I'm at least 75% sure that if you're the enemy of Big Tobacco, you are their enemy in this.
Money's changing hands with these laws.
Vaping Legislation RSA
- Thread starter Imperator
- Start date
-
- Tags
- legislation vaping
Money's changing hands with these laws.
just read through the act again, a lekker vet concession made to big pharma and their 'medical' approved alternatives.... slap a sticker and chew bubblegum. It is not Big Tobacco winning the local fight, but Big Pharma
Both, probably. Because BT also isn't losing the local fight by any stretch with that legislation. A few minor inconveniences for smokers, but that's it really.
NRT will always be treated more leniently by regulators because it's not a lifestyle product. NRT is marketed without any candy flavours or cartoon figures on labels, the manufacturers recommend only using the product temporarily in limited quantities, and only for as long as is necessary to transition off nicotine altogether. If vaping had been pitched with a sterile medical adult type of branding, no flavours, and instructions to use no more than 2ml of juice a day and to give up vaping within 12 weeks or as soon as you can quit nic altogether, regulators would look a lot more favourably on it. But then it wouldn't sell that well.
The bottom line is that big pharma are quite happy to lose their NRT customers once they feel they can do without cigarettes and NRT. Tobacco and vaping both want to keep their customers for life. Big pharma aren't trying to get kids hooked on nic, tobacco and vaping both are because it is their core business. NRT is a fraction of 1% of pharma's business. This market reality is not lost on regulators or public health.
Even ostensibly pro-vaping public health bodies like PHE or the Royal College have a very different view of vaping from the vape industry. They view it like NRT, that smokers should transition to vaping temporarily to help them quit nicotine altogether, preferably in as short a timeframe as possible. They will never promote the idea that vaping should become an alternative lifestyle to smoking, or that millions of never-smoking youth should take it up. Vaping and tobacco don't directly promote nicotine uptake by never-smoking youth but they don't mind at all when it happens. Why would they when it means increased sales. Regulators and public health bodies view tobacco and vaping as being in the business of promoting addiction. So they will never view either of them as allies.
I don't believe that the FDA is in cahoots with big tobacco, and doing big tobacco's bidding. I think it's the other way around. Big tobacco has worked with regulators for the past fifty years, they know how regulators think. So they design their products accordingly. One example is closed systems. Regulators prefer them because they are safer and easier to regulate. Big tobacco cigalikes don't require the user to know Ohm's Law. Their batteries don't come with flimsy wraps that can tear easily, leading to a dead short and an accident. Users cannot build too low, over-stress the battery and cause venting. So when regulators approve big tobacco's cigalikes and reject vaping's open systems, it's not necessarily because big tobacco has bribed them. It might be because big tobacco anticipated what regulators were going to demand, and designed their products around that from the get-go.
Another example is online distribution. Minors accessing age-restricted products online is a global concern that extends to smoking, drinking, guns and other weapons, gambling, porn. It was a loophole that was obviously going to be shut sooner rather than later. So big tobacco never pursued it. Instead, they leveraged their clout in commanding retail shelf space in supermarkets, liquor stores and filling stations, where sales are face-to-face and vendors can enforce age restrictions.
Naturally, big tobacco don't mind that the PMTA process is horrendously expensive and certainly won't oppose it. They are the only industry players who can afford it, and it will eliminate much of the vaping competition. But that is what business is about - eliminating competition and dominating market share. Big tobacco didn't get big by being non-competitive.
Regulators and public health bodies also don't care that small vaping companies will be squeezed out by regulations. They are concerned only with public health issues, not with nicotine market share issues. This extends to the non-smoking public as well. Films like A Billion Lives will always fail to attract widespread interest because the general public don't care who dominates the smoking cessation market. It's not a product they use so it doesn't matter to them whether big tobacco, big pharma or vaping wins the market share struggle.
The bottom line is that big pharma are quite happy to lose their NRT customers once they feel they can do without cigarettes and NRT. Tobacco and vaping both want to keep their customers for life. Big pharma aren't trying to get kids hooked on nic, tobacco and vaping both are because it is their core business. NRT is a fraction of 1% of pharma's business. This market reality is not lost on regulators or public health.
