(This is it) TPD Regulations 2016

[Moley]

Some fantastic reading on the latest details of the TPD but unfortunately it's still the unknown until we experience the effects firsthand.
We can speculate all day on what might happen or how wording can be circumvented but still it's just that, speculation.
Of course we all want vaping to be safer and possibly better regulated, remember we are the few percentage of Vapers who are 'into' it enough to know what's what.
The vast majority of Vapers haven't a scooby what goes into juice, knows nowt about the latest atties and mods and probably buys all their gear from a market stall or the local b&m (who are quite likely as clueless as them)

I guess it's just a sit and wait exercise until we feel the full effects starting in May but biting next year.

 

[Muck777]

Now where was it I heard that the manufacturers will still be allowed to include a longer glass tube in the tank's packaging, as a glass tube is not a vape product, kind of thing? Suspect it was at one of the advocacy talks at vape jam. One of the loopholes the uk has allowed to be exploited.

I don't know about it being in the same packaging, but companies will probably shrink their tubes to meet the TPD, meaning that the original size ones will still be available.

The whole thing is a bit stupid anyway. If you want 60ml of a juice, you'll still buy 60ml, but in 6 bottles. I think that the government felt like they had to do something to appease the EU, but I also think they they recognise the benefits of vaping.

 

[johnnylager]

£14Bn?! £3 billion to £6 billion seems a much more likely estimate.

I'm not sure I believe anything ASH say really.

Total cost to economy from www.ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_121.pdf and also quoted in your link

Is undoubtedly too high, but gives a worst case scenario by conveniently ignoring those who stop costing any money by dying.

 

[Muck777]

@johnnylager, but it also doesn't take into account things like income tax generated by jobs in the manufacture, distribution, sales and advertising of tobacco.

It really is very one sided, and it makes ASH look pretty dumb imho.

 

[johnnylager]

@johnnylager, but it also doesn't take into account things like income tax generated by jobs in the manufacture, distribution, sales and advertising of tobacco.

It really is very one sided, and it makes ASH look pretty dumb imho.

Of course, and there's the rub - smoking is too profitable. ASH do support vaping though, or did here http://www.ash.org.uk/media-room/pr...smokers-slows-as-perceptions-of-harm-increase

 

[ZT]

One thing is very clear from this legislation - they dont actually give a shit whats in the flavours, they dont give a shit about public health.

Its all about the nicotine and in my view a pathway to taxing it and/or just handing back the power to big pahrma/big tobacco

if they did give a shit about the flavours .. 0mg would also be included.

 

[SirLugg]

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/521/contents/made

They've reduced the notification fee? Interesting....

Surely this is a positive step? @pfvapes @puffinclouds ?

 

[mannikon]

Ha! Just reading that!

 

[ZT]

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/521/contents/made

They've reduced the notification fee? Interesting....

Surely this is a positive step? @pfvapes @puffinclouds ?

The notification fee was not the issue anyway really .. in the scheme of things it was quite low, the costly area is the emissions testing which is more than the notification by orders of magnitude

 

[mannikon]

Been perusing the various parliamentary sites and in particular trying to clarify what's happening about the automatic implementation and I see that the TPR itself has been "prayed against" which might force a debate.