EU draft directive to be presented on wed 19th Dec

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

pfft, british people aren't innocents

tommy2bad

Jazus, follow me up to Carlow!

Mr. Chrome

Tbh I would like to see some sort of regulation on the making of juice, as it stands you could make juice in your bath, stick a fancy lable on it and sell it! Im saying this cause I recently bought 100ml of an Irish vendor and it was pure muck, made me sick as f*ck, either mg strength was way off or ingredients were dodgy.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

if it was from a vendor which regularly has 100ml juice sales then that juice was among the highest quality juice available. formulated by chemists and made in sterilised factories

Mr. Chrome

They were 10ml bottles, no brand name, no seal, same flavour and strength that I always vape, emailed them to find out what brand and pg/vg ratio it was but they never replied!

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

hrm, then definitely not the juice i'm thinking of.

tommy2bad

Mr. Chrome wrote: »

Tbh I would like to see some sort of regulation on the making of juice, as it stands you could make juice in your bath, stick a fancy lable on it and sell it! Im saying this cause I recently bought 100ml of an Irish vendor and it was pure muck, made me sick as f*ck, either mg strength was way off or ingredients were dodgy.

Absolutely, whats needed is regulation as consumer goods, with verifiability contents and safety standards. Not medical certification.

was.deevey

2 years is a long time in the vaping world, just look how far the devices have come in just the past 2 years we've gone from mini-cigs and horrible carto's to decent batteries with clearo's to Ego-c's, Vivi's, Genesis and decent affordable fully stainless steel drippers being the norm.

.... not to mention the juices not tasting like a rugby sock after a wet game like they did back in 2006 and more and more people making their own at home.

by 2015, we'll have

• Proper ceramic wicks - No possible harm from silica or burning stainless (which no doubt they would use as a minus true or not)
• Better batteries - No chance of explosions, overheating or gases of any kind.
• Affordable synthetic nicotine - Production

Which will make the majority of the bill null and void unless a ton of wording is changed as e-cigs will no longer be tobacco products.

I do hope their is some kind of regulation regarding the manufacture of the juice supplies and carts/clearos - as their are some pretty dodgy factories in china making juice, clearo's and pre-packed cartos (some of which I've visited).

Imagine the cotton or silica in your Carto/Clearo has probably been sitting unwashed on the floor of an unswept factory before being cut off by a rusty scissors and inserted into the cartridge right before a tech mauls it with his bare hands to solder the connections in place - now factor in that appx 6 or more people handle every carto/clearo.

Oh and you know the blister packs of carto's that look more "hygenic" - they do only "look" hygienic and are being fed into a packer individually afterwards most likely by bare hands - no sterilization of the carts ever takes place.

Thats the reality for ya

tommy2bad

was.deevey wrote: »

2 years is a long time in the vaping world, just look how far the devices have come in just the past 2 years we've gone from mini-cigs and horrible carto's to decent batteries with clearo's to Ego-c's, Vivi's, Genesis and decent affordable fully stainless steel drippers being the norm.

.... not to mention the juices not tasting like a rugby sock after a wet game like they did back in 2006 and more and more people making their own at home.

by 2015, we'll have

• Proper ceramic wicks - No possible harm from silica or burning stainless (which no doubt they would use as a minus true or not)
• Better batteries - No chance of explosions, overheating or gases of any kind.
• Affordable synthetic nicotine - Production

Which will make the majority of the bill null and void unless a ton of wording is changed as e-cigs will no longer be tobacco products.

I do hope their is some kind of regulation regarding the manufacture of the juice supplies and carts/clearos - as their are some pretty dodgy factories in china making juice, clearo's and pre-packed cartos (some of which I've visited).

Imagine the cotton or silica in your Carto/Clearo has probably been sitting unwashed on the floor of an unswept factory before being cut off by a rusty scissors and inserted into the cartridge right before a tech mauls it with his bare hands to solder the connections in place - now factor in that appx 6 or more people handle every carto/clearo.

Oh and you know the blister packs of carto's that look more "hygenic" - they do only "look" hygienic and are being fed into a packer individually afterwards most likely by bare hands - no sterilization of the carts ever takes place.

Thats the reality for ya

No it won't, this bill has created a new category, nicotine containing products, and has also declared that any NCP with more than 4mg nic concentration and 2mg in total in any one container will require medical certification.
It's effectively a ban on all the cartos and clearos and gennies that we now use for any juice with nicotine. All that will be alowd is .5ml of 4mg or 1ml of 2mg juice or 2ml of .5mg juice. Any amount of 0nic juice is unregulated.

Quoting James Rielly "If they help people quit smoking then they should be regulated as medicinal products because all the evidence shows that people are most successful quiting with the support of qualified medical advice and aids"
Yeah don't let the facts get in the way of your argument James.

Homer Simson;
You can prove anything with facts

P_1

tommy2bad wrote: »

No it won't, this bill has created a new category, nicotine containing products, and has also declared that any NCP with more than 4mg nic concentration and 2mg in total in any one container will require medical certification.
It's effectively a ban on all the cartos and clearos and gennies that we now use for any juice with nicotine. All that will be alowd is .5ml of 4mg or 1ml of 2mg juice or 2ml of .5mg juice. Any amount of 0nic juice is unregulated.

