Vaping Legislation RSA

Imperator

Imperator

Emissary Elixirs
Supporting Vendor
LV
15
 
Joined
26/4/16
Posts
259
Awards
17
Age
34
Location
Cape Town
It was always inevitable, but it looks like it is very much on its way now.

http://www.702.co.za/articles/30169...s-tighter-tobacco-laws-including-e-cigarettes

Time to do your part! Repost from the IAVA group:

Make sure you get your testimonials in!

http://vpasa.org.za/index.php/vaping-testimonials/

PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT.

- Plain white labels on Juice bottles and packaging.
- Hiked taxes on all vape products and juices
- No vaping in public spaces.... That includes in your favorite vape shop.
- Potential flavor bans
- Ban on all testers offered in Vape shops.
- Marketing of Vaping to be banned in store print and online.
- Nicotine regulation.

The above is what we could be facing very very soon. And the List may go on. Regulation is upon us and we as the vaping community need to make our voices heard. Click on the link below and make a difference today before its to late.
 
And now for some of my own commentary:
1) Plain white labels on Juice bottles and packaging.

This is problematic for a number of reasons. First, if you think counterfeit goods are a problem now, can you imagine how difficult it will become once we can't even spot errors in colour, font or label size? Everything will become standardized, even the fonts used. It will become almost impossible to determine whether or not the juice is fake without purchasing it -- and this unfortunately ties in with the 'ban on all testers offered in vape shops'. You'd have to buy it before realising it's a fake.

Not only is there the counterfeit problem but surely this raises some serious issues with regards to competition in the market? Not only is it impossible to distinguish between brands now (perhaps the stylized labels or logo is what you remember about the bottle you enjoy the most) but trademarks are out the window! Now, I'm just spitballing here, but given the fact that intellectual property rights (such as trademark and copyright) technically do constitute property rights, wouldn't there be a case to be made for a Constitutional violation? Now I know the govt. is already making moves to allow for expropriation without compensation, but such expropriation would have to be in terms of public policy. Given that we all know vaping is a far safer alternative, there could be some issues here...

2) Hiked taxes on all vape products and juices
Ugh. This one is going to hurt the producers and the consumers. Now I know pricing is controversial in RSA already (just have a look at the monthly posts about it on the various vape forums), but I can talk from first-hand experience: running an ISO7 facility, producing quality labels, using authentic bottles + commissioning artists + R&D + couriers + customs + high quality ingredients +++ is expensive. Even now vendors are working on producing lower priced goods to satisfy the consumer, despite the inherent risks. Well, depending on the taxes, this could disappear entirely.

3) No vaping in public spaces.... That includes in your favorite vape shop.
Depending on how public spaces are defined I could be okay with this. From what I've seen it's around 5-10m away from public entrances. The vape shop ban would be detrimental to both the consumers ability to make a choice on the product he/she wishes to purchase and to our lovely vape lounges. The consumers right to choose should be paramount and taking away the ability to make accurate choices that reflect the consumers preferences is an absolute no for me.

4) Potential flavor bans
I don't think I need to say anything about this. Ridiculous.

5) Ban on all testers offered in Vape shops.
See above points on consumers + choice.

6) Marketing of Vaping to be banned in store print and online.
We've already seen such limitations in the digital format (Facebook etc prohibiting such marketing). This would, again, hurt vape stores the most. I don't want to see vape shops that are incapable of having promotional displays in their own shops. Again, the consumers choice would be negatively impacted by such a policy.

7) Nicotine regulation.
This is an interesting one. There are a number of ways to regulate nicotine:
- Max nicotine allowance per a bottle (say 12mg becomes the highest amount permitted)
- No public sales of nicotine (This would be an attempt to kill DIY)
- Certain licensing policies in the commercial sphere in order to be allowed to deal with nicotine products for commercial use.

I'm totally fine with the first and third approach, but I'm not sure how I feel about the second one.
 
Only 3200 signatures?

I'm sure the comunity can do better than that.
 
One more complaint added, this is ridiculous.
 
