TPD not as bad as first thought

[markm]

Just wondering how you go about organising a national vape meet without the ability to advertise nationally?

[nanotm]

vapemeet's will be banned because they directly promote vaping as per the ban on advertising /promoting other than by the NHS.......

[Bobsbeer]

What's stopping you? We are probably a bit luckier than those in mainland europe. It's easier for us to just have a one state event, whereas say you are in Lille it would be difficult to show that the event is not being promoted in more than one state, ie France and Belgium with both being part of Schengen. No doubt many would travel from across the border to participate. With the UK being isolated as we are and not being part of Schengen, plus only speaking english it makes life a bit easier for us to just promote in the UK. So I would say get in there, unless you plan on promoting it in Calais as well.

[Bobsbeer]

Dec 21, 2015 10:14:12 GMT nanotm said:

vapemeet's will be banned because they directly promote vaping as per the ban on advertising /promoting other than by the NHS.......

Do you have a different copy of the rules to those I have been reading?

[Deleted]

That's good to know Bobsbeer, just ignore the table, its not going to happen, I will add no more to this thread and will keep my concerns to myself. What I will do is keep tabs on the thread for your updates to keep us all informed as you appear to have an idealistic view of how this will all turn out. It won't really matter if the tank is 1ltr. or not or fired at 50w or not, mibees the fact that its not leak proof could get you an interview with the powers that be, eeerrrrr, sorry if we should ignore that too, or if its only a guideline; not actually part of the tpd, or if I just thought that up from nowhere. Sadly I think your idealistic view of the outcome may turn out to be a poke in the arse with a sharp stick come May 2016.

[nanotm]

Dec 21, 2015 10:23:58 GMT Bobsbeer said:

Dec 21, 2015 10:14:12 GMT nanotm said:

vapemeet's will be banned because they directly promote vaping as per the ban on advertising /promoting other than by the NHS.......

Do you have a different copy of the rules to those I have been reading?

or perhaps I just read them literally where your trying to find ways to interpret them differently

[Bobsbeer]

I am certainly not being idealistic striker42 in my interpretation of the law as is being published. It's not what I want to read, but I appear to be the only person who is actually reading this shit, and not just making it up as they go along. Yes much of it is horrible for the future of vaping as we know it, but lets not get overly dramatic about it. At the start of this thread I put links to the original documents as currently published by the government and EU. The wording in those documents is what we need to be concerned about, not wild presumptions and unfounded statements. We need facts not innuendo and, tripe. But hey if those that want to stick their head in a bucket of sand wish to, and think the world is falling around their head, then that is their right. I prefer to stick to the facts from legitimate sources for my information. Not make it up to suit my thinking.

Yes I said ignore the table. I said that for a very good and legitimate reason. It is not part of the proposed law, it was published as a way to quickly understand it. Not a very good example in my view, but it can be ignored with impunity. As with most things in life, the truth is in the small print. Not the adverts.

[Bobsbeer]

Dec 21, 2015 11:26:07 GMT nanotm said:

Dec 21, 2015 10:23:58 GMT Bobsbeer said:

Do you have a different copy of the rules to those I have been reading?

or perhaps I just read them literally where your trying to find ways to interpret them differently

Please quote the bit I must have missed?  I am reading the proposed text and using my understanding of english to understand them.  I am not taking stuff out or adding any.  I am not trying to change the meaning of anything, so what you are reading must be different to me.  I cannot see in the text where it says "vapemeet's will be banned because they directly promote vaping as per the ban on advertising /promoting other than by the NHS..." or could even give rise to that meaning.  If I have missed it please show me where it is.

