50 replies to this topic

[Kate]

The EU had a consultation period at the end of last year about revising their Tobacco Products Directive. One proposal was to bring ecigs into tobacco control and impose regulations such as border quotas, internet sales bans, higher taxation or simply ban ecigs in the way Swedish snus have been banned using that Directive.

Progress on the revision has been delayed according to this article:

Quote

Contrary to what originally announced, the proposal for a revised directive will no longer be published by the end of 2011 but – according to my sources – has been postponed to the end of the first semester 2012.

http://albertoaleman...ducts-directive

Edited by Kate, 13 July 2011 - 08:18 PM.

[westcoast2]

The EU actualy slowing down on TC, well that's a suprise. 30,000 responses to the consultation. Now I wonder who they were from. Normally it is just smokefreeX, smokefreeY and SmokefreeZ.

It does seem there are some legal issues with plain packaging. Not least EFTA (European Free Trade Area) and also probably the WTA (World Trade Association). Oz and the UK (who seem to be pressing ahead in a race with the ozzies) may have to have a rethink. Things are not so clear cut.

It also seems (from the Vapers POV) that they do want to classify e-cigs as tobacco products (including the 'Paraphenalia') This may well involve inet and import bans. So all you fans of politics out there really do need to wake up. This would mean no importation from China. Some might say, so what I could personaly import. That may not be the case and you could end up on the wrong end of HMRC, not good.

This direction (e-cigs as tobacco product) would be in-line with the US but is of course out of line with the UK's MHRA who have advocated for a medicinal classification.

So we continue to wait and see.

Edited by westcoast2, 13 July 2011 - 09:01 PM.

[spikeychops]

Importer and manufacturers should pre-empt the EU by rigorously adhering to a voluntary code of practice.

Everything sold, especially juices should have a prominent and clearly worded warning regarding minors, nicotine toxicity and content and other ingredients / adulterants added to the juice.

Likewise, hardware should meet minimum safety standards, CE marks, warnings, and all such stuff.

This way, if it's being done to standard on a voluntary basis, the EU loses it's legal (as opposed to lawful) teeth and any directives or legislation regarding the same, would become moot.

A lot of juice manufacturers and resellers do this anyway, but there are still plenty that don't.

I've not seen a CE mark on anything ecig related, no warnings, and only cursory and sometimes conflicting safety information regarding Lithium batteries and their correct usage.

This needs to become an industry wide thing, or else if the holier than thou brigade (YOU SHALL NOT!) get their way, we'd be without an industry at all.

[rolygate]

Maybe their legal advisors told them that they could not possibly win in the European Court of Human Rights, if they introduced an e-cig ban and were challenged. If deliberately killing thousands of people isn't an infringement of their human rights, I don't know what is.

Somebody, somewhere will take them to the court in Strasbourg and win. Perhaps somebody gave them a reality check on that.

Closer to home, I've come across the latest figures for the NHS quit smoking programme, and the only way to describe it is a disgrace - so I've laid into them bigtime:

NHS Quit Smoking: Massive Fail

[szaxe]

rolygate, on 15 July 2011 - 03:33 PM, said:

Maybe their legal advisors told them that they could not possibly win in the European Court of Human Rights, if they introduced an e-cig ban and were challenged. If deliberately killing thousands of people isn't an infringement of their human rights, I don't know what is.

Somebody, somewhere will take them to the court in Strasbourg and win. Perhaps somebody gave them a reality check on that.

Closer to home, I've come across the latest figures for the NHS quit smoking programme, and the only way to describe it is a disgrace - so I've laid into them bigtime:

NHS Quit Smoking: Massive Fail

I agree. I have taken 3 nations through the Commission without lawyers on a different issue. However as I stated in another thread, I don't think it would get that far ( "The Eurorpean Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and fundamental freedoms" is now enshrined in UK national law) I would not hesitate and would rely upon Art. 2 of the Convention which provides quote;-


ARTICLE 2

• Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.

And :-

ARTICLE 6
• In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.

P.s. The convention also has positive obligations on a Nation, ie just refraining from an act is not always enough, positive action may be required so as not to violate the Convention.

Edited by szaxe, 15 July 2011 - 04:20 PM.

