E-cig ban Taiwan

[ukipper]

First I've heard of this,
On Jan. 4, Health Promotion Administration gave a preview of its revisions to the Tobacco Hazards Prevention Act. The points of the revision included an expansion of smoke-free places and a ban on hookah pipes and e-cigarettes.

These revisions would serve to safeguard both the public and employees at certain venues where smoking has traditionally been prevalent from the dangers of secondhand smoke, the health administration stated.
www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/national/national-news/2017/01/06/488645/p1/Government-mulls.htm

[ghostrider1971]

Ohhhhhh Taiwan! Why????? (My favourite place I have ever visited....)

Although, to be fair, if it's the same kind of "smoking ban" that South Korea and China has......it will be royally ignored.....

[djs]

Am I reading this right?

Ban on smoking in certain indoor situation/areas.

Complete ban on e-cigarettes.

GRIM. Also, totally ridiculous and clearly an attempt to stop e-cigs to keep people smoking and contributing to the governments tax collection.

[MrDJ]

read that Australia will most probably be going down the same route.

[jtc]

What a very strange world we live in

[yahoo2u2]

Its all about the dollar and protecting the incomes. Many countries need the populations to die young rather than OAPs. Old age costs and the longer they live the greater negative balance they provide.

Ideally the governments would like you to work for as long as you can, then retire and spend as much as you can quickly then die. Of course the spend bit is not an issue as either they get it or its left to relatives and they spend it quickly for you.

Smoking was and is a perfect population control system. You pay higher taxes all through your life and then die before you can become a massive drain on resources.

Now they fear the ecig for it just wont deliver to them what they need.

[djs]

Mar 6, 2017 17:05:07 GMT MrDJ said:

read that Australia will most probably be going down the same route.

A total e-cigarette ban?

Flippin' unbelievable.

[djs]

Mar 6, 2017 19:39:01 GMT yahoo2u2 said:

Its all about the dollar and protecting the incomes. Many countries need the populations to die young rather than OAPs. Old age costs and the longer they live the greater negative balance they provide.

Ideally the governments would like you to work for as long as you can, then retire and spend as much as you can quickly then die. Of course the spend bit is not an issue as either they get it or its left to relatives and they spend it quickly for you.

Smoking was and is a perfect population control system. You pay higher taxes all through your life and then die before you can become a massive drain on resources.

Now they fear the ecig for it just wont deliver to them what they need.

You're not wrong. It's very simple... the countries with the most to lose by smokers switching to vaping are the first in the line to ban it.
Smoking is huge business in Asia. It makes tons of money and kills off the population prematurely. It's a win win for governments.

[MrDJ]

Mar 6, 2017 20:44:14 GMT djs said:

Mar 6, 2017 17:05:07 GMT MrDJ said:

read that Australia will most probably be going down the same route.

A total e-cigarette ban?

Flippin' unbelievable.

Yup.

Nicotine liquids and electronic cigarettes prefilled with nicotine are effectively banned in Australia. Rather than embrace the enlightened approach in Britain, the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) are following minority arguments into a dark age. A total ban looms, and with it harsh punishments for those trying to reduce harm.

The TGA write: “In the states and territories, it is an offence to manufacture, sell or supply nicotine as Schedule 7 poison without a licence or specific authorisation. This means e-cigarettes containing nicotine cannot be sold in any Australian state or territory. Nicotine can be imported by an individual for use as an unapproved therapeutic good (e.g. a smoking cessation aid), but the importer must hold a prescription from an Australian registered medical practitioner and only import not more than 3 months' supply at any one time.”

Should the TGA’s decision to maintain this stance in March, it will only be legal to buy or import nicotine liquids if the person has a prescription from a doctor. According to commentators in Australia, doctors are very reluctant to do this. It means that vaping takes places in a hinterland that avoids direct regulation and risks including shoddy products.

Colin Mendelsohn states: “Australian smokers will be denied access to life-saving technology estimated to have helped millions of smokers to quit overseas. Those most affected will be from lower socio-economic and disadvantaged groups, which have the highest smoking rates and are hardest hit by the cost of smoking.”

The Australian Taxpayers Alliance (ATA) is equally unimpressed: “Despite the overwhelming international evidence of the life-saving capacities of vaping to save the lives of hundreds of thousands of Australians, the TGA recently decided to continue sticking their head in the sand and rejected an application from the New Nicotine Alliance to allow Australians to use this technology.”

The ATA describes the ridiculous decision as “pro-cancer”, and given that it will deny safer products to hundreds of thousands of smokers it is hard to see it any other way.

Mendelsohn illustrates the crass nature of the situation: “Vapers who try to quit smoking are branded criminals. The fine for possessing nicotine for vaping in Queensland is up to A$9,108 and the government encourages the public to report any offenders.”

Clive Bates indicates where pro-harm reduction advocates may be heading: “The final decision will be announced on 23 March 2017. We hope the TGA, its advisory committees and the responsible minister reconsider the initial decision, take another look at the evidence and do the right thing: accept the rescheduling. As I think our papers show, it will be hard to defend the decision in parliament or the courts.”