Even ostensibly pro-vaping public health bodies like PHE or the Royal College have a very different view of vaping from the vape industry. They view it like NRT, that smokers should transition to vaping temporarily to help them quit nicotine altogether, preferably in as short a timeframe as possible. They will never promote the idea that vaping should become an alternative lifestyle to smoking, or that millions of never-smoking youth should take it up. Vaping and tobacco don't directly promote nicotine uptake by never-smoking youth but they don't mind at all when it happens. Why would they when it means increased sales. Regulators and public health bodies view tobacco and vaping as being in the business of promoting addiction. So they will never view either of them as allies.
I don't believe that the FDA is in cahoots with big tobacco, and doing big tobacco's bidding. I think it's the other way around. Big tobacco has worked with regulators for the past fifty years, they know how regulators think. So they design their products accordingly. One example is closed systems. Regulators prefer them because they are safer and easier to regulate. Big tobacco cigalikes don't require the user to know Ohm's Law. Their batteries don't come with flimsy wraps that can tear easily, leading to a dead short and an accident. Users cannot build too low, over-stress the battery and cause venting. So when regulators approve big tobacco's cigalikes and reject vaping's open systems, it's not necessarily because big tobacco has bribed them. It might be because big tobacco anticipated what regulators were going to demand, and designed their products around that from the get-go.
Another example is online distribution. Minors accessing age-restricted products online is a global concern that extends to smoking, drinking, guns and other weapons, gambling, porn. It was a loophole that was obviously going to be shut sooner rather than later. So big tobacco never pursued it. Instead, they leveraged their clout in commanding retail shelf space in supermarkets, liquor stores and filling stations, where sales are face-to-face and vendors can enforce age restrictions.
Naturally, big tobacco don't mind that the PMTA process is horrendously expensive and certainly won't oppose it. They are the only industry players who can afford it, and it will eliminate much of the vaping competition. But that is what business is about - eliminating competition and dominating market share. Big tobacco didn't get big by being non-competitive.
Regulators and public health bodies also don't care that small vaping companies will be squeezed out by regulations. They are concerned only with public health issues, not with nicotine market share issues. This extends to the non-smoking public as well. Films like A Billion Lives will always fail to attract widespread interest because the general public don't care who dominates the smoking cessation market. It's not a product they use so it doesn't matter to them whether big tobacco, big pharma or vaping wins the market share struggle.
Some more formalized comments I've made on the proposed Bill:
A draft version of the Control of Tobacco Products and Electronic Delivery Systems Bill (the Bill) was published by the Department of Health (DOH), on the 9th of May, last week. The publication follows an increasing amount of commentary on the tobacco industry and the need for a stricter regulatory framework made by the DOH and Minister Aaron Motsoaledi himself. The Minister, at the opening of the World Conference on Tobacco or Health in March, stated that he sees no value in tobacco products, either socially, academically or economically and that, over time, he hopes to see the elimination of tobacco products altogether.
The Bill aims to regulate the ‘traditional’ tobacco industry, as well as next-generation products, a category more commonly referred to as ‘vaping’. While the stated purpose seems clear – to restrict and limit the sale and consumption of tobacco products, the Bill itself is riddled with inconsistencies, ambiguous definitions and a number of provisions that may not pass Constitutional muster.
It is clear that the drafters ran into definitional hurdles from the get-go. Section 1 of the Bill distinguishes between ‘tobacco products’, ‘electronic nicotine delivery systems’ and electronic non-nicotine delivery systems.’
In terms of the Bill, ‘electronic non-nicotine delivery systems’ refers to an electronically operated product designed to deliver an aerosol to users by heating a solution of substances that does not contain nicotine and any other solution intended for use with or in the product’. While, presumably, the purpose of this provision is to include vaping devices that operate without the use of nicotine, the effect is to include any and all electronic devices that heat a solution and deliver an aerosol to users, even those not directly associated with vaping.