[szaxe]

Just to give an indication of an action and some of the arguements I would raise.

The MHRA (the Contracting Parties, in this case the UK are responsible for the acts of public authorities) had an opportunity to ban, warn, or limit the usage of Electronic Cigarettes in 20/09-10, however they didn't or they failed too.

They had an obligation to protect my life from a "danger" (a danger if so argued). A product that I could legally aquire, e cigs.

If e cigs are argued by the UK to have a possible greater danger than cigarettes I would expect a conclusion that UK failed to take positive steps to protect my life from what they consider a substantial danger, prior to my addiction and after they had or should have reviewed the issue.

If the UK argue that e cigs are less dangerous than cigarettes I would be expecting a conclusion that the UK are failing in its obligations by banning or limiting the least dangerous of two legal products increasing the risk to my life.

If the UK argue both e cigs and cigarettes have the same level of danger, I would also rely upon, Art:- 8 interference in Private and family life, arguing my choice is being interfered with on purely political or monetary grounds, but this is highly unlikely outcome.

The MHRA/Government had their window of opportunity and failed to act in anyway, positive or negative. Up to that point the above arguements would have failed, after that point I fail to see how they could fail.

The above is just a snapshot.

Edited by szaxe, 15 July 2011 - 05:23 PM.

[steffijade]

rolygate, on 15 July 2011 - 03:33 PM, said:

Maybe their legal advisors told them that they could not possibly win in the European Court of Human Rights, if they introduced an e-cig ban and were challenged. If deliberately killing thousands of people isn't an infringement of their human rights, I don't know what is.

Somebody, somewhere will take them to the court in Strasbourg and win. Perhaps somebody gave them a reality check on that.

Closer to home, I've come across the latest figures for the NHS quit smoking programme, and the only way to describe it is a disgrace - so I've laid into them bigtime:

NHS Quit Smoking: Massive Fail

+1
Spot on...the government loves to harp on about how 'successful' smoking cessation programs are, but they never seem to back up their claims with accurate long term figures.
Personally, I've used smoking cessation services twice in the past and ended up back on the fags after 4-5 months both times...the only follow up I ever had was a questionaire from the (contracted, privately run service) after a couple of months. If the government are using these sort of responses to come up with their figures, I'm one of the horde of smokers who have permanently quit, twice over.

The longest period I've had 'smokefree' in the past 30 years was the 7 months I used my first ecig and that had nothing to do with a smoking cessation service. The government seem to want to limit nicotine usage to medically controlled methods that require monitoring/administration by a doctor or, suprise suprise, contracted, private services. I wonder why they want to do this?

It would be interesting to see how much money is changing hands between both 'big tobacco' AND 'big pharma' and the major political parties/individual politicians. Call me cynical, but the government couldn't really give a monkey's about people's health... it's all about the pounds and pence.

Anyway... I say screw em. It's been 6 weeks since my last 'real fag' and my latest batch of eliquid mixes have been at 5mg nic levels... if they want to ban ecigs, I'll go nic free and get by on home made box mods and attys. Attys might be a struggle, but even an inept fool like me can make a box mod...I know this for a fact...I'm vaping on my own box right now.

[szaxe]

steffijade, on 15 July 2011 - 05:32 PM, said:

if they want to ban ecigs,

As I said I raised Art. 2 of the Convention (right to life) in another thread on this forum, I even had parts of the Convention quoted in my signature below

There are many fronts in a battle, but this option if started immediately could stop a ban in its tracks for several years. The Convention and its articles would need to be relied upon through all available domestic remedies within the UK, ie Courts. Then when/if exhausted (no remedy) a case could be brought to Europe.

The point is the Government is not stupid (well ). A succesful outcome could not only overturn a ban, it would most probably put the ban on hold.

If the ban was to be deemed a violation by the European Court the UK domestic courts would be legally obliged to conclude the same, so if a ban had been in place for several years you can just imagine the compensation claims from prior vapers and those claiming to be ex-vapers

The European Court does not have the power to overturn the ban, but its decision would mean any one affected by the ban prior to or after the ban could seek recompense in the UK courts. To keep a ban would bankrupt the UK if in violation of the Convention.

