Why are Nicotine E-Cigarettes illegal in Canada?

[Boges]

This is evidence that governments are completely hypocritical about their approach to tobacco.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/01/21/ban-on-nicotine-loaded-e-cigarettes-aggressively-enforced-while-some-anti-smoking-advocates-call-for-legalization/

Even as some public-health advocates call for legalization, Health Canada has been vigorously applying its controversial ban on nicotine-loaded e-cigarettes, ordering scores of businesses to stop selling the devices and telling Internet providers and credit card companies to cut off the companies.

The regulator has investigated 250 complaints about sales of electronic cigarettes in the past four years and issued cease-and-desist letters to most of the businesses involved, said Leslie Meerburg, a spokeswoman.

The enforcement attempts come amid a spirited debate among public-health experts about whether e-cigarettes risk encouraging real smoking or represent an effective stand-in for tobacco, minus the life-threatening side effects.

E-cigarette businesses and some anti-smoking advocates argue the government should be moving toward legalizing and regulating the devices, rather than bullying the retailers.

Gotta keep raising taxes! Yet you don't ban people buying tobacco off reserves?

Then when a technology that seems to be very effective in weaning people off tobacco it's banned? If anything it keeps people from inhaling the many harmful chemicals known we seen in tobacco products. Also there's no second-hand smoke.

The only reasons I can think of, is that there isn't a way to apply draconian taxation on this nicotine "juice". Or the government really doesn't want people to quit, they just want people to be willing to pay 70% taxation on smokes.

Edited January 22, 2014 by Boges

[eyeball]

There don't seem to be many human societies anywhere in space or time that appear capable of approaching substance use without cocking it up. My own sense it's due to the moral panic and religiosity at the base of so many thought streams being directed at the issue at once. It's just a perpetual train wreck that never quits.

[Topaz]

Kinda seems the tobacco lobbyists have gotten to the minister of Health. I watched the senator hearing committee and the lobbyists were there and when a senator asked if the government should just get rid of tobacco all together the reply was NO NO, just tax the off reserves tobacco. E-cigarettes don't have as much nicotine than the real ones and they don't stink up the environment with the smoke like regular tobacco.

[Boges]

If lobbyists were in control of the government then why is there 70% taxation? Is it some sort of compromise?

There are other nicotine delivery methods that are illegal. And in the US where tobacco is much cheaper there are mall kiosks that sell E-cigarettes with nicotine. This smacks of government upset that they might not be able to get a vig off smokers anymore.

Obviously a prohibition of tobacco won't work so even presenting such an argument is ridiculous.

[guyser]

Health Canada for injection sites.

Health Canada against e-cigs for people trying to kick the habit.

Makes no sense.....unless of course the taxes are something they want.

Must be the money then

[Boges]

This is why I don't think full legalization of MJ will work as well as people think.

It would be hypocritical for the government to not tax weed at a comparable rate as tobacco, so people will just grow it at home or do what smokers do and buy it off a reserve.

Edited January 22, 2014 by Boges

[eyeball]

Yep, the government's confusion is equal to the public's mockery of it's dictates. The more the former ratchets up the more the latter does too.

This is as it should be and I hope the bikers and natives get stinking rich in the process. At this point the more chaos the better I say - the faster we crash and burn the sooner we can pick ourselves up and maybe get to a place where we can hopefully build a comprehensive Substance Use Act that is based on science and ethics instead of bone-headed stupidity.

Edited January 22, 2014 by eyeball

[Boges]

Of course. Government's don't really want people to quite smoking. They just want to be able to tax people who smoke.

http://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2014/08/11/toronto_board_of_health_to_consider_ecigarette_ban.html

Toronto’s Medical Officer of Health is recommending the city ban electronic cigarettes wherever smoking is prohibited if Queen’s Park doesn’t restrict their use province-wide by next February.

“There are possible health risks associated with exposure to second-hand vapour,” says a report to be considered by the Board of Health at its meeting next Monday.

Electronic cigarettes, known as e-cigarettes, are battery-operated devices that mimic the use and sometimes the appearance and taste of conventional cigarettes, the report says. “They do not contain tobacco and produce vapour instead of smoke when used. In the few years since their appearance, use has proliferated in North America, including Toronto.”