[nanotm]

Bobsbeer

the transfer legislation to whit

Whereas the internal market comprises an area without internal frontiers in which the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital is ensured; whereas, therefore, the prohibition of quantitative restrictions on the movement of goods and of measures having an equivalent effect is one of the basic principles of the Community;

lifted directly from www.etsi.org/WebSite/document/aboutETSI/EC_Directives/ECdirective98_34.pdf taken from this part

“information society services”— (a) has the meaning given in Article 2(a) of the E-Commerce Directive (which refers to Article 1(2) of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations(b), and (b) is summarised in recital 17 of the E-Commerce Directive as covering “any service normally provided for remuneration, at a distance, by means of electronic equipment for the processing (including digital compression) and storage of data, and at the individual request of a recipient of a service”;

which indicates that anything is automatically a cross boarder production if it is within one member states boarders ......

[Bobsbeer]

I think we are talking at cross purposes or you are confused by what I have said. I have been discussing Section 4 of Part 7 and not Section 2 and Section 3, which relate to advertising in physical media or the internet and radio/television etc. While all contained in the same Part 7, they are different elements. It will have an impact on events such as Vapefest in that they could not use obvious vaping sponsors on their main webpage, or advertise products directly or indirectly on the website. However that would not stop the sponsors setting up a stall at Vapefest and selling to the punters as they do now. Nor would it stop them giving Vapefest a wadge of money to help out with the organising of it, they just can't get the credit we are used to seeing on the website etc.

But let be be a bit more specific for sake of clarity. Without going into great technical detail, "information society services" is electronic communication, such as the internet, radio and television, which you have given a good definition above. I agree such types of media are considered cross border productions. Yes I agree and the law says that such advertising will be illegal. Section 3 specifically spells this out.

No advertising of electronic cigarettes in information society services
3.—(1) No person may include, or procure the inclusion of an electronic cigarette advertisement in an information society service provided to a recipient in the United Kingdom.

(2) No service provider established in the United Kingdom may include an electronic cigarette advertisement in an information society service provided to a recipient in an EEA state other than the United Kingdom (“a non-UK-EEA state”)

There is more to Section 3 than the above, but not relevant to the current discussion. However by all means read it in it's entirety HERE. Section 3 may have unintended consequences to us on the forum and what we say and post, but that is for another discussion, and I don't want to muddy the waters on the thread in question.

So how is this relevant to Section 4? Which has been the subject of this thread. In many respects it isn't. Vapefest, and I use Vapefest as an example rather than talking specifically, is an actual event, not a virtual one. Local meetups are real, not virtual. The purpose of Vapefest may be to promote vaping in all it's wondrous ways, and that is fine. There is nothing in the proposed legislation that would prevent this, or make it illegal to have such an event. Any offences would be related to the promotion ie advertising of the event not the event per se. Then we come to Section 4 which is more relevant to such real events. In reality the legislators are trying to prevent sponsorship of major events, as was seen in the past. Anyone remember The Embassy World Snooker Championship, etc? Tobacco have long since been banned from such activities as a way to get around advertising rules. This is just bringing e cigs into that realm to stop say Totally Wicked or BT with Vype sponsoring the FA Cup. Moving on from this and where it relates to Section 4, is that many major events are now broadcast internationally and as such, so would any deftly placed ads for vaping stuff. Hence the ban on cross border, the event may be in one place, but by the magic of the airwaves is being seen in many countries.

Again how is this relevant to Vapefest? It isn't. Vapefest may well be a well attended event, but the last I heard it wasn't being broadcast live on Sky TV or any other channel that I know of, but sadly if that was the future aim of the organisers, their dreams have now been well and truly stuffed.

I hope that helps clear up where I am coming from on this. I am not being optimistic or idealist in my reading of the proposed legislation, just reading what is there. The law in general may be anything but clear in many instances, and is often complicated to understand, but one way to read the law, is that it should be read as any other english text, and unless specifically mentioned, terms should be given that of normal english usage. If you do that you won't be far wrong. I often have to read legal judgements published on BALLI in relation to my job. If you need a sleeping tablet have a read of a few, especially the ones related to taxation, they are an excellent drug free alternative.

