Paula hon...first, thank you for sharing this news. Second,
fight this BS. You have rights. One must stand up & demand that the rule of law apply, when imbeciles who dislike the law try to pull this kind of
crap.
---
"These products fall within the scope of the Food and Drugs Act-"
Wrong. The (optional) nicotine component of these products is
explicitly exempted within the Food and Drugs Act. Not just maybe exempted...explicitly exempted, which Jay referenced in post #13 of this
thread.
"-and under the Act, require market authorization before they can be imported, advertised or sold. The sale of these products is currently not compliant with the Food and Drugs Act since no electronic smoking products have been granted a market authorization in Canada."
Wrong again. These products, according to Health Canada's
own definitions, are
not drugs or medical products. These products have no therapeutic claims attached to them, as we all know. The most fundamental qualification for regulating a product as a medical thing is that it
has to have some kind of medical promise, i.e. therapeutic claims, attached to it! You can't regulate something as medical without that.
Apart from being common
sense, Health Canada's
own website makes the above distinction regarding the absence of therapeutic claim -
numerous times - in reference to many substances, on a list which also includes nicotine. I quote from the following url:
Listing of Drugs Currently Regulated as New Drugs - Health Canada
- "In the absence of a therapeutic claim, this substance is not considered to be a drug."
- "This substance without therapeutic claims would not be considered a drug. It is only a new drug when it is intended as a therapeutic agent."
- "It is to be regarded as a new drug only when intended as a therapeutic agent."
- "This substance without therapeutic claim is not considered to be a drug."
So vape products do
not require market authorization as pharmaceutical / smoking-cessation products
(which is what HC and DND are trying to say here). And they never, ever,
EVER will require authorization as such. By definition, it's legally impossible for these products to be classified as such, or authorized as such.
"Nicotine is a highly addictive and toxic substance-"
So are about a bazillion other lawful substances...and dosage makes a huge difference. Furthermore this changes
nothing regarding the
legality of nicotine use. Nicotine is
legal. It's legal
in your electronic cigarette. You notice that they never actually say any of this stuff is illegal...because it isn't, lol! There are police who vape for goodness' sakes.
"The DND and CF currently has "authorized" smoking cessation programs and products that personnel can utilize to aid in quitting smoking and all are encouraged to approach Medical Authorities to learn more."
Electronic cigarettes are
not smoking-cessation products. They are
not marketed as smoking-cessation products, nor are they used as such. Electronic cigarettes are a proven-safer
alternative to smoking, with
no other intended purpose than the legal & recreational consumption of nicotine and/or vapour.
So why are they bringing up "authorized" smoking cessation programs? DND clearly misunderstands & thinks that these products fall into a category which they fail to fall into.
"-and the inhalation of propylene glycol is a known irritant."
All this means is that PG is a humectant...i.e. it draws moisture to itself. Therefore, if you inhale vapourized e-juice which contains PG, you will want to drink a glass of water more frequently than if you weren't inhaling the vapourized e-juice.
That's literally it to the whole 'irritant' nonsense: "you could get dehydrated more quickly. Which could conceivably irritate your throat if you're too much of an idiot to not drink some water." Geez. I should also point out unlike smoke from a cigarette, which hangs in the air for quite a long time...
...the vapour from an e-cig dissipates almost immediately. There is
no data to show that bystanders are affected in
any way by exhaled vapour, let alone in a quicker-dehydration capacity.
It's not surprising that HC contradicts its own definitions, ignores the bloody obvious, and present zero data to back anything that it's saying. Science is their enemy...because it shows that these products, when used as intended, are at worst no more harmful than common caffeine consumption to the user
(i.e. not harmful at all, in a practical sense)...and not harmful at all to bystanders.
"Effective immediately, Smokeless Cigarettes are not authorized for use within all office buildings, building workspaces and living accommodations within MARLANT and may only be permitted for use outside in designated Smoking Areas."
This is an unlawful order. It should be fought & flagrantly, conspicuously disobeyed. Vaping is not smoking...and vapers specifically vape to
avoid exposure to smoke. You should not go anywhere
near a designated smoking area when you are vaping. Government agencies have
no legal authority whatsoever to redefine vapour as something that it isn't
(in this case, smoke). If they did...then they could just as easily say
"all coffe consumption must be done in a smoking area." They can't do that, not lawfully I mean.
Smoke is already indisputably defined, legally and scientifically. Vapour is
not smoke. It is
not subject to no-smoking bylaws or provincial or federal no-smoking laws.
---
Now I know for a fact that for regular people, vaping in a public place - like a government office - is perfectly legal and cannot be prohibited. But I'm less certain about government employees, in their capacity as an employee on the clock & not on a break.
It's possible that some kinds of perfectly legal activity can be prohibited for
employees in a public
workspace, i.e. a government workspace. For example, listening to music is legal. But it wouldn't surprise me if a government office could lawfully say
"hey, you're not allowed to listen to music in your cubicle" or some such. You would need to find out more about that, Paula. But:
Even if they're allowed to prohibit certain lawful activities while you're working - like vaping, and that's a big
if - they would nonetheless be obligated to allow you to vape during your
breaks. And you
cannot lawfully be required to vape in a smoking area. Worst case scenario, they would absolutely have to provide you with a vaping area.
---
Paula...we're praying for you. Please fight this BS & stand up for the rule of law! By the way...it's crap like this which reminds me all the more starkly of the need for
ECTA (ectaofcanada.com) to settle these scores with HC once & for all. The day will come, thanks to ECTA, where this facetious frigging nonsense is ended...a distant memory of the way things
used to be.
Happy vaping & vape proud all.
Rachel
I work 8-9 sometimes more without a break, sure I find time to sneak out and have a vape but in the restaurant biz there is not time for half hour lunch breaks or coffee breaks. Works for me though, i would just get bored and not paid for that break time, I would rather just work it and get my day over with quicker. When I was as a carpenters apprentice though the break was welcomed (man do I ever hate wood, never want to see another piece of wood again). This really adds nothing useful to this conversation lol.
