I love getting stuff in the mail too and get excited and all out of sorts when I can't get the package opened fast enough.
Ummm.. are we addicted?
- Status
I love getting stuff in the mail too and get excited and all out of sorts when I can't get the package opened fast enough.
Ummm.. are we addicted?
I fully agree. The sad thing is that so many Canadians seem to bend over and take it. Even here on this board there are some with a "oh well, can't do anything" attitude. It can be so disheartening.
That's what I thought too. But I did learn a few things on what happened when Rachel and I were conversing awhile back, and well, I am not surprised we are in the same ol situation. I think she got a little too ahead of herself in this game.
Originally Posted by rachelcoffe
Suffice to say, with a few exceptions...I'm pretty well fed up with most of our Canadian industry now, and will be adjusting my purchases & recommendations accordingly, ASAP. If our vendors want to stick their heads in the sand, to blazes with them.
Suffice to say, with a few exceptions...I'm pretty well fed up with most of our Canadian industry now, and will be adjusting my purchases & recommendations accordingly, ASAP. If our vendors want to stick their heads in the sand, to blazes with them.
Is that because the Canadian suppliers did not want to sign up for ECITA? Seemed pretty fishy to me, the whole ECITA thing. Like really, 10 grand? and you aren't even guaranteed anything? And 1000 buckeroos just to be a member for what exactly? To say hey! I am a member of ECITA, give me a hero cookie!
I also get a vicarious thrill when Canada Customs takes the customs form at face value and pushes it through at record speed.
I know comprehensive tests to verify the safety of e-cigarettes once and for all to everyone's satisfaction is expensive. Health Canada doesn't want to fund them and and I don't know who will.
Based on the FDA's 'big study', you'd think they might be bending over backwards to not rock the boat for Big tobacco. You gotta wonder how much of that is a factor here in Canada, too.
And then there's just the general attitude towards saving us from ourselves when it comes to drug policy. I have no idea how to change that mindset. Please, just let go a little, eh?
Last edited:
Regarding Canadian Suppliers. So far, from what I can tell is they're mostly really small businesses. First clue: they can't all process credit cards directly. Banks don't like handing out merchant accounts without some guarantees of sales volumes. Second clue: there's one guy that handles all issues and requests. They're likely not in much of a position to stir up the pot. I would imagine a lot of them might feel the need to fly under the radar for various reasons.
ECITA is the British trade association which have absolutely no jurisdiction in Canada.
This article Have scientists finally created a 'safe' cigarette? | Mail Online show some pretty clear time lines which also correspond with MHRA's position to delay their final decision until Apr 2013. Now if folks still think no collusion exists, go back and bury your heads once again...
The British are accepting this as a good initiative and on the surface it is. Hey an safer mean to get our nicotine. Unfortunately we need to read between the lines.
and... http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2458-11-580.pdf
<<The term "tobacco endgame" is code word for "tobacco prohibition", which would just create black markets for tobacco products. The authors of this article are several tobacco prohibitionists from New Zealand, and their extremist proposals should not be misconstrued as likely to occur. >>
<<A few years ago, I could and would have believed that. The problem is we have a on going black market for Cigarettes and tobacco in this country thanks to the high taxes and no one in government want to admit this or cares.
Then there is the small matter of going from non-smoking section/smoking sections to the CURB. The anti-smoking, anti-nicotine people have proved time after time there "no safe level of Anti tobacco" movement. Since e-cigarettes came on the scene they are now against all nicotine use but Nicotine Replacement Therapy Products which is a multi billion dollar product.
Tobacco is the only legal product ever criminalized and still legal to purchase and use. There is something wrong with that especially as all the governments are collecting billions of dollar from Tobacco Taxes and punishing the persons paying the tax.
I can't be fooled into believing they are not coming for my e-cigarette and the nicotine I use in it. They are coming and they will push till they finish the Tobacco Endgame in every country on earth, WHO is making sure of this, or they are stopped. >>
<<The term "tobacco endgame" is code word for "tobacco prohibition", which would just create black markets for tobacco products. The authors of this article are several tobacco prohibitionists from New Zealand, and their extremist proposals should not be misconstrued as likely to occur. >>
<<A few years ago, I could and would have believed that. The problem is we have a on going black market for Cigarettes and tobacco in this country thanks to the high taxes and no one in government want to admit this or cares.
