Glad to see some healthy debate and interesting points made in this thread! I've been AFK today but I'd just like to respond, in general and as a vendor, to some of the points raised.
Plain labels:
Totally get why many of you guys wouldn't be much bothered by this. As a user: I think the main problem with this (and a problem in the industry regardless) is the ease by which counterfeit juices would slip past the radar if this were the case. At the moment it's difficult enough to show newer or less experienced vapers the difference between originals and counterfeit (even with new packaging being released for the more commonly counterfeited products).
As a vendor: The plain label approach seems too heavy handed a means by which we could limit the appeal to children. We could, for instance, prescribe rules that limit the use of colour/bubble letters/references to the food or sweets. This could also be a general stipulation that is left to the judiciary on a case-by-case basis rather than some wholesale wipe-out of our intellectual property (the section could be in general terms stipulating that any content that is appealing to minors, makes reference to a sweet or candy or is otherwise seen to entice or seduce a sale to those not of legal age is prohibited. With that we'd know what we can or cannot do, still have access to our IP, and any cases that fail or are said to fail this test could be determined via judicial discretion).
Obviously I want to be able to distinguish my brand from other brands. I want the consumer to be able to make a choice based upon product recognition and brand association -- allowing them to make accurate decisions based upon familiarity with the brands that are available. I also strongly believe that brands have a right to the trademarks/get-up/copyright that makes up their product (whether this is a positive right or a negative right is more complicated but I think there are definitely schools of thought that treat such IP as important means of expression that ought to be protected, either via competition laws, IP laws or Constitutional laws.)
@Hooked has made some good points about VG/PG ratios, flavour descriptions and nicotine levels. I do think that ought to be dealt with, but as I said, there are ways that this can be done without it only being encouraged due to the fact that there is literally nothing else on the bottle.
Honestly, we'll have to wait and see what the proposals actually are and, as Ivano will not stop saying 'the devil is in the details'. As I mentioned in the comments in the above, some of the proposals thus far are manageable (or at least seem to be at the moment). I'm not at all against regulation in theory -- this just seems a little ad hoc at the moment.
Plain labels:
Totally get why many of you guys wouldn't be much bothered by this. As a user: I think the main problem with this (and a problem in the industry regardless) is the ease by which counterfeit juices would slip past the radar if this were the case. At the moment it's difficult enough to show newer or less experienced vapers the difference between originals and counterfeit (even with new packaging being released for the more commonly counterfeited products).
As a vendor: The plain label approach seems too heavy handed a means by which we could limit the appeal to children. We could, for instance, prescribe rules that limit the use of colour/bubble letters/references to the food or sweets. This could also be a general stipulation that is left to the judiciary on a case-by-case basis rather than some wholesale wipe-out of our intellectual property (the section could be in general terms stipulating that any content that is appealing to minors, makes reference to a sweet or candy or is otherwise seen to entice or seduce a sale to those not of legal age is prohibited. With that we'd know what we can or cannot do, still have access to our IP, and any cases that fail or are said to fail this test could be determined via judicial discretion).
Obviously I want to be able to distinguish my brand from other brands. I want the consumer to be able to make a choice based upon product recognition and brand association -- allowing them to make accurate decisions based upon familiarity with the brands that are available. I also strongly believe that brands have a right to the trademarks/get-up/copyright that makes up their product (whether this is a positive right or a negative right is more complicated but I think there are definitely schools of thought that treat such IP as important means of expression that ought to be protected, either via competition laws, IP laws or Constitutional laws.)
@Hooked has made some good points about VG/PG ratios, flavour descriptions and nicotine levels. I do think that ought to be dealt with, but as I said, there are ways that this can be done without it only being encouraged due to the fact that there is literally nothing else on the bottle.
Honestly, we'll have to wait and see what the proposals actually are and, as Ivano will not stop saying 'the devil is in the details'. As I mentioned in the comments in the above, some of the proposals thus far are manageable (or at least seem to be at the moment). I'm not at all against regulation in theory -- this just seems a little ad hoc at the moment.