The report says Toronto Public Health reviewed “available evidence on e-cigarette use, safety, health effects, and potential as a cessation aid,” as well as government response in different jurisdictions.

The idea of second-hand vapour is hilarious if it wasn't so sad.

[Big Guy]

Of course. Government's don't really want people to quite smoking. They just want to be able to tax people who smoke.

http://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2014/08/11/toronto_board_of_health_to_consider_ecigarette_ban.html

The idea of second-hand vapour is hilarious if it wasn't so sad.

Thank you for the reference. I read the 14 page report and thought it was a reasonable compilation of data on the potential dangers. I did not find it particularly compelling but it is the role of a Department of Health to recommend based on the theory that if your are going to err, then do so on the side of caution.

What part of the report do you find hilarious?

[Boges]

The idea of second-hand "vapour". Smoke lingers around in the air, vapour doesn't.

Why not ban smoke machines (which uses vapour and not real smoke) at concerts? The technology is similar.

The idea that these devices make smoking cool is ridiculous. Other than the taste it doesn't provide the feel of tobacco, I'm unsure why anyone would use these if they didn't have nicotine in them except for the novelty of having it.

[Bob Macadoo]

Of course. Government's don't really want people to quite smoking. They just want to be able to tax people who smoke.

Why can't you tax nicotine "juice" as you put it? Its a measured drug, taxation is easy. The problem is once you accept or regulate you'll never be able to "unaccept" it....and we'll be stuck with smoking "lite" for the next few decades trying to eradicate it.

[Boges]

Why can't you tax nicotine "juice" as you put it? Its a measured drug, taxation is easy. The problem is once you accept or regulate you'll never be able to "unaccept" it....and we'll be stuck with smoking "lite" for the next few decades trying to eradicate it.

The point of nicotine juice is to ween yourself off the nicotine.

Taxing it won't lead to huge money as each unit goes further than a pack of smokes.

I don't see why doctors can't prescribe it if anything.

You can get them at kiosks in a mall in the US.

[Bob Macadoo]

The point of nicotine juice is to ween yourself off the nicotine.

Anyone I know doing the "juice", isn't weening....just substituting.

Taxing it won't lead to huge money as each unit goes further than a pack of smokes.

Just set the taxation to where they make money....easy-peasy.

I don't see why doctors can't prescribe it if anything.

You can get them at kiosks in a mall in the US.

That cinches it, if you can get it in an american mall it must be benign and/or beneficial.

[Mighty AC]

The government is fine with people quitting smoking...as long as it's a gradual decline. Direct tobacco related health costs in Ontario are $1.6 billion per year with an additional $4.4B in lost productivity for a total of $6 billion per year. Cigarette tax revenue only brings in about $1.4 billion per year.

http://www.mhp.gov.on.ca/en/smoke-free/legislation/clearning-air.asp

[Boges]

Anyone I know doing the "juice", isn't weening....just substituting.

Just set the taxation to where they make money....easy-peasy.

I don't see why doctors can't prescribe it if anything.

That cinches it, if you can get it in an american mall it must be benign and/or beneficial.

The point is, if you set taxation to high people will easily smuggle it over the border.

The latest development in Toronto doesn't even include the nicotine version as Health Canada has banned that.

Which makes it all the more hilarious that health officers want to ban people smoking water vapour.

[Boges]

The government is fine with people quitting smoking...as long as it's a gradual decline. Direct tobacco related health costs in Ontario are $1.6 billion per year with an additional $4.4B in lost productivity for a total of $6 billion per year. Cigarette tax revenue only brings in about $1.4 billion per year.

http://www.mhp.gov.on.ca/en/smoke-free/legislation/clearning-air.asp

That article doesn't seem to tell how it can estimate $4 billion lost in productivity. I'm assuming it's smoke breaks but even that is specious. I wonder if they can calculate lost productivity in people going to the bathroom a few times a day?

Also trying calculate the healthcare costs of smoking related diseases doesn't really take into consideration that a person that smokes doesn't live as long. What would the healthcare costs of a person that dies in their 60's of lung cancer or a person that dies of in their late 80s after a long aging process?