Edited by szaxe, 15 July 2011 - 06:08 PM.

[Kate]

The Human Rights Act doesn't seem to have helped overturn the ban on snus unfortunately, I'm not so hopeful that it will help us.

[steffijade]

szaxe, on 15 July 2011 - 06:03 PM, said:

steffijade, on 15 July 2011 - 05:32 PM, said:

if they want to ban ecigs,

As I said I raised Art. 2 of the Convention (right to life) in another thread on this forum, I even had parts of the Convention quoted in my signature below

There are many fronts in a battle, but this option if started immediately could stop a ban in its tracks for several years. The Convention and its articles would need to be relied upon through all available domestic remedies within the UK, ie Courts. Then when/if exhausted (no remedy) a case could be brought to Europe.

The point is the Government is not stupid (well ). A succesful outcome could not only overturn a ban, it would most probably put the ban on hold.

If the ban was to be deemed a violation by the European Court the UK domestic courts would be legally obliged to conclude the same, so if a ban had been in place for several years you can just imagine the compensation claims from prior vapers and those claiming to be ex-vapers

The European Court does not have the power to overturn the ban, but its decision would mean any one affected by the ban prior to or after the ban could seek recompense in the UK courts. To keep a ban would bankrupt the UK if in violation of the Convention.

Sounds like you're quite knowledgable on the legalities and I hope that the government take heed of views like yours and ecigs don't get banned.

Trouble is, the UK government's recent record seems to demonstrate that they're quite willing to totally disregard public opinion (popular or otherwise) and steamroller through any laws that they like. They forced through the smoking ban in 2007 with a plethora of last minute alterations that (combined with the economic downturn) have ravaged the pub industry.

Wouldn't trust most politicians as far as I could throw them.....although if I were to throw them off a really tall building....hmmmm.

Hopefully, you'll be right and they will shy away from a ban, but again, if they do I think it'd have more to do with money than concern for people's health.

[szaxe]

Kate, on 15 July 2011 - 06:21 PM, said:

The Human Rights Act doesn't seem to have helped overturn the ban on snus unfortunately, I'm not so hopeful that it will help us.

Did some one take a case? The Convention doesn't act, some one has to act

Nothing is a violation until someone believes it to be a violation and most domestic lawyers train and think like the lawmakers, so what do you expect?

I could give you a list as long as my arm of practices in this country that are blatant violations of the Convention (and with your "Lbgt" thread you shouldn't need to be told that), but I don't fight for the sake of it, its a long long process, but remove my e cigs and I'll fight and win.

Other than Europe I have had a succesful action against a UK government authority on the issue of domicile. It was heard by the the Parliamentary Ombudsman. Only about 250 cases are heard a year from 100s of 1000,s, of which only a few are succesful.
I got personal letter of apology from a senior Front Bench Labour Minister (believe me or believe me not I can't remember his name and can't be arsed digging out the letter). The Ombudsman ordered the retraining of all employees and you know what that was a decade ago and they still do the same today to others.

Edited by szaxe, 15 July 2011 - 06:47 PM.

[szaxe]

Actually thinking about it I did answer your query in the original post.

Snus wasn't something that was assessed and allowed to continue. If you read the end of my post I said that prior to the failed decision of the MHRA my arguements would have failed and after failing to act the MHRA/government became culpable.

P.s

Oops I missed that bit above sorry. I must have cut it by accident

PPs I knew I put it in, but it was in my second post

Quote

Up to that point the above arguements would have failed, after that point I fail to see how they could fail.

Edited by szaxe, 15 July 2011 - 07:06 PM.

[Kate]

I don't think they'll ban ecigs but will make them very expensive and difficult to trade, they can introduce border quotas, massive taxes and internet sales bans. Will you be able to bring a case about that?

[szaxe]

Kate, on 15 July 2011 - 07:02 PM, said:

I don't think they'll ban ecigs but will make them very expensive and difficult to trade, they can introduce border quotas, massive taxes and internet sales bans. Will you be able to bring a case about that?

A ban doesn't have to be a ban to be an obstruction/limitation. If a government decide to tax or put unfair limitations then yes I would still fight such a case. As it would be in effect a ban.

