public consultation on draft proposals for e-cig advertising

[nanotm]

www.gov.uk/government/publications/proposals-for-uk-law-on-the-advertising-of-e-cigarettes
please use the link to get contact info and read the draft bill, I enclose here my ramblings that I have already fired off to the relevant link in the manner they ask for it to be sent in with and would ask you all to do something similar

Hi,

The draft proposals need to be amended to allow personal videos to be made and posted so that people can continue to create informational videos about the various products that are available for the consumers by the consumers and also to allow production and publication to YouTube (or similar video hosting site) for tutorials about how to use and care for the various product lines, they also should include specific wording that permits community forums where members can advise each other on which products or methods or vendors are better than others even where those forums are connected directly with a vendor website.



I appreciate that the regulations are far more relaxed than the original EU draft but I feel more can be done to loosen things up, TV programs that feature people smoking and even showing or explain how to take illegal drugs are allowed to be created and used as part of various storylines and broadcast to the country video's created with the sole intent to advise about products should continue to be allowed, as things stand this will not be permitted especially where a reviewer states he thinks that 'xyz' products are the best, by all means ban hyperlinking direct to stores and make people have to search for the products using a search engine but don't remove their ability to be informed about new or existing things within the e-cig industry.



Hopefully more people will also give you a similar point of view, without the resources to become informed by other users a lot of people will not feel that they can make the switch from more harmful tobacco to try and kick the habit, ultimately the goal should be to support individuals to become more fully informed and safer in moving from tobacco and its evils to a less harmful product.



Many Thanks

if you like my attempt then by all means copy and paste it as your response although I'm sure most of you guys are far better at wording things than me

cheers

[nanotm]

I forgot to mention this earlier but this is a quickie, the ability to be heard only lasts until the 4'th of January 2016 so time is of the essence

[Bobsbeer]

My concern is Section 4 sponsorship. How this will impact on vapefest etc I don't know. I'll reply when I'm a bit more compus mentus.

[nanotm]

Dec 12, 2015 10:26:34 GMT Bobsbeer said:

My concern is Section 4 sponsorship. How this will impact on vapefest etc I don't know. I'll reply when I'm a bit more compus mentus.

I'll be honest I have never been to one so never thought of that angle, so I'll have to leave asking them to permit such gatherings under the headings of vapefest, so long as people put in the need to get rid of the online community alive and kicking the onerous stupidity out of the door.

having had time to sleep and think some more I would probably change it to ask them to only control and ban the advertising of cig-a-likes and nicotine containing juice from advertising, if you like taking the same approach that amazon does to only allowing zero nic things to be advertised. on the grounds that if it doesn't specifically have nicotine in it then its cannot possibly be a tobacco product and unless it is designed to look like a cigarette its not an e-cig but a vape pipe and thus exempt from the e-cig regulations.

perhaps as such vape fest can have an evolution in its name after the ban on vape advertising comes in there are other names that can be used which are not within the names banned by the TPD at this point (because a certain segment of society might get uppity about it) 

at this point because they have not posted the draft of the full article 20 its very difficult to understand how to attack their proposals in a coherent manner without harming things that would otherwise be permitted, so far the legislation explains there going to ban adverts, sponsorship and not much more I just would prefer they explicitly allowed certain things (rather than not saying they are banned) to remove any ambiguity for the future and avoid a situation where when people get arrested/sued for breaching something they couldn't possibly have understood, perhaps add in a grandfather date that allows all online content produced before the implementation date (may 2016) to remain as exempt from the regulations would be another option!

I've already sent in what I considered the core considerations and if enough other people ask for the same tiny changes then its likely they will be undertaken as a positive step, and then perhaps I'll publicise why I, some limited number already know what my thinking is but I need to keep it limited until later in the process (like after the act is past)

if enough people complain that the stop smoking services will promote the same people that caused this problem and grant them an unfair advantage to effectively supplant a working industry that is doing something they failed to do for more than a decade and hand them the keys to the castle and likely destroy it through regulation and return millions to tobacco smoking because of it then maybe the regulations will be implemented in a way that permits a lot more than the big tobacco /pharma /control lobbies envisaged.

right now today we are in the unique position that we have a working product developed into something largely safe that does what is required (gets people off the fags and keeps them off) the big money companies that have cornered the market in passing cash between them for nearly 20 years are scared their gravy train is over and there doing everything possible to try and get rid of it, but they have to tread carefully, if they completely crush the industry they cant then use it themselves, if they promote it as is then they loose their income, so we have this strange idea that everything is to be deemed a medical product and only sold if licenced (which puts them back in the situation of being the sole providers, but then it wont work and be just as ineffective as their other NRT products.

what we need is for them to be gagged from using their spurious false reporting and let the wider public gain the knowledge that billions can be saved in the NHS budget from treating smoking related illness, billions can be saved in prescribing ineffective treatments, and millions of second hand smokers can have a safer smoke free environment, but regulation of whats used in the liquids to prevent charlatons from producing dodgy stuff is also required, adults like sweet flavours and sweets and not just children, but so what, those kids would be smoking fags if it wasn't for e-cigs and being put at much greater harm than non tobacco use does.

