Electronic cigarettes: Thai Ministry aims to control sale of shisha sticks

[winstonc]

It seems that the Thai Government is jumping on the bandwagon along with EU where the European Parliament is currently debating regulation of Electronic cigarettes-this has little to do with concerns about our Health and lots to do with potential Taxation.

Those among us who have managed to quit 'standard'cigarettes with the help of E Cigs are going to be faced with more problems.

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

true,i gave up the roll ups 10 months ago and use an e-cig sent from scotland called jac vapour,,its been a great help to me a week willed person,,its more expensive than real cigarettes,,,,i can use it on a plane,absolutly anywhere its a vapour,,i dont stink of stale tobacco anymore,,etc,,best product for trying to give up,,remember we none of us are perfect ,,,,,,

[atyclb]

Perhaps a move to limit competition to Thai tobacco?

If a law passes to make nicotine a controlled substance then ALL tobacco could risk becoming a controlled substance.

Nicotine is addictive but al least non carcinogenic(I think)

Meanwhile non smokeless shisha is freely smoked in many indoor airconditioned venues contrary to public law. If the cigs were not bad enough we are forced to deal with tobacco delivery via vaporized water. Even your underwear stinks like an ash tray after an hour there.

Edited July 5, 2013 by atyclb

[bigbamboo]

Those electronic cigarettes can give you a real buzz.

Edited July 5, 2013 by bigbamboo

[hellodolly]

While I don't approve of smoking in any form ,its a nasty habit,

I do feel that Thailand is slowly turning into a nanny state just

like those in the West ,where they try to control everything.

regards Worgeordie

When we moan about pollution, or traffic jams, or useless electricity, it is precisely because the country lacks enough nannying. Companies and individuals are not paying the true cost of what they cost society.

Who is going to make companies pay their externalities? The state. Smoking causes a social cost that is high. We can't have it both ways. If you want clean water companies have to pay for water treatment. Regulation is the only way unfortunately and it leads to a nanny state.

I think that is a gross over simplification of how a society becomes a nanny state, but having lived in the worlds most developed Nanny State for eight years. I can say, life there aint all that bad, though one does get sick of the complaining to which the populace has taken as a national sport of sorts. But really in any logic, companies will only do what they are legislated to do, other than that, screw that, they will do anything they want and can get away with.

Regulation does not lead to nanny, what I would say gets you from regulation to ignorance is people in the government, executive and servants enjoy telling people what is best for them, and most people dont care about most things and are generally happy to be lazy and spoon fed whatever. Unfortunately we as species always take things too far and suck all the joy out of life.. just to save a few lives or add a minute percentage of quality into ones life, theoretically.

Lastly, this article is Advising Parents to Warn kids against buying, what an interesting conversation to have with a kid. Baffles the mind

Well the issue is, is Thailand a nanny state? Not even close. Just look at the discussion about the pollution from shrimps, or the eias for the flood defences. I am all for freedom from government, but a society has to function fairly.

Thailand will inevitably become more regulated because companies will not be allowed to overrun people and society they way they have before. That is progress in my opinion.

So you are saying nannying is progress.

Regulating potentially dangerous things is progress. Yes.

But then there is a looooong way to go in Thailand. It all goes hand in hand. People say nanny state as a very big broad brush.

But we all moan about pollution, corruption, taxi Mafia, and a myriad of things. Shouldn't the state get involved to stop these things? If they get involved in regulating stuff to make sure it's safer and better for consumers, that would be progress.

I think you and I agree a lot and yet have a different perspective on it.

For instance

"So you are saying nannying is progress.

Regulating potentially dangerous things is progress. Yes."

I do not believe regulating is the same thing as nannying, Nannying would be to ban it completely or regulate it to the level of stupidity.

Example. Nanny land the stop light is red not a car in sight for a mile yet you stand there because there is a cop car parked along side the road who will give you a ticket for walking across the road against the red light.

You don't put your helmet on to ride your bike around the neighborhood or out laying areas. The sidewalks are all one level so the chance of tripping are remote and if there is a hole in one and you hurt yourself you can sue. You take the family for a ride in the country or just from point A to point B 4 of them must sit in the back of the pick up. Illegal and on the list goes.

Now you may say those are obvious precautions. Based on what. In the part of Canada I lived in they had to wear a helmet on a pedal bike based on the supposition that every year in Canada 11 people died because they didn't have one on. How many of those were mountain biking? How many die crossing a street when there is no traffic coming for a mile and on it goes.

I wonder with all the regulations what is the difference in life expectancy between Thailand and these nanny states.

I believe that we living here in Thailand are accepting a large part of are responsability to take care of are selves where as in nanny land you don't have to it is assumed that all is taken care of for you by the law and if needs be you can sue.

[nisakiman]

"Warn your kids against buying these cigarettes. They are very dangerous as they contain more than 20 addictive substances," she said."

Really 20? Isn't nicotine poison enough?

No, Nicotine is harmless. It's the tar and other chemicals in cigarettes that are poisonous.

