Very good e-mail,Lucisac!!! Hope it is taken seriously. I know it sure would make me rethink my vote on the banding of E-Cigarettes. Unforturnatly most people in power are lacking common sense. LOL
Australian ban; Egar illegal
- Thread starter TropicalBob
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
That email alone probably won't do much, remember though, the squeakiest wheel always gets oiled first.
It seems that most medical professionals would agree that any type of alternative nicotine delivery system is better than smoking cigarettes. And they would also agree that nicotine is still unhealthy.
The difference is that, as far as we know, the unhealthy effects of nicotine are only felt by us. For a government to restrict what I do to my body is a impediment on my rights. With vaping I am not pushing nicotine on anyone. 99% of the nicotine in our liquids is absorbed into the body before exhaling the vapor.
This basically falls into prohibition territory and the banning of alcohol and other hazardous for your health substances...
I'm not trying to argue with you Gabby....just wanted to share my view on the matter
Foxy
I think you are on the right track. E-cigs do not harm others, this is the point I am mostly focusing on bringing to their attention.
Cigarette second hand smoke on the streets, outside pubs/clubs, movie threatres etc, places where both adults and the young are subject to inhaling the dangers caused by smokers. This is the situation that could of easily been reduced in the coming years, and this new ban will block that opportunity. It is an uninformed decision on their behalf, everyone's loved ones are at risk on a daily basis.
Cigarette second hand smoke on the streets, outside pubs/clubs, movie threatres etc, places where both adults and the young are subject to inhaling the dangers caused by smokers. This is the situation that could of easily been reduced in the coming years, and this new ban will block that opportunity. It is an uninformed decision on their behalf, everyone's loved ones are at risk on a daily basis.
It seems that most medical professionals would agree that any type of alternative nicotine delivery system is better than smoking cigarettes. And they would also agree that nicotine is still unhealthy.
The difference is that, as far as we know, the unhealthy effects of nicotine are only felt by us. For a government to restrict what I do to my body is a impediment on my rights. With vaping I am not pushing nicotine on anyone. 99% of the nicotine in our liquids is absorbed into the body before exhaling the vapor.
This basically falls into prohibition territory and the banning of alcohol and other hazardous for your health substances...
I'm not trying to argue with you Gabby....just wanted to share my view on the matter
Foxy
Oh, I totally agree with what you're saying, but they are already encroaching on your rights in other ways - look at the new taxes being proposed on soft drinks in NY for example. This is the direction we've been heading in for a while now but people tend to not care until it's something that affects them directly. Have you ever heard the analogy of the frog in the pot of boiling water? Drop a frog in a pot of boiling water and he'll jump out. Put him in a pot of warm water and slowly turn up the heat and you'll boil him alive. That's how it works. We allow little by little for them to take away our choices and our freedoms. We don't care if it's an activity that we don't engage in, but eventually that arm swings around and grabs all of us in some way or another. THEN we get mad, but then it's too late.
Lucisac, make the points Dr. Laugesen makes in his letter. I consider it a tragic mistake to in any way compare our inhalers with a tobacco cigarette. That will trigger a form response: Your government is commited to eliminating tobacco use within a decade. Period. End of their comment. You need to push all the points made by Dr. Laugesen. Your "rights" aren't an issue, either. There is no right to purchase and use addictive drugs. That should be obvious. Don't deviate from what Dr. Laugesen wrote. And we are not NRT, unless you want to wait years for tests and certification. Leave real cigarettes out of this discussion.
The likelihood of anyone saying, "Oh, we made a mistake, Sorry. We'll just take back the ban", is about the same as a comet impacting Australia today. But the case needs to be made so that this doesn't become a precedent for other governments to follow. It won't be easy. It will require reasoned argument on the highest level.
Overnight, I did adjust my own thinking about the term "electric nicotine inhaler." I agree that that doesn't cover our devices. There is a possibility of our devices being used for real inhalation therapy, as well as supplying addicts their nicotine. That being the case, I return to favoring "personal vaporizer" instead of "electric nicotine inhaler."
Unfortunately, as we've noted as long as a year ago, the label e-cigarette is now in popular use (even the very name of this forum), so we likely cannot change this. We can only refuse to refer to our devices that way in official correspondence.
From reading comments on the Australian social forum ... you guys are thinking rationally and planning well. Keep it up.