Edited August 13, 2014 by Boges

[Mighty AC]

That article doesn't seem to tell how it can estimate $4 billion lost in productivity. I'm assuming it's smoke breaks but even that is specious. I wonder if they can calculate lost productivity in people going to the bathroom a few times a day?

Smokers do take more breaks and are also sick more often. A US study, which takes into account the early death of smokers, has found that on average smokers cost their employers $6,000 more per year. One interesting finding was that on top of additional breaks and missed days smokers are less productive due to the physical and psychological withdrawal symptoms that begin within 30 minutes of the last fix. This costs businesses almost as much as increased sick days.

A startling part of the calculation was just how much less productive smokers really are. “Though all employees are occasionally unproductive in one way or another, research suggests that smoking status negatively impacts productivity separately and apart from lost work time due to smoking breaks and absenteeism,” Berman’s team wrote.

“This is because nicotine is a powerfully addictive drug. Although cigarettes satisfy a smoker’s need for nicotine, the effect wears off quickly. Within 30 minutes after finishing the last inhalation, the smoker may already be beginning to feel symptoms of both physical and psychological withdrawal. (Much of what smokers perceive as the relaxing and clarifying effect of nicotine is actually relief from their acute withdrawal symptoms.)”’

So-called presenteeism costs $461.92 a year for each employee who smokes, they calculated. Excess absences cost $517

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/smoking-employees-cost-6-000-year-more-study-finds-f6C10182631

[Boges]

If that's the case, it's all the more reason that vaping would be something that should be encouraged not banned. Since, of course, you can't discriminated against someone's employment based on the fact they smoke.

But going back to saying that Tobacco is a complete loss for the government. How can the government claim that loss of productivity in private sector as money out of their pocket? If they're just talking about public sector jobs, smoking is way down on the list of things that make the government less productive.

Private businesses have policies for smokers. When it comes to breaks, my workforce encourages us to take often breaks because it's a desk job and sitting is apparently worse for you than heroine now.

Edited August 13, 2014 by Boges

[Boges]

http://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2014/08/18/toronto_board_of_health_asks_province_for_ecigarette_ban.html

Idiots!

[jacee]

http://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2014/08/18/toronto_board_of_health_asks_province_for_ecigarette_ban.html

Idiots!

Banned ...

"wherever smoking is prohibited."

Not a problem, I think.

And who's going to know if you're doing it in the can anyway. No smoke, no smell, no tar.

There's always something missing from the health cost calculation:

Smokers die younger so there's a decade of savings.

Vaping is cool. No tar.

.

[littleguy1]

I think it is more because it still glamorizes and supports smoking. E cigarettes are still supported by the tobacco industry because they feel that people will eventually want the real thing. I would like to see a more positive use for tobacco so that the product could actually have some redeeming qualities. Maybe if tobacco companies did something to make this possible their industry would not be viewed so negatively.

[GostHacked]

I think it is more because it still glamorizes and supports smoking. E cigarettes are still supported by the tobacco industry because they feel that people will eventually want the real thing. I would like to see a more positive use for tobacco so that the product could actually have some redeeming qualities. Maybe if tobacco companies did something to make this possible their industry would not be viewed so negatively.

Banning E-cigs is a very stupid way to go. My friend has been slowly cutting back on cig smoking over the past year and recently invested in a vaporizer for liquid nicotine. He has about 5 different flavours that are really nice. He uses it all day in the house and there is no smell. He used to smoke all the time in the house but the stench was getting to him after a while. He is having some nicotine withdrawals, because the stuff he has is mostly water and about 15% nicotine. One real cig is equivalent to about 3 refills in the vaporizer. He was a heavy smoker and now has gone a month without touching a real cigarette. Although he says he has had some real cravings, but he has managed to resist and push on. It's a pretty big accomplishment in my view.

I have some questions about what makes up the flavours, but then you have to consider what goes into making cigarettes. Nicotine is not a carcinogen, but there are other items that are part of the cig making process that ARE carcinogens.

[Boges]

It's all about not being able to have a comparable excise tax on vaping. Governments aren't about Public Safety, they're about money.