Australian ban; Egar illegal

[dc2k08]

I have 3 questions:

• how can they enforce these rules when there is no official documentation?
• Can someone be supplied with nicotine liquid directly from a source outside of victoria or austrailia?
• Does a nicotine liquid that is not meant for human consumption come under these regulations and how is this liquid defined?

 

[cucurucho]

• how can they enforce these rules when there is no official documentation?

I'm sure there is official documentation, I just haven't seen it. That would involve sifting through a bunch of legislation, which I've done enough of recently.

• Can someone be supplied with nicotine liquid directly from a source outside of victoria or austrailia?

My understanding is only a source from outside Australia, but running the risk of it being confiscated by customs.

• Does a nicotine liquid that is not meant for human consumption come under these regulations and how is this liquid defined?

That's a good question. It requires further investigation.

 

[dc2k08]

thanks cucurucho, I hope someone releases official documentation of these regulations soon. surprised no report referenced it and no one who you talked to supplied a copy. it does seem that there might be two holes in their regulations. will need to pore through it some.

 

[cucurucho]

Ok, here's the part of the Poison List for NSW that deals with Nicotine, the number to the left of 'NICOTINE' is the Schedule that it falls under:

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. .
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.
2 NICOTINE for use as an aid in withdrawal from tobacco smoking in preparations for inhalation.
6 NICOTINE in preparations containing 3 per cent or less of nicotine when labelled and packed for the treatment of animals.

The Duty Pharmacist informed me that to fall under Schedule 2 or 4, it must be approved by the TGA.

So it could be possible that if the liquid is "labelled and packed for the treatment of animals" that it could fall under schedule 6. Now I'll go looking for how the Schedules are implemented into the law.

 

[dc2k08]

I wonder where an insecticide containing nicotine gets categorised.

 

[cucurucho]

Ok, I found these guidelines for NSW: NSW DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

Here are some relevant parts:

Schedules 5, 6 and 7 are taken up by domestic, industrial and agricultural poisons that are
all labelled to indicate their poisonous nature, such as “CAUTION”, “POISON” or
“DANGEROUS POISON” and are packed in special bottles which are sometimes required
to be fitted with child-resistant closures.

...

A poisons licence is not required to sell domestic poisons (Schedule 5), industrial and
agricultural poisons (Schedule 6) or agricultural chemicals or animal medicines in
Schedule 7, but special conditions apply to the storage and supply of Schedule 7 poisons.

If you are unsure whether or not you can legally sell a particular product or need
advice as to any conditions applying to its storage or sale, ask your supplier or
contact the Pharmaceutical Services Branch at the address shown at the end of this
Guide.

On this last point, the Pharmaceutical Services Branch said that it is illegal to sell nicotine that is classified Schedule 7.

This all sounded promising for Schedule 6, until I got to:

IMPROPER SUPPLY
It is an offence under the Regulation for any person to sell a scheduled poison classified
as-
(a) a medicine, in a quantity or for a purpose, that does not accord with the recognised
therapeutic standard of what is appropriate in the circumstances, or
(b) other than a medicine, for a purpose other than that stated on the container or for a
purpose other than that for which it is normally used.

This means that every person who sells scheduled poisons has an obligation to ensure
that they do not sell a product or a quantity of a product to a person, knowing that the
person intends or is likely to use it other than for a purpose or in a way that it is meant to
be used or is normally used. If a doubt exists, the seller has the right and an obligation to
refuse to sell the product(s) in those circumstances. Particular examples might be, selling
pain killers, methylated spirits, paint thinners etc knowing that they are going to be
misused or abused.

PENALTIES
The maximum penalty for most offences arising from the packaging, labelling or sale of
poisons is a fine of $1,100.

 

[nqhqhz]

Can I assume that "smoking" is, like here, defined elsewhere as use by combustion chewing, sucking etc (which isn't literally smoking)?

Is there an "interpretation" section on that poison list for "tobacco"?

 

[Trumpybloke]

G'Day Guys , been Awol for a few days due to travelling for a funeral , CuCu pretty much sums up what I have managed to source as well... good job Mate !!
TB is correct , we need to keep the momentum on this topic going, I know a few people might be sick to death of seeing it , but really it is the watershed moment that might just signal the downward slide to death of our pastime ..... If this thread does nothing more than to motivate those of you outside Australia into even considering the fate of vaping, and even better, DO something about it , it will be worth all the heartache and efforts us few Aussies are going through !