The likelihood of anyone saying, "Oh, we made a mistake, Sorry. We'll just take back the ban", is about the same as a comet impacting Australia today. But the case needs to be made so that this doesn't become a precedent for other governments to follow. It won't be easy. It will require reasoned argument on the highest level.
Overnight, I did adjust my own thinking about the term "electric nicotine inhaler." I agree that that doesn't cover our devices. There is a possibility of our devices being used for real inhalation therapy, as well as supplying addicts their nicotine. That being the case, I return to favoring "personal vaporizer" instead of "electric nicotine inhaler."
Unfortunately, as we've noted as long as a year ago, the label e-cigarette is now in popular use (even the very name of this forum), so we likely cannot change this. We can only refuse to refer to our devices that way in official correspondence.
From reading comments on the Australian social forum ... you guys are thinking rationally and planning well. Keep it up.
someone has just told me Nancy Pelosi is about to meet a screwdriver.. presented as an environmentally friendly device...
a few SDs floating around the Congressional offices might do some good bob what do u recon... he he he
trog
a few SDs floating around the Congressional offices might do some good bob what do u recon... he he he
trog
That would be fantastic, Trog. Fantastic. We know what these can be. Now the powers that be need to know, too.
one might be useful to the new president elect as well.. he he
i dont know bob.. but a few of the right types puffing away on an SD might be useful.. we do have some odd customers..
how about this lot..
ALOHA FROM THE TAXI GUYS AT THE ALOHA CAB CO. HAPPY NEW YEAR...
nicotine addicts seem to come in all shapes sizes nationalities.. and income brackets..
trog
i dont know bob.. but a few of the right types puffing away on an SD might be useful.. we do have some odd customers..
how about this lot..
ALOHA FROM THE TAXI GUYS AT THE ALOHA CAB CO. HAPPY NEW YEAR...
nicotine addicts seem to come in all shapes sizes nationalities.. and income brackets..
trog
I've been reading these posts with great interest over the last few days. What's happening in Oz will no doubt happen globally and very soon.
My own view is that we need to have our mini-vaporisers tested and regulated but... and there's always a big BUT!
We live in an ever increasing litigious society. One of the biggest hurdles to regulation being they will need to cover their backsides from EVERY angle. If the 'powers that be' determine a product safe and then find in 20 years time that users have a terminal disease or a mutation of genes which can passed to their children, they will be destroyed... They'll be extremely resistant to taking that risk.
So what about we persuade them to jump aboard anyway... the next problem for us will be time...
Hell, in England, just setting up the various committees will take at least a year, another couple of years to plan the tests and then another 7 years to perform the tests, add on another couple to collate the results and then another year to decide what/when to publish (oh, and then another year to decide what questions will be asked and pre-prepare the answers!) These are all my finger in the air guesses but these products will already be specifically banned globally (probably with exception to Bolivia ;-)) a long time before they become legalised.
It will only be government greed for additional taxes that could rush it through - but will that happen? That would mean the vape-flavours be classed as a medicinal NRT product, that's good because then we know it's regularly policed and checked for purity. Anyone know if we in the UK pay tax on NRT products already? Nicotinell, Nicquitin, etc? I don't think we do. I think there would be uproar in the UK if that happened. What would be the incentive to quit smoking if the NRT stuff where the same price as normal fags? The press would have a field day. The only article I've found so far is one relating to SMITHKLINE BEECHAM PLC - and - THE COMMISSIONERS OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE in April 2000 where it was concluded that Niquitin CQ as a Product is a medicament and that it has both therapeutic and prophylactic uses therefore should not be subject to duty. It was given the right of appeal but I can't find anything to supercede the original decision.
All this said, even if our mini-vaporisers are deemed unsafe I would still like to have opportunity to make the decision of whether or not to personally use them... My life, my risks, I pay my NHS taxes thank you and expect to be treated no matter what my choices of pleasure are!
Sorry for another black hat post, just jotting down my thoughts....
Good luck in Oz guys 'n' gals. If there's an online petition I'll be happy to sign it too.
My own view is that we need to have our mini-vaporisers tested and regulated but... and there's always a big BUT!
We live in an ever increasing litigious society. One of the biggest hurdles to regulation being they will need to cover their backsides from EVERY angle. If the 'powers that be' determine a product safe and then find in 20 years time that users have a terminal disease or a mutation of genes which can passed to their children, they will be destroyed... They'll be extremely resistant to taking that risk.
So what about we persuade them to jump aboard anyway... the next problem for us will be time...
