid or otherwise)

Thanks for the info. The above statement is not mine but Guvernor's and obviously by a mistake of mine it was not included in the quote section but it is now as I've changed it.

[Ardo]

I´m a bit amazed that any country would even consider labeling e-cigs as poison. I believe alcohol and tobacco are much more poison than e-cigs could ever be.