Why ban e-cigarettes?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Kate

Moved On
Jun 26, 2008
7,191
47
UK
The way I see it is that an implied claim is the same as a blatant claim when you are dealing with uneducated consumers. That is how advertising and marketing law in the UK sees it too.

Putting WHO in the manual and claiming to be NRT joins the two, makes it seem that there is regulation and it's approved.

Arguing semantics doesn't change the intent either and that's what is important in the eyes of the law. The WHO name was used without approval to connect it with a practice they do not endorse.

EDIT
When I say 'uneducated consumers' I really mean uninformed or credulous.
 
Last edited:

Myk

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Jan 1, 2009
4,889
10,658
IL, USA
The way I see it is that an implied claim is the same as a blatant claim when you are dealing with uneducated consumers. That is how advertising and marketing law in the UK sees it too.

Putting WHO in the manual and claiming to be NRT joins the two, makes it seem that there is regulation and it's approved.

Arguing semantics doesn't change the intent either and that's what is important in the eyes of the law. The WHO name was used without approval to connect it with a practice they do not endorse.

EDIT
When I say 'uneducated consumers' I really mean uninformed or credulous.

That's the problem with dealing across borders. It's compounded by WHO not having borders.
Here the law is all about semantics.
 

Kate

Moved On
Jun 26, 2008
7,191
47
UK
Now there is no authorized committee to prove that the e-cigarette is really harmless to environment and others.

No, not yet but Ruyan have been paying for some testing to be carried out and the results for their formula look very good indeed. Other formulas will have to have their own tests I suppose.

Welcome to the forum Eva :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread