EU TPD vote: Europe has fallen - Big Money has triumphed

[LDS714]

Yeah, 3 abstentions, 29 Against, 19 DNV, 22 For.

EFD position was for, all UK MEP's rebelled (4) or DNV
S&D position was for, No Rebels
ALDE was for, 3 rebel against, 4 abstain/DNV
Greens were for, no rebels, no DNV
ECR were against, 1 rebel, 7DNV.

I may not understand the Greens in this context and what their specific platform is, but do I understand it correctly that they voted FOR something that does away with refillable products and replaces them with disposables?

 

[SleeZy]

Even Sweden voted for it? That's pretty surprising with the whole snus thing over there, I figured they'd be all for E-cigs.

I've been trying to tell that...
Sweden has already made 2 attempts to ban e liquid even. but failed.
a "doctor" said in the newspapers when he got the question: "Do you see anything positive with e-cigg at all?" - "No!"
Incompetent **** It's frustrating...

Atleast they've announced that they've lost about 33% in tobacco revenues. So the reason for the ban is quite clear. Their worried about money.

 

[rolygate]

I may not understand the Greens in this context and what their specific platform is, but do I understand it correctly that they voted FOR something that does away with refillable products and replaces them with disposables?

The EU Greens align with the Socialists and in this area their vote is a hard-line Socialist vote. They're basically in with the neo-Stalinists on this one: control everything and remove the citizen's right to choose. I've voted Green in the past but I will never, ever vote Green again under any circumstances - and I'm essentially a Green more than anything else (I usually vote strategically on issues because there will never be a Green government - luckily). I suppose now I'll have to call myself a Planetist or something

 

[SloHand]

Article 20 (2) = Nobody is going to pass this test!!!

Article 12 (2) = [Referenced in Article 20 (4c)] Do these rules apply to pharma NRT’s?

Article 20 (7) = Is this exclusive to Article 20? Is this burden placed on any other product in the TPD?


NB Article 18 has now been renumbered to Article 20.

 

[makeyourself]

Yes, an atomiser spray pump can deliver metered doses. But, this is a medicine and not designed as a leisure product to make anyone happy with its performance. You use it as little as possible and are glad to throw it away when done. It's also more expensive than vaping because to ensure metered doses the whole manufacturing chain and testing procedure are more costly. Imagine sending out a medical inhaler that delivered double the dose, or one-tenth of the dose - that might be extremely problematic and expensive for the company concerned. But in an ecig the 'dose' varies by at least a factor of 10 across all the devices available; it varies perhaps by a factor of 3 or 4 across examples of the same product; even in the same device it will vary by at least a factor of 2 according to usage parameters. It is not important because it's like coffee, if you need more you drink more; if you somehow get given a cup that is mega-strong then you pretty much know in a few seconds.

Maybe an ultrasonic device or a piezo-electric device could also be constructed that could deliver a metered dose of nicotine aerosol. So there are going to be different routes to achieve this.

But these solutions are not vaping. The reason why we can freely use the term 'e-cigarette' for what is far more accurately described as an electronic (or electric) vapouriser or EV is because the vapour is specifically engineered to replicate cigarette smoke. It is a vapouriser that, in the most important respects, replicates cigarette smoke. It's done the way it is because that is the best way to replicate cigarette smoke that we know - not for some irrelevant reason such as metered dosage.

There are all kinds of fairly cheap ways of producing a nicotine-containing aerosol but they won't be vaping as we know it. It will be strictly a personal vapouriser and may look and feel like an asthma inhaler. That's how you get a metered dose.

In the EU's reply to Dr Farsalinos they said:

I would like to clarify that only puffs of the same strength would have to deliver the same amount of nicotine. Diverging degrees of nicotine intake depending on the puff strength would thus remain possible - similar to normal cigarettes.

I don't know if that will make any difference but I hope so, obviously an asthma inhaler does actually deliver a predefined metered dose that cannot be altered in anyway. The best interpretation I think we make of these regulations is that if you take a 5 second pull on X clearomizer with Y battery then you should receive approximately the same nicotine dose every time. Again whether or not that is possible with e-cig technology as we know it I simply don't know and will leave to those who do to answer but just wanted to clarify this point.

