50 replies to this topic

[szaxe]

szaxe, on 17 July 2011 - 10:32 PM, said:

Just before the decision the Dutch changed the law to allow a remedy,

I read your post and see you know the Convention and have read case-law, so you probably know there are some strange things about how this case was dealt with by the Commission.

The statement quoted was lazyiness, but the strangest thing about the whole case is we asked our lawyer and the National bar association to exhaust art 29 of Dutch law continually.

It was always refused and we were told it was not relevant. Now because there was no lawyer the Commission sat in camera, we didn't know until after reading the decision.

The biggest injustice of the whole case was the Commision said they still considered us as victims but were inadmisaable because at the time of their decision we had a remedy available, namely Art 29.

Now we should have been able to march into court with Art 29 and alleged victim status and got a remedy for the years of hardship, however it was not until after the decision we found that Art 29 had been repealed (it didn't exist any more) 1 month after the Dutch Government claimed it to be a remedy to our application and many months prior to the Commissions decision. So at the time of their decision there was no Art 29 as claimed by the Dutch government and accepted by the Commission?

Edited by szaxe, 17 July 2011 - 11:29 PM.

[szaxe]

Kate, on 17 July 2011 - 09:59 PM, said:

I don't like you or your style and shouldn't really be engaging so I'm going to stop now.

To that I have no answers or opinions other than to bow to your wishes.

[szaxe]

westcoast2, on 17 July 2011 - 10:00 PM, said:

It did recognise a right to still claim to be victims under the Convention. I am not sure how relevant this is though.

Sorry to go on but to put this in a better context. The initial problems were our daughter was Stateless or to all extent and purposes, neither the British or Irish would include her on mine or my partners Passports because the British considered her a foreign Bastard and the Irish because she had no birth certificate. This mean't we couldn't go to the UK or Ireland with her or cross any borders legally.

We were in limbo for over 7 years. Believe me roaming Europe, trying to survive, crossing borders, with a child that we had no travel documentation for or birth certificate, hence proof of parentage was frightening. Which caused many incidents of which only a few are referred to by the Commission.

Now did we win in Europe? Well my daughter got a Dutch (not a foreigners birth registration) birth certificate with her mother and father named , the right to both Irish and British nationality and our second daughter born in the Netherlands was immediately afforded all these luxuries most take for granted.

Did we win compensation for the horrific ordeal, no!!!

But if I fight for e cigs and I haven't learned from my past mistakes and I got the same outcome, the winning of the issues, without compensation, then I would consider it a win also.

P.s, things started being put right immediately after the governments became aware of the application being accepted by Europe. Infact the Dutch housed us within two weeks after the application and treated us like Dutch nationals in all other aspects. Any trip to the British or Irish consulate and we never cued and were immediately ushered into the Consuls office (in Spain also)

Which is why I said the action for this route should be started immediately and could well postpone any proposed ban if they thought there was any chance of losing.

Edited by szaxe, 18 July 2011 - 02:01 AM.

[szaxe]

Actually I am a sensitive person and have no intention of proving people wrong or upsetting anyone, however I seem to do so when ever I discuss this issue, which has led to a sleepless night, so maybe I should keep my thoughts to myself on this subject.

Many people thought we were crazy to go through what we did when to get married would have ended our ordeal, but whether we were stupid, stubborn or principled (I don't self analyse) we endured it because we couldn't see why we should marry to solve incorrect laws.

If I decide to fight, the government are under no illusions how far I will go if I think they are wrong morally.

The principles are very simple when you actually think about it. Is it morally correct to only allow a substance to be used if it is delivered by the most deadly means?

Don't confuse this with snus or products not known to the government. The government has the arguement that they don't want further infiltration of "dangerous"/unknown products. However after they have, by inaction, allowed a product to be used, they are in a position whereby they are forcing addicts of a lower risk level, to use a more dangerous alternative.

If the government can show vapour inhalation is more dangerous than smoke then I want to know also, but I as well as the higher authorities will want to see proof. Especially considering the government clearly have a monetary interest in one of those alternatives.

I've said my piece and appologise to anyone in this or any other thread I have upset over my beliefs.

Edited by szaxe, 18 July 2011 - 05:22 AM.

[westcoast2]

szaxe, thank you for the clarifications.

Quote

Don't confuse this with snus or products not known to the government. The government has the arguement that they don't want further infiltration of "dangerous"/unknown products. However after they have, by inaction, allowed a product to be used, they are in a position whereby they are forcing addicts of a lower risk level, to use a more dangerous alternative.

I take your point about same substance, different delivery system. I also understand that snus is a known tobacco product.

In the above quote there are several points.

1 dangerous unknown products
2 inaction
3 Addicts
4 risk level.

1 Nicotine mixes (e-juice) are not (at this time) categorized either as a medicine or a tobacco product in the UK. They are I believe categorized as medicinal in Austria and as Tobacco products in the US. E-juice is however known to some extent as a Nicotine Containing Product (NCP) in the UK and covered in part by The poisons act and general product regulation. This is where I (and others) have argued it should stay.

2 The MHRA have taken action and attempted to classify all NCPs as medicines requiring an MA. This failed and there was also apparently no public health grounds on which to ban it in the UK. In the US no evidence was presented by the FDA, in the NJOY/SE case, of any health harm to the public. In that case they relied on 'experts' presenting only potential.health hazzards rather than actual harm. In the UK the MHRA have decided on further research. This seems appropriate.

