No indoor vaping ban planned for England, despite the WHO call - The Guardian

[Huggett]

E-cigarettes: no indoor smoking ban planned in England despite WHO call | Society | The Guardian

Slightly skimmed it, looked couldn't find it posted which is strange. Hope I haven't shot myself in the foot, it looks as if WHO's attack on Vaping has backfired more positive things are coming to light

 

[kernowmike]

WHO have no authority to investigate ecigs as NO TOBACCO is involved in the product !!!!

so IMHO the WHO should BUTT OUT and FAG OFF

 

[steffijade]

Interesting read.

I found this paragraph particularly interesting :

The DH said it was already tightening regulation, just as the WHO wanted. For example, it is outlawing the sale of e-cigarettes to under-18s by 2016 and introducing the European tobacco products directive in the same year. It will set a legal limit on the amount of nicotine such products can contain, except for those which are classified as medicines that might help smokers who want to quit the habit. These are already regulated by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).

Seems to confirm the theory of a 2 tier system of vaping regulation, where the MHRA will sell licenses to those that can afford them (big pharma basically) and let them circumvent the TPD, whilst the rest of the industry will be bound by it and if my own personal theory is correct, be subject to a higher level of taxation (possibly at a level somewhere between base VAT and tobacco taxation levels) on their products than their big pharma counterparts.

Of course when thinking about this, it's worthwhile to consider that the MHRA is funded by big pharma.

ASH is likewise funded by big pharma, which is probably why their stance on vaping has softened but with the proviso that they only recommend licensed products (big pharma products).

Nice to see that common sense could be prevailing on the potential 'dangers' of 'passive vapour' but there is still plenty of vested interest manipulation by big pharma going on in the background to try and gain a significant market advantage (and thus protect their profits).

*scurries off to check stash of tin foil.. yep, enough left for a good few hats yet*

The one potential brighter note for me is that there is legal precedence to prevent classifying vaping products as medicines.. it would be kind of funny if big pharma are spending a lot of cash manipulating the future regulatory process behind the scenes and then go on to spend millions buying licenses, only to have their presumed medical status laughed out of court and then end up subject to the very same regulations that they lobbied for to try and gain advantage in the first place.

If the TPD is implemented fully in the UK, nic base is likely to be subject to the same 20mg limit as standalone eliquids (which would probably equate to am 18mg limit at the consumer end to allow for variance). So if you're a home brewer, it would probably be wise to stock up on some decent strength nic base and make room in your freezer before 2016 when the 3 ring circus begins.

 

[cheersm8]

IMO the whole future of vaping will be determined by TWATS. Twats from both within and outside of the vaping community.
And? What's with that lily livered statement about outlawing the sale of e-cigs to under 18's BY 2016???? That's another two years for the anti's to build up on ammo via the kiddie argument.!! Why not outlaw the sale to under 18's RIGHT NOW?!!
It is a crying shame that we, as vapers, have ever gotten ourselves dragged into the unwinnable health debate, which, in afterthought, we need never have got dragged into if we didn't get our hackles raised and go all defensive with our meaningless replies of "this is less harmful than that". If something is harmful, it becomes irrelevant as to whether that something is more, or less, harmful than something else.
Sadly, and irreversible now, vaping has become a victim of it's own progress, had it remained as simple as 'an alternative to smoking tobacco', I reckon all this never ending stream of news, debate, and legislative proposals would have remained where they were created, which is, in the dark and up the arses of those that started making all of the unnecessary noises in the first place.
As my granny always said, still tongue, wise head.

 

[Fubar1977]

The legal circus has already begun with Totally Wicked obtaining permission to bring a legal challenge against article 20 which, I believe will start sometime in October.

My personal stance on the "No under 18`s" argument is that it is totally unfounded and has no sensible health basis whatsoever.
The only reason to prohibit the sale to under 18`s is in order to, yet again, bring e-cigarette and vaping products into line with combustible Tobacco products, there is no other reason to do it.
I would support an age restriction of 15 - 16 but there is no reasonable health argument for preventing people from buying vaping products below the age of 18.

There is no problem with supplying NRT products, quite legally, to children as young as 12 so, clearly, there is no issue with supplying Nicotine to young people as far as the Government are concerned.

@cheersm8

I almost totally disagree with you there.
The whole point is that vaping is harm reduction, not harm elimination. By your rationale anything and everything with even the slightest potential for harm should be tightly regulated?
The point is that, although not harmless, vaping is orders of magnitude safer than smoking lit Tobacco products so why on earth should it be regulated in the same way?
It is incredibly relevant whether something is more, or less harmful than something else, in fact that is the whole point.

The argument for a ban on smoking indoors hinged totally on the potential risks caused by passive smoking.
There is no solid evidence whatsoever that vaping causes any health issues to bystanders whatsoever.
Once we are in a position where anything with even the potential to cause slight issues is automatically subject to stringent regulation then we have a big problem.

By this argument you would need much tighter controls on the sale of household bleach for example.

The choice as to whether to allow vaping on their premises or not needs to remain in the hands of the owner of the business and not be mandated by Government.