Canada BC has fallen as Parliament passed Bill 14 "Tobacco Protection Act"

[DrMA]

Search this page to see the proceedings of the "debate" on Bill 14: adopted without amendment, defines ecigs as tobacco, hands the entire industry to Big tobacco on a silver platter
Hansard — House Blues — Tuesday, April 14, 2015 p.m.

As Derek Yach eloquently pointed out in an earlier article, it's as if tobacco control has joined hands with Big Tobacco to keep people smoking so they may all profit:
Health activists play into hands of tobacco firms with campaigns against e-cigarettes | Health | BDlive

 

[Steamix]

Nothin new...

Best way to control your opponents is to fund them, givem 'em a sandbox to play in, while you go about your business.

Guess BT 's been doin their homework on SunTsu ...

 

[Moonbogg]

So this is Canadian law now? E-cigs are banned in Canada now and only cigalikes are legal?

 

[Tache]

Just to be clear - this was a provincial, not federal Bill, so it will only be applicable in BC and it doesn't ban vaping (in fact it legitimizes it in a twisted sort of way), it adds "vapour products" to the Tobacco Control Act. This means that all existing restrictions on tobacco products will apply to vaping products (liquid, hardware etc). Current restriction on Tobacco products include: Only allowed indoor in private homes or vehicle (unless there is someone under either 16 or 19 in the vehicle), no advertising or open display of product, outdoors - must be 7 metres (23 feet) away from doors or windows, not allowed in parks, school grounds, health facility (hospitals, care homes etc) grounds, beaches or public squares.

The Bill passed third reading and has not yet received Royal Assent. Once it gets Royal Assent (basically rubber stamping) it will not come into effect until a regulation is made by the Lieutenant Governor in Council specifying a commencement date. From what I understand that will not happen for quite a while - maybe up to a year.

Big shout out to the Canadian Vaping Association who met with both the Minister of Health (Terry Lake) and the opposition Health critic (Judy Darcy) in early March. It was CVA's efforts that caused the proposed (by the opposition critic) amendments around excluding vape shops from the indoor vaping and display ban to be put forward. Unfortunately those amendments did not pass in the Committee vote (Nays 44 - Yeas 30). I was told yesterday that CVA has been contacted by the government for consultation prior to the commencement regulation going forward.

So there remains hope of getting something reasonable out of this, but I'm still absolutely livid that this bill was pushed through. Thorough consultation should have happened before the Bill was drafted. The next election is in two years and for the first time in my life I will be voting for the current opposition party.

 

[Vatigu]

We face almost the same thing here in Ontario.
Stop Bill 45 from banning Vaporizers - Randy Hillier MPP
We've got an MPP backed petition to kill schedule 3 and standing committee on health holding a public consultation Monday, April 20, Tuesday, April 21 and Wednesday, April 22, 2015.
I'm really hopeful CVA and this petition along with pro-vaping comments submitted to sprzezdziecki@ola.org might help kill or at least amend this bill to a less draconian state.

The feds are ready to release reasonable regs soon enough why do the provinces have to jump on this crap?

 

[DrMA]

Just to be clear - this was a provincial, not federal Bill, so it will only be applicable in BC and it doesn't ban vaping (in fact it legitimizes it in a twisted sort of way), it adds "vapour products" to the Tobacco Control Act. This means that all existing restrictions on tobacco products will apply to vaping products (liquid, hardware etc). Current restriction on Tobacco products include: Only allowed indoor in private homes or vehicle (unless there is someone under either 16 or 19 in the vehicle), no advertising or open display of product, outdoors - must be 7 metres (23 feet) away from doors or windows, not allowed in parks, school grounds, health facility (hospitals, care homes etc) grounds, beaches or public squares.

The Bill passed third reading and has not yet received Royal Assent. Once it gets Royal Assent (basically rubber stamping) it will not come into effect until a regulation is made by the Lieutenant Governor in Council specifying a commencement date. From what I understand that will not happen for quite a while - maybe up to a year.