Lethal dose of Nicotine:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine_poisoning

When I was a kid, my old grandad used liquid nicotine as a pesticide/fungicide spray on our garden flowers...............

exert from wikipedia

Mods not sure if this is allowed but I did copy it and feel free to delete it as I am not sure on the rule fort this.

"

Jump to: navigation, search

Nicotine poisoning Classification and external resources

Nicotine ICD-10 F17.0, T65.2 DiseasesDB 30389 MedlinePlus 002510

Nicotine poisoning describes the symptoms of the toxic effects of consuming nicotine, which can potentially be deadly.^[1] Historically, most cases of nicotine poisoning have been the result of use of nicotine as an insecticide.^[2][3] Whereas more recently poisoning typically appears to be due to accidental ingestion of tobacco or tobacco products or ingestion of nicotine containing plants.^[4][5][6]

The probable lethal dose of nicotine has been reported as between 40 and 60 milligrams (the total amount in about 2 cigarettes if all of the nicotine was absorbed) in adults and about 1 mg/kg in children (less than 1 cigarette) .^[7][8][9] Children may become ill following ingestion of one cigarette,^[10] ingestion of more than this may cause a child to become severly ill.^[11][5] In some cases children have become poisoned by topical medicinal creams which contain nicotine.^[12]

People who harvest or cultivate tobacco may experience Green Tobacco Sickness (GTS), a type of nicotine poisoning caused by dermal exposure to wet tobacco leaves. This occurs most commonly in young, inexperienced tobacco harvesters who do not smoke tobacco.^[4][13]"

In my Opinion it is not as bad as the tar in the real McCoy s. That will coat your lungs and cause permanent loss of breathing capacity if inhaled over a long period. 30 years of heavy smoking for me and I have 71% use of my lungs. When I quit 28 years ago I had 70% use of them. My smoking years were for the most part in relatively smog free areas.

The basic rule of toxicology is "the dose makes the poison", which is why the oft touted soundbite about there being "4000 chemicals in cigarettes" is a meaningless statement, since very few of those chemicals are harmful in the quantities ingested by a smoker. Remember, too much water can kill you, but we don't make a song and dance about it. And given that over the past 50+ years lord knows how many thousands of rats, rabbits, dogs etc have been subjected to up to the equivalent of 500 cigarettes smoked per day in the researchers attempts to induce lung cancer with not one single success, it makes one wonder just how dangerous these "4000 chemicals" really are.

JOINT STATEMENT ON THE RE-ASSESSMENT OF THE TOXICOLOGICAL TESTING OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS”

7 October, the COT meeting on 26 October and the COC meeting on 18

November 2004.

http://cot.food.gov.uk/pdfs/cotstatementtobacco0409

“5. The Committees commented that tobacco smoke was a highly complex chemical mixture and that the causative agents for smoke induced diseases (such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, effects on reproduction and on offspring) was unknown. The mechanisms by which tobacco induced adverse effects were not established. The best information related to tobacco smoke – induced lung cancer, but even in this instance a detailed mechanism was not available. The Committees therefore agreed that on the basis of current knowledge it would be very difficult to identify a toxicological testing strategy or a biomonitoring approach for use in volunteer studies with smokers where the end-points determined or biomarkers measured were predictive of the overall burden of tobacco-induced adverse disease.”

The latest attempts to demonise e-cigarettes merely illustrates that the anti-tobacco pogrom has never been about health but is based on an ideological hatred of something that they personally don't like. The reason they object to e-cigarettes is because vapers are circumventing the punishments they have gleefully devised for smokers, and that really upsets them. That's why they are busy inventing more junk science to try to get e-cigs banned. And of course, let us not forget that they pose a serious threat the the profits of Big Pharma who have poured hundreds of millions into getting smoking bans enacted so they can peddle their useless NRT products.

[Thai at Heart]

Dolly you and I do agree on most of it. Its got little to do with life expectancy.

The big difference you find behind these issues is the level of compensation that will be paid out in say Canada by insurance companies in comparison with here. That is the biggest driver to push through what appear to be non-sensical blanket laws to cover every eventuality. Kill yourself on a bike here, and you get little. Kill yourself in the west, with your helmet on, through absolutely no fault of your own, and watch the insurers cry their eyes out.

No helmet, no payout

It cuts both ways.

Edited July 5, 2013 by Thai at Heart

[khunken]

As a smoker I've never tried the e-cigarettes. Plus I'm very reluctant to buy from vendors selling copies of these products.

From what I read about them, they seem substantially less harmful than real ciggies. So, if they are less harmful & can assist with quitting, I hope they are legally available soon.

[Gulfsailor]

Just yesterday the Dutch health body declared that the Shisha pen had no ingredients with an adverse health risk, after requests made to make the pen illegal. So in Holland it stays 100% legal to buy and sell, even to kids. I must add that this relates to nicotine free Shishas. Long term effects are not known, but government saw no point in banning them without any proof of health risks.

