My mom always told me sweets are not food. So if my juice taste like sweets I should be ok!
Vaping Legislation RSA
- Thread starter Imperator
- Start date
-
- Tags
- legislation vaping
My mom always told me sweets are not food. So if my juice taste like sweets I should be ok!
Where does it say it can't smell like food? All I read is that it may not resemble food. I take that to mean it must not give the visual impression that it is food. In other words, you can't have a juice bottle in a package to make it look like a box of cookies or a pack of Smarties.
I listened to a radio interview with the minister. In my opinion his main aim is to drastically improve SA's ranking compared to the rest of the world for effort to reduce smoking.
Sent by iDad's iPhone
By trying to ban/restrict the instrument that has the possibility of having the biggest impact on smoking levels in the country. Sounds familiar.
The one ranking they should work on is education. We are dead last in like 180 odd countries. Our kids are dumb as rocks, but hey, at least they don't smoke or vape.
Yeah I don't think you're too smart either.
Public health is more than just about rankings...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I must say I also interpreted it as the flavour itself, but on re-reading I see the focus is on the visual part. It is however going to be challenging to explain the flavour without giving the impression that it tastes or smells like something specifically
Sent by iDad's iPhone
I think the juice makers will have to start practicing to do write ups of the flavour etc, otherwise we are going to buy blind and hope for the best.
The flavour part seems an obvious reference to weed.
Strawberry cheesecake is not prohibited by any law. However, if a juice bottle label says "Smells and tastes just like weed!" then the "descriptor" is "directly or indirectly creating the impression" that the tobacco product (juice) "has a taste and smell" that is "prohibited by any law" (as weed is prohibited by law).
Strawberry cheesecake is not prohibited by any law. However, if a juice bottle label says "Smells and tastes just like weed!" then the "descriptor" is "directly or indirectly creating the impression" that the tobacco product (juice) "has a taste and smell" that is "prohibited by any law" (as weed is prohibited by law).
@RichJB - I should let you do a literary review for me. You obviously read much more attentively than I do .
Thanks mate
Sent by iDad's iPhone
Well, I speak under correction, reading and interpreting legalese is not my forte. But that is what the wording implies imo.
I quote from the gazette:
"(5) No person shall sell. offer for sale, supply. distribute or buy a relevant product through the postal service."
Now put that in your pipe and smoke it...
FUBAR!
Regards
"(5) No person shall sell. offer for sale, supply. distribute or buy a relevant product through the postal service."
Now put that in your pipe and smoke it...
FUBAR!
Regards
My interpretation of the proposed law is the in future all components related to vaping devices will need to comply to the legislated prescripts of labeling and conditions of sale. Therefore the following day to day products will be affected:
Batteries
Cotton wool
Food Flavorings
Plastic bottles and tubing
Metal wire
Or am I wrong?
Regards
Batteries
Cotton wool
Food Flavorings
Plastic bottles and tubing
Metal wire
Or am I wrong?
Regards
@Raindance - the full sections is more concerning to me:
"(5) No person shall sell, offer for sale, supply. distribute or
buy a relevant product through the postal services, the Internet or any other
electronic medium. or by any other remote means."
Does that mean one will only be able to buy in a B&M store?
@RichJB - expectantly looking up to you again.
Herewith a copy of my comment which will be mailed to Chief Director Lynn Moen-Mahlangu in the morning:
Dear Chief Director Moen-Mahlangu
I am writing this to deliver comment on the Government Notice No. 475 of 9 May 2018: "Invitation for public comment on the Draft Control of Tobacco Products and Electronic Delivery Systems Bill, 2018".
I smoked 15 cigarettes a day for 37 of my 55 years of life so far. On 3 January 2016, I smoked my last cigarette and switched thereafter to the use of ENDS, or vaping as we call it. I have enjoyed a dramatic improvement in my health over the past two years. During my final year of smoking, I could not lie or sleep on my left-hand side due to discomfort in my chest. I coughed persistently, was often short of breath, had little energy, and suffered chilblains on my hands in winter due to poor circulation. All of these symptoms have disappeared since I started vaping. I can sleep comfortably on either side, the cough has vanished, I breathe more easily and have more energy, my sense of smell and taste has returned, and I no longer suffer chilblains.
I consider myself fortunate that I had the foresight to switch to a far less harmful form of nicotine use. I consider myself doubly fortunate that I live in Johannesburg, where several vaping retailers are a short drive from my home. Many thousands of smokers who made the same health decision that I did are not so fortunate, and live in small towns with no vaping retailers. They have no choice but to order their vaping equipment and consumables online, and to have them delivered by courier services.
I draw attention to paragraph 5 of section 8: Prohibitions in respect of tobacco products and electronic delivery systems:
"No person shall sell, offer for sale, supply, distribute or buy a relevant product through the postal services, the internet or any other electronic medium, or by any other remote means."