Quoting James Rielly "If they help people quit smoking then they should be regulated as medicinal products because all the evidence shows that people are most successful quiting with the support of qualified medical advice and aids"
Yeah don't let the facts get in the way of your argument James.

But Reilly is taking a very black and white view to this argument.

I wonder, I live in his constituency, my younger brother used to be pals with his son, would it be worthwhile of me to try put our side across at a constituency meeting with him or something?

tommy2bad

P_1 wrote: »

But Reilly is taking a very black and white view to this argument.

I wonder, I live in his constituency, my younger brother used to be pals with his son, would it be worthwhile of me to try put our side across at a constituency meeting with him or something?

Yes it would but tbh from what he said at the TPD launch and the public debate, I wouldn't have much hope, he seems wedded to the idea of nicotine abstinence and has no opening for harm reduction as a strategy against smoking.

richardw001

tommy2bad wrote: »

Absolutely, whats needed is regulation as consumer goods, with verifiability contents and safety standards. Not medical certification.

+1 on this comment

The irony of the proposed EU regulations is that

a) It won't be illegal for someone to concoct something in a dirty bath and sell it as a vapeable alternative to the current ejuices - once it doesn't have nicotene - then they can sell it - and by removing a safer alternative they are driving people to it.

b) Its going to encourage people to be messing with high concentrations of nicotene - stock piling and making up their own from highly concentrated liquids. High concentrations are dangerous unless you know what your doing.

c) Drive people back to or keep them smoking.

What we have at the moment is a customer regulated industry - to be honest I would prefer it to be regulated formally myself


The gov and the EU have alot to answer for - cigarettes have been around for many years and they have done nothing (and still are doing nothing !)

When something that users claim is a safer alternative comes along - they have performed zero research into it. And just try and close it down.

All they need to do is bump up the allowable concentration of e-liquid to something like 18mg and ensure that e-liquid is manufactured at food/drinks quality level - in proper conditions. And conduct a proper study into this - and then decide.

That would have been a intelligent approach.

was.deevey

That would have been a intelligent approach.

And in a nutshell there lies the issue - intelligence and politics rarely go hand-in-hand.

If they help people quit smoking then they should be regulated as medicinal products because all the evidence shows that people are most successful quiting with the support of qualified medical advice and aids

Ecigs DO NOT help you quit smoking - they help you quit smoking cigarettes by method of smoking substitution. If people successfully manage to reduce their reliance on nicotine, that is a side effect.

Technically though you are not quitting.

nicotine containing products,

Had only read the initial draft which mentioned Ecigs in the category which were all blanketed under "tobacco products" - yes Nicotine Containing products as well, but as a subsection of Tobacco products which synthetic nicotine would not be - unless the bill is modified.

grindle

was.deevey wrote: »

Technically though you are not quitting.

Very technically, you are quitting. With the utmost technicality.

No smoke=Quit smoking.
Whether or not ECITA, CASAA or other organisations want to use it as a loophole to keep us in or out of the medicinal closet is another thing altogether (what an idea, a new classification!), but I don't smoke, ergo I have quit smoking.
Saying that someone who doesn't smoke hasn't quit smoking is tantamount to telling vegans they haven't quit meat. Good luck with that.

Mr. Chrome

P_1 wrote: »

But Reilly is taking a very black and white view to this argument.

I wonder, I live in his constituency, my younger brother used to be pals with his son, would it be worthwhile of me to try put our side across at a constituency meeting with him or something?

That would be great if you could do that, if you could bring your gear with you cause I doubt he has a clue about vaping, after all isnt he a doctor, didnt he have to take an oath to save lives (although im sure his salary would override that!) It would be great if we could come up with a figure for the amount of people that have quit smoking by vaping in Ireland (votes). I know we all think he is a bell end but if he could somehow be convinced we could not ask for a better ally.
If that fails, give me his address and I will call to his house and shove a vamo up his gummy bear hole ;-)

tommy2bad

grindle wrote: »

Very technically, you are quitting. With the utmost technicality.

No smoke=Quit smoking.
Whether or not ECITA, CASAA or other organisations want to use it as a loophole to keep us in or out of the medicinal closet is another thing altogether (what an idea, a new classification!), but I don't smoke, ergo I have quit smoking.
Saying that someone who doesn't smoke hasn't quit smoking is tantamount to telling vegans they haven't quit meat. Good luck with that.

Yes ironically making a claim or reference to quiting is enough to justify a medicine authorization. Quiting is seen as a cure for smoking.
One of the speakers at the 'public debate' said that ecigs fooled people into thinking they had quit when in fact they were still addicted to nicotine.
Well duh! but it shows that nothing short of nicotine abstinence is seen as quiting by some people.

Vaperus

We should have the same right to use nicotine as we do caffeine and I dont mean drink it
We are trying to start an action group on the Irish FB Page so watch this space

was.deevey

(what an idea, a new classification!)

At least it'll keep em busy for a few more years ...

grindle

was.deevey wrote: »

At least it'll keep em busy for a few more years ...

