It is not going to be illegal, it will be regulated and can only be purchased by government controlled and approved suppliers.
I wonder if atomizers etc. will also be controlled...Really I don't see them opening up all packages that come from abroad, so I am not to worried as an end consumer, it is the suppliers that will feel it and also to bring it to market to the general public will become a different story.
The language used is the same as in many other places, EM. The 'ban' part is identical to that used in the UK, which was temporarily defeated: they are saying that, (a) as nicotine is a drug with a pharmacological effect, the equipment described (e-cigarette) is a device to deliver a drug with a significant pharmacological effect and thus requires a pharmaceutical license; and (b) that this equipment is being sold to treat a disease, therefore it is a drug. Point (b) refers to that fact that e-cigarettes are either sold as or believed by buyers to be a method to quit smoking (the 'disease' is the addiction).
In practice this is a ban, because it takes several years and a lot of money to get a license for ONE product. This is untested, as yet, but will probably mean ONE e-cig model and ONE flavor of e-liquid. Any variation of equipment or liquid (of any type including the base material or the flavor) will require another license.
In the UK we have found that the minimum time and cost for a license is 3 years and £300,000. That's for ONE license. After that you can sell your registered mini + 1 flavor. You can probably see the issue here.
It's a ban.
On the other hand it may be challenged to the extent they are forced to allow the sales of equipment and liquids that do not include nicotine (this is the 'Canada solution'). Currently in the UK there is sufficient money to challenge this type of ban in court, probably successfully. Both premises the ban is based on have weaknesses that can be challenged - if you have the money to go to law.
I like the way they did this the day before Christmas, so that it was impossible to challenge the ban immediately, and with the slowest week of the year in the courts coming up. This timing was obviously deliberate, to cause the maximum possible inconvenience. No one would do it like this unless they deliberately wished to make it as difficult as possible, and you can see by this factor alone that public health is not the issue here.