 

[Julie W]

Just sick and heartbroken.
I know it will happen here too.

Me too Robinia too sick & angry to even post.

That after 50yrs smoking & quitting in a week,I have to end up a 'criminal' then so be it.And I fully intend to be,because there is no way I will respect this ban,which is turning peaceful little old ladies into activists & criminals.
I am in control of my health for the first time in my life,& I won't relinquish it for these

Frederique Ries MEP said after the vote;
"History will judge them"

I say NO we the voters will judge them at the next election !

 

[rolygate]

makeyourself --I don't know if that will make any difference but I hope so, obviously an asthma inhaler does actually deliver a predefined metered dose that cannot be altered in anyway. The best interpretation I think we make of these regulations is that if you take a 5 second pull on X clearomizer with Y battery then you should receive approximately the same nicotine dose every time. Again whether or not that is possible with e-cig technology as we know it I simply don't know and will leave to those who do to answer but just wanted to clarify this point.

For the UK specifically, I think it makes more sense to look at how the TPD will be interpreted just in the UK. In other countries they don't implement EU law as strictly as the UK does. Much of EU law is ignored elsewhere, or special interest groups make it impossible for it to be fully enforced (think France, fishing etc.)

UK general environment: the government wants to ban ecigs in order to protect pharmaceutical and cigarette industry incomes, and tax revenues. If a regulation can be interpreted in two ways - or in a range of ways - then you can be assured that it will be interpreted as strictly as possible (as the goal is to ban ecigs). The term 'the government' is meaningless of course - it depends on which department or departments have authority in the area under discussion. Here it is the Dept of Health (a wholly-owned subsidiary of the pharmaceutical industry), the Treasury (who will certainly not happily bid farewell to the £20 billion of tax revenues and savings that smoking generates), and the Dept of Business (who'll probably go with the pharma and tobacco agenda when the chips are down, because big-money lobbying will be intense). Not much support for ecigs there, then.

So with regard to the 'consistent dose' clause of the ecig regulations in the TPD: it can be interpreted in several different ways. Hoping it will be interpreted it in the most beneficial way for us is not a sensible thing to do, given that the EU want to destroy ecigs and the UK government aren't far behind.

If it is interpreted strictly then it bans every ecig on the market, because it can be interpreted to mean a metered dose. The MHRA have already confirmed that no current ecig is medically licensable because of this. To require a 'consistent dose' has nothing to do with consumer products, it's a medical product requirement. Only the MHRA have any experience with regulating medical products, so perhaps they will be the people chosen to manage this aspect (and many other aspects) of ecig performance. No current ecig will pass their requirements.

Caveat: this only applies in certain circumstances. It requires a direct transposition into UK law (or a very close version); the strictest interpretation; and no successful legal challenge. These all seem possibilities at this time. Who knows.

 

[makeyourself]

Yeah be prepared for the worst I agree but at least it gives us some hope I suppose

 

[Anjaffm]

I may not understand the Greens in this context and what their specific platform is, but do I understand it correctly that they voted FOR something that does away with refillable products and replaces them with disposables?

Because "the environment" is only their empty war cry. What they really want is total control over each and any facet of human behavior.
For a long time, their cry of "Save the environment" has been as much about the actual environment as the war cry "save the chiiiildren" is about actual children.

In my country, a Greens politician even proposed a "Veggie Day" some time ago.
Meaning a regulation that all company restaurants in all state-owned places would have to serve only vegetarian food on Thursdays.
With the exeption of the Government company restaurant, of course. Where the Nannies would dine on fine food, while the rabble gets fed crap. (Sorry for the expression, but most vegetarian food offered in company restaurants does .. to put it bluntly .. taste like crap).
No, this silly proposal did not go over well. Smacks of Marie Antoinette and the famous statement that was long attributed to her "Let them eat cake" ( Let them eat cake - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )

The EU Greens align with the Socialists and in this area their vote is a hard-line Socialist vote. They're basically in with the neo-Stalinists on this one: control everything and remove the citizen's right to choose.

Precisely. Very well said!

That after 50yrs smoking & quitting in a week,I have to end up a 'criminal' then so be it.And I fully intend to be,because there is no way I will respect this ban,which is turning peaceful little old ladies into activists & criminals.
I am in control of my health for the first time in my life,& I won't relinquish it for these

Frederique Ries MEP said after the vote;
"History will judge them"

I say NO we the voters will judge them at the next election !

