Parliament Petition: Don’t ban flavoured e-liquids for e-cigarettes

[vapesmarter]

Correct @zouzounaki

Here are some of the reasons off the top of my head why the petition isnt doing well

They don’t know about it

There mate will sort them out

It’s as bad as fags anyway

They don’t vote

Won’t get involved as they tried it before

Who is rishi

Can’t be arsed

What have the romans ever done for us

It’s over anyhow

Got a huge freezer

Banana

 

[dansus]

Where can i find unicorn tit fluff? Asking for a friend..

 

[Rickster]

maybe they know it’s pointless and futile and don’t have the time to waste.

Cos MP's will toe the party line, there is cross party support for tax n further restrictions, no amount of letters, emails, petition sigs, stats, fkin graphs, pie charts or bananas will make a blind bit of difference......take the dry shafting like a man...then cry for a little while...then once you can walk again get creative

 

[Toby iVapour]

Cos MP's will toe the party line, there is cross party support for tax n further restrictions, no amount of letters, emails, petition sigs, stats, fkin graphs, pie charts or bananas will make a blind bit of difference......take the dry shafting like a man...then cry for a little while...then once you can walk again get creative

That does seem to be the case (in respect that vaping is going to take at least some kind of hammering).

But if we take the 2 worst aspects, flavour restrictions and tax, then the flavour restrictions, it depends how bad it is, and what relatively easily workarounds can be done...

For the tax, maybe they'll see some sense...
For example, if they are determined to put some extra tax on vapes, an increase in the VAT rate for vaping products would be loads easier to implement (for all concerned: manufacturers, retailers, and the tax man), and be more of a level playing field (penalty the same whatever nic strength used).

 

[zouzounaki]

(penalty the same whatever nic strength used)

i’m not sure i agree this is right. for example, whisky is stronger than beer, and is therefore proportionately more expensive.

 

[Toby iVapour]

i’m not sure i agree this is right. for example, whisky is stronger than beer, and is therefore proportionately more expensive.

Alcohol is bad for you (in excess), nicotine is not.

Why should higher strength users be penalised more?

From the NNA, they sum it up well -

The Chancellor’s vape tax is wrong in principle and childlike in application

The New Nicotine Alliance (UK), a registered Charitable Organisation #1160481, is concerned with improving public health, through a greater understanding of “ne

nnalliance.org

The consultation document claims that one purpose of the tax is to “encourage consumers to choose lower strength or nicotine-free vaping products over higher strength ones due to the harms from nicotine addiction.”

This is so absurd as to be laughable. People using lower strengths use higher volumes to take in the nicotine they want. Higher volumes mean more energy and potentially more exposure to contaminants and thermal decomposition products. The government’s infantile understanding of the policy area and obsession with nicotine (which is not the harmful element of combustible tobacco use) is driving consumers to increase potential harm. Those drafting the documents could have avoided such a schoolboy error by Googling “nicotine titration” because it is clear they have never heard of it.

 

[Netvaper]

For the tax, maybe they'll see some sense...
For example, if they are determined to put some extra tax on vapes, an increase in the VAT rate for vaping products would be loads easier to implement (for all concerned: manufacturers, retailers, and the tax man), and be more of a level playing field (penalty the same whatever nic strength used).

For them the sense is tax revenue and a duty based on nicotine strength allows it to be increased more easily than VAT just like booze and fags plus it fits with the anti-nicotine zealots such as the WHO.

 

[Toby iVapour]

For them the sense is tax revenue and a duty based on nicotine strength allows it to be increased more easily than VAT just like booze and fags plus it fits with the anti-nicotine zealots such as the WHO.

VAT rates (for certain products) can just as easily be increased or decreased like any other tax rate.

But yes, the government (and the WHO) seem hell bent on making out nicotine to be the enemy...

 

[zouzounaki]

Alcohol is bad for you (in excess), nicotine is not.

Why should higher strength users be penalised more?

From the NNA, they sum it up well -

The Chancellor’s vape tax is wrong in principle and childlike in application

The New Nicotine Alliance (UK), a registered Charitable Organisation #1160481, is concerned with improving public health, through a greater understanding of “ne

nnalliance.org

from a tax point of view maybe not. but from a simple cost point of view it only makes sense. it costs a manufacturer more in raw materials to make a 10ml bottle of 18mg than 3mg, for example. generally, things that are stronger, or more concentrated, cost more per unit of volume.

 

[Toby iVapour]

it costs a manufacturer more in raw materials to make a 10ml bottle of 18mg than 3mg, for example. generally, things that are stronger, or more concentrated, cost more per unit of volume.

Negligible cost difference in the grand scheme of scheme of things between 0.3% and 2% nic.

I'm not a manufacturer, but I would guess the main cost is the outlay of machinery of the manufacture itself, rent, and hiring staff.