# New Legislation



## DougP (16/5/18)

For those that didn’t hear the radio interview with our minster of health on his take on the proposed legislation.
Here is the interview: 

https://omny.fm/shows/the-midday-report/stricter-regulations-on-tobacco-approved-by-cabine

Silver I couldn’t find the correct thread to post into, if you could please move this thread to where appropriate

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


----------



## Silver (16/5/18)

Blends Of Distinction said:


> For those that didn’t hear the radio interview with our minster of health on his take on the proposed legislation.
> Here is the interview:
> 
> https://omny.fm/shows/the-midday-report/stricter-regulations-on-tobacco-approved-by-cabine
> ...



Thanks @Blends Of Distinction 
Have moved it here to the News & Media Section for now

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## DougP (16/5/18)

Silver said:


> Thanks @Blends Of Distinction
> Have moved it here to the News & Media Section for now


----------



## craigb (16/5/18)

So it's not actually about health. It's all about ranking? That is the main justification I am getting from the esteemed minister.
He spent more time talking about our global ranking, a small sound bite about deaths caused by smoking combustibles, and only mentions that international bodies say e-cigarettes must be classified as tobacco so that's why we will classify them as such.

Let them regulate the hell out of it, I won't like it but if it is presented as coming from a place of knowledge then I will deal with it. But so much of this whole issue seems, to me, to be about keeping up with the Jones's and not about the actual health of people. Maybe there are some very smart people in the DoH who have seriously and intensively applied their minds and this legislation is the output of that process, but that is not what we are being shown.

Reactions: Agree 6


----------



## Raindance (16/5/18)

Blends Of Distinction said:


> For those that didn’t hear the radio interview with our minster of health on his take on the proposed legislation.
> Here is the interview:
> 
> https://omny.fm/shows/the-midday-report/stricter-regulations-on-tobacco-approved-by-cabine
> ...


Eisch!

Regards


----------



## aktorsyl (16/5/18)

craigb said:


> Maybe there are some very smart people in the DoH

Reactions: Like 1 | Winner 2 | Funny 5


----------



## Adephi (16/5/18)

craigb said:


> So it's not actually about health. It's all about ranking? That is the main justification I am getting from the esteemed minister.
> He spent more time talking about our global ranking, a small sound bite about deaths caused by smoking combustibles, and only mentions that international bodies say e-cigarettes must be classified as tobacco so that's why we will classify them as such.
> 
> Let them regulate the hell out of it, I won't like it but if it is presented as coming from a place of knowledge then I will deal with it. But so much of this whole issue seems, to me, to be about keeping up with the Jones's and not about the actual health of people. Maybe there are some very smart people in the DoH who have seriously and intensively applied their minds and this legislation is the output of that process, but that is not what we are being shown.



That's what I said in the original thread and was called 'not too clever'.

If you look at our education ranking you would think that should get more attention.

Reactions: Agree 2


----------



## craigb (16/5/18)

Adephi said:


> That's what I said in the original thread and was called 'not too clever'.
> 
> If you look at our education ranking you would think that should get more attention.



Well to be fair, when it comes to stuff like this... I probably am "not too clever" and probably "overly ideological while simultaneously too cynical"

So we can sit at the back of the class and be "not too clever" together.

Reactions: Agree 1 | Funny 2


----------



## RenaldoRheeder (16/5/18)

craigb said:


> So it's not actually about health. It's all about ranking? That is the main justification I am getting from the esteemed minister.
> He spent more time talking about our global ranking, a small sound bite about deaths caused by smoking combustibles, and only mentions that international bodies say e-cigarettes must be classified as tobacco so that's why we will classify them as such.
> 
> Let them regulate the hell out of it, I won't like it but if it is presented as coming from a place of knowledge then I will deal with it. But so much of this whole issue seems, to me, to be about keeping up with the Jones's and not about the actual health of people. Maybe there are some very smart people in the DoH who have seriously and intensively applied their minds and this legislation is the output of that process, but that is not what we are being shown.



@craigb - and that is key to take note off - the intention behind this drive. My thoughts exactly when I came across this interview initially 


Sent by iDad's iPhone


----------



## Hooked (17/5/18)

*Legal concerns raised over proposed smoking Bill*

https://www.health24.com/News/Publi...ns-raised-over-proposed-smoking-bill-20180515
16 May 2018

"...a legal expert has raised concerns about some of the language in the Bill, and possible sticking points, especially surrounding e-cigarettes.

One of the features of the Bill was the inclusion of e-cigarettes, something that the minister had previously mooted.

Now, Neil Kirby, director and head of healthcare and life sciences practice at Werksmans Attorneys, states there are two difficulties which arise from the Bill's definition of "smoking".