3 We could debate the definition of 'addict' with regard to tobacco and nicotine, though it is complex. My position on this is that the majority of smokers are probably not as addicted (if at all) to Nicotine as they think they are. There are many factors involved. I have written about this elsewhere on UKV and on the ECCA forum. The current DSM IV model for Dependence does not fit well with Nicotine. Please read some of Dr Michael Siegel's blog. (He is not always consistent on this, though does agree that tobacco use has factors that go beyond just Nicotine)

4 The on-going research by the MHRA (if not just a political smoke-screen) could well go some way to establishing a comparatrive risk level. If they were to ban e-juice after establishing that it was safer than smoking tobacco, then the art 2/6 arguement may hold some merits. I have not dismissed this. I have though suggested that the authorities would suggest that Art 2 and 6 are not relevant due to the health factor even though health is not mentioned explicitly in the articles. Refering back to (3), it may need to be established that nicotine was the sole reason for people to smoke, this may not be easy despite what tobacco control claim..

These are debates for further down the raod. At this stage we need to concentrate on ensuring that the research and processes used by the MHRA avoid the need for all this and that the MHRA (and by extension HMG) decide to leave well alone. The ECCA and ECITA are keeping an eye on things and ECITA are working with trading standards. It is not just the UK though, it is the EU where they seem to be leaning towards giving tobacco product status to e-juice across Europe. It is here danger lies, they have good lawyers

Edited by westcoast2, 18 July 2011 - 10:12 AM.

[Tom09]

Commission publishes report of a consultation (Commission’s press release)

Quote

Brussels, 27 July 2011 – Today the European Commission's Directorate-General for Health and Consumers publishes the results of the public consultation on the upcoming revision of the Tobacco Products Directive. The public consultation generated an unprecedented 85 000 responses. The vast majority of contributions came from individual citizens, illustrating the great interest in EU tobacco control policy. Other respondents represented industry, non-governmental organisations, governments and public authorities. [...]

Link to pdf: Report on the public consultation on the possible revision of the Tobacco Products Directive (2001/37/EC)

Quote

[...]
As regards the future regulation of 'electronic cigarettes’ in tobacco legislation, Member States seemed to be more divided, with some presenting arguments for regulating the product as a pharmaceutical or medical device, and others arguing for the inclusion of electronic cigarettes in the Tobacco Products Directive.
[...]
The majority of Member States were in favour of banning all types of smokeless tobacco products, which was also the position of the two EFTA countries responding to the consultation. The main arguments for this solution came from the concerns about the harmful health effects of these types of products. Those in support of banning smokeless tobacco argued that while some of these products present a reduced risk, all smokeless tobacco use entails health risks. Respondents also linked the use of snus to an increase in smoking rates, as snus users are more likely to switch to cigarettes or to consume both snus and cigarettes. They also argued that the commercial import and sale of smokeless tobacco products needs to be banned across the EU while these products still have relatively limited market shares and popularity among consumers.
[...]

Commission’s web page
Public consultation on the possible revision of the Tobacco Products Directive 2001/37/EC

[Kate]

Thanks for posting this Tom.

[westcoast2]

England Expects has a good write-up on this at Citizen versus NGOs

Quote

Here we see it writ large. Those with cash and power want increasing control, those without it don't. Those with cash and power want action before evidence, those without want to see evidence before action. Those with power and cash want legislation restrictions and bans, those without complain that there are too many controls already.

Now when the recommendations arrive in a few months, who so we think the EU will listen to?

[Kate]

From Tobacco Harm Reduction org

Quote

EU report about public comments on tobacco products directive changes
It is “must read” to know about it, though there is not really much useful to read yet. We have not had time to study this in detail, and would hope to get a grant from someone to analyze the data once it is out (hint hint!), but here are a few highlights: In response to comments about possibly changing the snus ban, labeling issues, and other topics, they received over 85,000 comments. This put it beyond their capacity to do much more than total up the “votes” for the specific alternatives they offered, ignoring the free-text entries. But the choices for many of the votes were clearly gamed to be able to only produce results they liked, as we pointed out in our submitted comments, which we posted here:
http://smokles.wordp...tive-revision/
They claim to have looked at some of the responses, but do not explain how they chose the ones they summarized in their report (suggesting no systematic strategy, probably bias toward their preferences, and no scientific free-text analytic methods). The 85,000 responses are the biggest story (it dwarfs any previous EU consultation), and demand a better analysis than they have done. Most were citizen comments, bu 2320 were from industry, and ours was one of 640 from NGOs. Unfortunately we are not in a position to add much insight just yet (beyond our original comments, linked above), but if you have time to read what the defenders of the status quo (or perhaps they are advocates for making the regulations even worse) wrote about the responses here it is (and if you want to discuss any observations with us, please do):
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleases
http://ec.europa.eu/..._report_en.pdf

http://smokles.wordp...n-27-july-2011/

[Kate]

From Taking Liberties:

EC cries foul as citizens have their say - http://taking-libert...-their-say.html

[spikeychops]

What a steaming pile of horse crap.

The EC shenanigans, not your post Kate.

Edited by spikeychops, 01 August 2011 - 01:35 AM.