[robby]

Excellent response nanotm , I wasn`t quite as kind to them Worth remembering that this is mainly about "communication" about ecigs. Everyone should respond to the proposals, even if it is only a couple of lines

[toots]

Does this piece in bold mean that internet selling of e-cigs etc are not prohibited (unlike Spain which will ban all internet sales along with all shop sales as well):

commercial communications in Information Society services, in the press and other printed publications, with the aim or direct or indirect effect of promoting electronic cigarettes and refill containers are prohibited, except for publications that are intended exclusively for professionals in the trade of electronic cigarettes or refill containers

To me it sounds as though UK vendors will not be hit like Spain's vendors are going to be hit, whether online or as a B & M shop

From what I have read, the UK government are being a lot more lenient than the Spanish government where the regs they're bringing in are horrendous.

[Richard46]

Dec 12, 2015 14:04:52 GMT toots said:

Does this piece in bold mean that internet selling of e-cigs etc are not prohibited (unlike Spain which will ban all internet sales along with all shop sales as well):

commercial communications in Information Society services, in the press and other printed publications, with the aim or direct or indirect effect of promoting electronic cigarettes and refill containers are prohibited, except for publications that are intended exclusively for professionals in the trade of electronic cigarettes or refill containers

To me it sounds as though UK vendors will not be hit like Spain's vendors are going to be hit, whether online or as a B & M shop

From what I have read, the UK government are being a lot more lenient than the Spanish government where the regs they're bringing in are horrendous.

 I am not sure what that bit does mean to be honest but I don't read it as having any bearing on internet activity. i.e. it is talking about press and printed publications. Having read the rest of the damned thing once I still have no idea what it means for internet selling.

[Bobsbeer]

Dec 12, 2015 14:04:52 GMT toots said:

Does this piece in bold mean that internet selling of e-cigs etc are not prohibited (unlike Spain which will ban all internet sales along with all shop sales as well):

commercial communications in Information Society services, in the press and other printed publications, with the aim or direct or indirect effect of promoting electronic cigarettes and refill containers are prohibited, except for publications that are intended exclusively for professionals in the trade of electronic cigarettes or refill containers

To me it sounds as though UK vendors will not be hit like Spain's vendors are going to be hit, whether online or as a B & M shop

From what I have read, the UK government are being a lot more lenient than the Spanish government where the regs they're bringing in are horrendous.

To me it means advertising in medical journals etc, aimed at doctors and other professionals in the field, just as prescription only medication is today.  Big Pharma are not allowed to tout their latest dementia medication to the public etc, so this is just making things equal.

[blaze]

UK vendors will still be allowed to sell TPD compliant liquids and kit, including over the internet, but won't be allowed to advertise it (apart from on billboards and in trade mags).

[Deleted]

Dec 12, 2015 21:08:44 GMT blaze said:

UK vendors will still be allowed to sell TPD compliant liquids and kit, including over the internet, but won't be allowed to advertise it (apart from on billboards and in trade mags).

It is not clear about cinema advertising. The other thing is that this would seem to apply to EEA countries, not just EU countries.

The Vapefest issue is interesting, the purpose of the wording is to stop sponsorship. To the letter of the proposals Vapefest could happen, but no one involved in ecigs could sponsor it (Vapefest from Totally Wicked for example), but Health England could. Having said that Vapefest would be pointless as everybody will be selling the only BAT sponsored Vype device that has passed the tests. 

Nick

Also these proposals could mean that FastTech could sponsor these forums - a US based forum, with advertising from China - both would be third parties under these proposals. 

[nanotm]

if you can only advertise on billboards does that include e-billboards or are they banned because of the "no online adverts" thing, does having your shops name in say google's adsense listing count as product advertising or having a public facebook page if you don't include any product listings ?

how does say for instance the edge browser's "based on browser history personalised ad's " system work, say if I look at re-juiced's webpage and for the next week I see personalised ad's for the same products I was looking at, its nothing to do with the shop my browser is promoting those products for anyone that uses my device ..... if I go to a library and use one of their pc's and enable targeted adverts then leave my browser history will give those product adverts to everyone who uses that pc (my kids were banned from the library computers because they did this then looked at several porn sites just before the WI group booking started.....) the whole "no online adverts thing is totally misleading (for reference I got tobacco adverts after I looked up the price of a pack of fags through the edge browser for the last week)

its so badly worded and leaves so much work to be done they really need to grant an extension and a proper working group consultation that includes all the browser and isp companies as well as every shop vendor with a website, and maybe 1 rep from the TCI and 1 rep from each of the NRT/tobacco companies and the entire health select committee as well as members of the public to thrash out the way forwards, with a "ban" that will be workable and not force hundreds of small businesses to close and thousands of people to get laid off .....

and that's just the advertising side of things..... perhaps they should just redefine the entire directive to only apply to tobacco flavours cig-a-likes or products that contain nicotine and so long as those things are not advertised everything else is golden, it would certainly make more sense than the ham-fisted "shut you all down for making us look bad" abortion attempt that the TCI is trying to hammer into place .....

