Thailand Bans The Import And Sale Of Electronic Cigarettes (e-cigarettes)

[webfact]

E-cigarettes banned

BANGKOK (NNT) -- The Ministry of Public Health bans the import and sale of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) in Thailand. It warns the cigarettes contained more nicotine than normal ones.

According to Deputy Public Health Minister Phansiri Kullanartsiri, smoking one e-cigarette is be equivalent to smoking 15 normal cigarettes.

The 1992 Tobacco Products Control Act, 1967 Drug Act and 1926 Customs Act will be used to control e-cigarettes in the Kingdom. Violators will be subject to both fine and imprisonment.

The deputy minister regarded e-cigarettes as a new threat to health although they imitated scents such as chocolate and fruits. She warned that smoking them without the supervision of doctors could harm the heart and blood vessel.

E-cigarettes are now very popular among teenagers in the northern province of Chiang Rai. They can be purchased online at 2,500 THB each. Advertisements claim that they can help quit smoking.

E-cigarettes are forbidden in many countries such as the Victoria state of Austrialia, Brazil, Israel, Jordan and Turkey. There has been no research proving the cigarettes can help quit smoking.

-- NNT 2010-03-10

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

[Zolt]

"Thailand bans online sale of cigarettes" would have been a slightly less misleading tile.

E-cigarettes... what?

[scratt]

"Thailand bans online sale of cigarettes" would have been a slightly less misleading tile.

E-cigarettes... what?

Erm. No you are confused.

E-cigarettes are electronic burners, not cigarettes in the traditional form.

In any case the evidence they cite is rubbish. Seems more like a move aimed to protect sales of "real" cigarettes for domestic conglomerates.

Addiction to Nicotine is not the problem that cigarettes pose. It's the damage that the literally thousands of chemicals in the tobacco that are there to ensure the dam_n things burn that do the harm.

If Nicotine was the problem then surely Nicotine patches should be banned too? They also supply a higher than average dose of Nicotine and are proven to help addicts kick smoking! Nice work "Mr. Deputy Health Minister". Duh!

Edited March 10, 2010 by scratt

[gotlost]

If you can not see it you can not tax it. Thats why they are banned.

[RedQualia]

"Thailand bans online sale of cigarettes" would have been a slightly less misleading tile.

E-cigarettes... what?

Erm. No you are confused.

E-cigarettes are electronic burners, not cigarettes in the traditional form.

In any case the evidence they cite is rubbish. Seems more like a move aimed to protect sales of "real" cigarettes for domestic conglomerates.

Addiction to Nicotine is not the problem that cigarettes pose. It's the damage that the literally thousands of chemicals in the tobacco that are there to ensure the dam_n things burn that do the harm.

If Nicotine was the problem then surely Nicotine patches should be banned too? They also supply a higher than average dose of Nicotine and are proven to help addicts kick smoking! Nice work "Mr. Deputy Health Minister". Duh!

There is another mistake being made here. While it's true that an e-cigarette may contain the same amount of nicotine as 15 cigarettes (or 20 or 25 or whatever), no one consumes an entire e-cigarette in a single sitting. A single cartridge equates to a pack of cigarettes, more or less. A cartridge equal to 15 cigarettes is generally expected to last as long as 15 cigarettes. That might be a half day for a pack and a half per day smoker, or a whole day for someone who smokes 3/4 pack per day, or even longer, depending on circumstances.

e-Cigarettes are arguably "better" for the smoker as well. That is, while they may contain varying amounts of nicotine, they do not contain the tars and such that clog up the lungs.

I'd say they shouldn't be banned, but of course, that opinion wouldn't matter for much.

[philw]

"Thailand bans online sale of cigarettes" would have been a slightly less misleading tile.

E-cigarettes... what?

Erm. No you are confused.

E-cigarettes are electronic burners, not cigarettes in the traditional form.

In any case the evidence they cite is rubbish. Seems more like a move aimed to protect sales of "real" cigarettes for domestic conglomerates.

Addiction to Nicotine is not the problem that cigarettes pose. It's the damage that the literally thousands of chemicals in the tobacco that are there to ensure the dam_n things burn that do the harm.

If Nicotine was the problem then surely Nicotine patches should be banned too? They also supply a higher than average dose of Nicotine and are proven to help addicts kick smoking! Nice work "Mr. Deputy Health Minister". Duh!

You are completely correct.

They just helped me go from 40 cigs a day to about 5................

Painlessly.

I am sure they are being banned only because of the potential revenue losses.

Quite agree, the evidence cited is total rubbish and typical of the fools that run this country.

I am angry beyond words actually, because from the research I have done they are a very effective NRT / alternative to carcinogenic weeds and could help save many lives.

Anybody interested should google for information.

Anything that helps anyone quite smoking is an improvement...................

Pathetic !!!

