EU Vapers Likely in for a Fight

[Switched]

It looks to me like they are realizing how much of a cash cow e-cigs are and in a progressive, digital world with a product like e-cigs (and events like the Box Elder fiasco) it does need some control and regulation. The unfortunate thing about this kind of government regulation is that it will end up costing the end users a lot more to buy their supplies. In the paragraph he quoted in red it doesn't say anything about banning, just a bunch of stuff that will bring in tons of cash if producers and vendors are willing to pay for and in turn the end users would be the one to ultimately pay the price. Obviously they have noticed the reduced tax income from cigarette sales and lack thereof from e-cigs, this cannot go unpunished.

What I can see happening is that there will be some corporate/political handshaking behind closed doors and the current suppliers of North American nicotine products (e-cigs and juice suppliers excluded) will become the only legal suppliers of e-cigs with nicotine in North America. Also likely is that we will not be able to buy a bottle of juice, only pre-filled carts... Just speculating though.

I agree with that idea - and wouldn't be surprised if that is the way the FDA wants to take this. It gives them a bit more control over what is marketed - makes ecigs more of a "NRT packaged" product.

The EU is a different bag of wool though. With so many nations all having their own laws and procedures - it's far more difficult for a single body to work through issues that will keep everyone's pockets filled and political ambitions intact.

Yes the BE debacle is one to be concerned with and yes we should see that it never happens again. The Brits do have a mechanism in place and we should see one in the not to distance future.

OTOH when faced with this 1471-2458-11-580.pdf it leaves one to wonder what really is behind the FDAs and other health organizations stance. Here is but a small example A new day, a new way! - Vaping: The real costs of bailout money.

A piece of legislation here and there means diddly squat, it is once you start building the puzzle of these interwoven pieces of legislation, do we finally see the bigger picture. e.g not unlike what the FDA is doing with current regulations (expanding and redefining current laws.

When the FSPTCA was signed into law it was a sheep in wolf's clothing. Yeah, we are saving the children, but when one looks at the enormous loop holes contained in the law, there is enough room in there to hide a mountain of pre, current and new legislation.

Folks were appalled when Bill C-36 hit the streets, and rightfully so. What needs to be known is that, the key chess pieces were played (if one cares to research) prior to the law being ratified. Codex alimentarus has been on the table for quite some time. No one can tell me that all the physicians expressing concerns are/were cooks. Just 2 small pieces the ban on Vitamins C and D, probably the 2 most important Vitamins for proper "human" function. Nah! it is much easier to discredit physicians with a smear campaign. Hey why not? It obviously works and has worked for hundredths of years.

Now! Interweave the lack of health supplements with the FDA backed Monsanto's project, and tell me how healthy the populous will be in the future. These are all initiative generated from the WHO.

Back on topic, yes I see 2 things coming out of the US, either a permanent ban disguised as a regulatory body which makes it impossible to meet set regulation: for example the 2 previous attempts from NVC to work towards market authorization, or as Creant and Kat stated NRTs.

Wrt to the EU, although individual countries are still permitted governance to a certain extent, local laws must conform the the Union law and practices. Therefore, should Brussel come out with a law banning e-cigs in the Union, its countries (can find the appropriate word here) have no choice to comply or suffer consequences under current EU laws, economic sanction is but one.

... and that is why ECITA is worried.

BTW Bill C-36 is not a Canadian law, just a Canadian flavour.

 

[rachelcoffe]

There is a very valid concern amongst some vapers that regulation of the industry would be bad. So with that in mind, I'd like to remind everyone that appropriate regulation of the e-cig industry does not translate to:

- higher costs for consumers (let alone prohibitively higher ones)
- or bans on bottles of e-juice, etc (i.e. "only pre-filled carts allowed" lol)

Just look to the UK to see the truth in this. They have appropriate regulation there now, thanks to the work that ECITA has done in cooperation with the regulatory authorities there. Appropriate regulation is not prohibitively expensive to the vendors - it has not jacked up prices for consumers - and it has certainly not resulted in the same products that were available before suddenly becoming unavailable. Batts, starter kits, atomizers, cartomizers, mods, all kinds of flavours, e-juices with the same nic levels that people were vaping before - none of that has disappeared, nor is it ever going to.

