# Retailers Of E-cigarettes 'breaking The Law'



## devdev (23/6/14)

http://www.timeslive.co.za/thetimes/2014/06/23/retailers-of-e-cigarettes-breaking-law


*Retailers of e-cigarettes 'breaking law'*

Katharine Child | 23 June, 2014 00:58

"E-cigarettes therefore need to be prescribed by a doctor and bought with a prescription. 
Electronic or e-cigarettes may only be sold in pharmacies, but retailers and manufacturers are breaking this law, saying they interpret it differently.

According to Medicines Control Council regulations enacted last year, nicotine - the active ingredient in e-cigarettes - is either a Schedule2 or a Schedule3 drug.
Scheduled substances can be sold only in pharmacies.
A council source said, however, that the threat of lawsuits from e-cigarette manufacturers was the reason for its failure to enforce its regulations.
According to Vitality Institute director Professor Derek Yach, global sales of e-cigarettes in 2012 amounted to $1-billion (more than R10-billion).
Electronic cigarettes are battery-operated inhalers that deliver nicotine in vapour form.
Health Ministry spokesman Joe Maila yesterday confirmed that nicotine was a scheduled drug under the Medicines and Related Substance Act.
"E-cigarettes therefore need to be prescribed by a doctor and bought with a prescription.
"The Medicines Control Act covers nicotine as a Schedule 3 drug, hence e-cigarettes, by law, should not be sold over the counter."
The council's regulations state: "Nicotine, when intended for human medicinal use as an aid to smoking cessation, or as a substitute for a tobacco product, is Schedule 3."
But e-cigarettes are freely available over the counter at Twisp kiosks in malls, at garage shops and at Clicks stores.
Twisp says it interprets the act as applying only to the use of electronic cigarettes as a medicine, not when they are for recreational use.
Company director Nathan Smith said Twisp was not breaking the law.
"Any interpretation of the schedules to regulate the use and sale of Twisp electronic cigarettes and liquid refills is not covered by the authority granted to the Medicines Control Council and the minister of health."
Clicks agrees. Susann Caminada, spokesman for Clicks, said: "As the product does not make any medicinal or health claims, and is not marketed to aid in smoking cessation, it does not fall under the ambit of the act, therefore allowing sales in the front shop."
The council failed to respond to inquiries as to why it does not enforce its regulation.
The US Food and Drug Administration is trying to regulate e-cigarettes on the grounds that there are not enough data to prove that they are safe.
E-Cigs: Miracle or a menace
Doctors and professors from across the globe have written to the World Health Organisation on e-cigarettes.
In May, 53 doctors, including a South African, asked the WHO to consider e-cigarettes as "the most significant health innovation of the 21st century - perhaps saving hundreds of millions of lives".
The doctors added: "The urge to control and suppress [ e-cigarettes] as tobacco products should be resisted."
But 129 leading professors wrote to the WHO last week claiming e-cigarettes glamorised smoking by introducing flavours like kiwi fruit and cherry .
They said gains made against smoking in recent decades would be lost if e-cigarettes became popular.
Wits Public Health Professor Sharon Fonn said: "We do not know that they are not harmful. They do emit toxins."

Reactions: Informative 4


----------



## Rex_Bael (23/6/14)

It's interesting how the medical professionals in support of vaping speak of saving lives and those against can only come up with it glamourizing smoking because there are flavours

Reactions: Like 3 | Agree 2


----------



## Metal Liz (23/6/14)

This is just so frustrating, why do they keep trying to take our choice of healthier living away from us!!! Wish they would just leave us the  alone!!!!!

Sent from my GT-I9500 using Tapatalk


----------



## RevnLucky7 (23/6/14)

As a retailer, I memorized this line. It's like my safe word.

"Excuse me sir, but your laws don't apply to me."

Reactions: Like 5 | Winner 2


----------



## Gazzacpt (23/6/14)

Am I being doff because if thats the case the it should apply to tobacco products aswell. They classify nicotine which is found in tobacco and a host of other products aswell. I think I need to find that particular gazette entry.

Sent from my GT-I9190 using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## devdev (23/6/14)

@Gazzacpt There is a specific Tobacco Controls Act, and nicotine (which happens to be the psychoactive ingredient in tobacco) is regulated in the Medicines Controlled Substances Act.


----------



## Arctus (23/6/14)

All these recent articles appear to be nothing more than cherry picking of the various legislations by under informed "interested parties", journo's and editors.
Reading the actual legislations in their entirety, actually shows a different picture.