I want to address another issue that seems to be causing confusion. I said that we vapers had nothing to fear post TPD with a shopping trolley sized mod with a monster tank attached, meeting PC Plod or Mr Trading Standards. We don't. Again reading the original SI it is very clearly aimed at producers and suppliers. Nearly every clause is preceded with the words "No person may produce or supply an electronic cigarette or refill container". Nowhere does it restrict you the consumer, or say you can't use such equipment post TPD. They may well stop to ask where you purchased such a beast, so they can lock up the supplier, but they would have no powers to stop you using it, or even confiscate it. Were you leaving a trail of liquid behind you, or creating such a fog of vapour that car drivers couldn't see, that may be a different matter, but rules regarding those occurrences are not to be found in TPD or UK E Cig legislation. So yes I will be walking with my head held high as I walk down the street with my iJoy Solo Mini with Apex tank attached, and a pocket full of my usual juice. I know I am doing nothing wrong.

[nanotm]

I think your being overly hopeful in your interpretation of the wording, to me its quite specific that post may2016 nobody can produce or supply a non compliant device or contents, that includes the person using it when they have self produced that item post may 2016, the onus would be on the user to show they had the item well in advance of the change date. it doesn't differentiate between production for personal use or production for sale by explicitly omitting the word sale from the text .... maybe a semantic but a very important one legally speaking rather like the change from "shall" to "should" in the recent paris sumit treaty on climate change .....

but back to the question surrounding vape fest, regulation

Sponsorship of events etc.
4.—(1) No person may sponsor, with the aim or effect of promoting electronic cigarettes or refill containers
— (a) an event or activity which takes place in or has an effect in two or more EEA states (“a cross-border event or activity”); or
(b) an individual taking part in a cross-border event or activity.
(2) In this regulation “sponsorship” means any form of public or private contribution in the course of business to any event, activity or individual.

taking that together with the rest of the complete SI means you have actually committed an offence if you sponsor something or someone where you are a vape business where that person or event is advertised (regardless of what it or they are) if they or it appear in an online post,
something that doesn't also apply to tobacco companies unless they are also an e-cig business because its explicitly for e-cigs and e-cig companies.....

that makes the TPD 10 times worse than any other non banning regulation in terms of how it will crush the industry in the is county, it will actually be an offence to explain to someone on the street that you are using an e-cig and that they could buy one unless they are stood inside an e-cig shop because that comes under the terms of promoting a device or liquid product.

if someone were to organise a social event where people gathered it would need to be funded entirely through ticket sales, and worse still anyone that works within the vape industry would be bared from showing up and vaping or talking at the event, a totally perverse situation that doesn't actually apply to tobacco sellers.

also I should like to point out that unless stipulated elsewhere within a given regulation you must read and apply it intoto not broken into separate parts, you might only be charged with a breach under a specific paragraph of said legislation but the entire piece is listed something that can actually be found within the regulation in this instance under this part

Offences and Defences
5
.—(1) A person is guilty of an offence if that person breaches any provision of regulations [2] to [4].
(2) In any proceedings for an offence against a person under regulation [2] to [4], it is a defence that the person exercised all due diligence to avoid committing the offence

[Richard46]

Produced does not mean possess; nor I think can it be interpreted to mean possess.

[Bobsbeer]

Some of what you say I agree with, however I think you are taking the connections too far and bestowing meaning where none should exist.

taking that together with the rest of the complete SI means you have actually committed an offence if you sponsor something or someone where you are a vape business where that person or event is advertised (regardless of what it or they are) if they or it appear in an online post,
something that doesn't also apply to tobacco companies unless they are also an e-cig business because its explicitly for e-cigs and e-cig companies.....

First off Clause 2 of Section 4 is to give meaning to the words as used in Clause 1. Clause 1a and 1b are the relevant parts here. It only becomes illegal to sponsor an event IF the terms of a or b are met. Those being that it must be an event taking place in more than one state or cross border. As far as I know not the case with vapefest or other regional meet ups. So they do not trigger the terms of Clause 1a or 1b.