By doing what they needed to do to bring about appropriate regulation that protects consumers & vendors alike...the UK industry has obtained freedom. And everyone concerned is the better for it! They have physical shops, online sales, the same products as before. Their Customs isn't seizing stuff. The government is happy - vendors are happy - vapers are happy. That's the way!

So I do understand why some get the mistaken notion that "regulation" could mean something terrible (i.e. very limited product & ridiculous prices). But rest assured: appropriate regulation does not bring anything like that about. We see that by looking to the UK's living example.

ECTA will work to bring about that kind of appropriate regulation - and freedom - here in Canada.

---

Just my two cents.

Happy vaping & merry x-mas!

Rachel

 

[Switched]

As I cannot formulate a coherent and concise reply with a generalized reply, I need to dissect this post for clarity. A display of enthusiasm is a great thing but there is indeed herein some pretty bold statements that IMO are irresponsible and thwart good judgment.

There is a very valid concern amongst some vapers that regulation of the industry would be bad. So with that in mind, I'd like to remind everyone that appropriate regulation of the e-cig industry does not translate to:

- higher costs for consumers (let alone prohibitively higher ones)
- or bans on bottles of e-juice, etc (i.e. "only pre-filled carts allowed" lol)

... and I would like to remind everyone, that what we have today may well not be part of the future, at least at todays prices, nor will it be marketed by today's vendors (US). I will not discuss Canada here, because we are still infants in this fight.

Just look to the UK to see the truth in this. They have appropriate regulation there now, thanks to the work that ECITA has done in cooperation with the regulatory authorities there.

No they do not. ECITA might have been instrumental in some limited capacity but it is the consumers that thwarted the BAN during the deliberations. There is a lot behind their decision to re-visit the subject in the spring of 2013. I also must remind everyone that the UK was never under a BAN parse, but the threat of one. I would also like to know why only Canadians believe we are under the terms of free pratique while the rest of the world know that Canada has a ban in place.

Appropriate regulation is not prohibitively expensive to the vendors - it has not jacked up prices for consumers - and it has certainly not resulted in the same products that were available before suddenly becoming unavailable. Batts, starter kits, atomizers, cartomizers, mods, all kinds of flavours, e-juices with the same nic levels that people were vaping before - none of that has disappeared, nor is it ever going to.

Bold text is a huge presumption don't you think?? Yes the vote was status quo until the spring of 2013.

By doing what they needed to do to bring about appropriate regulation that protects consumers & vendors alike...the UK industry has obtained freedom.

No they have not! They merely got a stay of execution, that is all.

And everyone concerned is the better for it! They have physical shops, online sales, the same products as before. Their Customs isn't seizing stuff. The government is happy - vendors are happy - vapers are happy. That's the way!

The government is happy, yeah right. That is one hell of an assumption if you ask me.

So I do understand why some get the mistaken notion that "regulation" could mean something terrible (i.e. very limited product & ridiculous prices). But rest assured: appropriate regulation does not bring anything like that about. We see that by looking to the UK's living example.

You cannot make that assumtion because they are operating on under Statu Quo.

ECTA will work to bring about that kind of appropriate regulation - and freedom - here in Canada. Just my two cents.

Once again IMO a presumptuous display of unfounded optimism. Sorry that form of conjecture is premature, considering that Canada is forging new territory compared to both the US and UK.

The Brits and their associations both ECITA and ECCA are terribly disturbed with regards to what lies ahead, not only in the UK but as explained, especially at EU levels. Now if these key players are terribly concerned now can you sit here and speculate the outcome.

In closing BTW, both the US and UK are also worried about their flavours and concentrations, So in all honesty please do not sit here patting our heads and tinfoil hats telling us the status quo will be alive and well post regulations, if we ever make it that far in Canada. It ain't about to happen and that is realism, not optimism or pessimism.

I have posted sufficient material in previous months, that even the most ill informed individual can formulate an informed opinion.

