Recent Posts

QFT

I'm still a little confused why the attention on that - not passing 'Amendment 71 Proposal for a directive Article 18' would still leave in place the huge restrictions (essentially making any sensible eCig medicinal) unless those restrictions were raised from 2mg to 30mg by Amendment 170 to Article 18.

That's our real win (except for DIY).

(I get the argument now though - the latter couldn't have been accepted without throwing out first the amendment to medicalise all nicotine-containing products)

No. Once you've Godwin-ed there's no point. I tried to ask you earlier (on the BBC thread) what you think 'elite' means, but once you've cast yourself as resistance versus (literal) Nazis there's no debate to be sought.

I know what's going to be in my freezer in 2016...

Me too. I think kibbster meant a different amendment. The press might confuse tobacco and 'nicotine-containing products', but the directive doesn't.

71? 71 rewords:

"The prohibition of
the sale of oral tobacco should be
maintained in order to prevent the
introduction to the internal market of a
product that is addictive, has adverse
health effects and is attractive to young
people."

to:

"Upholds the ban on
tobacco products for oral use, however,
such a ban should not affect historically
traditional tobacco products for oral use,
which may be allowed by individual
Member States."