The Tobacco Products Control Act 1993 (Act No. 83 of 1993), under Section 1, (Definitions), defines a tobacco product as: “_a product containing tobacco that is intended for human consumption, and includes, but is not limited to, any device, pipe, water pipe, papers, tubes, filters, portion pouches or similar objects manufactured for use in the consumption of tobacco;”_
As the e-liquids sold by most Vape shops contain only synthetic Nicotine, with no tobacco whatsoever, used in their creation. The Tobacco Products Control Act 1993 (Act No. 83 of 1993), does not apply to vaping products currently. (This could be different for NET juices)

The Tobacco Products Control Act 1993 (Act No. 83 of 1993), was updated by Government Gazette No.31790, and as a result, Section 10 of this Gazette notes that the act is now to be referred to as the Tobacco Products Control Amendment Act, 2008. In this amended revision, no update or review of the definition of a tobacco product was made, thus the Tobacco Products Control Amendment Act, (Act No. 63 of 2008), does not currently apply to vaping products.

The Medicines and related substances control Act of 1965, (Act No. 101 of 1965) amended and updated to becomes the Medicines and related substances control Act of 1997, (Act No.90 of 1997), with the latest updated schedules as published in Government Notice R104, with the highest schedule of Nicotine being stated as S3, “_when intended for human medicinal use as an aid to smoking cessation, or as a substitute for a tobacco product”_

Section 22A of Control of Medicines and Scheduled substances, specifies who may import, distribute, sell or have in their possession Nicotine, (listed as a Schedule 3 drug, as above).

However, Subsection 17, of Section 22A of the very same Control of medicines and Scheduled substances Act, states that “_For the purposes of this section” “'medicinal purpose' means for the purposes of the treatment or prevention of a disease or some other definite curative or therapeutic purpose, but does not include the satisfaction or relief of a habit or craving for the substance used_” And that right there, is the statement that everyone is either ignoring or missing when trying to force the legislation to apply to vaping products.

As most Vape shops clearly state that their products are not offered for the purpose of, or advertised as smoking cessation devices, but for the purpose of hobby or habit, after the user has already successfully ceased smoking, thus the Control of Medicines and Scheduled substances Act, by their very own definition, does not apply to Vaping products.

And obviously, 0mg Nicotine E-juices by their very nature also are not controlled by any legislation.

As Twisp correctly states, "Any interpretation of the schedules to regulate the use and sale of electronic cigarettes and liquid refills is not covered by the authority granted to the Medicines Control Council and the minister of health."
This matter will be decided in court by judges, not by ministers, overzealous journo’s or the misinformed people they quote.

Reactions: Like 2 | Winner 3 | Thanks 2 | Informative 1


----------



## Gazzacpt (23/6/14)

duckduck said:


> @Gazzacpt There is a specific Tobacco Controls Act, and nicotine (which happens to be the psychoactive ingredient in tobacco) is regulated in the Medicines Controlled Substances Act.


So right lets schedule nicotine BUT not if its a tobacco product. 

That sort of thing?

I put it to you sir that nicotine on its own is not as damaging as inhaling burnt tobacco. 
The answer will be yes but we make sooo much money off tobacco. 

I think the world is going insane.



Sent from my GT-I9190 using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 1 | Funny 1


----------



## Gazzacpt (23/6/14)

Thanks @Arctus makes more sense now.

Sent from my GT-I9190 using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## annemarievdh (23/6/14)

Ai jai jai


----------



## Andre (23/6/14)

Arctus said:


> All these recent articles appear to be nothing more than cherry picking of the various legislations by under informed "interested parties", journo's and editors.
> Reading the actual legislations in their entirety, actually shows a different picture.
> 
> The Tobacco Products Control Act 1993 (Act No. 83 of 1993), under Section 1, (Definitions), defines a tobacco product as: “_a product containing tobacco that is intended for human consumption, and includes, but is not limited to, any device, pipe, water pipe, papers, tubes, filters, portion pouches or similar objects manufactured for use in the consumption of tobacco;”_
> ...


Most welcome to the forum. Thank you for this post, really clarifies the legal position.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## MarkK (24/6/14)



Reactions: Agree 1 | Funny 2


----------



## Dark Vaper (23/3/15)

This is caused by sponsored legislations. Big monopolies do this to discourage competition, and again despite the smoking laws put in place the government will do anything to keep the tax the are so acustomed to receiving.. That's why it even has its own category on the budget speech..

And again I did some research. What twisp and other Ecig companies say about the law is false, the mcc applies over the Ecig industry. The only act which pull nicotine out of the mcc is the tobacco control act which loosely defines a tobacco product but has a great definition for nicotine. It clearly states that no tobacco product may be sold from a pharmacy. But making an argument that eliquid is tobacco means you will qualify for excise tax, and you will need to stop making claims that eCigs are safer. What is bieng fought over here is nicotine, our daily fix and someone else's daily bread.


----------



## gertvanjoe (16/7/15)

They want to regulate it so that they can "sin tax" it like booze and stinkies


----------

