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

[Payboy]

Does this ban also cover e-pipes?

[rawnnie]

How about nicotine-free e-cigarettes? This is such a stupid move. Lets the people decide!!

[Ricardo]

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.

World-wide I believe it was B.A.T. who took over the much-smaller Rothmans group, who I worked for in the 1980s, and there was the marginal situation of menthol in-the-silver-paper (as opposed to the tobacco). But yes, British-made ciggies were not allowed to have additives, however some 'low-tar' products may have 'flavour added', in countries where it's not illegal ?

The harmful chemicals come from burning tobacco itself, and of course a lot of tobacco is grown up here in Chiang Mai & Chiang Rai, perhaps elsewhere too ? So it's likely that this is all about tax-revenues, not health.

[ovaltina]

E-cigs might be good for saving money in the long run, inhaling all that anti-freeze means you wont need warm clothes or central heating on cold days.

[SiamWallaby]

I'm sorry this is something I just MUST respond to. The disinformation simply must stop. There is a site that is independent, and has ORIGINAL links to the ACTUAL scientific evidence on these issues..its called CASAA.ORG check it out. Non profit organisation who is also trying to fight this campaign of disinformation. I mean <deleted>.

I admit I had my doubts when I first tried these things. But I haven't smoked tobacco since. I can breath better, dont' cough, and actually have more energy. I sincerely believe I will live a good ten to fifteen years longer because of my "replacement" habit. Yes I am an addict, and you can look at it as replacement - what is is best desribed as in my opinion, is HARM REDUCTION THERAPY.

In other words, its self evident to the majority of reasonable non-agenda-drven adults that the NZ Health minister was spot on when he said ( and I am paraphrasing) "more study needs to be done, but it is apparent that these are 99% less harmful to the "smoker" than tobacco cigarettes - and on top of that practically 100% less harmful to those around the smoker"

In other words, yes, long term studies may need to be done to satisfy all the legal beagles etc., but its pretty obvious. I mean, can any sane person say, oh let me study these, and make sure they cause cancer, with the accompanying slow merciless cruel death, THEN we can approve them. Oh, thats just for tobacco.

No sorry, water, nicotine and a low percentage of food grade FDA approved solvent vaporized into steam over carbon monoxide, carbon, and over 4000 chemicals...yah if I'm going to be an addict, yep I'm staying switched thank you. I dont need any long term studies to tell me I feel more healthy than I have in 20 years.

Not a while ago,some yankee politician went on TV trying to convince people they were actually inhaling anti-freeze. Another said this was the first step to getting more kids hooked on crack cocaine. Not kidding. In Thailand they're supposedly illegal because one e cig lasts as long as a pack or normal cigarettes,and someone might overdose on them. Do you have any idea how much that would take? Twp pieces of nicotine gum contain almost twice as much nicotine as my e cig. But don't ban those because people wouldn't DARE pop two pieces of gum in their mouth by mistake? Ludicrous.. I knew professional politicians lost site of the public good and general sense long ago but seeing it is another story lol

Oh and I can understand the previous poswer who must have caught that news cast with the yankee politican. Its pretty easy to mistake Propylene Glycol for Ethylene Glycol which is anti freeze. Actually they are very similar but react completely different when ingested and broken down in our bodies. PG breaks down into a stimulant, EG into a toxin. Both in most cases are in such doses that the stimulation received is less than a half cup of coffee. Funhy recently the FDA actually mentioned that there test found Nitrosamines!! OH no. He didn't mention that they were at harmless levels and again compared to tobacco cigarettes about in a ratio of 1 to 200.

Let me revisit the "anti-freeze" fallacy again briefly. I must correct myself slightly. As I said, EG breaks down in the body into a toxin, and in the right conditions outdoors and in machinery causes damage too. Not exactly a toxin but caustic. In Aeronatics, the small machined fittings such as small screws etc. were being damaged by EG, so they tested PG. They may still use it or they may have gone back to EG, I wouldn't have a clue.

But I have to ask, for my own benefit as well as for others, what are the odds this can be passed off as simple incompetence or rushed research to satisfy voters? When I compare the improvement in my health and the (hopefully) corresponding extension of my life span, it ...

BOGGLES my mind to NO F'ING end why ANY government would ban these things.

Surely there's other ways to replace the revenue. Maybe tax the medical industry more since they won't have to take care of those cancer patients that sit in a bed slowly dying the last two years or so of their life.

