+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 26 of 26
Why ban e-cigarettes? in The E-Cigarette; The way I see it is that an implied claim is the same as a blatant claim when you are ...
  1. #21
    Moved On
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    7,233

    Default

    The way I see it is that an implied claim is the same as a blatant claim when you are dealing with uneducated consumers. That is how advertising and marketing law in the UK sees it too.

    Putting WHO in the manual and claiming to be NRT joins the two, makes it seem that there is regulation and it's approved.

    Arguing semantics doesn't change the intent either and that's what is important in the eyes of the law. The WHO name was used without approval to connect it with a practice they do not endorse.

    EDIT
    When I say 'uneducated consumers' I really mean uninformed or credulous.
    Last edited by Kate; 01-07-2009 at 06:29 PM.

  2. Advertisement
  3. #22
    Myk
    Myk is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    IL, USA
    Posts
    155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kate View Post
    The way I see it is that an implied claim is the same as a blatant claim when you are dealing with uneducated consumers. That is how advertising and marketing law in the UK sees it too.

    Putting WHO in the manual and claiming to be NRT joins the two, makes it seem that there is regulation and it's approved.

    Arguing semantics doesn't change the intent either and that's what is important in the eyes of the law. The WHO name was used without approval to connect it with a practice they do not endorse.

    EDIT
    When I say 'uneducated consumers' I really mean uninformed or credulous.
    That's the problem with dealing across borders. It's compounded by WHO not having borders.
    Here the law is all about semantics.

  4. Advertisement
  5. #23
    Moved On
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    7,233

    Default

    Yeah, I don't know about international law but here the letter of the law is not as important as the spirit of the law. Intent is everything, if you intend to deceive then the exact method you use is unimportant.

  6. #24
    Senior Member ECF Veteran
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    DE-Germany
    Posts
    210

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kate View Post
    The WHO name was used without approval to connect it with a practice they do not endorse.
    That's the point.
    Hardware: 2x M401 2x DSE901, 2x Joye 510 Models

  7. #25
    Moved On
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    15

    Default

    Now there is no authorized committee to prove that the e-cigarette is really harmless to environment and others.

  8. #26
    Moved On
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    7,233

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eva Wu View Post
    Now there is no authorized committee to prove that the e-cigarette is really harmless to environment and others.
    No, not yet but Ruyan have been paying for some testing to be carried out and the results for their formula look very good indeed. Other formulas will have to have their own tests I suppose.

    Welcome to the forum Eva

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

SEO by vBSEO