Then there is the small matter of going from non-smoking section/smoking sections to the CURB. The anti-smoking, anti-nicotine people have proved time after time there "no safe level of Anti tobacco" movement. Since e-cigarettes came on the scene they are now against all nicotine use but Nicotine Replacement Therapy Products which is a multi billion dollar product.
Tobacco is the only legal product ever criminalized and still legal to purchase and use. There is something wrong with that especially as all the governments are collecting billions of dollar from Tobacco Taxes and punishing the persons paying the tax.
I can't be fooled into believing they are not coming for my e-cigarette and the nicotine I use in it. They are coming and they will push till they finish the Tobacco Endgame in every country on earth, WHO is making sure of this, or they are stopped. >>
Yes indeed Kams Cats, but HC will invoke their right under Bill C-36 at some point, and not necessarily at e-cig businesses as it is pointed at natural health products as well, and Canadians will suddenly find out what's been slipped under their noses - depending on whether media outlets will carry the (future) story.
Bill C-36 stems from Codex Alimentarius which is / was a WHO directive. Instead of slamming our heads against the wall it might prove prudent to find out why the WHO has such a control over the world in general. BTW we the people
Last edited:
Bill C-36 stems from Codex Alimentarius which is / was a WHO directive. Instead of slamming our heads against the wall it might prove prudent to find out why the WHO has such a control over the world in general. BTW we the peoplevoted them inempowered them
That Codex is a scary affront to general populations and with benefits to the few.
I wasn't aware that the civil lawsuit that Rachelle was involved in required direct involvment of Canadian suppliers. It seemed to me it was a class action of the general vaper community vs HC but not so. Is there not a line of legal pursuit from the vantage of end user vapers?
At this point I wouldn't have a clue on how not to "stick my head in the sand" or is this directed at the suppliers? To get a rallying of many vapers doesn't look too easy to do given we are spead so thin geographically. I think HC has already won in the sense of throwing a wet blanket over e-cigarettes and cautioning the public against their use with the resulting low numbers of vapers and resources to fight HC. If HC did embrace e-cigs, in theory, and got behind something like smokestik and funded national ads to help smokers quit, there would be 100 times as many vapers. But HC knows that would happen if they endorsed the use of, so, they view the current state of e-cigarette use and low vaper numbers as a win.
How do we get out of this gizmo?
HC hasn't won anything. Lawsuits are sometimes not the best way foreward - especially against gov regulations. You conquer one regulation and the same body can put up another - taking everyone back to square one.
The head of the Health Authorities in every country are politicians - with a lot of power. That's never an easy mix and never a good one. It makes for considerable corruption.
In the US law makers and politicians are bound by their constitution - so legal suits can move ecigs foreward. In Canada, our politicians can make laws that go against our bill of rights - but we have no cause to fight that unless our personal rights are violated directly (not indirectly or generally - it has to be personal).
I don't think hc will ever capitulate on their stand against ecigs. Even if the entire industry was completely normalized and free. At best, they would remove their statements against the products (on their website) and just ignore everyone. They will never be a friend to vapers - unless or until we have a health minister who actually knows enough to care about the subject and get directly involved.
It's easier for HC to simply adopt and adapt anything that WHO dictates - and rely on that. Doesn't take any thinking at all. It's like the point of no resistance. Why do more? It wouldn't help anyone's political career and it would require some actual work (like reading research or accepting what's already been studied).
How do we get out of this gizmo? (IMHO) - MP's are quite different. They work for you. Doesn't matter if you voted for your MP or not - they are YOUR MP. Their job is on the line every 4 years. Fill their ears and eyes. The more people writing and calling their MP's the faster parliament will begin to see the benefit of normalizing ecigs. HC doesn't have to like it or even agree - but they don't call all the shots.
The health industry took this approach when C36 was first introduced as C6 - and they succeeded in having their industry excepted from C36 when it was written. The fight was not taken to the doors of hc - that would have been futile. It was taken to MP's and to the Senate and to the press and to youtube and to facebook and to local communities and to stores and to the public. That's what seems to work here.
ECITA is a UK (England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales) Association - it's not open for people outside of that country to join.
That said - it's a pretty amazing association of vendors. They single-handed over-turned their own health authority's will to crush the ecig industry (and they did it using some of the research that was conducted right here in Canada). Ecigs are far more normalized in the UK than in the US.
Yes, over the past few months alot of ideas have been introduced on the forums - a lot of talk generated. Some of it develops into a way forward - some doesn't. But isn't it good that there is talk? Initiative? Ideas? Petitions? ...better than doing nothing.