Thailand has (indirectly) told its nicotine addicted people, you have two choices, pay extremely high taxes until you die, or go to jail for using the one therapy that's come along that ACTUALLY helps. Before everyone jumps on the third world bashing bandwagon, Australia has also these sorts of people about who have got them banned in Australia, but at least there they were more open about it - their issue was the difficulty in collecting...wait for it....wait for it....TAXES.

My daughter is 4 years old now, and I plan on living at least long enough to see her married off before I become worm food. But it may have to be in a more sensible country from the looks of it. What father in his right mind would choose to rot in some Thai jail cell or worse, waste away in front of the ones he loves, just to protect some HISO thai's patent on the nicotine patch?

Yes yes, I know you'll say "Well then quit ya bludger", "or BE a MAN, just quit" How many people in the world are aware that cigarettes kill you yet how many still smoke? My grandmother knew she had lung cancer but still could not put them down. I've tried staged filters, gum, patches, injections..and I've made it twice for a year or longer. I never ever lost the cravings for nicotine - I didnt like the taste of cigarettes after a month or so, but I still craved that process and the nicotine. Yes especially if I was having a beer or two.

As God as my witness, I can get stumbling drunk now and don't even think of a cigarette! AMAZING I tell ya. That was the real test.

So will one of you folks that believe that saving lives in this way represents a "serious health threat" or is surely "the next gateway drug to crack cocaine" please enlighten the good audience of TV as to who EXACTLY is paying your bar fine?

Truth you can investigate for yourself: http://www.casaa.org and/or http://www.vaperific.com

I'm considering fighting back with a tourism ban of my own. The web's a great place to get the word out, and tourism and money seem to be the only things people in power understand. If Thai's want to ban vaping, maybe Vapers should ban Thailand. Yeah I know it won't help but God it will make me feel even better than taking sickening smoke into my lungs.

Ironic isn't it that people/government are so MILITANTLY against smoking now? So why were there ashtrays in the back of class rooms when I grew up? My teacher had a 50/50 rule, because we'd be in the back of the class when she came in, if the cigarette was less than 50% gone we could finish while she started the class, if it was more than 50% we had to stub it out and take our seats. I dont believe we should blame anyone but ourselves for our addiction, but if the government saw how they're attitudes had changed in the past 40 years or so they might be a little more understanding.

Wanderin away, taking a nice lungful of watermelon flavored steam.....

[TAWP]

Governments don't care about your health. Banning these is one indication of it.

[longtom]

Citing health reasons for the ban is clearly rubbish. Although I'm not a friend of replacement methods myself, I'd say let the people decide themselves how they want to quit. There are enough other health issues in Thailand that are much more harmful, as already mentioned.

On another note, I hope they are feverishly working to develop an E-joint!

[bobl]

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

In a word, yes.

There is no way the multi-trillion dollar tobacco industry can come out directly against these things, without (further) exposing the fact that their product is considerably more harmful.

So, they pay scientists, doctors and politicians to create as much fud as possible about e-cigs, and quite successfully get them banned. In this case, the genius who banned them seems to have done so primarily because "they contain up to 15 times more nicotine" than a cigarette. Presumably he will next ban alcohol sold in bottles bigger than a nip. And 20 liter bottles of water (see below).

Nicotine itself isn't particularly harmful. Other than, of course, the studies into "how much is too much" which can prove that everything on the planet in excessive quantities is lethal. Try drinking 20 or 30 liters of WATER in 5 minutes and I'll see you at your funeral (and no, not because you drowned. You've created enough of a chemical imbalance in your body to have fatal consequences).

In fact, there are probably more studies proving the benefits of nicotine than there are negative effects. The studies into the negative effects tend to focus more on the method of delivery (smoking) than nicotine itself.

[thatguy]

Is this ban currently in effect? What is the status of this nonsense? How is it/will it be implemented? Is there any clearer report other than the gibberish in the first Post?

[StevenHeidbriderSr]

I bought a 21st Cencury Electronic cigarette at a Rite Aid Pharmacy here in the States and have found it quite helpful in my attempt to quit smoking after 40 plus years of addiction.

My lungs are clearing and i only give it a puff a few times a day. Sure seems a healthier alternative to regular cigarette or pipe tobacco.

[thatguy]

Noticed this thread is two years old. There are Thai ecig current forums, and friends in Thailand tell me they have never heard about problems.

[thai4me]

I have countless friends that have weened off smoking cigarettes by using the e way. Those that are still using them have not bought anymore cigarettes.

Some of them have been 2 packs a day smokers for 40 years have stopped.