It was on 1700 odd before this past weekend, so not too bad. There needs to be some concerted effort to get Mr Motsoaledi to familiarise himself with the latest research coming from Europe and the US. If their intention is truly to steer the public at large away from tobacco use, regarding vaping as being anything like smoking is completely wrong-headed.

I know some level of regulation and taxation is just about inevitable, but vaping ≠ smoking on so many grounds.

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk
 
They're familiar with the research. Maybe not the Minister himself but the senior DOH specialists certainly are. They make the policy, the Minister merely presents it and rubber stamps it.

The problem is that it's an incredibly difficult thing to find a middle ground. Scott Gottlieb has spoken about this on, for example, flavours. While it's true that flavours help smokers to transition away from cigarettes, flavours are also used to lure kids. So how do you try and make it that flavours appeal only to smokers and not to kids?

The thing is that both big tobacco and vaping profit from as many people as possible being hooked on nic. Public health wants as few people as possible hooked on nic. So no matter how much the vaping industry tries to argue about health and saving lives, the inescapable reality is that they are in this business to make money, not save lives. Public health will always view vaping and big tobacco's arguments through that filter.
 
This is the Department of Health's latest tweet. The Minister is the public face of, and driving force behind policy. That snippet is not from the mind of someone able and/or willing to distinguish between the two.

Government's role should be minimising harm without encroaching more than necessary on people's agency and freedom. Of course youth will find appeal in puffing sweet, custardy vapour, but so does my near 40 year old ass. And, as current research stands, I'm getting my nicotine kick whilst doing far less harm to myself than I would be lighting up a cig, and doing none to those around me. To equate the two is on the level of thinking beetroot cures AIDS, or vaccines cause autism.

As is the norm, we seem to be running a few years behind some other countries. We are seeing the knee jerk conflation of smoking and vaping that the EU went through with their TPD requirements. Yet they're starting to realise that nicotine isn't the boogeyman it's made out to be, and that the vaping industry is an ally in the fight against smoking related diseases.

The industry needs a level of regulation, but our government has a track record of swatting mosquitoes with sledge hammers because of ineptitude and incredulity.
de3087f34d52eadd0c9201f1746870bd.jpg


Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk
 
Imperator said:
And now for some of my own commentary:
1) Plain white labels on Juice bottles and packaging.

This is problematic for a number of reasons. First, if you think counterfeit goods are a problem now, can you imagine how difficult it will become once we can't even spot errors in colour, font or label size? Everything will become standardized, even the fonts used. It will become almost impossible to determine whether or not the juice is fake without purchasing it -- and this unfortunately ties in with the 'ban on all testers offered in vape shops'. You'd have to buy it before realising it's a fake.

Not only is there the counterfeit problem but surely this raises some serious issues with regards to competition in the market? Not only is it impossible to distinguish between brands now (perhaps the stylized labels or logo is what you remember about the bottle you enjoy the most) but trademarks are out the window! Now, I'm just spitballing here, but given the fact that intellectual property rights (such as trademark and copyright) technically do constitute property rights, wouldn't there be a case to be made for a Constitutional violation? Now I know the govt. is already making moves to allow for expropriation without compensation, but such expropriation would have to be in terms of public policy. Given that we all know vaping is a far safer alternative, there could be some issues here...

2) Hiked taxes on all vape products and juices
Ugh. This one is going to hurt the producers and the consumers. Now I know pricing is controversial in RSA already (just have a look at the monthly posts about it on the various vape forums), but I can talk from first-hand experience: running an ISO7 facility, producing quality labels, using authentic bottles + commissioning artists + R&D + couriers + customs + high quality ingredients +++ is expensive. Even now vendors are working on producing lower priced goods to satisfy the consumer, despite the inherent risks. Well, depending on the taxes, this could disappear entirely.

3) No vaping in public spaces.... That includes in your favorite vape shop.
Depending on how public spaces are defined I could be okay with this. From what I've seen it's around 5-10m away from public entrances. The vape shop ban would be detrimental to both the consumers ability to make a choice on the product he/she wishes to purchase and to our lovely vape lounges. The consumers right to choose should be paramount and taking away the ability to make accurate choices that reflect the consumers preferences is an absolute no for me.

4) Potential flavor bans
I don't think I need to say anything about this. Ridiculous.

