How many seconds does the vapour evaporate ?
- Thread starter hammiepie
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
1) It evaporates or vaporizes the minute u press the button. Therefore it becomes vapor so that you can inhale.
Now, if you mean to ask "how long does it take for the vapor to dissipate", that would depend on where you are. Eg, in the toilet, in an air conditioned room or locked inside the back of the trunk of a car.
2) There are people who mix up non flavored juices. These would not have much smell in the vapor.
3) I would think yes. If you're concerned about nicotine, since there is no smoke connected to these devices. So pls stop associating smoke with ecig. It's just bad association. I do believe that the vapor blown out still contains some nicotine and the person sharing the same air nearby would inevitably inhale it. Though nicotine is not harmful in that manner. Maybe someone else with better knowledge on this could enlighten us?
Last edited:
i wonder if we would get any fines if the items we order gets confiscated or would they just confiscate the item only.
Prohibition on imitation tobacco products
In Singapore, electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are currently prohibited under Secion 16 (1) of the Tobacco (Control of Advertisements and Sale) Act, which is enforced by the HXX (HXX). This legislation prohibits the importation, distribution, sale or offer for sale of any confectionery or other food product or any toy or other article that is designed to resemble a tobacco product or the packaging of which is designed to resemble the packaging commonly associated with tobacco products. HXX takes a serious view on any person who contravenes the law. Those guilty of the offence are liable to a fine of up to $5, 000 upon conviction.
In Singapore, electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are currently prohibited under Secion 16 (1) of the Tobacco (Control of Advertisements and Sale) Act, which is enforced by the HXX (HXX). This legislation prohibits the importation, distribution, sale or offer for sale of any confectionery or other food product or any toy or other article that is designed to resemble a tobacco product or the packaging of which is designed to resemble the packaging commonly associated with tobacco products. HXX takes a serious view on any person who contravenes the law. Those guilty of the offence are liable to a fine of up to $5, 000 upon conviction.
Last edited:
For those unsure of the law, Madhero has been nice to provide it above.
Further discussion of this is sensitive. I'd suggest all who are unclear to go through this forum as where you are now, someone has already been there.
Further discussion of this is sensitive. I'd suggest all who are unclear to go through this forum as where you are now, someone has already been there.
ok... for those who are not in the clear whether buying local is an offence.
If you are caught in the streets and referred to HXX, they are probably gonna ask you where u got it. If you say u buy locally, they will ask u to show some form of transaction proof. but there're only 2 ways you can get it either u import to buy locally. so chances are you'll be ratting on your supplier cos the impending $5k fine is pretty hard to swallow.
Unless u're prepared to shell out tens of thousands in lawyer's fee to take it all the way to the court of appeal, I suggest you better stay under the radar.
Of course, if you have the resources, go ahead and build your own.
If you are caught in the streets and referred to HXX, they are probably gonna ask you where u got it. If you say u buy locally, they will ask u to show some form of transaction proof. but there're only 2 ways you can get it either u import to buy locally. so chances are you'll be ratting on your supplier cos the impending $5k fine is pretty hard to swallow.
Unless u're prepared to shell out tens of thousands in lawyer's fee to take it all the way to the court of appeal, I suggest you better stay under the radar.
Of course, if you have the resources, go ahead and build your own.
I was wondering for awhile since i saw this quite sometimes ago..about this part listed "electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are currently prohibited under Secion 16 (1) of the Tobacco (Control of Advertisements and Sale) Act, which is enforced by the HXX (HXX)."
Secion 16 (1) of the Tobacco (Control of Advertisements and Sale) Act.
-->Question to the above<--
In which way does item "Tobacco" relate to item electronic cigarettes?
Fruit for though.....understand deeper on it
It is true that they are not related at all, considering that an E-cigarette has nothing that resembles a cigarette, doesn't contain tabacco, has no paper, has no filter, has nothing to filter, has no special ink label, and produces nothing but vapor.
But try argue that to the person who confiscates them parcels for a living, correctly, that it is not an E-cigarette, and you will be certain to get the same dirty look from him/her as you do get from an auntie who passes you by, and cover her nose when you blow out the vapor gently out of her way.
They are just about as mis-informed as anyone on the streets.
Of course, if you are a lawyer who's well seasoned in the fields of questioning and rebutting like: "but mine is not an e-cigarette! It's a Personal Vaporizer!" Or: "It's a Personal Electronic Nicotine Inhalation System!!" in court, or whatsoever.
But the ordinary man on the street ain't capable of doing that.