[Deleted]

Dec 12, 2015 22:59:38 GMT nanotm said:

if you can only advertise on billboards does that include e-billboards or are they banned because of the "no online adverts" thing, does having your shops name in say google's adsense listing count as product advertising or having a public facebook page if you don't include any product listings ?

It is clear that internet advertising is banned as is email marketing- but the google question is an interesting thought. I am guessing that if it is paid for it is banned.

how does say for instance the edge browser's "based on browser history personalised ad's " system work, say if I look at re-juiced's webpage and for the next week I see personalised ad's for the same products I was looking at, its nothing to do with the shop my browser is promoting those products for anyone that uses my device ..... if I go to a library and use one of their pc's and enable targeted adverts then leave my browser history will give those product adverts to everyone who uses that pc (my kids were banned from the library computers because they did this then looked at several porn sites just before the WI group booking started.....) the whole "no online adverts thing is totally misleading (for reference I got tobacco adverts after I looked up the price of a pack of fags through the edge browser for the last week)

I think you are referring to "retargeting" (based on browser/cookie history/keywords) will also be no-go.

its so badly worded and leaves so much work to be done they really need to grant an extension and a proper working group consultation that includes all the browser and isp companies as well as every shop vendor with a website, and maybe 1 rep from the TCI and 1 rep from each of the NRT/tobacco companies and the entire health select committee as well as members of the public to thrash out the way forwards, with a "ban" that will be workable and not force hundreds of small businesses to close and thousands of people to get laid off .....

The proposals are not entirely clear, the final version might have more clarity. however an awful lot of law is decided by courts after the event - without those grey areas what would lawyers do!!

and that's just the advertising side of things..... perhaps they should just redefine the entire directive to only apply to tobacco flavours cig-a-likes or products that contain nicotine and so long as those things are not advertised everything else is golden, it would certainly make more sense than the ham-fisted "shut you all down for making us look bad" abortion attempt that the TCI is trying to hammer into place .....

Agree. It is an illiberal law. While some level of standards could/should be in place the unintended consequences of this law will quite literally kill people.

Nick

[nanotm]

Dec 12, 2015 23:13:06 GMT @kopiert said:

you know the most stupid thing about it to me is that the food standards agency should be all over it like a rash, existing laws already allow them to regulate the e-juice formulas the tpd however has gotten in the way of everything.

food products are used to create the flavours, the vapour goes into our bodies as we consume it and we exhale some which is virtually the same as a hot drink except we expel the vapour faster and they control them, when a new product line comes to the market they test and ban it for containing harmful chemicals and that should be the same for e-juice, and the best bit is you don't pay for that testing the FSA does when it buys a sample product and runs it through the lab then it either issues a recall notice and bans sales or it doesn't .....

the TCI's involvement in the whole process trying to bypass the laws of the land have made things worse and are allowing several flybynight operations to produce unregulated products that are quite likely to be harmful (given their website terms and conditions) and are luring in unsuspecting consumers, many of whom wont bother reading the small print in any way shape or form /

and that's totally ignoring the fact the scare campaing has already made hundreds if not thousands bin e-cigs and run back to the "safe fags"........ so much for them being all about saving peoples lives and protecting the innocent

[Deleted]

Dec 12, 2015 23:23:57 GMT nanotm said:

Dec 12, 2015 23:13:06 GMT @kopiert said:

you know the most stupid thing about it to me is that the food standards agency should be all over it like a rash, existing laws already allow them to regulate the e-juice formulas the tpd however has gotten in the way of everything.

food products are used to create the flavours, the vapour goes into our bodies as we consume it and we exhale some which is virtually the same as a hot drink except we expel the vapour faster and they control them, when a new product line comes to the market they test and ban it for containing harmful chemicals and that should be the same for e-juice, and the best bit is you don't pay for that testing the FSA does when it buys a sample product and runs it through the lab then it either issues a recall notice and bans sales or it doesn't .....

the TCI's involvement in the whole process trying to bypass the laws of the land have made things worse and are allowing several flybynight operations to produce unregulated products that are quite likely to be harmful (given their website terms and conditions) and are luring in unsuspecting consumers, many of whom wont bother reading the small print in any way shape or form /

and that's totally ignoring the fact the scare campaing has already made hundreds if not thousands bin e-cigs and run back to the "safe fags"........ so much for them being all about saving peoples lives and protecting the innocent

I agree with you

Nick