Definition of 'smoking'

The Bill defines "smoking" as "inhaling, exhaling or holding 'or otherwise have control over an ignited tobacco product or a heated, but not ignited, tobacco product that produces an emission of any sort'" or "inhaling, exhaling or holding 'or otherwise have control over an electronic delivery system that produces an emission of any sort'".

Kirby says that in respect of electronic delivery systems, two difficulties arise.

"The first is that simply holding a device that constitutes an electronic delivery system constitutes smoking. Such a scenario means that a person holding a device but not inhaling or exhaling the contents in the device that contain nicotine will be considered to be smoking," he says.

"Such circumstances potentially widen the definition of 'smoke' in situations where no smoking per se is occurring. This cannot be the intention of the Bill."

"The second problem the definition, and consequently the Bill, faces is that one cannot inhale or exhale a system. The definition of the term 'electronic nicotine delivery system' describes the system as 'an electronically operated product', which is clearly distinct from a tobacco-based product."

Potentially absurd laws

Based on this, Kirby says that the Bill arguably falters over its own definitions and produces potentially absurd results in law, which cannot be the intention of the Bill and ultimately that of the final legislation.

"... the legal approach to controlling alternative products, such vaping products or similar electronic delivery systems, will have to be bespoke and better suited to take into account the nature of the particular products concerned and the technology that they employ," he said.

The Bill is open to public comment until 9 August 2018.

Further comment re the Bill is expected from Minister Motsoaledi later on Tuesday, when he delivers his health budget speech."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RichJB (17/5/18)

craigb said:


> So it's not actually about health. It's all about ranking? That is the main justification I am getting from the esteemed minister.



To be fair, he was responding to the interviewer's question "Are these rules too strict?" He used our ranking to illustrate how, relative to other countries, we're not exactly tough on tobacco. Or hadn't been prior to this new legislation. The answer wasn't about health but then, neither was the question.



craigb said:


> Maybe there are some very smart people in the DoH who have seriously and intensively applied their minds and this legislation is the output of that process, but that is not what we are being shown.



It's not a DoH process, it's a WHO process. It all stems from the 2003 WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. As a signatory, South Africa is legally bound to comply with the provisions of the treaty. From Wiki:



> The FCTC, one of the most quickly ratified treaties in United Nations history, is a supranational agreement that seeks "to protect present and future generations from the devastating health, social, environmental and economic consequences of tobacco consumption and exposure to tobacco smoke" by enacting a set of universal standards stating the dangers of tobacco and limiting its use in all forms worldwide. To this end, the treaty's provisions include rules that govern the production, sale, distribution, advertisement, and taxation of tobacco. FCTC standards are, however, minimum requirements, and signatories are encouraged to be even more stringent in regulating tobacco than the treaty requires them to be.



The regulations that we are enacting now are strikingly similar to regulations in other countries. All are guided by the WHO treaty.

@Hooked, those are fair points and the language of the Bill will need to be tidied up. I can understand the "holding" part as it pertains to smoking. If I light up on the Gautrain and hold the lit cigarette in my hand without inhaling or exhaling, I cannot plead in court "I wasn't smoking in public, I was merely holding a lit cigarette". The law will counter that a lit cigarette gives off harmful smoke. So I don't need to be inhaling or exhaling in order to subject people nearby to smoke. I don't see how that relates to vaping, though, so they will probably need to word the clause differently. 

The "inhaling a system" thing is just clumsy English. They can change it to read "inhaling or exhaling the vapour from, or otherwise have control over, an electronic delivery system..."

Reactions: Agree 2 | Informative 1


----------



## RenaldoRheeder (17/5/18)

RichJB said:


> It's not a DoH process, it's a WHO process. It all stems from the 2003 WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. As a signatory, South Africa is legally bound to comply with the provisions



Has anyone come across any information regarding the results of similar restrictions being implemented in other countries and the effectiveness of such?

I came across something regarding Australia, but can’t find the article again to read in detail. A quick glance seemed to indicate that the impact on reduction of smokers was not very significant. 

Some of the Australian measures include gory graphics on cigarette boxes, non-display of cigarettes at retail points (except at tobacconist shops - I’ve heard). I have experienced it myself when I needed to buy cigarettes at a shop in Melbourne. Cigarettes are not displayed and the shop attendants are not even allowed to tell you anything about the cigarettes for sale - you basically have to know exactly what brand you want to buy. 