5) Ban on all testers offered in Vape shops.
See above points on consumers + choice.

6) Marketing of Vaping to be banned in store print and online.
We've already seen such limitations in the digital format (Facebook etc prohibiting such marketing). This would, again, hurt vape stores the most. I don't want to see vape shops that are incapable of having promotional displays in their own shops. Again, the consumers choice would be negatively impacted by such a policy.

7) Nicotine regulation.
This is an interesting one. There are a number of ways to regulate nicotine:
- Max nicotine allowance per a bottle (say 12mg becomes the highest amount permitted)
- No public sales of nicotine (This would be an attempt to kill DIY)
- Certain licensing policies in the commercial sphere in order to be allowed to deal with nicotine products for commercial use.

I'm totally fine with the first and third approach, but I'm not sure how I feel about the second one.
Click to expand...
On point 5.
No flavour testers.! So then we ask people to exchange a few drops with a token (they can get 10 free tokens a day just for visiting the store.lol)

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk
 
HapticSimian said:
Yet they're starting to realise that nicotine isn't the boogeyman it's made out to be,
Click to expand...

That depends on who you ask. Ask Scott Gottlieb and he will tell you that nicotine is very much the boogeyman. It might not kill smokers by itself. But it provides the pleasurable sensation that keeps smokers inhaling the carcinogens in tobacco smoke. Without nicotine in tobacco, smoking dies. That is why Gottlieb wants to reduce nicotine, not tar, in cigarettes. He reasons that without the nicotine, the tar isn't a problem. I can't really argue with that.
 
RichJB said:
That is why Gottlieb wants to reduce nicotine, not tar, in cigarettes. He reasons that without the nicotine, the tar isn't a problem. I can't really argue with that.
Click to expand...

But they did that before with the invention of Light and Filter cigarettes lowering both tar and nic. The end result people puff more to get their fix. Now with only lowering nic people will puff more to get the fix and get even more tar in.
 
RichJB said:
That is why Gottlieb wants to reduce nicotine, not tar, in cigarettes. He reasons that without the nicotine, the tar isn't a problem. I can't really argue with that.
Click to expand...

But they did that before with the invention of Light and Filter cigarettes lowering both tar and nic. The end result people puff more to get their fix. Now with only lowering nic people will puff more to get the fix and get even more tar in.
 
He wants to cut nic to non-addictive levels, not just to "Lite" levels. Also remember that Lite cigarettes were for smokers who were accustomed to heavy nic levels already. Gottlieb wants this for all cigarettes, not just Lite cigarettes. So any kid who starts smoking once the new cigs are introduced will be getting only tiny amounts of nic regardless of brand. If the kid isn't accustomed to nic, he won't be puffing more. It will just take much longer for a kid to get addicted.

He doesn't want smokers to puff more to get their nic. He wants them to vape or to wear a patch. And then to quit everything. Once nic levels are minimised in cigs, he'll start reducing nic in vaping and patches too. The idea is to wean the population off nic incrementally, starting with the most hazardous form and then working down to the least hazardous. Whether it will work or not is debatable. But from a public health standpoint, it's hard to fault his approach. I can't think of a societal upside to nicotine dependency. It might not kill you. But addiction to porn won't kill you either. That doesn't mean it's something that society or public health is going to strive for.
 
RichJB said:
He wants to cut nic to non-addictive levels, not just to "Lite" levels. Also remember that Lite cigarettes were for smokers who were accustomed to heavy nic levels already. Gottlieb wants this for all cigarettes, not just Lite cigarettes. So any kid who starts smoking once the new cigs are introduced will be getting only tiny amounts of nic regardless of brand. If the kid isn't accustomed to nic, he won't be puffing more. It will just take much longer for a kid to get addicted.

He doesn't want smokers to puff more to get their nic. He wants them to vape or to wear a patch. And then to quit everything. Once nic levels are minimised in cigs, he'll start reducing nic in vaping and patches too. The idea is to wean the population off nic incrementally, starting with the most hazardous form and then working down to the least hazardous. Whether it will work or not is debatable. But from a public health standpoint, it's hard to fault his approach. I can't think of a societal upside to nicotine dependency. It might not kill you. But addiction to porn won't kill you either. That doesn't mean it's something that society or public health is going to strive for.
Click to expand...