Philw

[Totster]

You are completely correct.

They just helped me go from 40 cigs a day to about 5................

Painlessly.

You aren't quitting, you are replacing.

totster

[philw]

You are completely correct.

They just helped me go from 40 cigs a day to about 5................

Painlessly.

You aren't quitting, you are replacing.

totster

Sure, correct, but without ingesting all the other crap in cigarettes that does the damage............

ph

[BangkokSpoon]

She warned that smoking them without the supervision of doctors could harm the heart and blood vessel.........................

You need a doctor to watch you and then its ok.....

[starkey_rich]

"Quite agree, the evidence cited is total rubbish and typical of the fools that run this country"

Just about sums it up.

Remember the IT minister who did not know how to use a computer.

T.I.T Totally Incompetent Thailand

[Thailand]

The usual conflict of interests no doubt.

[AlongtheChaoPraya]

"You aren't quitting, you are replacing."

Replacing is correct. I read a report on nicotine gum users over a period of many years. They found nothing in the addicting stuff that is that harmful. All the crap in cigarettes, on the other hand, is very harmful - so the banning of these e-cigarettes is a bad thing. Once you get over the psychological craving of sucking on the cigs - like when drinking a beer - and successfully reduce the problem down to pure nicotine intake (like the gum), it is possible to wean yourself easier. In any event, anything to curb normal cigarette use is a very good idea.

[philw]

"You aren't quitting, you are replacing."

Replacing is correct. I read a report on nicotine gum users over a period of many years. They found nothing in the addicting stuff that is that harmful. All the crap in cigarettes, on the other hand, is very harmful - so the banning of these e-cigarettes is a bad thing. Once you get over the psychological craving of sucking on the cigs - like when drinking a beer - and successfully reduce the problem down to pure nicotine intake (like the gum), it is possible to wean yourself easier. In any event, anything to curb normal cigarette use is a very good idea.

[livingthedream]

e-cigarette?? I'm gasping, quick, someone PLEASE e-mail me a cigarette !!

[Thai at Heart]

Oh dear oh dear.

So consuming a whole "package" of something could hurt you. And this comes from the health ministry.

So when are they going to mandate childproof caps on paracetamol? Oh and come to think, anyone for a LITRE of whiskey? Why dont' they sell it in measured shots? Or cartons of cigarettes? How about dispensing them in daily allowed packs? Or Zyban for that matter. Sold in packs of 100's for consumption 2 per day.

I hope that the importer appeals and sues their ass for writing the dumbest of dumb laws.

[elkangorito]

The deputy minister regarded e-cigarettes as a new threat to health...

The biggest threat to health in Thailand is getting anywhere near a road &/or driving or riding a motor vehicle.

BTW, I used to work for British American Tobacco for a short time (in Australia) just before they were taken over by Rothmans. I can assure everybody that back then (1998), there were no extra chemicals added to cigarettes except water (steam). I believe that this is still the case.

[Phil Conners]

This is an E-cigarette:

If it means no more second-hand smoke I'm all for it!

Edited March 10, 2010 by Phil Conners

[philw]

This is an E-cigarette:

If it means no more second-hand smoke I'm all for it!

Good One.

Thank you.

ph

[elkangorito]

I think the metal/washable filters are better. No batteries, greatly reduced tar but the same nicotine. And of course, no added chemicals (propylene glycol).

[davee58]

"You aren't quitting, you are replacing."

Replacing is correct. I read a report on nicotine gum users over a period of many years. They found nothing in the addicting stuff that is that harmful. All the crap in cigarettes, on the other hand, is very harmful - so the banning of these e-cigarettes is a bad thing. Once you get over the psychological craving of sucking on the cigs - like when drinking a beer - and successfully reduce the problem down to pure nicotine intake (like the gum), it is possible to wean yourself easier. In any event, anything to curb normal cigarette use is a very good idea.

But is an e-cigarette really any more healthy than a pack of traditional cigs?

If I "replace" beer with Vodka I might only drink one pint per day.

But I am certain I would be considerably more pickled.

[Soi Sauce]

Nicotine is not that harmful. It's the kemikals in fagz that kill ya.

Problem, is, these ain't the same as the whole 'smoking' a cigarett process.

Tried one. They're <deleted>.

BTW. I don't drive. I don't like your second-hand smoke. Nor does the planet. I'm killin meself. You're killin everyone.

[philw]

Nicotine is not that harmful. It's the kemikals in fagz that kill ya.

Problem, is, these ain't the same as the whole 'smoking' a cigarett process.

Tried one. They're <deleted>.

BTW. I don't drive. I don't like your second-hand smoke. Nor does the planet. I'm killin meself. You're killin everyone.

More Soi ???

Forgive me, I don't understand !!

[DP25]

They would ban ALL tobacco products if they could here. They are unable to touch existing products, but expect any new products like these to get the ban hammer thrown down.