I'd be delighted if it was reclassified. It already is it's own separate entity, they're just lazily trying to lump it into an already-existing category.

Square peg, round hole - carving chunks from the square peg seems to be the easier thing for them to do. Seems counter-intuitive to me, but maybe I'm not aware of all the extra legwork they might have to do to properly classify a substance.

P_1

Mr. Chrome wrote: »

That would be great if you could do that, if you could bring your gear with you cause I doubt he has a clue about vaping, after all isnt he a doctor, didnt he have to take an oath to save lives (although im sure his salary would override that!) It would be great if we could come up with a figure for the amount of people that have quit smoking by vaping in Ireland (votes). I know we all think he is a bell end but if he could somehow be convinced we could not ask for a better ally.
If that fails, give me his address and I will call to his house and shove a vamo up his gummy bear hole ;-)

Only worry is that I'm only new to the whole Vaping thing, would need to bring a hell of a lot of things to the meeting if it came about

Mr. Chrome

P_1 wrote: »

Only worry is that I'm only new to the whole Vaping thing, would need to bring a hell of a lot of things to the meeting if it came about

Fairly green when it comes to the facts and figures myself but im sure some of the brainiacs here can help you out.

csi vegas

tommy2bad wrote: »

All of the links come with a health warning,if you suffer from blood pressure dont click. The amount of mis-truths, half truths, and downright lies is breathtaking. James Rielly is a muppet who didn't even read the speech he gave before giving it.

Stock up now!

Time to enable my PM function now I think...this shít goin' underground...

drkpower

While I dont support the EU approach, given the long lead-in time, doesnt it allow for the juice manufacturers to provide the scientific data required such as to alllow authorisation without it necessarily costing a fortune?

I appreciate that it will lead to an increase in prices and a consolidation of the industry (much less juice manufacturers) but do we really think it will lead to an explosion in prices?

P_1

drkpower wrote: »

While I dont support the EU approach, given the long lead-in time, doesnt it allow for the juice manufacturers to provide the scientific data required such as to alllow authorisation without it necessarily costing a fortune?

I appreciate that it will lead to an increase in prices and a consolidation of the industry (much less juice manufacturers) but do we really think it will lead to an explosion in prices?

It will probably lead to an increase in price alright, sadly the issue seems to be whether or not we will be able to use them

drkpower

P_1 wrote: »

It will probably lead to an increase in price alright, sadly the issue seems to be whether or not we will be able to use them

Sorry, i might have missed something but why would we not be able to use them at all?

grindle

drkpower wrote: »

While I dont support the EU approach, given the long lead-in time, doesnt it allow for the juice manufacturers to provide the scientific data required such as to alllow authorisation without it necessarily costing a fortune?

I appreciate that it will lead to an increase in prices and a consolidation of the industry (much less juice manufacturers) but do we really think it will lead to an explosion in prices?

The price to vendor will be per juice, per flavour of juice, per strength of that juice. There isn't a single Irish vendor that could afford for a personal range of their juices to get beyond medicinal checks.

That's also ignoring the fact that if they don't want it classified as medicine they have to sell in concentrations that are useless. Not concentrations that "might take getting used to".
Absolutely worthless. Like dumping a shot of vodka into a gallon of water and hoping you'll get pissed.

P_1

drkpower wrote: »

Sorry, i might have missed something but why would we not be able to use them at all?

The less than 4mg part that they're considering

drkpower

P_1 wrote: »

The less than 4mg part that they're considering

Yes, but above 4mg, the juices can be authorised as a medicinal product.

While that wont be cheap, the scientific data that will be required may not be that difficult to procure, particularly as there is already voluminous scientific information regarding nicotine out there (albeit administered in different forms).

I wouldnt be so sure that this directive will be the acopalyptic game-changer that some are predicting.

csi vegas

tommy2bad wrote: »

TVECA are a trade association led by Totaly Wicked, Jason Cropper owner of TW is the one who took the FDA in the US to court first and won the case.

I wouldn't be totally discouraged, several MEP raised the ecig issue and just because they were dismissed by Rielly or ignored by the panel dosnt mean they are now out of the picture, this has to be passed by MEP's voting for it. Convince them it's a bad idea and compromise will happen.

Anyone else struck by the irony of a SF MEP decrying the killing of innocents by the tobacco companies ?

Many times I have come across Totally Wicked on my searches - now I will be giving them my full support by way of trade for this reason alone. Reading in to this on another tab as I type. Thanks for the info.



SF? No! (or "nurrr!")

drkpower

grindle wrote: »

The price to vendor will be per juice, per flavour of juice, per strength of that juice. There isn't a single Irish vendor that could afford for a personal range of their juices to get beyond medicinal checks.

Do you mean the price it will cost to authorise each as a medicinal product? If so, it is worth bearing in mind that the scientific data in respect of each different strength would be relatively limited. And the scientific data per each flavour should be very very limited.

For instance, where a pharma authorises a regular drug at a particular strength, the later authorisation of a slightly diffferent strength drug with the same active ingredient is usually relatively straightforward (as regards the scientific dossier that must be submitted).