This is compounded by the fact that, to be excluded from the ambit of the Bill, a substance must already fall under the ambit of the Medicines and Related Substances Act and, further, be classified as a ‘tobacco product’ in terms of the Bill. Substances or devices that do not meet the requirements of a tobacco product, but are already governed by the Medicines and Related Substances Act would now fall under the ambit of Tobacco Control Bill too. Certain inhalers, aerosols, nebulizers and automatic air fresheners meet the requirements of an ‘electronic non-nicotine delivery system’ – they deliver an aerosol (a term which is undefined by the Bill), by heating a solution that does not contain nicotine but is intended for use with or in the product. Some of these products even contain propylene glycol, an ingredient mentioned in the Bill’s definition of electronic nicotine delivery system. While it is important to note that the provisions of the final Act will be read with the spirit and purpose in mind, such open ended definitions raise questions as to the familiarity the drafters of the Bill have with the devices they propose to regulate.
The definition for ‘smoke’, which finds practical application in section 2 of the Bill, is likewise problematic. The definition includes both ignited tobacco products (such as cigarettes) and ‘heated, but not ignited, tobacco products’ (such as e-liquids). The definition, however, goes further and includes to ‘operate or otherwise have control over an electronic delivery system that produces an emission of any sort’. Bill Kirby, the Director of Healthcare and Life Sciences Practice at Werksmans Attorneys, has already highlighted the lack of clarity, as well as the potential this definition presents for the broadening of the application of the Bill. As ‘to operate or control’ is not defined, it can be argued that smoking includes being in active possession of the electronic delivery system, even if one were to abstain from using it.
Further ambiguities can be found in Section 2 of the Bill. Section 2 (1) (c) prohibits smoking in ‘any motor vehicle when a child under the age of 18 years is present and there is more than one person present in that vehicle’. First, the prohibition of smoking if there is a minor present is irrelevant given the fact that smoking in a vehicle is prohibited if there is more than one person in the vehicle, regardless of whether or not they are a minor. Secondly, the effect of this provision is to remove consent from the equation. Even if both persons were smokers, were smoking at the same time or consented to the other party’s smoking, the action would be prohibited.
Regarding potential Constitutional issues, section 4 of the Bill provides that the Minister must, in future, prescribe standardised packaging and labelling of tobacco products. The section then outlines the minimum standards that the Minister must include in the regulations relating to packaging and labelling of tobacco products. This includes the requirement that all tobacco products have a uniform plain colour and texture, that any branding or logos are prohibited and that the brand name and product name may only appear on the packaging in a standardised colour and typeface. These provisions have the effect of, arguably, infringing upon constitutionally protected property rights.
In Laugh it Off Promotions v SAB the Supreme Court of Appeal noted that, despite judicial resistance in some quarters, trade marks are property. The fact that property is intangible does not make it of a lower order. This dictum was not challenged by the Constitutional Court and it must be accepted that judicial recognition has extended the ambit of section 25 of the Constitution to include intellectual property rights. As a result, a claim could be made that the statutory prohibition of the use of a trade mark would amount to deprivation of property in terms of section 25 of the Constitution and that the provisions in question would be invalid.
Kirby has stated that the legal approach to the control of alternative products, such as electronic delivery systems or vaping products would have to be specifically suited to take into account the nature of the particular products concerned, as well as the technology that they employ.
That this was not the case with the drafting of the Bill is clear and may be a result of a lack of technical knowledge of the products in question, as well as the fact that the relevant industry was not consulted in the drafting of the Bill. The Vapours Product Association said, in a statement on Tuesday (15th May), that the Minister had failed to enter into consultation with the relevant industry and had taken an overzealous approach which would, in effect, make it easier to smoke than to vape in South Africa.
A draft version of the Control of Tobacco Products and Electronic Delivery Systems Bill (the Bill) was published by the Department of Health (DOH), on the 9th of May, last week. The publication follows an increasing amount of commentary on the tobacco industry and the need for a stricter regulatory framework made by the DOH and Minister Aaron Motsoaledi himself. The Minister, at the opening of the World Conference on Tobacco or Health in March, stated that he sees no value in tobacco products, either socially, academically or economically and that, over time, he hopes to see the elimination of tobacco products altogether.
The Bill aims to regulate the ‘traditional’ tobacco industry, as well as next-generation products, a category more commonly referred to as ‘vaping’. While the stated purpose seems clear – to restrict and limit the sale and consumption of tobacco products, the Bill itself is riddled with inconsistencies, ambiguous definitions and a number of provisions that may not pass Constitutional muster.