On top of that cigarettes are hugely expensive. If I recall correctly, I paid in excess of $40 for a pack of 30’s. But as my dad always says “No matter how much sin tax they add to booze and cigarettes, it will always remain a bargain for drinkers and smokers”




Sent by iDad's iPhone

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RichJB (17/5/18)

Aus were the first to implement plain packaging. From Wiki:



> First impressions in Australia indicated that smokers feel that cigarettes taste worse in plain packaging – an unexpected side effect. In addition, evidence from quantitative studies, qualitative research and the internal documents of the tobacco industry consistently identify packaging as an important part of tobacco promotion.
> 
> Plain packaging can change people's attitudes towards smoking and may help reduce the prevalence of smoking, including among minors, and increase attempts to quit.
> 
> ...



That is just a summary, the various studies from which the summary is drawn are linked at the bottom of the Wiki page, as per the Wiki format. I don't think anybody expected a huge impact from plain packaging, it was seen as one small step in a much broader campaign. 

Overall, I think the anti-smoking campaign has been a huge success. In 1950, more than 50% of adult Westerners smoked. By 2000, that had reduced to around 20% and is now somewhere around 15-17%. That is for a product that remained legal and accessible for users. For illegal drugs, the number of users from 1950 to date has increased considerably. That, for me, is evidence that banning something is an ineffective approach. It is far better to keep it legal but regulate it strictly. 

When a product is banned, society loses control of it completely and hands it over to criminals. As if they are going to control and regulate it responsibly, heh. Try telling the Medellin cartel that they must sell their heroin in plain packaging, or can't sell to minors. Countries who have banned vaping are now facing a black market where govt and regulators have zero control. They haven't solved a problem, they have created one.

Reactions: Like 2 | Agree 5


----------



## wikus (17/5/18)

Just a quick comment, wikipidia is a unreliable source, take whatever u read there with a pinch of salt.


----------



## RichJB (17/5/18)

It is subject to peer review so it's as reliable as most other sources. They link to the articles/studies/papers that they cite so you can check the source material for yourself and decide whether the Wiki summary is an accurate representation.

Reactions: Agree 3


----------



## aktorsyl (17/5/18)

wikus said:


> Just a quick comment, wikipidia is a unreliable source, take whatever u read there with a pinch of salt.


Nah, that's overstating it. Yes, it can be unreliable in *some* cases, but 99% of the time it's very reliable. The article that @RichJB linked to has references and citiations backing up the contents of the article (which is also peer-reviewed), so taking the contents of said article with a pinch of salt is not necessary in this case.

Reactions: Agree 2


----------



## HapticSimian (17/5/18)

wikus said:


> Just a quick comment, wikipidia is a unreliable source, take whatever u read there with a pinch of salt.


I know @RichJB a already responded, but I get a little riled up whenever I see or hear someone say this.

Wikipedia is a superb resource on any but the most obscure topic. It is a collective effort and proper references are either required or encouraged depending on the subject matter. It's our generation's library of Alexandria, and a superb trove of information.

If you take issue with anything on Wikipedia, the references should be there for you to follow. 

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk

Reactions: Agree 2


----------



## wikus (17/5/18)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Academic_use


----------



## aktorsyl (17/5/18)

wikus said:


> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Academic_use


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disclaimer


----------



## Kurt Yeo (25/5/18)

The SA Vape Survey: https://www.formget.com/app/form/share/lojq-297819 
The aim of the survey is to demonstrate the positive impact that vaping has had on smokers in South Africa. So please share your story. The bigger the sample collected the stronger our argument becomes.


----------



## Hooked (13/12/18)

I was sitting in the outdoor area of the Wild Flour coffee bar in Yzer yesterday, where one was allowed to smoke/vape. The next minute this woman marches past me and puts up this notice on the wall.




She works for the owner of the small centre. I jokingly asked if it's because of me sitting there and she replied that "It's the law." 
She was quite unpleasant about it and that got to me more than anything else.

Later that day I popped in to the take-away shop and the owner told me that an Inspector had been there and told her that people may not smoke/vape at the few tables outside the take-away, but that she was not obliged to put up a notice, since it's not a sit-down restaurant.

So it would appear that there's a major clamp-down under way, but my question is: * Is* it against the law? Has legislation been passed? 

I was under the impression that legislation has not been passed yet, but that the owner of a centre has the right to make their own rules.

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## Adephi (13/12/18)

Hooked said:


> I was sitting in the outdoor area of the Wild Flour coffee bar in Yzer yesterday, where one was allowed to smoke/vape. The next minute this woman marches past me and puts up this notice on the wall.
> 
> View attachment 153688
> 
> ...



I have been trying to keep up to date with the developments but things are very quiet. Nothing has been passed yet. Maybe some of the vendors that are involved with VPASA can give more info from behind the scenes.

Reactions: Like 2


----------