Big shout out to the Canadian Vaping Association who met with both the Minister of Health (Terry Lake) and the opposition Health critic (Judy Darcy) in early March. It was CVA's efforts that caused the proposed (by the opposition critic) amendments around excluding vape shops from the indoor vaping and display ban to be put forward. Unfortunately those amendments did not pass in the Committee vote (Nays 44 - Yeas 30). I was told yesterday that CVA has been contacted by the government for consultation prior to the commencement regulation going forward.

So there remains hope of getting something reasonable out of this, but I'm still absolutely livid that this bill was pushed through. Thorough consultation should have happened before the Bill was drafted. The next election is in two years and for the first time in my life I will be voting for the current opposition party.

Thank you for the details. My read of this is that e-cigs will now be treated as combustible cigarettes in all but name. Implication is punitive taxes are soon to follow, but it also means import restrictions (watch out for FastTech shipments), possible onerous licensing/manufacturing regs etc...

 

[Vatigu]

Actually to be fair at least BC's bill is named correctly and sets out to do exactly what it's supposed to, it's definitely about protecting Tobacco.

Ontario's is titled "Making Healthier Choices" which is a total lie.

 

[DrMA]

Actually to be fair at least BC's bill is named correctly and sets out to do exactly what it's supposed to, it's definitely about protecting Tobacco.

Ontario's is titled "Making Healthier Choices" which is a total lie.

I don't know the actual Bill title, I dubbed it "Tobacco Protection Act" based on content and intent

 

[Caro123]

Search this page to see the proceedings of the "debate" on Bill 14: adopted without amendment, defines ecigs as tobacco, hands the entire industry to Big Tobacco on a silver platter
Hansard — House Blues — Tuesday, April 14, 2015 p.m.

As Derek Yach eloquently pointed out in an earlier article, it's as if tobacco control has joined hands with Big Tobacco to keep people smoking so they may all profit:
Health activists play into hands of tobacco firms with campaigns against e-cigarettes | Health | BDlive

I wonder if tobacco control which I imagine receives financials from big pharma by way of gums and patches and stop smoking clinics and Canada has a generic pharma industry would be the reasoning behind the whole shamozle. Hasn't most of the hullabaloo around tobacco use for the past thirty years or so really been more about dollars, and taxes than much else. (Pack a day for 45 years -Vaping for six weeks)

 

[CarolT]

Search this page to see the proceedings of the "debate" on Bill 14: adopted without amendment, defines ecigs as tobacco, hands the entire industry to Big Tobacco on a silver platter
Hansard — House Blues — Tuesday, April 14, 2015 p.m.

As Derek Yach eloquently pointed out in an earlier article, it's as if tobacco control has joined hands with Big Tobacco to keep people smoking so they may all profit:
Health activists play into hands of tobacco firms with campaigns against e-cigarettes | Health | BDlive

That crap about "Big Tobacco" is a Tobacco Control lie. The anti-smokers took over the cigarette companies decades ago. They simply used their incredible wealth to vote their agents onto the boards of directors, where they can control policy, and that's why the tobacco companies have never attacked the anti-smokers' scientific fraud. Hell, the stepson (Ed Lasker) of the head of the head of the American Cancer Society (Mary Woodard Lasker) who declared war on smokers, was a director of Philip Morris for nearly 20 years! And the Laskers were old friends of the Cullman family, who took it over.
The "Power Elite" Controls Both Sides
Attacking the anti-smokers' scientific fraud is the only way to drive a stake through their poisonous hearts. Anything less is doing nothing.

 

[CarolT]

I wonder if tobacco control which I imagine receives financials from big pharma by way of gums and patches and stop smoking clinics and Canada has a generic pharma industry would be the reasoning behind the whole shamozle. Hasn't most of the hullabaloo around tobacco use for the past thirty years or so really been more about dollars, and taxes than much else. (Pack a day for 45 years -Vaping for six weeks)

"Big Pharma" has no reason to favor the anti-smoking persecution. For perspective, gobal revenues of pharmaceuticals were about $531,340,000,000 in 2013. Global sales of nicotine replacement products were about $4.5 billion in 2011, which is just 0.85%, less than 1% of their business. It's not a big thing even for the few companies that peddle quit-smoking crap.