 

[Song]

I would love it if what rachel said comes true, but on the realistic side I believe what switched said is more true. Governments derive a huge portion of there revenue in tobacco sales, if you truly think that these agencies and government truly care about our health your in for a rude awakening. They only care about the revenue there getting or not getting in this case and the pubic perception that they are doing there job.
No matter how stupid or idiotic some of us think HC, the FDA or the WHO is. I personally cannot bring myself to believe that there intelligence is so low that they cannot see that vaping carries a order of magnitude less risk then smoking traditional cigarettes does. It really doesn't take a genius to figure that one out.

 

[freakindahouse]

Whilst I respectfully acknowledge everyone's right to their own opinion, I feel bound to point out that as the manager of ECITA, and the one who has done and continues to do the work on the political campaign we are engaged in - both here in the EU with ECITA (EU) Ltd and with ECTA Canada, I am most certainly NOT overly worried about the EU at the moment.

The aforementioned 'founding member' who was 'worried' isn't worried either - he was merely raising a topic for debate in our lively community, which he has achieved. It has also had the 'knock-on' effect of reviving the petition for the EU.

I am not naive, although I have often been accused of it, nor am I stupid. However, I am absolutely certain that we can win this thing if we stick with the program and demonstrate to policy makers that their own existing regulatory laws are more than sufficient to protect public health and allow the ecig industry to remain in place, serving its customers. They would look pretty stupid if they were forced to publicly admit the back-room corruption which we all know is happening.

Happy vaping, one and all.

Cheers,

Katherine

 

[Switched]

Katherine,

Let's not play on semantics here, please. I respect and value your opinion, being concerned of what is cooking in Brussels is smart, it allows folks to be proactive and prepare for what may or may not be coming. What I got out of that particular discussion was that the battle was far from being a walk in the park should the European Council pass legislation. That is all.

 

[rachelcoffe]

Whilst I respectfully acknowledge everyone's right to their own opinion, I feel bound to point out that as the manager of ECITA, and the one who has done and continues to do the work on the political campaign we are engaged in - both here in the EU with ECITA (EU) Ltd and with ECTA Canada, I am most certainly NOT overly worried about the EU at the moment.

The aforementioned 'founding member' who was 'worried' isn't worried either - he was merely raising a topic for debate in our lively community, which he has achieved. It has also had the 'knock-on' effect of reviving the petition for the EU.

I am not naive, although I have often been accused of it, nor am I stupid. However, I am absolutely certain that we can win this thing if we stick with the program and demonstrate to policy makers that their own existing regulatory laws are more than sufficient to protect public health and allow the ecig industry to remain in place, serving its customers. They would look pretty stupid if they were forced to publicly admit the back-room corruption which we all know is happening.

Happy vaping, one and all.

Cheers,

Katherine

1000% agreed, Katherine. Cheers!!

May Santa fill your stocking with goodies this x-mas, hun.

 

[kanadiankat]

Katherine,

Let's not play on semantics here, please. I respect and value your opinion, being concerned of what is cooking in Brussels is smart, it allows folks to be proactive and prepare for what may or may not be coming. What I got out of that particular discussion was that the battle was far from being a walk in the park should the European Council pass legislation. That is all.

I personally believe there is only so much "pro-action" any one person can handle on any one topic.

It is screamingly obvious (to me anyway) that there is some crazy reason why half the governmental authorities have been trying to stop ecigs since they were first invented - and it's unlikely tied to concern for anyone's health.

So yes - there is a battle. But battles are "meant" to be fought.

There is fighting by strategy and a bit of stealth - or by all rushing out into the battle field screaming bloody blue murder with eyes closed and swords forward, hoping to hit something.

The later is terribly ineffective.

 

[Switched]

I personally believe there is only so much "pro-action" any one person can handle on any one topic.

It is screamingly obvious (to me anyway) that there is some crazy reason why half the governmental authorities have been trying to stop ecigs since they were first invented - and it's unlikely tied to concern for anyone's health.

So yes - there is a battle. But battles are "meant" to be fought.

There is fighting by strategy and a bit of stealth - or by all rushing out into the battle field screaming bloody blue murder with eyes closed and swords forward, hoping to hit something.

The later is terribly ineffective.

I believe Dr Eisen describes it best