tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4898134575932744217.post4435489183519790056..comments2024-03-03T15:08:32.255+00:00Comments on Gluggler's Blog: Hoodwinked ! Article 18 is medical regulation in disguise (guest post)Glugglerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00901755425725140426noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4898134575932744217.post-76634641207021200612013-12-21T09:27:55.629+00:002013-12-21T09:27:55.629+00:00Posted as Rotax@UKV
Take a closer look what the &...Posted as Rotax@UKV<br /><br />Take a closer look what the 'refill container' means. It is the same e-liquid in a bottele which has been tested with the device described in the section 2. So this directive will remove quite a lot e-liquids from the market since there is no rules to certify e-liquids only. So this is the way they will ban e-cigs. It is just hidden into the directiveAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4898134575932744217.post-88873035803490999232013-12-19T18:48:50.315+00:002013-12-19T18:48:50.315+00:00If anyone is in any doubt, read article 18 and ask...If anyone is in any doubt, read article 18 and ask yourself :<br /><br />Does look like consumer regs or first stage of pharma regs ?<br />Glugglerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00901755425725140426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4898134575932744217.post-9661754512909873412013-12-19T17:47:13.868+00:002013-12-19T17:47:13.868+00:00Good points, Clive, but it is pretty plain to see ...Good points, Clive, but it is pretty plain to see that even this is not what the EU wanted.<br />They want rid of ecigs.<br /><br />The forces within the EU have demonstrated that couldn't give a fig about democracy on this issue, nor do they pay attention to logic. They have an agenda.<br /><br />The other thing they have demonstrated is that things will only get worse. They will not put these rules in place and then relax them as time goes on. They will tighten them<br /><br />It isn't an authorisation procedure (yet) - agreed - but they have lost all trust in their ability to create good legislation on this issue, and this is widely suspected to be due to an agenda that they are working towards.<br /><br />I agree with Evaporate - this is not anything to be pleased about and it is everything to oppose for all the same reasons that medical regs should be opposed.<br /><br />If this is how it starts off - it will be full blown medical regs by the time it has worked it's way down to national implementation.<br /><br /><br /><br />Glugglerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00901755425725140426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4898134575932744217.post-33054123461297966552013-12-19T17:28:19.612+00:002013-12-19T17:28:19.612+00:00But...
It isn't an authorisation procedure - ...But... <br />It isn't an authorisation procedure - it is a notification regime<br />It doesn't require pharma Good Manufacturing Practice (extremely expensive and disruptive)<br />It doesn't limit sales to only where pharma can be sold<br />How do you know the MHRA is the competent authority? Even if it is, what matters is the regulation it has to apply and powers it has<br />Some of the data requirements are the same for cosmetics<br />Some of the data requirements are reasonable<br />Using power to ban a device has to be justified and proportionate<br />There is a lot of arguing over detail still to be done. <br /><br />None of this is to argue:<br />1. That the directive is any good - it is a mess <br />2. That it won't have negative consequences overall - it will<br />3. That it was made in an acceptable way - it is shocking how it was done<br /><br />See my take on it here: <a href="http://saveecigs.wordpress.com/2013/12/18/making-sense-of-the-proposed-new-e-cigarette-regulations/" rel="nofollow">Making sense of the proposed new e-cigarette regulations</a>.Clive Bateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15614056019814665135noreply@blogger.com