[elkangorito]

Nicotine is not that harmful. It's the kemikals in fagz that kill ya.

Problem, is, these ain't the same as the whole 'smoking' a cigarett process.

Tried one. They're <deleted>.

BTW. I don't drive. I don't like your second-hand smoke. Nor does the planet. I'm killin meself. You're killin everyone.

Touchy!!!!

BTW, consumerism is killing the whole planet. But I guess you're a non-consumer, right?

[Phil Conners]

BTW. I don't drive. I don't like your second-hand smoke. Nor does the planet. I'm killin meself. You're killin everyone.

I call bull on this. How did you get to Thailand from wherever you came? Swam? Walked?

[MB1]

"Thailand bans online sale of cigarettes" would have been a slightly less misleading tile.

E-cigarettes... what?

Erm. No you are confused.

E-cigarettes are electronic burners, not cigarettes in the traditional form.

In any case the evidence they cite is rubbish. Seems more like a move aimed to protect sales of "real" cigarettes for domestic conglomerates.

Addiction to Nicotine is not the problem that cigarettes pose. It's the damage that the literally thousands of chemicals in the tobacco that are there to ensure the dam_n things burn that do the harm.

If Nicotine was the problem then surely Nicotine patches should be banned too? They also supply a higher than average dose of Nicotine and are proven to help addicts kick smoking! Nice work "Mr. Deputy Health Minister". Duh!

If anyone is interested then read the wikipedia article on E Cigarettes, IMO the ban is wrong, as at the moment it seems to me from reading the article @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_cigarette there is no medical evidence to ban such a product as the health effects of using electronic cigarettes are currently unknown, from what I've read on the subject I'm willing to try one myself as surely they can't be any worse than a real cigarette.

Edited March 10, 2010 by MB1

[jozigzag]

Most of you guys are right. It's all about getting tax but not to save lifes. If you look at the cigarette packs with there very ugly pictures of diseases through tobacco and all the health warnings even in 7/11. Why they should not support electronic cigarettes. Nicotine is an organic compound found in Vegetables and it's used in the medicine for brain diseases. It's not the nicotine which cause diseases and death. Read en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_cigarette - there are major countries which allows to import and sell e-cigs like USA since 4 years, UK since 2 years, Austria, France, Italy, South Africa and more because of the health benefits of e-cigarettes. Most governments ignore this totally because of the strong tobacco lobby. In the States even the FDA tried to block the import of e-cigs through a law suit and they lost. Shouldn't any government in the world try take care the health of their peoples first. I think yes! Read this research about electronic cigarettes Dr. Murray Laugesen at healthnz.co.nz

Let the people decide how to get rid of traditional cigarettes.

[ovaltina]

E-cigs contain the synthetic chemical that is used in Anti-Freeze. This is also inhaled deeper because the user is trying to get that 'cig feeling'.

Ideally, don't smoke if you want to be jogging at 60 or whatever, but if I was smoking I would go for normal plant-leaves instead of anti-freeze.

Sort of slightly off topic, was on TV yesterday the worlds oldest woman, supposedly born in 1880 Georgia now at 130-years old, who drank neat vodka every day of her life & is seen swigging it even now at 130. I just think that it makes a mockery of the don't drink/smoke thing. Ideally, people should have information & make their minds up, and make their own balanced moderation in life. And counselling if they need it. But all this nanny state is horrible.

We had a hundred years lady in England who smoked every day since she was a child, to age a hundred and died of natural causes. Her coffin & floral tribute were white/yellow like a cigaratte too.

[Phil Conners]

Smokers are always clinging to straws to justify their habit. Little old ladies "smoking" seen on TV and in my case a couple of old relatives, usually puff the cigarettes, they don't inhale but just smoke because in their youth it was "hip" to do so. Then because a single person survives smoking and/or drinking immediately it's a "mockery". Dream on.

[ovaltina]

Smokers are always clinging to straws to justify their habit. Little old ladies "smoking" seen on TV and in my case a couple of old relatives, usually puff the cigarettes, they don't inhale but just smoke because in their youth it was "hip" to do so. Then because a single person survives smoking and/or drinking immediately it's a "mockery". Dream on.

I don't drink or smoke. ^^

I agree that there is the 'boney old crone who refuses to die' factor, some of these old maids must be made of titanium. My uncle Lennard (42) who has never smoked is currently dying from sugar-sickness diabetes & obesity, which he has got from drinking cola pop & beer & food filled with sugar. No warnings on those products,they should show a photo of a obese person injecting insulin on the side of sugar-products, if they are showing darkened-lung photos on cig-boxes.

But my point was, I personally believe that inhaling synthetic antifreeze from e-cigs, is worse for you than smoking a plant-leaf that has a history of tribal & shamanic usage dating back 100k years.