Meanwhile, the CDC's Office on Smoking and Health, which boasts of being "the lead federal agency for comprehensive tobacco prevention and control," has a budget of $100 million a year. Other government spending is spread throughout the National Institutes of Health. This is where the health lies are manufactured.
The NIH Anti-Tobacco Fat Cats

Furthermore, the 2013 Gallup poll showed that 62% of smoking quitters did so because of health beliefs. The pharmaceutical companies have little or no role in that health research. In comparison, less than 5% of quitters used a nicotine patch, less than 2% used prescription drugs, and less than 1% used nicotine gum.
Tobacco and Smoking | Gallup Historical Trends

 

[Caro123]

Does your info also pertain to the Canadian pharmaceutical market, I believe Canadians have a different health care system and a different pharmaceutical situation than that of the U.S. And while I could certainly be misinformed Canadian pharmaceuticals have had to protect their backsides for years

 

[redddog]

At the risk of pissing off people here, this legislation basically mandates what responsible vapers should be doing anyway. We shouldn't vape arrogantly in a restaurant while yelling "give me my vape of give me death!"

The very concerning issue is that vaping detractors will ALWAYS take the mile when given an inch. The second you're added to the Tobacco Control Act as a TOBACCO equivalent, you green-light the next step - a virtual certainty - of heavy taxation. That alone, in my opinion, won't be all THAT damning (though making it considerably more expensive). The savings element will all but disappear. What will KILL the industry is regulation so over-the-top (by careful design) that the only players in the market will be Lorilard and Reynolds etc.

The very reason why this is such a cutting-edge and life-saving technology is the reason why it's resulted in such vitriol; it looks like smoking to people. That's it. People see vapor come out and it looks exactly like the same thing that puritans evrywhere have demonized. It looks too much like smoke. And I don't care what scientific data you show me, if it looks that much like cigarette smoke, it cannot be good for you (says the aforementioned puritan) .

 

[CarolT]

At the risk of pissing off people here, this legislation basically mandates what responsible vapers should be doing anyway. We shouldn't vape arrogantly in a restaurant while yelling "give me my vape of give me death!"

That is their grotesque caricature, not reality. The reality is that they're trying to cultural-genocide smoking/vaping by outlawing it everywhere. That's why they commit scientific fraud to manufacture fake health risks to others. Plus they pretend that majorities don't have to concede any right to enjoy public spaces whatsoever to minorities.

 

[Tache]

Here's a link to the "Tobacco Control Amendment Act, 2015" Bill 14 – 2015: Tobacco Control Amendment Act, 2015

This goes far beyond what "responsible vapers should be doing anyway". Read the "explanatory notes" at the end of the act (so that you don't have to dig out the actual "Tobacco Control Act") to see what the amendments do.

The "place" restrictions would not allow you to even hold, never mind use, a vapour product in those "places". Taken to the "letter of the law", you could still have a vape shop, but you would not be able to display or hold the products, never mind allow a customer to try using the product - effectively making it impossible to legally introduce an existing smoker to vaping products. There would be no venue where you could hold a vape meet like VapeCan unless it was outdoors and 23 feet away from any door or window - and of course, you couldn't advertise it and vendors would have to have their products under opaque sheets and could not have their signs up by their stalls either. In downtown Victoria, there would be very few places you could actually vape unless you stood in the parking lane of the road - no shelter from rain and wind.

In my view it is completely and utterly illogical to try and classify vapour products as tobacco products. You can classify a two by four as a dog if you want, but that doesn't make it a dog in fact or in logic.

What I do agree on, is that the "reason" for this is to allow for future taxation measures. You'll notice that this amendment also amends the "Tobacco Tax Act", although at the moment it is only in terms of references to the title of the "Tobacco Control Act" to be the "Tobacco and Vapour Products Control Act".

 

[redddog]

My bad, Tache. I didn't get the extent of the wording.

You're absolutely correct in that it is crazy over-the-top.

