# No branding, no logos, no colours - SA gets tough on cigarettes - and E-cigs



## daveza (31/5/16)

http://www.fin24.com/Companies/Health/sa-to-hit-smokers-with-tougher-laws-20160531


Cape Town – Government said it is determined to tighten its tobacco laws that will see plain packaging on cigarette products as part of a global drive to lower the incentive for people to smoke.

On Tuesday, which is World No-Tobacco Day, the health department said it plans to strengthen the Tobacco Products Control Act to fall in line with World Health Organisation Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.

This follows the 2009 law banning smoking in public spaces.

Health Minister Aaron Motsoaledi said he plans to toughen the act's stance on public smoking, ban the selling of cigarettes at shop counters, ban cigarette dispensers and force companies to package their products in brown paper with no branding whatsoever.

Motsoaledi told SABC on Tuesday that the 2009 law reduced smoking from 25% to 17%. “It is definitely working,” he said. “Many South Africans will tell you they appreciate the clean air.”

However, 44 000 South Africans still die every year as a result of smoking and Motsoaledi said the habit has “no place in modern life”.

Motsoaledi said South Africa has been overtaken on its hard stance on smoking, with the UK, Ireland, Australia and France all banning branded packaging. New Zealand announced on Tuesday that it would follow suit to fall in line with WHO recommendations.

“We have been overtaken,” said Motsoaledi, revealing his determination to bring South Africa back in line with global trends.

“Public smoking should not be (allowed) in hospitals at all,” he said. “At OR Tambo, you move through clouds of smoke when you leave the building.”

That’s why he wants to increase the distance that people can smoke in public space.

Regarding “subtle advertising” at shop counters, he said “we will deal with that”.

“They must go hide the cigarettes somewhere else,” he said. “They must not put it on open counters. Dispensers must also go.”

He said all cigarettes must be in one brown package with graphics that show the damage they can cause. “No branding, no logos, no colours.”

*In addition, he said they would also tackle e-cigarettes.

“We are looking at it very carefully,” he said, explaining that at the last WHO conference a decision was made to package e-cigarettes like any other cigarette.

“Some have nicotine and are just as bad as normal cigarettes,” he said. “It introduces people to tobacco.”*


----------



## Cruzz_33 (31/5/16)

The last quote just kills me ....

Reactions: Agree 2


----------



## Cruzz_33 (31/5/16)

@Mike Card


----------



## Feliks Karp (31/5/16)

Health Minister...“Some have nicotine and are just as bad as normal cigarettes”...*


*


----------



## deepest (31/5/16)

haha what a load of rubbish !!


----------



## Clouder (31/5/16)

Well... it looks like the Health Minister Aaron Motsoaledi is.... also an absolute, BLITHERING IDIOT.... hmmmm... How about that.....


----------



## daveza (31/5/16)

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-st...-a7003891.html

E-cigarettes 'much less harmful than smoking and should be encouraged'


E-cigarettes are beneficial to public health and smokers should be encouraged to use them, a major report by the Royal College of Physicians has concluded.

The 200 page report is one of the most thorough analyses of the controversial devices to date and attempts to clarify divided opinion and conflicting advice on their use. It concludes that contrary to concerns, e-cigarettes do not function as a ‘gateway’ to smoking for non-smokers and that most people who use them have already had a long established prior smoking habit. 

It also recommends that: “Among smokers, e-cigarette use is likely to lead to quit attempts that would not otherwise have happened, and in a proportion of these to successful cessation. In this way, e-cigarettes can act as a gateway from smoking.”

The report’s authors say they therefore: “conclude that e-cigarettes are likely to be beneficial to UK public health. Smokers can therefore be reassured to use them, and the public can be reassured that e-cigarettes are much safer than smoking.”

Try and keep up Mr Motsoaledi !


----------



## korn1 (31/5/16)

*“Some have nicotine and are just as bad as normal cigarettes,” he said. “It introduces people to tobacco.”*

Ummm what research ? Introduces people to tobacco? I am pretty sure most vapers were already smokers...


----------



## Nick (31/5/16)



Reactions: Funny 4


----------



## SAVaper (31/5/16)

Yip. I agree, but be that as it may, this is the beginning of increased regulation with the ultimate aim of taxation.
Sin tax is a significant contributor to most governments. They would want to protect that income source. If the source moves to vaping, so will the sin tax.


----------



## RichJB (31/5/16)

It is clear that more research is needed but not everybody is in agreement with the "95% safer than smoking" claims. The Telegraph in the UK has printed some recent articles which should be of interest to all vapers:

Concerns about the neutrality of the Public Health England study

University of California study on cell and DNA damage from vaping.

I'm not saying these articles are true, just that one has to read as widely as you can if you want to be informed. Personally, I am viewing vaping as a gateway to quitting everything. I stopped smoking, started on 24mg nicotine in cig-alikes, have since incrementally worked down to 3mg nicotine in a mod&RTA setup, and want to get to 0mg nicotine before quitting entirely. While vaping has been a great aid to quitting smoking, I don't want it to become a lifestyle replacement for smoking.