But with the above proviso my personal concern is that I can carry on vaping for at least no more than my ex- fags.

I don't want to pay more money, but if I have to sit with the motorists, smokers, drinkers, etc down the local pub, moaning about the current taxes I won't be screaming Human Rights.

[szaxe]

Actually your Snus example is really confirming my arguement. Snus was used legally in Denmark and Sweden for a long time (19th century) and in such amounts the governments couldn't claim they didn't know and thus permit its previous use and addiction, so although there is a ban in Europe it doesn't affect these nations. To take away snus would invariably lead to people smoking and ensueing law suits, but in Europe where it could be argued the product was new to the governments it was banned.

The arguement that I would use snus rather than cigarettes doesn't carry the same weight as I am a snus user and if you take it away I will become a smoker, plus people normally only fight when something is taken away. I'm not getting into the nitty gritty, the priciples and legal implications just need a little logic and thought.

Now Denmark and Sweden have banned e nic, maybe they learnt from the snus. The UK did not and has allowed e cigs not only to be used in ever increasing amounts, but have lost the arguement in 09/10 that it is new to them and from that point they have knowingly allowed users to become addicted.

Edited by szaxe, 15 July 2011 - 08:29 PM.

[spikeychops]

Looks like you're the one to come to for advice on EU conventions and law Szaxe!

Blimey.

If it came to a fight, i'd be in your corner.

Did you know that once upon a time, it actually used to be a crime *not* to grow hemp in this country? (different thing i know)

Until the paper and textiles industry realised their millions of acres of tree and cotton plantations would become about 75% redundant, then it became illegal...what a surprise.

The point is, it is and always has been about business, power and money..it always will be.

[MIDIManNI]

I get so cross when I read about the Government wanting to take away the things that I enjoy and in the case of my E-Cig devices actually got me off smoking!

I am certainly not well versed in the legalities of everything that has gone and is going on but at the end of the day the wrong decision will only force Vaping "underground"...

I will get my E-Juice somewhere (online) and get together with "like-minded" vapers to buy it in bulk to ensure that we have sufficient stocks...

I for one refuse to obey what may become a senseless law - and I am speaking as a retired Police Officer here!!!

So screw the Government - I refuse to quit irrespective of the outcome...

Sorry for my uninformed and knee-jerk rant here but there you have it...

[szaxe]

For me this is all premature, have you seen any restrictions on your e cigs? They had a chance to ban them did they? Is this to do with banning/unfair limitations or has it got intertwined with those wanting a tax free unregulated market?

There are tons of "activists" now, see who is active if something bad happens? Not many I assure you. Remember its cool to be an "activist" and a "Google" God, its no fun to do the grind.

Many bring up clouds of doom, maybe they are right or maybe its just wishful thinking, remember if there is no problems there is no point in being an activist.

I can only view this whole issue on my own experiences. Had I known someone that had personal experiences not to be confused with pre-action assumptions peppered with urban legend and they were willing to share, regardless of whether in my opinion I could see it as a solution, I would have been asking RELEVANT questions.

I have offered info, er Have I been questioned. Not to be confused with those trying to better me with irrelavance. Just because I have been through actions doesn't mean I am right, but I have seen action

Remember my mistakes can be as valuable as my successes.

Edited by szaxe, 17 July 2011 - 04:36 PM.

[Kate]

The time for grassroots activisim has passed, I agree. The MHRA and EU Tob Products consultations were well addressed, the NICE one hardly at all. Time for action appears to have passed, all we can do is sit back, disseminate the news and wait for your court case Szaxe.

[szaxe]

Kate, on 17 July 2011 - 04:42 PM, said:

The time for grassroots activisim has passed, I agree. The MHRA and EU Tob Products consultations were well addressed, the NICE one hardly at all. Time for action appears to have passed, all we can do is sit back, disseminate the news and wait for your court case Szaxe.

Sounds like a dig. But those that dig others offering alternative solutions will be lightly armed if there are probems


Who are the "activists" trying to beat, those that may possibly ban or those that may have alternative solutions?

Edited by szaxe, 17 July 2011 - 05:44 PM.