 

[Caro123]

Here's a link to the "Tobacco Control Amendment Act, 2015" Bill 14 – 2015: Tobacco Control Amendment Act, 2015

This goes far beyond what "responsible vapers should be doing anyway". Read the "explanatory notes" at the end of the act (so that you don't have to dig out the actual "Tobacco Control Act") to see what the amendments do.

The "place" restrictions would not allow you to even hold, never mind use, a vapour product in those "places". Taken to the "letter of the law", you could still have a vape shop, but you would not be able to display or hold the products, never mind allow a customer to try using the product - effectively making it impossible to legally introduce an existing smoker to vaping products. There would be no venue where you could hold a vape meet like VapeCan unless it was outdoors and 23 feet away from any door or window - and of course, you couldn't advertise it and vendors would have to have their products under opaque sheets and could not have their signs up by their stalls either. In downtown Victoria, there would be very few places you could actually vape unless you stood in the parking lane of the road - no shelter from rain and wind.

In my view it is completely and utterly illogical to try and classify vapour products as tobacco products. You can classify a two by four as a dog if you want, but that doesn't make it a dog in fact or in logic.

What I do agree on, is that the "reason" for this is to allow for future taxation measures. You'll notice that this amendment also amends the "Tobacco Tax Act", although at the moment it is only in terms of references to the title of the "Tobacco Control Act" to be the "Tobacco and Vapour Products Control Act".

I wonder what impact this act /information will have upon psychiatric patients in the facility in my neck of the woods. There once was "a no smoking on hospital grounds rule " even though there was a fifteen foot brick enclosed outdoor airing court adjacent to the wards still patients were required to walk a considerable distance to get off hospital grounds to smoke. This senseless rule changed following a tragic incident. Will the act in BC flow to NS and if so -why. it is my sincere hope that vapers will become militant after the manner of Martin Luther King Jr. and Ghandi nothing was gained and much damage was done by permitting the demonizing of smoking and smokers I think there is a slim chance with vaping and for Gods sake take the silly " you have to be 18 to look off the web sites - the kids I know are getting high off smoking legally obtained insense.

 

[caramel]

It all out of humanity, compassion and for your own good.

 

[caramel]

Actually to be fair at least BC's bill is named correctly and sets out to do exactly what it's supposed to, it's definitely about protecting Tobacco.

Ontario's is titled "Making Healthier Choices" which is a total lie.

It's actually reducing choices.

 

[Tache]

I wonder what impact this act /information will have upon psychiatric patients in the facility in my neck of the woods. There once was "a no smoking on hospital grounds rule " even though there was a fifteen foot brick enclosed outdoor airing court adjacent to the wards still patients were required to walk a considerable distance to get off hospital grounds to smoke. This senseless rule changed following a tragic incident. Will the act in BC flow to NS and if so -why. it is my sincere hope that vapers will become militant after the manner of Martin Luther King Jr. and Ghandi nothing was gained and much damage was done by permitting the demonizing of smoking and smokers I think there is a slim chance with vaping and for Gods sake take the silly " you have to be 18 to look off the web sites - the kids I know are getting high off smoking legally obtained insense.

I agree that various facilities, irrespective of what laws/bylaws are in place, MUST adhere to reasonable, common sense, compassionate and realistic choices as to how they "choose" to implement policies. To treat people with dignity, compassion and using a holistic approach appears to me to be the moral imperative for any professional caregiver worth their salt.

The situation at the moment is that the bill has passed third reading, but will not come into effect until an additional regulation is put in place and passes via Order in Council by the Lieutenant General (somehow that spelling doesn't look quite right - but you know what I mean).

In the interim the Canadian Vapers Association has been invited back for further consultation before this goes further.

I've also now heard back from my MLA's office with a request for further information. I'm about six hundred words in and will forward as soon as I can find time to finish my document. I will also be asking that I be included in the consultation from the perspective of an experienced and well informed vaper.

I'll let you know.

What I would suggest/urge other Canadian vapers is to write to your Federal MP outlining which of the Federal Committee recommendations you support or not - and why - backed by appropriate scientific information. I believe that will have an impact on what provinces end up doing.