It is clear that the drafters ran into definitional hurdles from the get-go. Section 1 of the Bill distinguishes between ‘tobacco products’, ‘electronic nicotine delivery systems’ and electronic non-nicotine delivery systems.’
In terms of the Bill, ‘electronic non-nicotine delivery systems’ refers to an electronically operated product designed to deliver an aerosol to users by heating a solution of substances that does not contain nicotine and any other solution intended for use with or in the product’. While, presumably, the purpose of this provision is to include vaping devices that operate without the use of nicotine, the effect is to include any and all electronic devices that heat a solution and deliver an aerosol to users, even those not directly associated with vaping.
This is compounded by the fact that, to be excluded from the ambit of the Bill, a substance must already fall under the ambit of the Medicines and Related Substances Act and, further, be classified as a ‘tobacco product’ in terms of the Bill. Substances or devices that do not meet the requirements of a tobacco product, but are already governed by the Medicines and Related Substances Act would now fall under the ambit of Tobacco Control Bill too. Certain inhalers, aerosols, nebulizers and automatic air fresheners meet the requirements of an ‘electronic non-nicotine delivery system’ – they deliver an aerosol (a term which is undefined by the Bill), by heating a solution that does not contain nicotine but is intended for use with or in the product. Some of these products even contain propylene glycol, an ingredient mentioned in the Bill’s definition of electronic nicotine delivery system. While it is important to note that the provisions of the final Act will be read with the spirit and purpose in mind, such open ended definitions raise questions as to the familiarity the drafters of the Bill have with the devices they propose to regulate.
The definition for ‘smoke’, which finds practical application in section 2 of the Bill, is likewise problematic. The definition includes both ignited tobacco products (such as cigarettes) and ‘heated, but not ignited, tobacco products’ (such as e-liquids). The definition, however, goes further and includes to ‘operate or otherwise have control over an electronic delivery system that produces an emission of any sort’. Bill Kirby, the Director of Healthcare and Life Sciences Practice at Werksmans Attorneys, has already highlighted the lack of clarity, as well as the potential this definition presents for the broadening of the application of the Bill. As ‘to operate or control’ is not defined, it can be argued that smoking includes being in active possession of the electronic delivery system, even if one were to abstain from using it.
Further ambiguities can be found in Section 2 of the Bill. Section 2 (1) (c) prohibits smoking in ‘any motor vehicle when a child under the age of 18 years is present and there is more than one person present in that vehicle’. First, the prohibition of smoking if there is a minor present is irrelevant given the fact that smoking in a vehicle is prohibited if there is more than one person in the vehicle, regardless of whether or not they are a minor. Secondly, the effect of this provision is to remove consent from the equation. Even if both persons were smokers, were smoking at the same time or consented to the other party’s smoking, the action would be prohibited.
Regarding potential Constitutional issues, section 4 of the Bill provides that the Minister must, in future, prescribe standardised packaging and labelling of tobacco products. The section then outlines the minimum standards that the Minister must include in the regulations relating to packaging and labelling of tobacco products. This includes the requirement that all tobacco products have a uniform plain colour and texture, that any branding or logos are prohibited and that the brand name and product name may only appear on the packaging in a standardised colour and typeface. These provisions have the effect of, arguably, infringing upon constitutionally protected property rights.
In Laugh it Off Promotions v SAB the Supreme Court of Appeal noted that, despite judicial resistance in some quarters, trade marks are property. The fact that property is intangible does not make it of a lower order. This dictum was not challenged by the Constitutional Court and it must be accepted that judicial recognition has extended the ambit of section 25 of the Constitution to include intellectual property rights. As a result, a claim could be made that the statutory prohibition of the use of a trade mark would amount to deprivation of property in terms of section 25 of the Constitution and that the provisions in question would be invalid.
Kirby has stated that the legal approach to the control of alternative products, such as electronic delivery systems or vaping products would have to be specifically suited to take into account the nature of the particular products concerned, as well as the technology that they employ.
That this was not the case with the drafting of the Bill is clear and may be a result of a lack of technical knowledge of the products in question, as well as the fact that the relevant industry was not consulted in the drafting of the Bill. The Vapours Product Association said, in a statement on Tuesday (15th May), that the Minister had failed to enter into consultation with the relevant industry and had taken an overzealous approach which would, in effect, make it easier to smoke than to vape in South Africa.
