Why ban e-cigarettes? - Page 3 - e-cigarette-forum.com • The place for electronic cigarette reviews, news and chat

Kate · 01-07-2009, 06:21 PM

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.

Myk · 01-07-2009, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kate

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.

Kate · 01-07-2009, 06:42 PM

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.

Taelon · 01-08-2009, 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kate

The WHO name was used without approval to connect it with a practice they do not endorse.

That's the point.

Eva Wu · 01-08-2009, 08:21 AM

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

Kate · 01-08-2009, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eva Wu

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

01-07-2009, 06:21 PM	#21
Kate Moved On Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: UK Posts: 7,355	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.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

01-07-2009, 06:42 PM	#23
Kate Moved On Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: UK Posts: 7,355	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.

01-08-2009, 08:21 AM	#25
Eva Wu Supplier Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 17	Now there is no authorized committee to prove that the e-cigarette is really harmless to environment and others.