We're getting fixated on what's happening in the US, when their lawmakers have already shown - or at least convincingly feigned - intent to remain objective and act in the public's interest. We have our own concerns. :)

As for the societal upside: we're creatures of habit and vices. Be it alcohol, caffeine, nicotine, adrenaline, sugar, salt, carbs, and a myriad other substances and experiences. The societal upside in recognising an individual or collective's interest in indulging their guilty pleasures, and allowing them the space to do so, is that we're all that little less likely to throttle one another at the drop of a hat. We partially fund the State and private enterprise through many of these vices, to society's general benefit provided there isn't an accompanying overburdening of public resources. Therein lies the problem with smoking, of course. You can tax cigs to high heaven, but you'll still likely run at a nett deficit because smokers die terrible, early and expensive deaths. Given the current body of knowledge, that doesn't seem the case with us. It is objectively wrong and patently silly to equate vaping and smoking.

I'm all for quality regulation, reasonable taxation and enforcement of responsible marketing, but I foresee a shotgun approach by Mr Motsoaledi and co.
 
Thread moved to the general forum

Thanks for your approval via PM @Imperator - and thank you for starting this thread
 
HapticSimian said:
It is objectively wrong and patently silly to equate vaping and smoking.
Click to expand...

In what sense? Certainly not in the substance dependency sense. And herein lies the problem: vaping's insistence that the nicotine debate must be phrased in terms of physical harms only. That is not the way that public health experts view it. I worked on a national mental health campaign last year which investigated, among other things, the linkages between substance dependence and mental illness. It's not a pretty picture. The decision to smoke is not as random as many imagine. In every country, smoking rates among the poorer, the less educated, the unemployed, the mentally and physically disabled, refugees, and the LGBT community are much higher than the national norm. While it is obviously not a reliable indicator at individual level, it becomes an almost bulletproof indicator at demographic level of societal stressors and marginalisation. That makes it significant to public health bodies, and something that is worth addressing.

One also needs to be careful of taking Ministerial announcements literally. Ditto with the WHO and other bodies. When the WHO say that they won't endorse vaping, they are not admitting they haven't read the science. They're doctors, they know the science. What they're saying is that they won't publicly endorse vaping because doing so obliges them to give big tobacco its seat back at the public health policy table. The WHO will not do that. Not with the history between the two bodies. So there is a lot more happening than they are letting on. The messages are necessarily dumbed down to resonate with a general public audience. But that doesn't mean that the speakers haven't read the scientific papers.

We had this with the FDA too. Under the previous Zeller regime, they refused to endorse vaping. Under the Gottlieb regime, just a few months later, they are telling anyone who will listen that vaping is less harmful. That is not because they read a few Farsalinos articles in the meantime. It's because the policy has shifted so the public announcements do too. These guys know the science. It's kinda what they do for eight hours a day. But they tread carefully because voters can hold them to what they say.
 
RichJB said:
He wants to cut nic to non-addictive levels, not just to "Lite" levels. Also remember that Lite cigarettes were for smokers who were accustomed to heavy nic levels already. Gottlieb wants this for all cigarettes, not just Lite cigarettes. So any kid who starts smoking once the new cigs are introduced will be getting only tiny amounts of nic regardless of brand. If the kid isn't accustomed to nic, he won't be puffing more. It will just take much longer for a kid to get addicted.

He doesn't want smokers to puff more to get their nic. He wants them to vape or to wear a patch. And then to quit everything. Once nic levels are minimised in cigs, he'll start reducing nic in vaping and patches too. The idea is to wean the population off nic incrementally, starting with the most hazardous form and then working down to the least hazardous. Whether it will work or not is debatable. But from a public health standpoint, it's hard to fault his approach. I can't think of a societal upside to nicotine dependency. It might not kill you. But addiction to porn won't kill you either. That doesn't mean it's something that society or public health is going to strive for.
Click to expand...

And what will be next in need of regulation? Caffeine? Newspapers? Spices? Late nights? Manual transmissions? Braaivleis?