Yep. What he said. Only if your MP is Stephen Harper, what then?
ehh... move.
It is pretty amazing indeed, but unfortunately for Canada, it isn't going to help here, and I think what Rachel was so upset about is that the suppliers were not going to join it. That was her plight, to get the suppliers to join so we could then go about the same way the UK did. But I don't understand why she was so upset with the suppliers? If it was indeed the ecita thing, and them not wanting to join, I don't see why she would be so upset about it. And yes, talking about it and having initiative are great, but no reason to be upset when the suppliers don't want to move forward in somthing that was being handed down to them. But I guess, to each their own.
The thing that must be remembered IMO is that the only common denominator is Electronic Cigarettes, all 3 countries have a different set of rules and law. that are unique to that country and in this particular case Britain is no longer a Sovereign country and as such falls under the jurisdiction of the European Union. Albeit, some of these initiatives are worthy of mention in forging our case, it is not as cut and dry as most would think. The battle in the UK has been going on for quite some time in comparison to the US and us, and although an all out ban has been shelved until the Spring of '13, the battle in Britain is far from over from what I gather.
http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2458-11-580.pdf this is just another document similar to one I have previously seen published by the WHO. The directives are quite clear for the future.
That being said, albeit draconian measures that is the intent. Whether e-cigs are governed as a tobacco product (US) or classified as a medicine (UK) and banned here, vaping as we know it will not form part of or future.
Have scientists finally created a 'safe' cigarette? | Mail Online The Brits embrace this initiative from BAT at least the reports I have received, which is a good thing on the surface. it is an alternative. Yes! at the same time it will be a controlled and regulated alternative. BAT intends to have full market authorization by Spring 2012. allowing MHRA to have an alternative not dissimilar to the FDA who now can regulate e-cigs as a tobacco product. MHRA will render a decision in the Spring of 2013. Since there is 4 big players in the game (BP, BT, Health and government) no decision will be rendered that will affect either party.
ECITA was successful in acquiring a stay on the decision because e-cigs are a consumer product, and thus should be regulated by Trade Standards not medical standards. Unfortunately, it leaves the Big 4 out of the picture and that is not about to happen. The Brits have embraced their first victory and have started the consumer association ECCA in order to have nicotine legislated as a recreational substitute to cigarettes, whilst it MHRA wants to classify it as a medicine.
Wrt us, HC has down right banned the use "with nicotine" in Canada, that in itself is a totally different ball game. The Brits and American were fighting an all points ban, while us, we are trying to lift the ban. Government factions willing their is a possibility to have the laws changed, there is always a possibility just like when prohibition was lifted in the States (because it was a cash cow). IMMHO I don't see things changing any time soon, unless the cash cow quits giving powdered milk.
http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2458-11-580.pdf this is just another document similar to one I have previously seen published by the WHO. The directives are quite clear for the future.
That being said, albeit draconian measures that is the intent. Whether e-cigs are governed as a tobacco product (US) or classified as a medicine (UK) and banned here, vaping as we know it will not form part of or future.
Have scientists finally created a 'safe' cigarette? | Mail Online The Brits embrace this initiative from BAT at least the reports I have received, which is a good thing on the surface. it is an alternative. Yes! at the same time it will be a controlled and regulated alternative. BAT intends to have full market authorization by Spring 2012. allowing MHRA to have an alternative not dissimilar to the FDA who now can regulate e-cigs as a tobacco product. MHRA will render a decision in the Spring of 2013. Since there is 4 big players in the game (BP, BT, Health and government) no decision will be rendered that will affect either party.
ECITA was successful in acquiring a stay on the decision because e-cigs are a consumer product, and thus should be regulated by Trade Standards not medical standards. Unfortunately, it leaves the Big 4 out of the picture and that is not about to happen. The Brits have embraced their first victory and have started the consumer association ECCA in order to have nicotine legislated as a recreational substitute to cigarettes, whilst it MHRA wants to classify it as a medicine.
Wrt us, HC has down right banned the use "with nicotine" in Canada, that in itself is a totally different ball game. The Brits and American were fighting an all points ban, while us, we are trying to lift the ban. Government factions willing their is a possibility to have the laws changed, there is always a possibility just like when prohibition was lifted in the States (because it was a cash cow). IMMHO I don't see things changing any time soon, unless the cash cow quits giving powdered milk.
- Status