I understand the logic behind this regulation. It is an age-restricted product, online sales present an obvious loophole to allow minors to access tobacco. I can see the sense in prohibiting cigarette sales online. The cigarette industry is very well established, their distribution network extends to the smallest cafe or filling station in the smallest towns in the country. So there is no need for a smoker to order cigarettes online. Even the residents of small rural settlements are able to access cigarettes in their communities.
However, this does not apply to ENDS. As an emerging technology, vaping has far fewer retail outlets and very limited presence in traditional tobacco outlets such as filling stations, cafes and supermarkets. Although the industry is expanding and new outlets are opening regularly, this growth is largely confined to the major urban centres. For the tens of thousands of South Africans who have turned to a less harmful alternative, their internet connection to their vaping supplier is a figurative lifeline. If that connection is severed and prohibited by law, I foresee a grave risk that they will revert to the nicotine source that is most readily available to them - cigarettes.
While there is an imperative to protect the youth, I would think that there is an equal imperative to support the many more mature ex-smokers who made the health-conscious decision to reject cigarette smoking. They are dependent on the delivery of ENDS products purchased online to keep them off cigarettes. How does denying them that lifeline reconcile with the medical ethos of "first, do no harm"? Encouraging ex-smokers to return to cigarette smoking, even unwittingly, is surely the very essence of harm.
There must surely be a legal mechanism, such as requiring courier companies to verify the age of customers to whom they deliver ENDS, which would satisfy the twin goals of preventing minors from accessing ENDS while allowing ex-smokers to continue to improve their health through online access to this harm-reduction product? As it stands, the regulation seems willing to sacrifice the health of many mature ex-smokers in order to protect the health of young never-smokers. I don't believe that is a choice that we have to make. We can act in a way that serves the interests of both groups and, thereby, the health interests of the entire nation.
Sincerely, etc. "
Well, that is the general gist, I'll probably tweak a bit before mailling. But I think we need to make our voices heard. That is what the public comments phase is for.
Dear Chief Director Moen-Mahlangu
I am writing this to deliver comment on the Government Notice No. 475 of 9 May 2018: "Invitation for public comment on the Draft Control of Tobacco Products and Electronic Delivery Systems Bill, 2018".
I smoked 15 cigarettes a day for 37 of my 55 years of life so far. On 3 January 2016, I smoked my last cigarette and switched thereafter to the use of ENDS, or vaping as we call it. I have enjoyed a dramatic improvement in my health over the past two years. During my final year of smoking, I could not lie or sleep on my left-hand side due to discomfort in my chest. I coughed persistently, was often short of breath, had little energy, and suffered chilblains on my hands in winter due to poor circulation. All of these symptoms have disappeared since I started vaping. I can sleep comfortably on either side, the cough has vanished, I breathe more easily and have more energy, my sense of smell and taste has returned, and I no longer suffer chilblains.
I consider myself fortunate that I had the foresight to switch to a far less harmful form of nicotine use. I consider myself doubly fortunate that I live in Johannesburg, where several vaping retailers are a short drive from my home. Many thousands of smokers who made the same health decision that I did are not so fortunate, and live in small towns with no vaping retailers. They have no choice but to order their vaping equipment and consumables online, and to have them delivered by courier services.
I draw attention to paragraph 5 of section 8: Prohibitions in respect of tobacco products and electronic delivery systems:
"No person shall sell, offer for sale, supply, distribute or buy a relevant product through the postal services, the internet or any other electronic medium, or by any other remote means."
I understand the logic behind this regulation. It is an age-restricted product, online sales present an obvious loophole to allow minors to access tobacco. I can see the sense in prohibiting cigarette sales online. The cigarette industry is very well established, their distribution network extends to the smallest cafe or filling station in the smallest towns in the country. So there is no need for a smoker to order cigarettes online. Even the residents of small rural settlements are able to access cigarettes in their communities.
However, this does not apply to ENDS. As an emerging technology, vaping has far fewer retail outlets and very limited presence in traditional tobacco outlets such as filling stations, cafes and supermarkets. Although the industry is expanding and new outlets are opening regularly, this growth is largely confined to the major urban centres. For the tens of thousands of South Africans who have turned to a less harmful alternative, their internet connection to their vaping supplier is a figurative lifeline. If that connection is severed and prohibited by law, I foresee a grave risk that they will revert to the nicotine source that is most readily available to them - cigarettes.
While there is an imperative to protect the youth, I would think that there is an equal imperative to support the many more mature ex-smokers who made the health-conscious decision to reject cigarette smoking. They are dependent on the delivery of ENDS products purchased online to keep them off cigarettes. How does denying them that lifeline reconcile with the medical ethos of "first, do no harm"? Encouraging ex-smokers to return to cigarette smoking, even unwittingly, is surely the very essence of harm.
