Not a news articale as such.

[anthonyb]

Report finds some retailers ignoring age of sale warnings on e-cigarettes
What they say,
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...ignoring-age-of-sale-warnings-on-e-cigarettes

Rebuffed here.
redheadfullofsteam | coming down upon the opponents of vaping with great vengeance and furious anger

 

[knome]

The solution is simple: e-ciggy retailers should employ such persons who are skilled in recognising the under-aged.

 

[Chegs]

The solution is simple: e-ciggy retailers should employ such persons who are skilled in recognising the under-aged.

The solution is even simpler, employ trading standards folk who actually know the LAW about e-cigs, it isn't actually illegal yet to sell them to minors.

posted by an idiot via [email protected] ohms

 

[Tubbyengineer]

Actually I'm not particularly enamoured of RHFOS's stance on this one, too busy taking the piss to see that Specialist vendors were the third worst culprits. Even if there is no Legal basis to the No Under 18's policy and this research tackled a problem that in purely legal terms doesn't exist, we all agree that sales to under 18's give vaping a bad image, therefore specialist e-cig vendors should have been the best in this research, not the third worst.

 

[knome]

... Specialist vendors were the third worst culprits.

Independent Pharmacies were second. Out of 227 "sales", 138 were of disposable e-cigs. A crap survey proving nothing. I'm all for a no under 18 rule but let's not forget under 18's still smoke and drink alcohol.

 

[Diche]

The reasoning behind the survey wasn't too daft, they wanted an assessment of the situation pre regulation to see what the current situation is and how to effectively distribute funds in terms of educating the retailers in the run up to and early stages of legislation.

The most interesting aspect I thought was their reference to age restriction labelling, in particular they referred to the warning 'keep out of reach of children' as a type of age restriction labelling on e-juice. Now I work in a shop and all of our carrier bags have a keep out of reach of children warning on them, yet I have no recollection of being told to refuse to permit someone under the age of 18 a bag with their shopping

 

[Diablo]

Now I work in a shop and all of our carrier bags have a keep out of reach of children warning on them, yet I have no recollection of being told to refuse to permit someone under the age of 18 a bag with their shopping

From a truly annoying and general lack of trust in anything legal viewpoint. I can imagine if anything happened after giving a snotball a bag, somebody would sue, and the very fact the bags are marked keep out of reach of children would be used against you. The fact that the norm is them carrying goods in such a bag would be ignored and the full weight of the ridiculous lack of common sense legal system would fall on you like a ton of bricks.

The world is full of the 'first person to be hit with a stupid situation' that then becomes a rule for all that are left.

 

[anthonyb]

This is the section of the articles that caught my eye. And remember you can prescribe NRT to 12 and above.

So… hold on, I really need to get this straight. A tiny number of under 18s claimed to use e-cigarettes monthly, and the greatest number of those are already smokers. So PHE and TSI chose a random sample of their contemporaries to go out and produce evidence that in no way relates to the real world which they will then use to legally deny these under 18 smokers access to a harm reduced alternative to tobacco.

 

[Tubbyengineer]

Did no-one read what I wrote?

See,this was my point, everybody is so busy pointing out how shit the research is or how pointless it is or How under 18's smoke and drink -

THATS NOT MY FRIGGIN' POINT!
​

My point is that the one group who should be trying hardest, checking the most ages, the one group with the most to lose - Specialist e-cig retailers - or Vape shops as we would call them are the third worst! They should be the best, if we are supposed to be setting an example it should be a good one...

 

[anthonyb]

It does not actually specify which type of "Specialist E-cigarette supplier". Be it a proper vape shop like the type we would use eg. safercigs or moorevape, or one of those you find in shopping centre's. Those 40 purchases that where made, may well have all come from those e-cigs stalls you find in shopping centre's. The 29 refusals, may have been all the vape shops that we would use.

But, shouldn't those smokers that are under 18 (and not supposed to be smoking anyway) also be allowed to use a safer alternative.
Or to put it the other way. How much of a public health gain would it be, if you could get all age groups off the tobacco ciggies.
And would it not make more sense to stamp out under age tobacco sales, so you didn't have underage smokers in the first place.