Hell, in England, just setting up the various committees will take at least a year, another couple of years to plan the tests and then another 7 years to perform the tests, add on another couple to collate the results and then another year to decide what/when to publish (oh, and then another year to decide what questions will be asked and pre-prepare the answers!) These are all my finger in the air guesses but these products will already be specifically banned globally (probably with exception to Bolivia ;-)) a long time before they become legalised.
It will only be government greed for additional taxes that could rush it through - but will that happen? That would mean the vape-flavours be classed as a medicinal NRT product, that's good because then we know it's regularly policed and checked for purity. Anyone know if we in the UK pay tax on NRT products already? Nicotinell, Nicquitin, etc? I don't think we do. I think there would be uproar in the UK if that happened. What would be the incentive to quit smoking if the NRT stuff where the same price as normal fags? The press would have a field day. The only article I've found so far is one relating to SMITHKLINE BEECHAM PLC - and - THE COMMISSIONERS OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE in April 2000 where it was concluded that Niquitin CQ as a Product is a medicament and that it has both therapeutic and prophylactic uses therefore should not be subject to duty. It was given the right of appeal but I can't find anything to supercede the original decision.
All this said, even if our mini-vaporisers are deemed unsafe I would still like to have opportunity to make the decision of whether or not to personally use them... My life, my risks, I pay my NHS taxes thank you and expect to be treated no matter what my choices of pleasure are!
Sorry for another black hat post, just jotting down my thoughts....
Good luck in Oz guys 'n' gals. If there's an online petition I'll be happy to sign it too.
I've been going through the Poison Standards 2008 prepared by the National Drugs and Poisons Schedule Committee. Nicotine exemptions appear under 4 Schedules:
Schedule 2 NICOTINE for use as an aid in withdrawal from tobacco smoking in preparations for inhalation.
Schedule 4 NICOTINE in preparations for human therapeutic use except:
(a) when included in Schedule 2; or
(b) for use as an aid in withdrawal from tobacco smoking in chewing gum, lozenges,or preparations for sublingual or transdermal use.
Schedule 6 NICOTINE in preparations containing 3 per cent or less of nicotine when labelled and packed
for the treatment of animals.
Schedule 7 NICOTINE except:
(a) when included in Schedule 6;
(b) in preparations for human therapeutic use; or
(c) in tobacco prepared and packed for smoking.
Here are the Schedules:
Schedule 1. [This Schedule is intentionally blank.]
Schedule 2. Pharmacy Medicine – Substances, the safe use of which may require advice from a pharmacist and which should be available from a pharmacy or, where a pharmacy service is not available, from a licensed person.
Schedule 3. Pharmacist Only Medicine – Substances, the safe use of which requires professional advice but which should be available to the public from a pharmacist without a prescription.
Schedule 4. Prescription Only Medicine, or Prescription Animal Remedy–Substances, the use or supply of which should be by or on the order of persons permitted by State or Territory legislation to prescribe and should be available from a pharmacist on prescription.
Schedule 5. Caution – Substances with a low potential for causing harm, the extent of which can be reduced through the use of appropriate packaging with simple warnings and safety directions on the label.
Schedule 6. Poison – Substances with a moderate potential for causing harm, the extent of which can be reduced through the use of distinctive packaging with strong warnings and safety directions on the label.
Schedule 7. Dangerous Poison – Substances with a high potential for causing harm at low exposure and which require special precautions during manufacture, handling or use. These poisons should be available only to specialised or authorised users who have the skills necessary to handle them safely. Special regulations restricting their availability, possession, storage or use may apply.
Schedule 8. Controlled Drug – Substances which should be available for use but require restriction of manufacture, supply, distribution, possession and use to reduce abuse, misuse and physical or psychological dependence.
Schedule 9. Prohibited Substance – Substances which may be abused or misused, the manufacture, possession, sale or use of which should be prohibited by law except when required for medical or scientific research, or for analytical, teaching or training purposes with approval of Commonwealth and/or State or Territory Health Authorities.
Am I naive in thinking we already have an exemption? We really need some legal advice. I'm waiting on emails from DHCE, but think at this stage that there may be a way around this "ban". The good news being it doesn't appear to be a prohibited or controlled drug.
ComLaw Legislative Instruments - Poisons Standard 2008 ()
Schedule 2 NICOTINE for use as an aid in withdrawal from tobacco smoking in preparations for inhalation.