There must surely be a legal mechanism, such as requiring courier companies to verify the age of customers to whom they deliver ENDS, which would satisfy the twin goals of preventing minors from accessing ENDS while allowing ex-smokers to continue to improve their health through online access to this harm-reduction product? As it stands, the regulation seems willing to sacrifice the health of many mature ex-smokers in order to protect the health of young never-smokers. I don't believe that is a choice that we have to make. We can act in a way that serves the interests of both groups and, thereby, the health interests of the entire nation.
Sincerely, etc. "
Well, that is the general gist, I'll probably tweak a bit before mailling. But I think we need to make our voices heard. That is what the public comments phase is for.
@RichJB
Section 9 (d) (ii)
"the prohibition of any substance or ingredient that creates a specified flavor [sic], smell or effect on the consumer"
Another concern is that no-one will be allowed to sell / supply / buy via the Internet. See Section 8 (5).
Now THIS will be too dreadful for words. There's only one vape shop relatively nearby and obviously they can't stock everything, which is why I do all my shopping online.
EDIT: And what about vendors who operate online only e.g. All Day Vapes, Valley Vapour???
Now THIS will be too dreadful for words. There's only one vape shop relatively nearby and obviously they can't stock everything, which is why I do all my shopping online.
EDIT: And what about vendors who operate online only e.g. All Day Vapes, Valley Vapour???
The heading of that section is:
My emphasis. That whole section covers areas where the Minister might make further regulations at some point in the future. However, they are not making those regulations now. We will have to see what further regs, if any, emerge. That section just covers what the Minister might still do, and what he is allowed to do.
My emphasis. That whole section covers areas where the Minister might make further regulations at some point in the future. However, they are not making those regulations now. We will have to see what further regs, if any, emerge. That section just covers what the Minister might still do, and what he is allowed to do.
9(d)(ii) is going to be near impossible to enforce or prove muster if the product doesn't contain nicotine. So if that happens, we'll just see nicotine shots being sold separately to the juice bottles as it is in the EU.
The "no online buying" thing is a problem, though.
As usual, government gets rabid over the wrong things. They're like Windows Firewall... woefully late to the party, and when it does do something it's completely wrong. The rest of the western world has already passed this legislation and are now in the process of amending it to make it easier on the vaping industry because they realised the damage that the legislation is doing.
In stark contrast, what is gazetted here literally makes it easier to smoke than to vape.
Let's just go through that again, slowly: literally makes it easier to smoke than to vape.
Does the legislation make it hard for smokers to continue smoking? No. Some quality of life nuisances, maybe, but that's it. The same cannot be said for vaping at all.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but...
Last edited:
Ah yes ... we used to do this in school. Describe an apple, without saying the word "apple" or "fruit".
We have nothing to worry about though as far as fruit flavours are concerned. The copywriters have trained as well. As soon as one reads anything about being transported to a tropical island - Aha! Of course that's a fruit mix!!
Strawberry cheesecake flavour - and all other flavours - may well be prohibited in the future. The FDA wants to ban flavours and if they do SA could follow suit. Perhaps that's the reason for that clause - they know something we don't.
One has to read the wording very carefully. Take that flavour one, for example:
Section 9 (d) (ii)
"the prohibition of any substance or ingredient that creates a specified flavor [sic], smell or effect on the consumer"
The word "specified" is very important in that. It implies that there is a specific flavour they're thinking of, and anticipating banning. I would say, in this case, that it's menthol. The EU has banned menthol from 2020, parts of the US and Canada have and will as well. I'm guessing SA will follow suit and they are laying the groundwork for that regulation now. That they add the words "or effect" also leads me to believe that it's menthol. Menthol doesn't just have a taste and smell, it has an effect on the vaper - it cools your mouth and throat. Of course, "or effect" also covers weed.
If the wording had read:
Section 9 (d) (ii)
"the prohibition of any substance or ingredient that creates any food-related flavor [sic], smell or effect on the consumer"
Then you could get really worried. Because then it implies that they're looking at the whole gamut of flavours that we use.
Section 9 (d) (ii)
"the prohibition of any substance or ingredient that creates a specified flavor [sic], smell or effect on the consumer"
The word "specified" is very important in that. It implies that there is a specific flavour they're thinking of, and anticipating banning. I would say, in this case, that it's menthol. The EU has banned menthol from 2020, parts of the US and Canada have and will as well. I'm guessing SA will follow suit and they are laying the groundwork for that regulation now. That they add the words "or effect" also leads me to believe that it's menthol. Menthol doesn't just have a taste and smell, it has an effect on the vaper - it cools your mouth and throat. Of course, "or effect" also covers weed.
If the wording had read:
Section 9 (d) (ii)
"the prohibition of any substance or ingredient that creates any food-related flavor [sic], smell or effect on the consumer"
Then you could get really worried. Because then it implies that they're looking at the whole gamut of flavours that we use.
Similar threads