Currently the Australian government earns £12 from every £17 pack of cigarette sale. While some may be generous and say that these decisions are in the interests of the public, it is easy to see how allegations that they’re simply acting to protect their tax revenue arise. How much of that income is set to be wasted on lawyers if the TGA doesn’t see sense?

[DaveJ]

Mar 6, 2017 21:41:39 GMT MrDJ said:

Mar 6, 2017 20:44:14 GMT djs said:

A total e-cigarette ban?

Flippin' unbelievable.

Yup.

Nicotine liquids and electronic cigarettes prefilled with nicotine are effectively banned in Australia. Rather than embrace the enlightened approach in Britain, the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) are following minority arguments into a dark age. A total ban looms, and with it harsh punishments for those trying to reduce harm.

The TGA write: “In the states and territories, it is an offence to manufacture, sell or supply nicotine as Schedule 7 poison without a licence or specific authorisation. This means e-cigarettes containing nicotine cannot be sold in any Australian state or territory. Nicotine can be imported by an individual for use as an unapproved therapeutic good (e.g. a smoking cessation aid), but the importer must hold a prescription from an Australian registered medical practitioner and only import not more than 3 months' supply at any one time.”

Should the TGA’s decision to maintain this stance in March, it will only be legal to buy or import nicotine liquids if the person has a prescription from a doctor. According to commentators in Australia, doctors are very reluctant to do this. It means that vaping takes places in a hinterland that avoids direct regulation and risks including shoddy products.

Colin Mendelsohn states: “Australian smokers will be denied access to life-saving technology estimated to have helped millions of smokers to quit overseas. Those most affected will be from lower socio-economic and disadvantaged groups, which have the highest smoking rates and are hardest hit by the cost of smoking.”

The Australian Taxpayers Alliance (ATA) is equally unimpressed: “Despite the overwhelming international evidence of the life-saving capacities of vaping to save the lives of hundreds of thousands of Australians, the TGA recently decided to continue sticking their head in the sand and rejected an application from the New Nicotine Alliance to allow Australians to use this technology.”

The ATA describes the ridiculous decision as “pro-cancer”, and given that it will deny safer products to hundreds of thousands of smokers it is hard to see it any other way.

Mendelsohn illustrates the crass nature of the situation: “Vapers who try to quit smoking are branded criminals. The fine for possessing nicotine for vaping in Queensland is up to A$9,108 and the government encourages the public to report any offenders.”

Clive Bates indicates where pro-harm reduction advocates may be heading: “The final decision will be announced on 23 March 2017. We hope the TGA, its advisory committees and the responsible minister reconsider the initial decision, take another look at the evidence and do the right thing: accept the rescheduling. As I think our papers show, it will be hard to defend the decision in parliament or the courts.”

Currently the Australian government earns £12 from every £17 pack of cigarette sale. While some may be generous and say that these decisions are in the interests of the public, it is easy to see how allegations that they’re simply acting to protect their tax revenue arise. How much of that income is set to be wasted on lawyers if the TGA doesn’t see sense?

That particular document follows the TGA's (Theraputic Good Administration) refusal to allow an exemption from poison classification for Vaping Nicotine made recently by the Australian arm of the NNA. The TGA controls availability of MEDICAL stuff. They allow or not items that make medical claims and provide for exemptions from poison control for things that do not.

Patches/Gum etc are provided a medical exemption from the poison classification by the TGA under health/medical grounds. There is a separate exemption provided to the nicotine poisons listings for Tobacco/cigarettes, clearly not under medical grounds but rather a "grandfather" clause.

Without that requested exemption from poison control, the legal standing of Vaping nicotine remains unchanged in Oz - not legal to possess by any person unless they hold a particular poisons license (none granted to my knowledge) or hold a doctors script covering the importation of the product.

In that quoted document, they sorta mismash the illegal to posses nicotine in with the legally available hardware and the act of vaping. Unless you are in WA the sale and supply of vaping hardware is legal and seems likely to remain so for at least a while. In most places the act of vaping seems to be governed by the same rules as for smoking - eateries, hospitals, public buildings, cinemas, hotels, shops ... anywhere that bans smoking will normally also include banning the use of e-cigs. Even, remarkably, significant areas of national parks down the eastern seaboard ban outdoors vaping along with their no smoking rules.

But that's not to say it isn't on the some people's agenda to totally ban Vaping. The likes of Simon Chapman, the Cancer Council, the Health Dept and such are all still very anti-vaping. No major political party has any policy statement for vaping. No significant "social service" has a for vaping stance. Many doctors still repeat the "it's like smoking, bad, give it up" line to their patients. Some say things behind the scenes are starting to change in Vaping's favour... but I do not see any evidence of that, at least not yet.

I'm still stocking up.

[MrDJ]

fingers crossed its all ollox then.