Schedule 4 NICOTINE in preparations for human therapeutic use except:
(a) when included in Schedule 2; or
(b) for use as an aid in withdrawal from tobacco smoking in chewing gum, lozenges,or preparations for sublingual or transdermal use.
Schedule 6 NICOTINE in preparations containing 3 per cent or less of nicotine when labelled and packed
for the treatment of animals.
Schedule 7 NICOTINE except:
(a) when included in Schedule 6;
(b) in preparations for human therapeutic use; or
(c) in tobacco prepared and packed for smoking.
Here are the Schedules:
Schedule 1. [This Schedule is intentionally blank.]
Schedule 2. Pharmacy Medicine – Substances, the safe use of which may require advice from a pharmacist and which should be available from a pharmacy or, where a pharmacy service is not available, from a licensed person.
Schedule 3. Pharmacist Only Medicine – Substances, the safe use of which requires professional advice but which should be available to the public from a pharmacist without a prescription.
Schedule 4. Prescription Only Medicine, or Prescription Animal Remedy–Substances, the use or supply of which should be by or on the order of persons permitted by State or Territory legislation to prescribe and should be available from a pharmacist on prescription.
Schedule 5. Caution – Substances with a low potential for causing harm, the extent of which can be reduced through the use of appropriate packaging with simple warnings and safety directions on the label.
Schedule 6. Poison – Substances with a moderate potential for causing harm, the extent of which can be reduced through the use of distinctive packaging with strong warnings and safety directions on the label.
Schedule 7. Dangerous Poison – Substances with a high potential for causing harm at low exposure and which require special precautions during manufacture, handling or use. These poisons should be available only to specialised or authorised users who have the skills necessary to handle them safely. Special regulations restricting their availability, possession, storage or use may apply.
Schedule 8. Controlled Drug – Substances which should be available for use but require restriction of manufacture, supply, distribution, possession and use to reduce abuse, misuse and physical or psychological dependence.
Schedule 9. Prohibited Substance – Substances which may be abused or misused, the manufacture, possession, sale or use of which should be prohibited by law except when required for medical or scientific research, or for analytical, teaching or training purposes with approval of Commonwealth and/or State or Territory Health Authorities.
Am I naive in thinking we already have an exemption? We really need some legal advice. I'm waiting on emails from DHCE, but think at this stage that there may be a way around this "ban". The good news being it doesn't appear to be a prohibited or controlled drug.
ComLaw Legislative Instruments - Poisons Standard 2008 ()
Im shocked by this development; that it has happened in Australia, that it happened with immediate effect and that it was launched at a time when most smokers are considering giving up.
Ive only read around 2-thirds of the thread but there have been many good posts already made. I hope Aussies do what youre internationally respected for and oppose this move until its retracted.
Id like to help and since I work in a legislature Id suggest:
A thorough check on the press reports that examines the legislation in detail. I think this seems to be underway already or I hope it is. It seems incredible to me that such legislation could be introduced so rapidly, without consultation, without reasonable notice and without parliamentary scrutiny.
At least one post here has referred to the legislation allowing the Executive (Ministers) to define what theyll ban and it is under this provision that e-cigs have been hit. In law this means that primary legislation has been passed by the parliament/legislature that moves banned substances outside of parliamentary scrutiny. Essentially, banned materials then fall under secondary legislation (usually used for increasing fines and such). Any parliament/legislature that passed such a law deserves nothing but contempt.
If Victoria has allowed such legislation pass then its politicians (particularly those in opposition) have disempowered themselves without even a whimper of complaint.
The point Im making is that this could be a serious political issue. Dealing with the science needs to happen but dont ignore the politics it is the best hope for a halt in the short term. A legislature (Victoria) must (?) have just disempowered themselves and become the preverbal turkeys that voted for Christmas.
If it is determined that the press reports are accurate then Victoria has created a serious problem much worse than that caused by US 1920s alcohol prohibition. That prohibition was passed by democratic means Victoria may have allowed this to occur by ministerial whim.
Allowing a group of ministers to ban whatever it wants to ban without recourse to parliamentary scrutiny is beyond belief. Has this happened? How could this happen in Australia?
Im still reeling with this news and find it difficult accept. It describes more than the arrogance that comes with power, it is worse than having an ineffective opposition to government it describes a disempowering of parliament. I cannot yet persuade myself that ANY part of Australia could have let such legislation pass.
If Victoria has done this then shame on them! Politicians in other Australian states should be contacted and advised before they too repeat such an error. Pass an Act that allows secondary legislation determine banned substances and all ancillary products and parliament losses any role. Under secondary legislation a parliament may stop a fine increase but it cannot stop the fine.