Well THAT song's stuck in my head now for the rest of the day.
That was my plan
Thanks @Adephi
Done.
Questions 10 and 11 were the most interesting
Wonder where are the results of this
The results would be interesting although questionable as with all polls.
Would also like to see it since this would reach a greater audience. And just imagine if more than 50% say vaping is good..
The competition connected to this runs until middle July. So will keep an eye out for it.
Done 
Sent by iDad's iPhone
Sent by iDad's iPhone
How can you remember the question numbers @Silver - I can only remember that there were questions
Sent by iDad's iPhone
Done!
Hi Vape Naysh - I totally forgot about this thread, we are currently doing a series about the pending legislation.
I'll drop the video's into this thread as we release them.
I'll drop the video's into this thread as we release them.
Done, would also like to see the results. Some of the questions were a bit biased in grouping together vaping and smoking.
That's a useful poll although some answers could be interpreted several ways. The best way to do these things is with one-on-one interviews. You get a smaller sample size but it's possible for the interviewee to expand on their answer and to bring in nuances and explain apparent contradictions in their answers. In a case like this, they already know quantitative data on the ratio of voters who support smoking bans in public, and suchlike. The important thing is to start getting qualitative answers.
For example, there is a move now in England to try and get vaping allowed at work desks. In a private office where it's just the vaper, I don't think that is unreasonable provided the office is not used for meetings. But in an open plan office, that would be disastrous if vaping is trying to win public favour. There are a lot of non-smokers who object to vapour. Heck, I do, even as a vaper. That thick cloud and sickly sweet stench of Koolada and sucralose is the reason why I avoid vape shops and lounges where possible.
However, I would totally support vapers getting a different "smoking" area from cigarette smokers at workplaces. I understand that it's inconvenient for employers to have to provide two separate "smoking" areas but, in theory, it's reasonable for vapers to ask that they are not subjected to second-hand tar. So do I support vaping restrictions in the workplace? Well, yes and no. The devil is in the details and it requires a qualitative answer.
For example, there is a move now in England to try and get vaping allowed at work desks. In a private office where it's just the vaper, I don't think that is unreasonable provided the office is not used for meetings. But in an open plan office, that would be disastrous if vaping is trying to win public favour. There are a lot of non-smokers who object to vapour. Heck, I do, even as a vaper. That thick cloud and sickly sweet stench of Koolada and sucralose is the reason why I avoid vape shops and lounges where possible.
However, I would totally support vapers getting a different "smoking" area from cigarette smokers at workplaces. I understand that it's inconvenient for employers to have to provide two separate "smoking" areas but, in theory, it's reasonable for vapers to ask that they are not subjected to second-hand tar. So do I support vaping restrictions in the workplace? Well, yes and no. The devil is in the details and it requires a qualitative answer.
So how does one answer 'how many times do you use a vape device per day?'? There is no definable increment or limit of use within vaping. I vape all day so is it one?
Regards
Regards
Didn't that question cover smoking as well? I answered "11-15" as that is the number of cigs I smoked per day and is near enough to the number of ml of juice I vape per day.
Thinking puffs made me choose >40 i think was the highest. An example of the need to properly distinguish between vaping and smoking in questionnaires like this.
40+
It's only one @Raindance
I vape once per day
Once on the Evod
Once on the Reo
Once on the Skyline
Once on the Dvarw
Once on the other Reo
Once on the Lemo1....
.....
.....
hehe
Does anyone know what comp it is? What's the prize? It just mentions a comp at the end of the survey.
Also had to search for it. R5000. Would be a nice incentive middle of the month.
https://www.health24.com/Competitions/health24-smoking-survey-competition-rules-20180614
http://www.702.co.za/articles/311314/is-vaping-an-answer-to-the-draft-tobacco-bill
Heard this on the radio this morning.
You have to commend AHRA and VPASA for all the interviews they do in the media. Some of them really are like talking to a wall.
They should have had the big gun, Dr Delon Human there. He would shut that CEO up in 5 seconds.
Heard this on the radio this morning.
You have to commend AHRA and VPASA for all the interviews they do in the media. Some of them really are like talking to a wall.
They should have had the big gun, Dr Delon Human there. He would shut that CEO up in 5 seconds.
Similar threads
