Unravelling the TPD, A vapers attempt to understand article 20.

[Tubbyengineer]

True, but the volume / capacity debate is misleading, if challanged they'd rule that the point was clearly understandable but in any case it's a moot point if it only applies to prefilled tanks like on the Vype pens...

 

[cheersm8]

Exactly @Tubbyengineer the only 2ml reference within the whole thing, and pretty clear as to how/what it refers.

I know that it's frustrating for many folks, but the TPD isn't even in place yet. Folks are itching for answers and clarifications, that's understandable, but patience often pays dividends and I'm not convinced that querying, via official channels, before the event is a wise move. "Dear Mr Legislator/MP etc, there's a possible loophole within the forthcoming TPD, please close it before May"
My gut feeling, fed by reading the TPD over and over, is that the legislators wouldn't know what a subtank/goblin/billow is and if you asked any of them what a rebuildable deck was they'd only be thinking "patio" so why educate them?

It's too late for pre TPD challenges now and I'm of the opinion that the best hope for the future of vaping lies in leaving the TPD (along with all the unpractical, unworkable, unenforceable junk that it contains) well alone until it's in place. Grey areas may prove to be vapings biggest ally.

ps. As with all legislation of this nature, we, as consumers, carry the least amount of clout with regards to challenge and change. Changes and challenges, if any, can only come from those whose function it is to enforce, and those whose function it is to comply. As consumers, we are just the poor relations, and, the reality is that nothing within the TPD applies to vapers, as consumers, anyway. Nothing within the TPD outlaws the purchase of anything, there are No Penalties for buying or possessing. That will only ever arise if nicotine and/or tobacco products achieve an "illegal substance" status whereby possession is against the law.
Of course, whether it's available to buy is another matter entirely.

 

[blaze]

Great thread @Tubbyengineer - this is how I read the points I've picked up on from this thread (same provisos as in OP):

1) Nic base - if you read the definition of refill container ("‘refill container’ means a receptacle that contains a nicotine-containing liquid, which can be used to refill an electronic cigarette.", it might be argued that a 1L bottle of nic base doesn't fit that definition, and hence isn't covered by the later sanctions which limit placing nic-containing liquids on the market. It's definitely a nicotine containing liquid though - I'm pretty sure section 36 of the draft law applies otherwise. And tbh, I doubt that if a seller of >10mls of nic base were to challenge a fine and it were to end up in court that the above argument would prevail - because of the "can".

2) Tank size - I completely agree that as it is written there is no limit to the size of empty tanks (of course they would still need to go through notification and testing etc) - however I would add a word of caution in that at the ecigsummit the spokesperson for the MHRA explicitly stated that the final law would ban tanks >2ml. This is based on what people said who were there and we've seen nothing to confirm this. Hopefully thinking on this has changed, I dunno.

3) Advertising - you forgot Billboards! Ads on Bilboards allowed too

4) Vapers in Power - well, we try to keep on top of things, but just being a political party doesn't give us any special powers of access! I'd urge anyone who hasn't to write to their mp, we're also close (with the help of Spiritus Vapes and others) to releasing guidance for vendors to fill out the MHRA consultation.

 

[Tubbyengineer]

Great thread @Tubbyengineer - this is how I read the points I've picked up on from this thread (same provisos as in OP):

1) Nic base - if you read the definition of refill container ("‘refill container’ means a receptacle that contains a nicotine-containing liquid, which can be used to refill an electronic cigarette.", it might be argued that a 1L bottle of nic base doesn't fit that definition, and hence isn't covered by the later sanctions which limit placing nic-containing liquids on the market. It's definitely a nicotine containing liquid though - I'm pretty sure section 36 of the draft law applies otherwise. And tbh, I doubt that if a seller of >10mls of nic base were to challenge a fine and it were to end up in court that the above argument would prevail - because of the "can".

2) Tank size - I completely agree that as it is written there is no limit to the size of empty tanks (of course they would still need to go through notification and testing etc) - however I would add a word of caution in that at the ecigsummit the spokesperson for the MHRA explicitly stated that the final law would ban tanks >2ml. This is based on what people said who were there and we've seen nothing to confirm this. Hopefully thinking on this has changed, I dunno.

3) Advertising - you forgot Billboards! Ads on Bilboards allowed too

4) Vapers in Power - well, we try to keep on top of things, but just being a political party doesn't give us any special powers of access! I'd urge anyone who hasn't to write to their mp, we're also close (with the help of Spiritus Vapes and others) to releasing guidance for vendors to fill out the MHRA consultation.

I think this is one of the main concerns, what is a "Tank", as worded in 36-2c it's a single use tank containing liquid (at point of sale), and as a point of note the MHRA has no power over these regs other than advisory. It's the secretary of state who's responsible - unless the device gets registered as a medical device...

Lubrisolve are saying they will soon be selling TPD compliant nicotine in the usual 100, 250, 500, 1000 & 5000 sizes...

 

[blaze]

Yes - I agree that the MHRA don't write the rules. But I suspect their relationship with the DoH (who are) is rather close. As I said, I quite agree with your reading about tanks - but worry about what MHRA woman said at ecigsummit.

I read that about Lubrisolve - as you say, we can just go on what is in front of us. I desperately hope it will be the case that they can sell that - I just don't see anything in the legislation to suggest that (apart from refill container workaround, POSSIBLY).

Unfortunately (for us being able to plan now), I think this may all come down to enforcement. Dave Dorn, for instance, keeps hinting that enforcement will be minimal to non-existant. The law is written (as it stands) in a way that allows for a fairly wide range of interpretations ...

 

[scrumpox]

I agree 100% with @cheersm8

All this second guessing is great fun on forums but it's obvious that it's the blind leading the blind at the moment ... let the TPD happen, let the manufacturers, importers and resellers do the necessary liaison with DoH/MHRA in the real world, with real products. Let's see how it shakes down. Clarifications will be needed but they won't be led by consumers, challenges will happen in due course but they won't be initiated by consumers.

In short, follow the forum's golden rule ... don't be a twat.

 

[jb170]

Ive been sent this link to sign
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/105139

 

[blaze]

The petition is awful (I've signed it though obvs), the response is quite clear re tanks though ...

 

[dansus]

 

[tachikoma]

Very very good video, just listened to it in work, things might not be as bad as we feared device-wise, but DIY juice is fucked, so will be stocking up asap.

A little annoying at the end though, if we did exit the EU, I seriously doubt that the government du jour will bother cancelling the entire thing, they might change a few things, they might even make things worse, there's no guarantee that if a Tory government was in power wouldn't look after their big business buddies and screw the population (as usual)