 

[cucurucho]

I wonder where an insecticide containing nicotine gets categorised.

If it's not specified anywhere else, that would be Schedule 7, for agricultural purposes.

It's worth reading the whole document at the link I posted above. There is a lot of interesting information about packaging and storage. Conclusion: Selling E-Liquid containing nicotine is very illegal in NSW for several reasons.

 

[nqhqhz]

not sell a product or a quantity of a product to a person, knowing that the person intends or is likely to use it other than for a purpose or in a way that it is meant to be used or is normally used. If a doubt exists, the seller has the right and an obligation to refuse to sell the product(s) in those circumstances. Particular examples might be, selling
pain killers, methylated spirits, paint thinners etc knowing that they are going to be misused or abused.

I find Australian law to be full of nasty surprises like this. I remember seeing seeing lots of legal notices all over a wine shop. You could ban anything without even thinking about new legislation.

 

[dc2k08]

It does look like they have their .../ets covered unwittingly with that improper supply caveat. it seems to be there to prosecute anyone who might knowingly sell a poison to someone who they know has a devious intent for it..shame.

The only option that might be still available is to import it directly for personal use from a source outside of the territory where the law resides.

New headline: "Australian officials cut out the middlemen, still no richer"

 

[cucurucho]

Can I assume that "smoking" is, like here, defined elsewhere as use by combustion chewing, sucking etc (which isn't literally smoking)?

Is there an "interpretation" section on that poison list for "tobacco"?

From NSW's 'Public Health (Tobacco) Act 2008':

"smoke" means smoke, hold or otherwise have control over, an ignited tobacco product or non-tobacco smoking product.

"tobacco product" means tobacco, or a cigarette or cigar, or any other product containing tobacco and designed for human consumption or use.

 

[Abraxas]

I do not know if the following document dated Oct 2008 has been discussed in this forum.

Pages 126-143 give a "record of reasons" for the decisions on the electronic cigarette by the Therapeutic Goods Administration:

www(dot)tga(dot)gov(dot)au/ndpsc/record/rr200810(dot)pdf

Substitute "(dot)"with "." as I cannot post links yet in this forum.

Or just google for "rr200810.pdf"

 

[solution42]

I do not know if the following document dated Oct 2008 has been discussed in this forum.

Pages 126-143 give a "record of reasons" for the decisions on the electronic cigarette by the Therapeutic Goods Administration:

www(dot)tga(dot)gov(dot)au/ndpsc/record/rr200810(dot)pdf

Substitute "(dot)"with "." as I cannot post links yet in this forum.

Or just google for "rr200810.pdf"

Thank you very much for linking that document Abraxas, that is exactly the sort of information we require. Will comment further on it after attempting to absorb it. After my initial breeze through I get the impression that there has been a very rational and well reasoned debate over the scheduling of nicotine in this country, it's actually hard for me to argue any of their points right now. I am very pleased that there does seem to be some impetus for it's availability, once it has passed through the required testing and the marketing of the e-cigarette has been correctly approached (take note suppliers).

 

[Trumpybloke]

I too, have just had a quick scan thru this document ( later digestion required also )
I concur with Solution42, its a well laid out discussion,

interesting points ,

The scheduling of nic as a S7 poison was a ministerial decision... i.e. one that can be made without public consultation, and the constant references to products being advertised not as alternative delivery systems of nicotine,but of glamorous , smoke anywhere,beat the ban, healthy cigarettes, smoking etc in fact all the things we have been discussing here Re Marketing also .
Agree with Sol also on the promising statement about S4 classification ( pharmacy supplied) if it can be a proven safer form of delivery and testing takes place....
There might be hope on the horizon, but it will only be if the Major Manufacturers step up to the mark and get some testing and regulation of their product happening, and that retailers stop pushing the unproven claims and market more as an alternative delivery system?
Major interesting remark on Dr Murray Laugesens Ruyan trials, but it would appear only the earlier published results were included , recommending that e-cigs MAY be a better delivery system but further evaluation must be made, it doesnt appear the latest paper which delves deeper into trials and results was tabled.