Thing is that no one will get out of this life alive. If my personal choice of "sinful" pleasure does not inflict any harm on others, why remove my right to make this choice? I will die someday, and not from natural causes, there are no natural causes for death as there is always a cause that points to a specific set of circumstances. The simple fact is that the overall cause of death is the act of being alive.
At what point are legislators going to realize that they will not be able to eradicate sickness and death by means of legislation? All they will achieve is to make the time between birth and death not worth experiencing.

Keep each person responsible and accountable for his or her own choices and actions. Do not hide behind legislation for not having the balls to do so. The laws of natural selection will take care of the rest. Yes, you may not get the popular vote and have to find a real job... food for thought.

In terms of local legislation I present the PFMA as shining example. Sure all government expenditure is strictly controlled and each sent can be accounted for and procedural audit trails are in place. (if not, names are named and, well not much else) Not a cent wasted! Yipee! But a hammer that would have cost R179.99 per unit now had a direct cost of R499.00, indirect cost in terms of administrating the procurement process another R500.00 per unit and the always overlooked loss in opportunity and lead time costs due to the six month tender and approval process... well no one knows, all I do know is that each and every SOC is in financial dire straits.
Improperly using legislation as an alternative to common sense always results in exponentially enlarging the problem it is intended to solve.

Ag.... why bother...
 
Raindance said:
If my personal choice of "sinful" pleasure does not inflict any harm on others, why remove my right to make this choice?
Click to expand...

Who has removed that right? What clause, in any of those suggested in the regulations, means that you now physically cannot get hold of a vaporiser and therefore cannot vape?
 
RichJB said:
Who has removed that right?
Click to expand...
Mmmm, I've been layered it seems. LOL.

Firstly, I admit, no one . YET.
I do however regard the interference with or placing of obstacles to freedom of access to goods and information pertaining to goods as an attempt to impede on my right to make and act upon my choices.

It starts with a number of seemingly fair rules painted on the barn door and before long, without anybody noticing, the only freedom left is to act as instructed.

Regards
 
Raindance said:
Mmmm, I've been layered it seems. LOL.

Firstly, I admit, no one . YET.
I do however regard the interference with or placing of obstacles to freedom of access to goods and information pertaining to goods as an attempt to impede on my right to make and act upon my choices.

It starts with a number of seemingly fair rules painted on the barn door and before long, without anybody noticing, the only freedom left is to act as instructed.

Regards
Click to expand...
And the rant continues:

The people most hurt by these regulations will not be those with a generous monthly vape budget, nope. It will be the low income group whom will have no alternative but to remain inhaling tobacco smoke because this caring government has made vaping so expensive and secrative it will be completely out of their reach. Many current low budget vapers will also find the increased costs an incentive to return to conventional smoking.

Siting costs to the state health budget as a motivation for this legislation is therefore also completely ludicrous. The well to do are medically self funded, yet they will be the only ones able to access a low risk alternative to smoking. Do not take my word for it, see what motivates the UK's support of vaping as my case in point.

Pubic vaping as a means of making smoking socially acceptable? Does public consumption of non alcoholic beverages make alcohol abuse seem normal and acceptable? OK, maybe not a totally fair statement as one relates to observation the other to behavior, but vaping is visually clearly distinguishable from smoking none the less.

I will try to shut up now, but can not make any promises.

Regards
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Vaping Saved My Life
VSML Petition
Replies
10
Views
2K
tetrasect
tetrasect
Vape Vision
Vaping vs Smoking: Comprehensive Report from World Vape Center, China
Replies
0
Views
267
Vape Vision
Vape Vision
Vape Vision
  • Article
Vape Regulations in Popular Holiday Destinations
Replies
0
Views
238
Vape Vision
Vape Vision
Vape Vision
VapeCon 2024: South Africa’s Premier Vaping Expo
Replies
0
Views
5K
Vape Vision
Vape Vision
Downtown Vapoury
Grand Opening Downtown Vapoury Hillcrest Corner Shopping Centre
Replies
0
Views
58
Downtown Vapoury
Downtown Vapoury
Back
Top