"No!" to McAvan's Hell

[Tubbyengineer]

Right here is the situation to the best of my Knowledge, After the TPD was voted down by EuroParl it was sent to trilogue, the aim being to thrash out an agreement between Council and EuroParl. The trilogue is conducted behind closed doors by a committee from council and EuroParl but importantly for us most of the MEP's dont get much say in the trilogue. So even though a document has been agreed, there is no guarantee that the MEP's will like it when it gets back to them in Plenary session of EuroParl. If MEP's are influenced enough between now and then they can change their minds and vote it down again, if it is voted down again, then it will be taken back to discussion and amended again; if article 18 is the sticking point it is likely that at this point it would be removed in order to save the rest of the TPD.

As for UK law if the TPD passes as it stands the UK can still go over and above the levels set by EU by introducing medical licensing but cannot prevent us from buying from European suppliers.

 

[Tubbyengineer]

The trouble is the lawmakers are often astonishingly ignorant of the subject they're legislating on, if you watch the video of the E-cigs tutorial session for the EU Committee the health information they got was from the WHO and was coloured by their anti tobacco stance, if they had been given objective unbiased advice it may have been very different.

 

[remnant]

I really wouldn't expect Article 18 to be removed from the TPD. It's pretty much the only part of the TPD with any significant real-world effect; there's nothing in the TPD that makes life any more difficult for the tobacco industry. Increasing the proportion of the packet that is devoted to dire warnings? Please.

The TPD is an attempt to stall the accelerating migration of smokers to vaping, pure and simple. The proposed measures all serve to limit the effectiveness of e-cigs in that regard, but they will fail. People will use what works. Ultimately, they will inconvenience some of us, but they can't stop us.

 

[Tubbyengineer]

Actually I dont think the Tobacco companies give a toss, they'll just as happily sell us E-cigs and E-Liquids as Cancer sticks, and with their money and research budgets once they get a grip on the idea I wouldn't be suprised to find them going in to the wholesale manufacture of advanced devices and atomisers, they can fund a chinese factory to produce their kit just as well as Apple or Samsung or any of the other big brand names and certainly more than the likes of Kanger or Svoe Mesto or even Innokin.

The real enemy is Pharma, without sick people or smokers buying NRT they lose money big time, as do the government stooges who depend on them...

 

[Colonelboom]

For me the major laughing point that this whole process is becoming is surrounding their blitz on 'passive smoking dangers'

Ecigs have been proven to remove this and STILL they push on with the ecig users must fall under smoking regulations for the same reasons. The reasons are NOT just, the reasons are NOT fair. If they were trying to push Art.18 on most other grounds based on ill advised science and data then I can see why they want limits but to try and tar ecigs with the same restrictions on smoking when the risk is not the same just shows them to be anti-smoker/ex smoker and NOT anti-smoking as a whole.

 

[clint]

Light bulb conspiracy.

 

[LilyRed]

I think the best chance we would have is if we could somehow change the name of our devices from "e-cigarette" as then we have more chance of getting the devices we are currently using into a different category to tobacco products.If the public can be persuaded that our devices AREN'T McCavans devils devices of sin,then we could possibly persuade the EU Committee to take them out of the TPD as we'd have more weight behind us from those that presently see them as a smoking device.

YES! Thankyou Chegs I've been saying this all along. Remove the word 'cigarette' from the equation and correct anyone you hear using the term to whatever your preferred noun is, PVD, e-vapouriser or whatever, but not 'cigarette'

 

[pabs]

In my journey to educate myself on European Politics and the TPD I found this video (mentioned on another forum), wasn't sure if it had been posted so thought I would put it here.

 

[Mawsley]

YES! Thankyou @Chegs I've been saying this all along. Remove the word 'cigarette' from the equation and correct anyone you hear using the term to whatever your preferred noun is, PVD, e-vapouriser or whatever, but not 'cigarette'

I've been shouting this one for what seems like ages now.

"eCigs" is a toxic word.

No vaping vendor or producer should use it; no website, no forum, no blog. We distance ourselves from the word we move away from the fag implication.

 

[Colonelboom]

I've been shouting this one for what seems like ages now.

"eCigs" is a toxic word.

No vaping vendor or producer should use it; no website, no forum, no blog. We distance ourselves from the word we move away from the fag implication.

Double edged sword with that suggestion though. Firstly people needing to switch will look for electronic cigarettes not other terms, the term ecig is simple for those not in the know to find info for whereas pretty much any terminology will confuse.

Remove the ease of accessibility for people to find zed you lose loads of good vendors who no longer get the trade - ebay hawkers will still use the ecig term and will get that business.

Personally I do not think the term ecig should be blamed for these woes. They are, in fact an electronic cigarette or variant of at least for most people - not just those that have moved to mods.

The problem is with the lawmakers and the way they twist legislation for their own purposes or the way they turn the very people ego use devices against a term just to try and find a bit of distance.