Sent from my slipped disc using MRI.
n we all know it's no use arguing wif yr gahmen.
he say it is so it is.
he value a bloody 3rm resale flat at 400k u oso lan lan open wallet.
he say chewing gum more worth banning than ciggies so u stop chewing gum n smoke yrself to death.
he make yr buy-car-paper go up to 100k u still lan lan must buy.
I rest my case.. beginning to sound abit political.. =P
he say it is so it is.
he value a bloody 3rm resale flat at 400k u oso lan lan open wallet.
he say chewing gum more worth banning than ciggies so u stop chewing gum n smoke yrself to death.
he make yr buy-car-paper go up to 100k u still lan lan must buy.
I rest my case.. beginning to sound abit political.. =P
the WHO has officially termed PVs as Electronic Nicotine Delivery System.
To fully understand the laws prohibiting PVs in Singapore, you have to read the Tobacco act, Poisons Act & Smoking in Public Places Act. You'll find that there are more laws prohibiting PVs or "Imitation Tobacco Products."
Then again, you can engage a lawyer and argue in the Court but you would need to have deep pockets and a ballsy enough lawyer to take on the agency.
To fully understand the laws prohibiting PVs in Singapore, you have to read the Tobacco act, Poisons Act & Smoking in Public Places Act. You'll find that there are more laws prohibiting PVs or "Imitation Tobacco Products."
Then again, you can engage a lawyer and argue in the Court but you would need to have deep pockets and a ballsy enough lawyer to take on the agency.
Regards to your "Imitation Tobacco Products." meaning anything that emit smoke will consider as a tobacco product..
In that case they should shut down all the disco tec cos of the SMOKE MACHINE use nightly for lighting effect since 19XX..
My point is simple ...why isnt there anyone stand up and reserve a right for smokers/vapers... we pay tons of TAX as premium for analogs and yet "the WHO" keep imposing unreasonable regulations and restricted better alternative to help smokers due to profit issue as they pocket our premium by the sec as we speak...I personally think that this is a wrong practice and no one is stopping them for a proper reason.
Besides nicotine that is governed by the Poisons Act. It is the act of inhaling the "smoke" that makes it "resembling a tobacco product".
Last edited:
Not English quite ... I generally breeze over your posts.
Haven't figured out whether this is 'Cool Talk', some sort net-code shorthand, or the result of low-budget education.
hahahahahaha.. it's ironic to see yr rather impolite post talking about 'low-budget education' since I happened to have graduated from the university of ottawa with honors in business management in 2001 - check e alumni if y're interested in such things - tho I'm really not sure if that is a prestigious uni in canada or really a low-budget uni.
but I'm amused. someone else may be offended tho.
anyway, this is sgvapers, so I'm speaking the casual form of english so very well understood by locals n i'm using local terms as well..
my apologies if u do not understand.. maybe u should go to Japan/Korea/China n laugh at their accent too - if y've ever travelled out of whichever area y're from.
I just wanna say: do not be so quick to judge what y're not familiar with. your world is only as big as how much u open yr mind.
Big big world outside
Sent from the NOOB in the small small world. Who knows nothing about pvs....
Sent from the NOOB in the small small world. Who knows nothing about pvs....
That's much better.
Nothing to do with accent, nor does Japan/Korea/China have anything to do with your illegible post.
In view of the fact you mentioned something about local-talk, I will then presume you have answered my question in that it's some sort of net-code shorthand, since I have never seen it anywhere before. If you want to be broadly understood, be clear, as you can't expect others to be familiar with whatever local talk or written "in-house" lingo you are talking about.
It would depend on what is the purpose of the device that is built and how it is marketed during the approval-to-sell phase. Smoke machines are built for generating smoke whereas PVs are used for.... you know.
The last I remember there are no provisions for class action lawsuits in Singapore. Remember the HG by-election case? Mdm Vellama had to cough out $20k(IIRC) to the Courts just to file the paperwork required for the appeal and this amount does not include Court expenses, lawyer fees as the case was taken up pro-Bono by lawyer M Ravi.
Apply this to the case of PVs, it would easily set anyone back by $50k just so that this case can see the light of the Courts. And there is no guarantee that it will be ruled in our favor.
The funny thing is, WHO, FDA and all similar agencies around the world are harping on the fact that ecigs have not been proven as a smoking cessation method. But they fail to realize, intentional or not, that ecigs actually do play a part on Tobacco Harm Reduction.
To the powers that be, there is only smoke or don't smoke. There is no middle ground that is hard to regulate and police.
- Status
Similar threads