[Thai at Heart]

As a smoker I've never tried the e-cigarettes. Plus I'm very reluctant to buy from vendors selling copies of these products.

From what I read about them, they seem substantially less harmful than real ciggies. So, if they are less harmful & can assist with quitting, I hope they are legally available soon.

They do need to do testing on the liquids.

[barefoot1988]

just to clarify some things, these shisha stick are not the same as electronic cigarette although they are all vaporizer. many of the shisha stick starter set have fluid without nicotine content

that is saying, you could vape weed as well

[jcisco]

'but having lived in the worlds most developed Nanny State for eight years' - which part of Australia was that?

Singapore

Edited July 5, 2013 by jcisco

[kruangfaifar]

What's with all these posts that seem to be objecting to government regulation of sales of a highly addictive drug? Are you guys serious? Do you want to encourage the sales of these efficient odourless Nicotene iintake boosters to kids? You can't apply legal minimum age for purchase of an item that isn't regulated can you?Without regulation you could have a new generation of nicotine addicts who have never smoked tobacco!! New Age smokers with the tools to deal with worldwide public smoking bans? A couple of posters suggest that regulation is a ploy by the government to boost tax revenue. If that was the case wouldn't they already be doing that with Nicorette products that are sold here? It seems not. Suggestions that regulation will provide new opportunities for corrupt officials to line their pockets. Rubbish!! Prove it. I think Westerners are not in position to preach to Thais or anyone else about corruption. Google "FCPA convictions" or the UK equivalent and count how many people have been given jail terms for corrupt activities or other acts like money laundering. We haven't set the bar very high IMO. Have a look at the Siemens, Blackwater and HSBC cases then try getting on your high horse

Edited July 5, 2013 by kruangfaifar

[toooa]

I just wanna give a big shout out to Lao Khao. If public health is really an issue, Lao Khao is poison in a bottle. Endemic alcoholism in the male population in the boonies. Electronic cigarettes, are not much of an issue but I suppose if ppl are flogging them off to minors, well, best to nip that in the bud, but to list it as a psychotropic substance? while half the country is having Lao Khao for breakfast seems a little shortsighted. But hey, screw the poor, and if it's not on TV it doesn't exist. Case closed.

[hellodolly]

Dolly you and I do agree on most of it. Its got little to do with life expectancy.

The big difference you find behind these issues is the level of compensation that will be paid out in say Canada by insurance companies in comparison with here. That is the biggest driver to push through what appear to be non-sensical blanket laws to cover every eventuality. Kill yourself on a bike here, and you get little. Kill yourself in the west, with your helmet on, through absolutely no fault of your own, and watch the insurers cry their eyes out.

No helmet, no payout

It cuts both ways.

In Canada I belonged to an organization that used churches for meeting purposes.

They were told that they could no longer meet in the churches if they allowed smoking.

As you say it was because of the insurance companies their rates went sky high where smoking was permitted.

Edit.

I still am curious about the difference in life expectancy. I don't think it is to big of a difference. Seems to me I saw about two years some where. I am going to see if I can work my way through google and find out.

Edited July 5, 2013 by hellodolly

[lee b]

Ive never heard of this stuff !

[bkk_mike]

They're significantly better for you than real cigarettes, but I do have issues with them being sold to kids.

Nicotine is not the most harmful part of a cigarette, but it is the most addictive, and getting kids hooked on nicotine is not a good thing.

However, this is not a problem restricted to Thailand. You have these things being sold outside schools in the UK too. (Sheesha sticks come in assorted "flavours" specifically aimed at children - How many more of our generation would be nicotine addicts now if we'd have had people trying to sell us strawberry flavoured e-cigarettes when we were on our way out of the school?)

The one thing in the favour of e-cigarettes is, it appears to be something that does genuinely get people to successfully stop smoking real cigarettes.

[greg71]

Just revisting this thread ,ive found a site where a guy is selling Diy products for ecigs so one can make there own juice much cheaper than buying the chinese crap (dekang ,hangsen etc) he is also selling various bit and bobs that go alone with it all.satisfied customer here and saved a packet .https://www.facebook.com/vapor.mist.94

[WitawatWatawit]

Just revisting this thread ,ive found a site where a guy is selling Diy products for ecigs so one can make there own juice much cheaper than buying the chinese crap (dekang ,hangsen etc) he is also selling various bit and bobs that go alone with it all.satisfied customer here and saved a packet .https://www.facebook.com/vapor.mist.94

It might be useful if you provided a few more details, such as who, what, where, when and how. Appreciate the heads-up, but specifics are needed. Also, maybe not everyone uses Facebook - or wants to

[mommysboy]

Real Ecigs are a great invention and will probably save millions of lives. However they need to be regulated right down the line from manuafacture through to marketing. Ideally I would like to see the same controls as with cigarettes and alcohol even though the nicotine hit is probably no more dangerous than caffeine. Fruit flavours are out in my view for obvious reasons.

[kcore]

I have also heard that the MP behind this push is the same man who owns the concession rights to the nicotine patch.