Yes - and yes!
Yes - they can kiss my hiney with their ban on my healthier choice.
Yes - they have also turned me (formerly a very un-political person) into an activist with their total contempt of human lives, public health, science, facts, the wishes and interests of the people and what is generally called "democracy".
And yes - the vote will be in spring.

 

[Roger_Lafayette]

My sense is that the member states are going to have a very difficult time enforcing this, let alone writing the legislation. Some may put a lot of time and effort into both endeavors. But I think the open borders in the EU make enforecment difficult. Many member states may pass laws in order to appear compliant, but will make only a minimal effort to enforce them.

Clubs will form all over the EU, consisting of "DIY" vapers who build their own MODs out of commonly-available parts. No one is going to bother to prosecute them in most member states, as long as they're not in the business of selling anything.

I think you'll see the same thing in the US. There will be certain states that pass draconian restrictions, and which (at least at first) crack down hard on end-users who dare to cross state lines and bring back stuff for their friends. But after a while, most states will just not bother putting much effort into it.

I think the cross-border ordering restrictions (i.e. no internet sales) will become the principal annoyance to vapers in both the US and the EU. Vapers (or their friends) in some locations will have to travel some distance to physically transport equipment and/or e-juice back to where they live, and of course a huge black market will develop. But I don't see US states putting up checkpoints on interstates, nor (most) EU member states stopping Eurail trains at the border and searching passengers' bags. Travellers just aren't going to put up with that.

Don't get me wrong - I think it's dreadful. But unenforceable regulations are just that ... they're unenforceable, particularly when they're applied against ordinary end-users.

It also occurs to me that the ban on menthol analogs is going to coax a number of existing smokers into vaping. There's no plausible way that a ban on flavoring (i.e. not juice) can be enforced.

 

[Anjaffm]

Well said, Roger_Lafayette!
And what are they gonna do? Throw each and every vaper in jail? They cannot - possession is not illegal

 

[Joeseff]

http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.u...rette_ruling_welcomed_by_East_Lancashire_MEP/

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

 

[Joeseff]

http://www.newscientist.com/article...ettes-sets-global-benchmark.html#.Uw_PS59FDqA

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

 

[Anjaffm]

http://www.newscientist.com/article...ettes-sets-global-benchmark.html#.Uw_QmeN5PoZ

uh oh.....

Legislation governing the sale of electronic cigarettes was approved yesterday by the European Parliament...

The move could set a precedent for legislation in other parts of the world where e-cigarettes are still unregulated, especially in the US where guidance from the Food and Drug Administration is expected soon.

Yup, the FDA is most certainly watching.

.. and I always love the "unregulated" bit. Hogwash, pure and simple. As the devices are very well covered by all laws and regulations that apply to consumer goods being sold on the market. But "unregulated" just has such a wonderful, scary ring to it.

"Dear Nanny Government! Please please regulate this horrible, unregulated danger! Save the chiiiildren...."

Hogwash.

Good ending though:

"The directive in its current form will cause more harm to health than it prevents," says Clive Bates, former head of the anti-smoking group ASH, and a leading campaigner for e-cigarettes. "It will place unjustified restrictions on an industry that could present an important alternative to the 28 per cent of European adults who smoke tobacco," he says.

..
edit: Oh yes, and Chris Davies has been praising this oh-so-wonderful "compromise" for some time.
We should be oh-so glad that the EU has decided to cut off only our hands. When they had intended to cut off our arms!

.. never mind that such surgery was never necessary in the fist place

 

[Sirius]

I agree.
Here in Germany, we will all drink a little something tonight and then consider our approach on the national level.

It is not .. nice .. to see, however, how little consideration those corrupt bureaucrats in the EU have for citizens, people, human beings.
And even for the MEPs, the elected representatives of the people. Did you watch the voting? It was sickening.
"Democracy" is all a lie. One big lie and story to keep children quiet. Quiet until they conveniently die.

It's the same thing here in the US Anja..I am of the opinion that the cost of simple nicotine juice for mixing e-liquid DIY will be taxed soon.The government will try to get what they can, and we won't be able to "stick it to the man" unless we stock up. I plan on buying a liter of 100mg PG Nicotine Base for my future DIY purposes and keeping it in the refrigerator away from light. Ya never know these days.