Imagine the thousands the cigarette industry loses a year from just one smoker. I leave the math to you.

[Skywalker69]

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.

And all that smoke drawn into you´r lungs.

[Fgis]

Hello,

Which kind of e-cigarettes to refill have you found in Thailand ? I have found EGO ec4 for 1000 Thb and refill is 100 thb.

Ay better offer ?

Thanks.

[nurofiend]

so ban the ones that WON'T give you cancer....

Thailand.

[nisakiman]

There is a post here about e-cigs on the blog of Clive Bates, who used to be director of ASH UK, (obviously an anti-smoker of the first order).

http://www.clivebates.com/?p=697

And in the comments, something from a lawyer who has been involved in the Tobacco Control Industry.

David Sweanor

December 6, 2012 at 1:19 am · Reply

The apparent new and draconian EU approach to products that are significantly less hazardous than smoking, and could be used in place of smoking, is deeply troubling. As you have articulated so clearly in your postings on this blog, the science and the ethics on this issue are clear (certainly no one within the EU – or elsewhere – has offered a credible alternative view). Strange that the very people entrusted with protecting the health of the citizens of the EU would ignore the science and would act as if ethics is something that need not influence their decision making.

Cigarette smoking is a huge cause of death due almost entirely to the repeated inhalation of the products of combustion. There are products currently available that can substitute for cigarettes without inhalation of smoke, and there would undoubtedly be many more (and better) ones if the regulatory gatekeepers would allow such product onto the market. Instead they seem determined to hand the cigarette industry a nicotine maintenance monopoly. Gee, I can remember when health officials sought to reduce smoking caused disease rather than protect the cigarette business from competition from massively less harmful alternatives.

This is not the first time that key players have acted so as to deprive smokers of the products and information that could save their lives. As a public interest lawyer I have battled on this topic for decades, albeit primarily against the longstanding negligence of the cigarette companies. For far too many years these companies fell far short of their duty of care for their consumers. They are now dealing with the inevitable court actions that seek to hold them accountable for their malfeasance.

But tobacco companies are not the only ones against whom an action in negligence, perhaps even a charge of criminal negligence causing death, can be a viable cause of action. Public officials have a professional, legal and ethical obligation to protect the health of citizens and an obligation to avoid acting in illogical and capricious ways when enacting regulations. The dereliction of duty by these officials is not just a cause of concern but a potential basis of future litigation. They need reminding that the massive and numerous lawsuits against cigarette companies are not a result simply of them being cigarette companies, but rather a result of a failure to live up to their duty to consumers. It appears some senior EU officials are walking that same dangerous path.

David T. Sweanor

Adjunct Professor of Law

University of Ottawa

But what upsets most anti-tobacco activists is that e-cigs:

a) Enable someone to enjoy his e-cig in "no-smoking" areas. (Thus meaning that they have sidestepped the humiliation, denormalisation and demonisation that had been planned for them by the antis.)

b ) It actually rather looks like smoking! OMG! Think of the kiddies!

Anti-smokers (And I mean anti-smokers, as opposed to non-smokers, who are generally fairly tolerant of smokers as long as they are considerate) are, by and large, fanatical zealots. It's nothing to do with health and it's everything to do with ideological hatred. They want to destroy smokers and smoking and anything that looks like it. Hence the problems with e-cigs.

Edited December 8, 2012 by nisakiman

[rogerdee123]

I've never seen an e-cigarette except on online advertising. However I do know something about vaporizers and the properly made e-cigarettes are vaporizers. The reason a vaporizer is more healthy than smoking is that you don't get the smoke and other bad stuff from the combustible material that comes from the inhale. The temp doesn't get high enough to combust the material. So they are more healthy that smoking a burning cigarette and have been made for that reason specifically. Having said that, I think Probably there are a lot of cheap improperly made e-cigs out there ... many of them made by our big brother country to the north ... without regard to the temp of the heating element. The materials used may also be combustible or vaporize if the temperature is high enough ... which may be the source of that fantastic claim about anti-freeze.

In any case, it is very stupid to ban vaporizers from tobacco users because this is probably the most healthy way to use tobacco for those who are addicted or otherwise can't stop. If you use an e-cig, just be sure it's made in a place that has consumer protection laws.

It also sounds stupid when the Govt says it's concerned about the effects of smoking when on the other hand ... there is the "Tobacco Monopoly" operation churning out the cigs. But then again ... maybe they see the e-cigs eating into their cigarette sales.

Edited December 9, 2012 by rogerdee123

[edgarfriendly]

5 million deaths per year directly caused by smoking.