----------



## daveza (31/5/16)

University of California study on cell and DNA damage from vaping.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/29/s...hat-e-cigarettes-are-as-dangerous-as-tobacco/

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RichJB (31/5/16)

Yes, with any scientific/medical claim, you will find people offering a counter-argument. Don't forget that initial claims of smoking tobacco being unhealthy were also pooh-poohed and/or furiously denied by some in the medical science field. I'm just saying that one needs to read widely and consider all viewpoints, rather than quoting the "95% safer than smoking" line as though it's the holy grail of scientific truth. That we want to believe it doesn't necessarily make it true.

What concerned me in the recent BBC documentary, which was generally quite pro-vaping in its conclusions, was that one test where they passed vapour over human cells, and found that the menthol-flavoured vapour killed more cells than the other flavour. However, even the less damaging flavour killed nearly half of the cells exposed to it. 

What also concerns me is whether medical testing is keeping up with the pace of vaping technology. There is inevitable lag in medical testing because reports have to undergo rigorous protocols before being released. So recent medical reports are probably based on tests done some years ago, most likely on vapers using the type of cig-alike and AIO devices that were most common then. These devices are miserly in their juice consumption, so it's likely that users weren't consuming more than a few ml of juice daily.

The host of the BBC documentary vaped for a month using a VTC Mini and tank. Judging by the clouds he was blowing, it was probably more of a MTL type vape and he was struggling to keep up with the vaping schedule he was given. So I'd guess that he too was only consuming a few ml of juice per day. At the end of the month, the doctor noted some inflammation of his airways but said it would clear up when he stopped vaping. That is fine and good. But what would the results have been if he'd been vaping dual Claptons at 100W and chugging his way through 40-50ml of juice a day? I think vapers need this information to come to informed decisions.


----------



## Neal (31/5/16)

I bet all the aunties working at the cigarette counter are looking forward to this. Customer: do you have any Marlboro reds? Assistant: Eeish, I am not sure they all look the same to me...


----------



## Feliks Karp (31/5/16)

RichJB said:


> It is clear that more research is needed but not everybody is in agreement with the "95% safer than smoking" claims. The Telegraph in the UK has printed some recent articles which should be of interest to all vapers:
> 
> Concerns about the neutrality of the Public Health England study
> 
> ...



In your link the same people responsible for the 95% less harmful statement go on to say "“The best thing a smoker can do is quit completely now and forever", I don't think any one is advocating that vapor is harmless or that anyone should now take up vaping for the next 20 years. 

However a vapid statement from a "health official" stating that they're just as bad and will make kids take up smoking cigarettes probably just put off a group of people following the same route you laid out for yourself, a route that ends in quitting any kind of inhaling.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## RichJB (31/5/16)

That's very true, Feliks, although I think there is enough info out there for people who want to quit. Don't get me wrong, I'm not for a moment agreeing with our esteemed Minister of Health. And if anybody asked me for advice on quitting smoking, vaping would be my first recommendation. I just think we need to be open to the idea that a whole lot more research is needed - and the possibility that there may be some bad news among the good.


----------



## zadiac (31/5/16)

This facepalm





is for the spelling in this facepalm

Reactions: Like 1 | Winner 1 | Funny 3


----------



## Nick (31/5/16)



Reactions: Funny 3


----------



## Caveman (31/5/16)

No branding or logos or anything? Just a brown paper bag?

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## zadiac (31/5/16)

Nick said:


> View attachment 56049



I know, I know, but as Captain America said........"it just slipped out"


----------



## BumbleBee (31/5/16)

Brown paper bags have worked wonders for alcohol

Reactions: Agree 1 | Funny 1


----------



## Kamiel (31/5/16)

It's a bit worrying. 

Big Tobacco has the clout to tie up legislation like this in court for years, but I don't know if Joyetech, Eleaf, Kanger, Aspire, etc can survive severe taxation without surrendering to the cigarette manufacturers. 

As far as our flavours go, this coupling of tobacco products and nicotine products has the potential to destroy the thriving independant/gourmet eliquid scene. I just don't think these businesses have the resources to fight back. 

Perhaps, we should consider inudstrial action before things get too hairy and we're faced with an uncertain future like vapers in the US. Should local vape businesses and vape consumers unionise in an effort to protect ourselves?


----------



## n0ugh7_zw (31/5/16)

would like to see them fit an rx200 in a brown cigarette packet.


----------



## n0ugh7_zw (31/5/16)

the more illicit they make this stuff, the more pervasive it'll be. at no point in history has increased regulation actually resulted in increased regulation. only real way to regulate stuff, is to have it out in the open, so that you can see whats going on, and regulate it that way.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Kamiel (31/5/16)

n0ugh7_zw said:


> the more illicit they make this stuff, the more pervasive it'll be. at no point in history has increased regulation actually resulted in increased regulation. only real way to regulate stuff, is to have it out in the open, so that you can see whats going on, and regulate it that way.


They're not interested in regulation for our safety. I don't think they ever have been. They're interested in payoff in the form of taxes. Also, the steep fines that will result from when, as you say, vaping becomes more pervasive.


----------



## RichJB (1/6/16)

n0ugh7_zw said:


> the more illicit they make this stuff, the more pervasive it'll be. at no point in history has increased regulation actually resulted in increased regulation. only real way to regulate stuff, is to have it out in the open, so that you can see whats going on, and regulate it that way.



They are applying the same controls that they applied to smoking. Those controls have worked. Smoking hasn't become more pervasive since the new laws came out, it has become considerably less pervasive. Fewer people than ever before smoke now.


----------