 

[makeyourself]

E-cigarette ruling welcomed by East Lancashire MEP (From Lancashire Telegraph)

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

It really infuriates me to see liberal MP's coming out in favour of the TPD, I mean do the words "liberal" and "free society" actually mean anything to them? I actually am really angry about this whole thing, people like him come out with comments like "it won't please everyone" when the people he is referring to are the vast majority of people that actually use the products. You could be forgiven for thinking that all the EU and MEP's primarily do is go around sticking their noses into parts of people's lives that have nothing to do with them.

I'm not anti-Europe and I wouldn't be seen dead voting for UKIP due to their overall political viewpoint but this sort of utter nonsense doesn't exactly do the EU any favours, especially in consideration of their long history of ludicrous over-regulation of everything from the shape of bananas to olive oil jugs.

 

[sebt]

It's depressing. Thanks to whoever posted details of the vote further up-thread.

Not one of my MEPs (Scotland) voted against this piece of crap, in spite of my many emails to them. The only "result" is that George Lyon abstained.

Some MEPs said they'd had an enormous volumne of correspondence on this. And from his replies I thought I was getting somewhere with Struan Stevenson (Conservative). It doesn't seem to have made much difference.

Like rolygate upthread, I've had to redefine my political position. Always been a leftist, but I've realised more and more - this is just the most recent example - that I'm a libertarian leftist. There's a strand of left-wing politics that I really loathe - it's this desire to control people below you, on their behalf. (Funnily enough even Lenin was fully aware of this tendency: it's called "substitutionism"!). So, as before with UK ID cards, I'm finding that I have to rely on Conservatives to stand up for me.

So: what has happened? I think it's simple. However much MEPs might care about vapers, and even if they're sincere in caring about it, they've been politically railroaded into a position where they have to support nonsensical, illiberal, completely unjustified measures against e-cigs, or lose the entire TPD and end up looking "soft on tobacco, soft on cancer".

It's not just in the debate that some very capable political operators have managed to subsume e-cigarettes under "smokingl", as if the two are identical. It's also in the political process itself.

I suppose all we can do is go on shouting about the difference between vaping and smoking. No apology needed for shouting - we're up against the most hysterically strident bunch of messianic zealots on the planet.

 

[Anjaffm]

@sebt:
good posting.

I suppose all we can do is go on shouting about the difference between vaping and smoking. No apology needed for shouting - we're up against the most hysterically strident bunch of messianic zealots on the planet.

Oh we are shouting alright.
As is our right as people, citizens, human beings.

We are done being quiet, silent, polite, friendly. We did that. For a long time. Believing in reason, believing in the ability of those opposed to vaping to see reason, to read the studies that we provided, to make decisions on the basis of fact. Ha ha ha ha ! Good joke.
And all that politeness and appealing to reason brought us as much benefit as if a cockroach had been quiet, silent, polite and friendly.

- Oh, and without our screaming, yelling, being vocal, being loud and making our voices heard, there would not even have been this "compromise". Without our activities - loud activitites - vaping would have been summarily banned - completely prohibited, completely forbidden, like Snus outside Sweden - on 8 October 2013 already.

Even this silly "compromise" is due to our being very very loud.
If we had not been so loud, the EU would have stepped on us, completely, on 8 Oct 2013, like stepping on a friendly, silent, polite little cockroach. Crushed that polite little cockroach under their heavy boot. Bye, cockroach, and thank you for being silent about it.

We are done being quiet.

 

[SPACKlick]

Right, now that this has passed I think it's time to get in touch with our national representatives and start educating. If they don't know what vaping is, what its effects are and how much it will help their constituents then they'll sit down for any legislation that starts coming through.

I'm going to start to compile a list of resources to include in the letter. A couple of meta-analyses of the effects of vapor etc.

 

[sonicdsl]

This peer-reviewed study of hundreds of ecig studies done at Drexel University may be of help? (Concluded vapor was harmless to bystanders and >99% safer than cigarettes for the vaper).

http://publichealth.drexel.edu/~/media/files/publichealth/ms08.pdf