Could Victoria have been so stupid?
I know Aussies are going to hate to hear this but I have to say that this under-the-radar law making would not happen here. Such a law could be passed but not without open scrutiny, not without debate, not without parliamentary committee hearings and most certainly not allowed under secondary legislation (regulation). In the past, immediate/emergency Acts would recognise and seek to compensate commercial business transactions adversely effected.
Any geographic extension of this legislation to other parts of Australia should have its politicians aware of what they are being asked to agree. In essence anything has not been scientifically proven to be safe can be banned without consultation or recourse to parliament. A politician endorsing that is unfit for office.
Ive heard a number of suggestions as to substances that could be banned under this legislation some amusing. The most damaging man-made vapours put in the environment are those caused by combustion not by e-cigs but by motor vehicles.
Has Victoria allowed its Executive ban petrol?
Ive only read around 2-thirds of the thread but there have been many good posts already made. I hope Aussies do what youre internationally respected for and oppose this move until its retracted.
Id like to help and since I work in a legislature Id suggest:
A thorough check on the press reports that examines the legislation in detail. I think this seems to be underway already or I hope it is. It seems incredible to me that such legislation could be introduced so rapidly, without consultation, without reasonable notice and without parliamentary scrutiny.
At least one post here has referred to the legislation allowing the Executive (Ministers) to define what theyll ban and it is under this provision that e-cigs have been hit. In law this means that primary legislation has been passed by the parliament/legislature that moves banned substances outside of parliamentary scrutiny. Essentially, banned materials then fall under secondary legislation (usually used for increasing fines and such). Any parliament/legislature that passed such a law deserves nothing but contempt.
If Victoria has allowed such legislation pass then its politicians (particularly those in opposition) have disempowered themselves without even a whimper of complaint.
The point Im making is that this could be a serious political issue. Dealing with the science needs to happen but dont ignore the politics it is the best hope for a halt in the short term. A legislature (Victoria) must (?) have just disempowered themselves and become the preverbal turkeys that voted for Christmas.
If it is determined that the press reports are accurate then Victoria has created a serious problem much worse than that caused by US 1920s alcohol prohibition. That prohibition was passed by democratic means Victoria may have allowed this to occur by ministerial whim.
Allowing a group of ministers to ban whatever it wants to ban without recourse to parliamentary scrutiny is beyond belief. Has this happened? How could this happen in Australia?
Im still reeling with this news and find it difficult accept. It describes more than the arrogance that comes with power, it is worse than having an ineffective opposition to government it describes a disempowering of parliament. I cannot yet persuade myself that ANY part of Australia could have let such legislation pass.
If Victoria has done this then shame on them! Politicians in other Australian states should be contacted and advised before they too repeat such an error. Pass an Act that allows secondary legislation determine banned substances and all ancillary products and parliament losses any role. Under secondary legislation a parliament may stop a fine increase but it cannot stop the fine.
Could Victoria have been so stupid?
I know Aussies are going to hate to hear this but I have to say that this under-the-radar law making would not happen here. Such a law could be passed but not without open scrutiny, not without debate, not without parliamentary committee hearings and most certainly not allowed under secondary legislation (regulation). In the past, immediate/emergency Acts would recognise and seek to compensate commercial business transactions adversely effected.
Any geographic extension of this legislation to other parts of Australia should have its politicians aware of what they are being asked to agree. In essence anything has not been scientifically proven to be safe can be banned without consultation or recourse to parliament. A politician endorsing that is unfit for office.
Ive heard a number of suggestions as to substances that could be banned under this legislation some amusing. The most damaging man-made vapours put in the environment are those caused by combustion not by e-cigs but by motor vehicles.
Has Victoria allowed its Executive ban petrol?
Great post, Soot. Well up to TB's reasoned and calm statements in standard but possibly a little more optimistic in terms of where we in the UK may find ourselves.
I hope some of the Aussies will find this useful as ammunition for their case against this 'sneak attack' action and assume you have no objections if they quote you?
Also wanted to highlight a little matter which seems a bit confused - despite the press reporting that 'electronic cigarettes' (as in the whole kit) have been banned, from what I've read it is ONLY the liquid itself, whether in cartridges or not, that is covered under this ill-thought, thoughtless action. The hardware itself would have to be addressed completely separately which it doesn't seem to have been, whatever the press are reporting in their usual over-dramatised fashion. Any politicians stating this would therefore be making even bigger fools of themselves than they already have.