Secondly the advertising issue. This is more complicated and in many respects wide ranging in effect than just the impact on meetup organisers, which we will probably have to agree to disagree. I said above I didn't want to muddy the waters with this, but hey ho, we might as well open that can of worms, which I see as an an enormous one for us on here. So let's look at Section 3 in a bit more detail than how it may affect Vapefest.  Vapefest is not in and of itself an e cigarette or refill container so I cannot see how we could not discuss Vapefest till the cows come home.  

However that is the minor consideration when you consider Section 3.  It will  have very wide ranging and intended or unintended consequences on our freedom of discussion on here way way above and beyond Vapefest.  As far as I can see it will also place a huge responsibility on our hard working mods and admin. Depending on where you live, we along with the admin will be the ones hauled up before the beak to answer for our indiscretions.

3.—(1) No person may include, or procure the inclusion of an electronic cigarette advertisement in an information society service provided to a recipient in the United Kingdom.
(2) No service provider established in the United Kingdom may include an electronic cigarette advertisement in an information society service provided to a recipient in an EEA state other than the United Kingdom (“a non-UK-EEA state”).
(3) No proceedings for an offence under paragraph (1) may be instituted against a service provider who is established in a non-UK-EEA state, unless the derogation condition is satisfied.
(4) The derogation condition is satisfied where the institution of proceedings—
(a) is necessary for the purposes of the protection of public health or the protection of consumers (“the objective”);
(b) relates to an information society service that prejudices the objective or presents a serious and grave risk of prejudice to the objective; and
(c) is proportionate to the objective.
(5) Paragraphs (1) and (2) do not apply—
(a) to an information society service which is intended exclusively for professionals in the trade of electronic cigarettes or refill containers; or
(b) to an information society service where the service provider is established in a third country and the service is not principally intended for the EEA market.
(6) The Schedule (liability of intermediary information society service providers) has effect

We need to look at this one very carefully. AAEC is a UK established forum, and in all likelihood the servers are in the EU somewhere. So for the sake of this discussion we will say it is a UK information society service. I hoping I am wrong on that front, but hopefully the powers at bee on the forum will update us on the status. Take today for instance. While wandering the internet I found details of a new atty by Joyetech. In the spirit of helpfulness I decided to tell all my fellow forum users of my new discovery. I gave detailed descriptions regarding it's use etc, which is clearly an e cigarette as defined by the terms of TPD or at the very least a refill container. Is that an advert first off? I think we would be hard pressed to say it wasn't. Now that we have defined it as as an advert and it is about an ecigarette or in this case a refill container, I have committed an offence outlined in Clause 1 and the onus is now on Admin to delete the post PDQ or they commit the offence outlined in Clause 2. My freedom of speech has been gagged royally, and my ability to discuss openly on the forum severely curtailed.

We may not be able to stop TPD, but we can get our freedoms returned by writing and making such a noise that the wording is changed or amended to not include such discussions on forums.

Edit:  AAEC is not a UK forum or even EU based.  It is a USA based forum, so we can probably breath easier.

ProBoards, Inc.

26060 Towne Centre Dr

Lake Forest, CA 92610

[Richard46]

If it has not already been linked I would suggest a look at the presenations here.

[nanotm]

pro boards is a USA company, not withstanding this website has members from across the EEA thus it contravenes all sections of the advertising legislation, something that applies equally to all other existing forums on e-cigs, furthermore the restrictions apply equally to any website that permits membership of people from the UK where promotion or cross promotion can be considered to take place (that means any discussion is banned)

the wording "can be considered" is very expansive and so long as a lawyer can argue their interpretation of the mater in their chosen slanted position then it has occurred, the anti advertising legistaltion is too all encompassing and thus knowingly and negligently causing harm to occur to uk citizens by refusing to allow them access to information about products that are better for their health than others on the market, without the ability to openly discuss and provide recommendations to products we effectively kill the market kill innovation and kill the business opportunities of many legitimate suppliers, it actually prevents a supplier telling me via electronic means about their product range, that's something that can only legally be done inside the B&M store in person, and technically it actually bans online shops due to the way cookie chasers advertising operates....

but that's ok because it also effectively bans us from accessing chinease websites (cross boarder non buinses importation banned) to order the products as well