ZERO deaths ever from smoking e-vapor...

If the same logic is applied to these as cannabis theyll be kicking peoples doors in around the world to stop the 'evil' healthier alternatives to tobacco.

REVENUE protection., nothing more.

[TimTang]

The first thing to take into consideration is how powerful BIG TOBACCO is and how much influence their lobbyists have on governments (by influence I mean money). Then consider that governments actually make MORE money off the cigarettes sold than the tobacco companies do. It isn't very surprising then that suddenly you hear all kinds of bull$hit about how dangerous e-cigs are. Hence the - "200 times the nicotine as a normal cigarette"; "you're inhaling anti-freeze"; "it's a gateway to crack" and etc.

With e-cigs you don't just smoke the whole thing in one go, you just take a couple puffs and place it back in your pocket. When you light a real cigarette you're pretty well committed to finishing it. E-cigs are restricted to nicotine whereas normal cigs contain more than 4000 different chemicals.

You can buy fluids with varying degrees of nicotine. So you can actually slowly reduce the levels of nicotine and eventually quit if you so desire. Making false claims about the level of nicotine in an e-cig is absolutely illogical; it's like comparing apples and oranges or asking "how long is a piece of string?"

Most e-cigs come with a reservoir for the fluid, which you occasionally refill. One bottle of the fluid costs about 200 baht and lasts me more than 1 month. So the cost is incredibly cheap when compared to normal cigarettes. The problem is that both big-tobacco and the government are the biggest losers, the tobacco companies lose revenues from the loss of sales (as well as the gov.) and the governments can't figure out a way to tax them.

I expect to hear more and more creative horror stories about the dangers of e-cigs. There's even a video on youtube claiming that a man in Florida had his face blown off when his e-cig exploded. It's truly amazing the amount of false information gets distributed when huge amounts of money are involved.

Edited December 9, 2012 by TimTang

[smedly]

The OP is a big pile of pure <deleted>.

This government is strapped for cash which is why they raised the revenue of cigs by an average of 15% - the typical reason (all governments use) for such a move was to discourage people from smoking, that is of course another pile of <deleted>

If they'd stop shovelling boat loads of tax payers money into their own pockets things might improve, I'm sure TS has helped himself to a few billion from this corrupt scam driven administration

[PoodMaiDai]

"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!

Bingo. Tobacco companies made this happen. Nothing more, nothing less. Gotta keep Thailand smoking, especially the kids.

[Thai at Heart]

The first thing to take into consideration is how powerful BIG TOBACCO is and how much influence their lobbyists have on governments (by influence I mean money). Then consider that governments actually make MORE money off the cigarettes sold than the tobacco companies do. It isn't very surprising then that suddenly you hear all kinds of bull$hit about how dangerous e-cigs are. Hence the - "200 times the nicotine as a normal cigarette"; "you're inhaling anti-freeze"; "it's a gateway to crack" and etc.

With e-cigs you don't just smoke the whole thing in one go, you just take a couple puffs and place it back in your pocket. When you light a real cigarette you're pretty well committed to finishing it. E-cigs are restricted to nicotine whereas normal cigs contain more than 4000 different chemicals.

You can buy fluids with varying degrees of nicotine. So you can actually slowly reduce the levels of nicotine and eventually quit if you so desire. Making false claims about the level of nicotine in an e-cig is absolutely illogical; it's like comparing apples and oranges or asking "how long is a piece of string?"

Most e-cigs come with a reservoir for the fluid, which you occasionally refill. One bottle of the fluid costs about 200 baht and lasts me more than 1 month. So the cost is incredibly cheap when compared to normal cigarettes. The problem is that both big-tobacco and the government are the biggest losers, the tobacco companies lose revenues from the loss of sales (as well as the gov.) and the governments can't figure out a way to tax them.

I expect to hear more and more creative horror stories about the dangers of e-cigs. There's even a video on youtube claiming that a man in Florida had his face blown off when his e-cig exploded. It's truly amazing the amount of false information gets distributed when huge amounts of money are involved.

they should have to go through ingredient testing. that is the only thing ecigs lack. most if the flavors are already used in food anyway.

the tops for the bottles should be child proof too. if a kid chugged a bottle it wouldn't be good.

Edited December 9, 2012 by Thai at Heart

[Artisi]

"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

Nothing wrong with not being able to use a computer, even if you are IT Minister, however incompetence is incompetence which seems to apply to most politicians / minister / hanger -on's in TIT.