Australian ban; Egar illegal

[Trumpybloke]

I would point out that Fred Nile has no juristiction over my dam... and if he tries he would be given a close examination of it as yabby ( umm crawfish for you yanks??? ) food

[cucurucho]

Originally Posted by TropicalBob

I was just getting used to the idea of an Australian e-ban when I stumbled across this item:

Australian topless bathing ban urged

Dec 30 - A group of conservative politicians is making headway towards a ban on topless bathing on some of Australia's best known beaches.

Christian lawmaker and veteran morals campaigner Reverend Fred Nile has won backing from key politicians in New South Wales state, home to Sydney and its famed ocean beaches, to tighten existing laws covering nude sunbathing.

Sorry, Trumpy, but we're gonna have to hold that First Annual e-smoking Personal Vaporizer Convention somewhere else.

Hah! Fred Nile. He's the worst human being ever to exist in Australian politics.

Back on topic now... It's looking more and more like the ban in Victoria only applies only to liquid and cartridges containing nicotine (possibly also factory primed atomisers if there are traces of nicotine in them), and is only being enforced in the case of supply (not possession as some articles suggested). This is far from the worst case scenario. For the common vaper, the worst that could happen is that an order could get seized by customs.

Now we need to convince the manufacturers to prime the atomisers with no nicotine liquid.

[dc2k08]

It's looking more and more like the ban in Victoria only applies only to liquid and cartridges containing nicotine (possibly also factory primed atomisers if there are traces of nicotine in them), and is only being enforced in the case of supply (not possession as some articles suggested)

Where did you pick that up cucurucho? you are right some of the articles were heavier than others. the one from theage.com.au said:

The new regulation, which comes into effect tomorrow, outlaws the manufacture, sale, supply, purchase, possession or use of unregulated nicotine delivery systems

but what do you think of being able to purchase nicotine liquid that is labelled "not meant for human consumption" ? do you think that would be a valid loophole?

[solution42]

Originally Posted by trog100

we have those kinda jokes about the welsh over here... making the sheep stand next to the cliff edge and putting its back legs in yer wellington boots.. he he

this place is maturing.. these kinda jokes would have evoked howls of PC protests a few months back..

trog

I've heard that joke about Kiwis It's all definitely good natured, we have great respect for our ANZAC buddies both on and off the field and track. As Trumpy said, when we aren't ribbing them, we're ribbing each other or ourselves. I've come across many people that don't understand self depreciating humour on the internet, so I guess it's more of a regional thing.

Fred Nile is a bit like the Australian version of Pat Robertson, he's always calling for these types of things. He rarely suceeds though, and I can't see him doing it this time.

[SIN]

I just had a lengthy conversation with the Victorian Duty Officer of the Drugs and Poisons Regulation Group. From all interpretations:

"possession or use of nicotine delivery systems for humans that are classified as Schedule 7 poisons"

"electronic cigarettes containing nicotine intended for human use"

It is only nicotine that has been banned by classing it as a Schedule 7 poison. This is regardless of strength or quantity. Products that are affected are electronic cigarettes THAT CONTAIN Schedule 7 Nicotine.

I am told that this classification of nicotine as a schedule 7 poison is an amendment to the national act and that it is up to each individual state to regulate it.

Victoria being the first, has stated that they are enforcing it by banning the sale of Schedule 7 Nicotine and that they are preventing the supply of Schedule 7 Nicotine through monitoring organisations and individuals who try to obtain supply for apparent retail purposes.

Enforcement can include prosecution and it is unclear if there is any leniency offered, it is classed as a schedule 7 poison regardless of strength or quantity. Remember, it is the supply for apparent retail they are talking about.

So, in Victoria are you breaking the law by possessing a personal vaporiser that contains NO Schedule 7 poison?

NO - (see below).

So, in Victoria are you breaking the law by possessing and using a schedule 7 poison but not supplying it to others?

Apparently not - but the Victorian Premiers statement conflicts this by coupling the phrases "possession & use" and "nicotine delivery systems for humans that are classified as Schedule 7 poisons".

The Drugs and Poisons Regulation Group states that they are only enforcing the ban on the supply of Schedule 7 Nicotine for retail.

So, in Victoria are you breaking the law by supplying a schedule 7 poison to others?

YES.

And one final note: Customs has confirmed (but not in writing) that Schedule 7 Nicotine will be confiscated when detected regardless of which state it is destined for. If it is within a "Personal Vaporiser", expect that also to be confiscated.

Remember, it is not just carts that can potentially contain nicotine - what have the atomisers been primed with?

I cannot find any other official documentation from other states but at this stage, it's the customs part that will potentially affect other parts of Australia.

[jacknthemonkeys]

Originally Posted by SIN

I just had a lengthy conversation with the Victorian Duty Officer of the Drugs and Poisons Regulation Group. From all interpretations:

"possession or use of nicotine delivery systems for humans that are classified as Schedule 7 poisons"

"electronic cigarettes containing nicotine intended for human use"

It is only nicotine that has been banned by classing it as a Schedule 7 poison. This is regardless of strength or quantity. Products that are affected are electronic cigarettes THAT CONTAIN Schedule 7 Nicotine.

I am told that this classification of nicotine as a schedule 7 poison is an amendment to the national act and that it is up to each individual state to regulate it.

Victoria being the first, has stated that they are enforcing it by banning the sale of Schedule 7 Nicotine and that they are preventing the supply of Schedule 7 Nicotine through monitoring organisations and individuals who try to obtain supply for apparent retail purposes.

Enforcement can include prosecution and it is unclear if there is any leniency offered, it is classed as a schedule 7 poison regardless of strength or quantity. Remember, it is the supply for apparent retail they are talking about.

So, in Victoria are you breaking the law by possessing a personal vaporiser that contains NO Schedule 7 poison?

NO - (see below).

So, in Victoria are you breaking the law by possessing and using a schedule 7 poison but not supplying it to others?

Apparently not - but the Victorian Premiers statement conflicts this by coupling the phrases "possession & use" and "nicotine delivery systems for humans that are classified as Schedule 7 poisons".

The Drugs and Poisons Regulation Group states that they are only enforcing the ban on the supply of Schedule 7 Nicotine for retail.

So, in Victoria are you breaking the law by supplying a schedule 7 poison to others?

YES.

And one final note: Customs has confirmed (but not in writing) that Schedule 7 Nicotine will be confiscated when detected regardless of which state it is destined for. If it is within a "Personal Vaporiser", expect that also to be confiscated.

Remember, it is not just carts that can potentially contain nicotine - what have the atomisers been primed with?

I cannot find any other official documentation from other states but at this stage, it's the customs part that will potentially affect other parts of Australia.

Good to hear it's only the nicotine. There are many ways to get (or make) liquid.

[lucisac]

SIN thank you very much for clearing the situation up and delivering the facts.

[dc2k08]

thanks sin, does this mean that they can be imported directly from china, seeing as these sellers would be outside their jurisdiction? and do you think this means that you could supply the nicotine liquid if it is marked "not for human consumption", along with devices that are only primed with PG, perhaps from seperate outlets ?

[deewal]

Cigarettes contain nicotene which is for human consumption ?
How do they get around this ban ?
Don't you have Any opposition politicians in Victoria ?

[nqhqhz]

Originally Posted by deewal

Cigarettes contain nicotene which is for human consumption ?
How do they get around this ban ?
Don't you have Any opposition politicians in Victoria ?

Cigarettes are exempt because current policy everywhere is "quit [completely] or die [continue to use cigarettes]".

It's called "personal freedom", apparently.