EU Court in Hungary rules against medical regulation for E-cigs
- Thread starter Orb Skewer
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Maybe, just maybe, we start seeing some common sense.
Here's a draft opinion from the Committee on Legal Affairs:
http://www.europarl.europa. eu / sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-%2f%2fEP%2f%2fNONSGML%2bCOMPARL%2bPE-510.591%2b01%2bDOC%2bPDF%2bV0%2f%2fEN
"Some provisions in the Commission's proposal also raise serious doubts as to their conformity
with fundamental rights such as the right to property, the right to freedom of expression and
information and the freedom to conduct business. These rights are enshrined in the Charter of
Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the Charter) and may only be limited pursuant
to Article 52(1) of the Charter if the limitation is necessary, genuinely meets objectives of
general interest and is proportional.
Certain of the proposed measures, especially regarding the packaging, do not meet these
requirements. One example is the proposed increase in size of the health warnings to 75 % of
both the front and back surface of the packs (Article 9(1)(c)). This would severely reduce the
space available for trademarks and product description. In practice, not even 25 % of the front
and back surface would be available for the information provided by the producer, as national
law requires additional features such as tax stamps and security features."
Did these people still not realize that many smokers have good sight? What is the real point in increasing health warnings? How about wrapping a pack of cigarettes in an A3 size piece of paper, with health warnings written in a 72+ font size? Would that really be more effective than what we already have today?
"By prohibiting any labelling that suggests that a particular tobacco product is less harmful
than others, the proposal causes an additional problem. The development and promotion of
less harmful means of tobacco use is essential in order to support tobacco users to stop
smoking cigarettes and the like. Manufacturers must be able to communicate that a certain
product is less harmful than others if this is scientifically proven and if it is not misleading.
This is not the only measure proposed that would make it more difficult to access reduced risk
products. Article 18 of the proposal prohibits nicotine-containing products (NCP) such as ecigarettes
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"
Well... isn't it obvious...?
So, here we have a tobacco directive that mixes the problem with the solution, trying to take away the only thing so far that is actually effective at keeping people away from tobacco...!
(Of course, many of us already understood the real motives behind all this. None of those are even related to health concerns...
)
Here's a draft opinion from the Committee on Legal Affairs:
http://www.europarl.europa. eu / sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-%2f%2fEP%2f%2fNONSGML%2bCOMPARL%2bPE-510.591%2b01%2bDOC%2bPDF%2bV0%2f%2fEN
"Some provisions in the Commission's proposal also raise serious doubts as to their conformity
with fundamental rights such as the right to property, the right to freedom of expression and
information and the freedom to conduct business. These rights are enshrined in the Charter of
Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the Charter) and may only be limited pursuant
to Article 52(1) of the Charter if the limitation is necessary, genuinely meets objectives of
general interest and is proportional.
Certain of the proposed measures, especially regarding the packaging, do not meet these
requirements. One example is the proposed increase in size of the health warnings to 75 % of
both the front and back surface of the packs (Article 9(1)(c)). This would severely reduce the
space available for trademarks and product description. In practice, not even 25 % of the front
and back surface would be available for the information provided by the producer, as national
law requires additional features such as tax stamps and security features."
Did these people still not realize that many smokers have good sight? What is the real point in increasing health warnings? How about wrapping a pack of cigarettes in an A3 size piece of paper, with health warnings written in a 72+ font size? Would that really be more effective than what we already have today?
"By prohibiting any labelling that suggests that a particular tobacco product is less harmful
than others, the proposal causes an additional problem. The development and promotion of
less harmful means of tobacco use is essential in order to support tobacco users to stop
smoking cigarettes and the like. Manufacturers must be able to communicate that a certain
product is less harmful than others if this is scientifically proven and if it is not misleading.
This is not the only measure proposed that would make it more difficult to access reduced risk
products. Article 18 of the proposal prohibits nicotine-containing products (NCP) such as ecigarettes
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"
Well... isn't it obvious...?
So, here we have a tobacco directive that mixes the problem with the solution, trying to take away the only thing so far that is actually effective at keeping people away from tobacco...!
(Of course, many of us already understood the real motives behind all this. None of those are even related to health concerns...
)
- Status
Similar threads
