Thailand’s Medical Association strongly opposes DES Minister’s idea to legalize e-cigarettes

[webfact]

 

By Nop Meechukhun

 

National – The Medical Association of Thailand today, October 6th, has submitted an opposition letter to the Thai Prime Minister regarding the Digital Economy and Society (DES) Minister’s statement yesterday of planning to legalize e-cigarettes in Thailand.

 

Dr. Amorn Leelarasamee, as the President of the Medical Association of Thailand, along with representatives from the Medical Royal Colleges, the National Alliance for Tabacco Free Thailand, and Thai Health Professionals Alliance Against Tobacco, has delivered an open letter to Prime Minister Prayut Chan-O’Cha to oppose DES Minister Chaiwut Thanakhamanusorn’s proposal of the legalization of electronic cigarettes.

 

The response followed yesterday’s public statement by Chaiwut himself that he wanted to make e-cigarettes and vaping legal as he believed it could reduce the health risk among smokers.

 

Dr. Amorn told the Associated Press that the e-cigarette was originally produced to replace the traditional cigarettes’ market. Several international pieces of research have also mutually proved that e-cigs are clearly damaging individual health.

 

Full story: https://thepattayanews.com/2021/10/06/thailands-medical-association-strongly-opposes-des-ministers-idea-to-legalize-e-cigarettes/

 

-- © Copyright The Pattaya News 2021-10-07

 

- Whatever you're going through, the Samaritans are here for you

- Follow ASEAN NOW on LINE for breaking COVID-19 updates

[Gold Star]

E-Cigs pose an extreme risk to replace tobacco tax revenue.

That is really what is at stake here.

[nowhereman]

I didn’t know the dinosaurs were such hypocrites.

Edited October 7, 2021 by nowhereman

[MRToMRT]

So why don't they ban the sale of normal cigaretes? 

[hotchilli]

1 hour ago, MRToMRT said:

So why don't they ban the sale of normal cigaretes? 

Money for monopolies and tax revenue.

 

Edited October 7, 2021 by metisdead
Trolling image removed.

[jacko45k]

47 minutes ago, MRToMRT said:

So why don't they ban the sale of normal cigaretes? 

Following the example of the rest of the world I expect. 

[Neilly]

5 hours ago, webfact said:

Several international pieces of research have also mutually proved that e-cigs are clearly damaging individual health.

Quote

How safe are e-cigarettes?

In the UK, e-cigarettes are tightly regulated for safety and quality.

They're not completely risk free, but they carry a small fraction of the risk of cigarettes.

E-cigarettes do not produce tar or carbon monoxide, two of the most harmful elements in tobacco smoke.

The liquid and vapour contain some potentially harmful chemicals also found in cigarette smoke, but at much lower levels.

The above is from the UK NHS (National Health Service)

 

https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/quit-smoking/using-e-cigarettes-to-stop-smoking/

[thailand49]

The idiot who made the suggestion has motive since the suggestion goes against the science " get current with the times " he is got to be joking?  Go to his bank account and one might see a big donation from the E-Cig lobbyist.????????

[Virt]

Even CDC acknowledge that vaping is less dangerous compared to normal cigarettes, so a step in the right direction would be to ban all regular cigarettes and replace them with e cigs instead....

 

Off course it would be better to prevent all kind of deadly activities like smoking, vaping, drinking etc, but that's never going to happen so might as well find the best middle way.

 

We known for decades how deadly cigarettes are for smokers and the surrounding people and yet, those that are supposed to do something about it, tries to prevent a better alternative on the market.

 

Meanwhile people continue to die of cancer from smoking.

 

I hope they sleep good at night....

[Misterwhisper]

4 hours ago, Gold Star said:

E-Cigs pose an extreme risk to replace tobacco tax revenue.

That is really what is at stake here.

"Please consult your banker or tax advisor regarding side effects and risks."

[khunPer]

IMO, just keep the ban, if the concern is public health, it will be harder to restore it, if was once removed.

[Virt]

Just now, khunPer said:

IMO, just keep the ban, if the concern is public health, it will be harder to restore it, if was once removed.

If they were concerned about the health they would ban ordinary cigarettes, but we all know that's not going to happen, so people will continue to die from lungecancer and other smoking related diseases.

 

So why not offer a better alternative, that is less lethal?

 

It's all about tax money.

[Geoffggi]

Personally, I hope they keep the ban in place, nothing to do with if they are more healthy than smoking cigarettes but I find the e-smoking devices more obnoxious that cigarette smoke, I am an ex-smoker myself but I would much rather sit next to someone smoking a cigarette than someone smoking one of these e-devices, the amount of smoke they put into the air is terrible they are definitely more anti-social. 

[PETERTHEEATER]

6 hours ago, MRToMRT said:

So why don't they ban the sale of normal cigaretes? 

Absolutely. This is what the Medical Association should be arguing for.

[G Rex]

So - internationally, medical experts warn of the danger of smoking .  
these same experts warn of the risk of Covid 19 

One problem is either ignored or used to create revenue.    The other causes immense turmoil around the globe ???? 

go figure!!

Edited October 7, 2021 by G Rex

[ukrules]

5 hours ago, khunPer said:

IMO, just keep the ban, if the concern is public health, it will be harder to restore it, if was once removed.

It's a lot harder to un-ban something once it's been banned than it is to just allow it in the first place without any specific legislation.

 

For a government to specifically give the OK to something that's once been banned by a previous government (regardless of which party is in charge) I believe it opens them up to liabilities.

 

[CartagenaWarlock]

9 hours ago, Virt said:

It's all about tax money.

If it's only tax money, they can tax the e-cigarettes and It will increase revenues. I think there is an oppositions from the cigarettes manufacturers and they have not yet figured out how to make money from e-cigarettes. Just like in Las Vegas there is a opposition from casino industry to open sit-in marijuana smoking places because they have not figured out how to make money from those places yet.

[James105]

22 minutes ago, CartagenaWarlock said:

If it's only tax money, they can tax the e-cigarettes and It will increase revenues. I think there is an oppositions from the cigarettes manufacturers and they have not yet figured out how to make money from e-cigarettes. Just like in Las Vegas there is a opposition from casino industry to open sit-in marijuana smoking places because they have not figured out how to make money from those places yet.

I presume someone in the Thai medical association is being paid/bribed by the tobacco companies and their lobbyists.    The companies who sell highly addictive cigarettes would much prefer those that smoked did not have legal access to a much safer alternative that has helped millions around the world give up the significantly more lethal tobacco based cigarettes.  

[Virt]

15 hours ago, CartagenaWarlock said:

If it's only tax money, they can tax the e-cigarettes and It will increase revenues. I think there is an oppositions from the cigarettes manufacturers and they have not yet figured out how to make money from e-cigarettes. Just like in Las Vegas there is a opposition from casino industry to open sit-in marijuana smoking places because they have not figured out how to make money from those places yet.

Maybe if more tobacco manufactures expanded their production towards vaping to create a more controlled product,

then it would be easier to both tax and control that production.

 

As it is now the vaping market is a lottery and you risk buying some liquid/flavour where you can't trust the labelling.

Some products claim not to contain nicotine but after testing shows it do, some have higher or lower concentrations of nicotine,

which in worst case could lead to poisoning and so on. 

[jacko45k]

1 minute ago, Virt said:

which in worst case could lead to poisoning and so on. 

Hopefully just the user, not innocent  people nearby!

[Virt]

24 minutes ago, jacko45k said:

Hopefully just the user, not innocent  people nearby!

Maybe if they use the nicotine liquid as Songkran water ????