Do put me right if I'm mistaken - it won't be the first (or probably last) time.
I hope some of the Aussies will find this useful as ammunition for their case against this 'sneak attack' action and assume you have no objections if they quote you?
Also wanted to highlight a little matter which seems a bit confused - despite the press reporting that 'electronic cigarettes' (as in the whole kit) have been banned, from what I've read it is ONLY the liquid itself, whether in cartridges or not, that is covered under this ill-thought, thoughtless action. The hardware itself would have to be addressed completely separately which it doesn't seem to have been, whatever the press are reporting in their usual over-dramatised fashion. Any politicians stating this would therefore be making even bigger fools of themselves than they already have.
Do put me right if I'm mistaken - it won't be the first (or probably last) time.
I think the name should be something like e-vaping device (or Bob's name, fine too). Because that covers all users including the 'just the habit, not the nicotine' group... who DO exist, and are growing in numbers - plus it will raise less hairs with anti's, I think (let the subtitle be 'nicotine delivering device' or whatever the Dr. said... but not the main title...)
Just my thoughts as to the naming.
Just my thoughts as to the naming.
Last edited:
Great post Soot! The whole thing seems very strange to me as well. Is everyone 100% positive that the article is accurate?
Kat, I agree. I like e-vaping. It might take the general public a while to catch on, but I think it describes the act much more than "smoking". It's false information to lure smokers in. As TB pointed out, there's quite a few obstacles to overcome. It will be difficult to replace the e-cigarette name, but maybe not to replace e-smoking w/e-vaping.
Any way we could change the forum name to e-vaping-forum.com?? Maybe buy the domain and forward it here? It's available
Kat, I agree. I like e-vaping. It might take the general public a while to catch on, but I think it describes the act much more than "smoking". It's false information to lure smokers in. As TB pointed out, there's quite a few obstacles to overcome. It will be difficult to replace the e-cigarette name, but maybe not to replace e-smoking w/e-vaping.
Any way we could change the forum name to e-vaping-forum.com?? Maybe buy the domain and forward it here? It's available
Agreed, great post Soot. I'm just totally confused about the situation here. We have Mr. Andrews declaring that he altered schedule 7 in Victoria (one of the 8 States and Territories here) to bring things into line with the rest of Australia. He would seem to indicate it was banned everywhere else in the first place. Is this really the case?
And yet it is exempt from being a pharmacy grade poison if it is "for use as an aid in withdrawal from tobacco smoking in preparations for inhalation" exempt under Schedule 4 clause a, and appears to be exempt under Schedule 6 and Schedule 7 clause b.
Time will tell. What we need is a smoking or ex smoking QC that does pro bono.
And yet it is exempt from being a pharmacy grade poison if it is "for use as an aid in withdrawal from tobacco smoking in preparations for inhalation" exempt under Schedule 4 clause a, and appears to be exempt under Schedule 6 and Schedule 7 clause b.
Time will tell. What we need is a smoking or ex smoking QC that does pro bono.
We need a new name more accurated than e-cigarette and e-smoking I suggest "electronic vaporizer (e-vaporizer)" and I agree with "e-vaping" this covers all the situation this devices could be used for, even with therapeutic use or without nicotine, we also need a new design far away from analogs because the most common argument for banning e-cigarettes, which is put forward by anti-smokers, is that they are too similar in appearance to the concept of ordinary cigarettes, and hence they keep alive the idea that smoking is okay, a more medical low key design would be great.
Painting any white cigs you have with heat-resistent paint, ór taking off the white paint leaving stainless-steel look, will allready go a long way for that probably... just avoid white for e-vapers. That's a good start anyhow, I think.
Many months ago I posted suggesting "e-vaping" needed to be separated from smoking for the political risk it posed (http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...rum/567-important-notice-all-suppliers-2.html).
I work with politicians and didn't make my original post lightly. It's one of those occasions when I wish I was wrong but in this case of Victoria/Australia things have either been badly reported or got completely out of hand. If it's the latter - I expect Aussies will soon remind their politicians of whose interests they're paid to represent.
I work with politicians and didn't make my original post lightly. It's one of those occasions when I wish I was wrong but in this case of Victoria/Australia things have either been badly reported or got completely out of hand. If it's the latter - I expect Aussies will soon remind their politicians of whose interests they're paid to represent.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