Its gonna be a long road Aussies..... but please take note those of you who are legally still able to buy , this is the approach that will be taken in your respective countries when they get around t it... start lobbying suppliers , and most importantly RETAILERS to stop making the claims that cannot be supported by FACTUAL REFERENCES, for this will lead to investigation and rectification ( i.e. banning )

Personal note , I reckon I have 6-9 months before I run outta supplies .... providing my 5 atomisers last ( still using #1 lol and hoping the others perform at least as long ... hmmmmm might have to get USA/UK buddy to plain wrap me some spare 901 atomisers marked clearly on the customs form "Electronic Supplies" mental note make sure they arent the ones with mini-cig written on them !!! ) )

 

[TropicalBob]

It is indeed going to be a long road. I read every word of this and saved a copy to my laptop. This is the most thorough and well thought-out discussion I've yet read anywhere. Australia did its homework before the ban.

These are, however, the same intelligent discussions that can be found on this forum. The hurdles are real. Drop the cheerleader mentality and consider e-smoking for what it is. We are going to need to address these contentions in the U.S. if e-cigs have any future. Forget fanciful notions of end runs around what these are -- drug delivery devices for addicts. Meet the contentions made in this document. Or have the products banned here (US) as well.

The following are representative paragraphs from the lengthy document:

The electronic cigarette is currently being promoted, through various websites, as a recreational product for use in bars and clubs, a fun product, with few restrictions on the period of use, the level of nicotine concentration or the quantity of nicotine inhaled through the apparatus. The intention appears to be to market to those already addicted to smoking, as well as to a new younger market not yet addicted to nicotine or smoking. The apparatus is described as a tobacco-less tool designed to resemble a traditional cigarette and to be “smoked” in the same way. The smoke is in the form of vapour mixed with nicotine from a cartridge inserted into the “cigarette”.

It was asserted that electronic cigarettes should be regulated as pharmaceutical products or medical devices because they deliver nicotine, but do not contain tobacco.

The main contention was that it is not tenable to allow products which deliver nicotine and are marketed with claims, to be sold without proper regulations.

The submission states that electronic cigarettes are designed as recreational products which assist and perpetuate nicotine addition. The sole purpose of the product is to facilitate and perpetuate nicotine addiction, not the treatment of the addiction.

Extensive testing of the product needs to be undertaken to ascertain its safety, before it can be sold on the Australian market.

All chemicals and ingredients contained in these products have not been established, and some additives contained in the scenting and flavouring ingredients are not known. Even though the claim was made that the product is free from carcinogens, the chemical agents remaining in the device have not been through any rigorous testing to prove their not detrimental status. Given the potential toxicity, risks and hazards associated with the electronic cigarette, and the lack of substantial evidence of safety or therapeutic benefit, until these prerequisites are met, the products should not be allowed on the Australian market,

The Committee confirmed that nicotine in an electronic cigarette is a Schedule 7 poison and is therefore subject to regulatory control as a dangerous poison.

The Committee resolved that, as a matter of urgency, Victoria should amend its Poisons Code to include nicotine. This action would ensure that electronic cigarettes could not be supplied on the domestic market in any Australian jurisdiction.

***

And that's what Australia got for the New Year.

 

[trog100]

the real problem here is the "nanny" state factor isnt it.. if many things in common usage were new inventions they would be instantly banned..

we have the use of such things purely because they arrived before the "nanny" state did..

a regulated knife would be a blunt one that didnt cut.. regulated beer would be beer that didnt make the user drunk..

and the real rub is.. at the heart of it all lies the consumers desire for a safe and regulated product.. an idiot proof product.. an irony if ever there was one.. he he

trog

 

[TropicalBob]

You are correct, sir. And if you presented your government TODAY with a new idea to roll tobacco leaf crumbs into a paper tube, ignite it and suck in the smoke, you'd be laughed out of the halls of every government on earth. Your new invention would be DOA.

We are in the process of banning not only anything new that might have unknowns, but trying to wipe out past practices we now see as dangerous. From barbecue to beer to tobacco, "we know" the dangers now.

I know about how old you are, Trog, and I'm about the same. Isn't it nice we came through when we did? Freedom is just a perspective, I guess, but I miss it nonetheless.

 

[Kate]

The history of liberty is a history of the limitation of government power, not the increase of it. -Woodrow Wilson

We need less authority, more anarchy.

 

[trog100]

my dad fought in two world wars bob.. i arrived when he returned from the second one.. on the grand scale of things i recon the past sixty or so years have been pretty good ones.. the next few will be pretty interesting ones..

may the pair of us survive them well and still be around to chinwag afterwards..

trog