Notification Detail
Bill amending the Act on the ban on tobacco advertising etc., Act on tobacco products etc., Act on electronic cigarettes etc. and various other acts (Implementation of the national action plan against smoking by children and young people)
Notification Number: 2020/228/DK (Denmark )
Date received: 17/04/2020
End of Standstill:
20/07/2020 ( 19/10/2020)
| Message 002
Communication from the Commission - TRIS/(2020) 01372 Directive (EU) 2015/1535 Translation of the message 001 Notification: 2020/0228/DK No abre el plazo - Nezahajuje odklady - Fristerne indledes ikke - Kein Fristbeginn - Viivituste perioodi ei avata - Καμμία έναρξη προθεσμίας - Does not open the delays - N'ouvre pas de délais - Non fa decorrere la mora - Neietekmē atlikšanu - Atidėjimai nepradedami - Nem nyitja meg a késéseket - Ma’ jiftaħx il-perijodi ta’ dawmien - Geen termijnbegin - Nie otwiera opóźnień - Não inicia o prazo - Neotvorí oneskorenia - Ne uvaja zamud - Määräaika ei ala tästä - Inleder ingen frist - Не се предвижда период на прекъсване - Nu deschide perioadele de stagnare - Nu deschide perioadele de stagnare. (MSG: 202001372.EN) 1. Structured Information Line MSG 002 IND 2020 0228 DK EN 17-04-2020 DK NOTIF 2. Member State DK 3. Department Responsible Erhvervsstyrelsen Langelinie alle 17 2100 København Ø e-mail: notifikationer@erst.dk 3. Originating Department Sundheds- og Ældreministeriet Holbergsgade 6 1057 København K email: sum@sum.dk 4. Notification Number 2020/0228/DK - S00S 5. Title Bill amending the Act on the ban on tobacco advertising etc., Act on tobacco products etc., Act on electronic cigarettes etc. and various other acts (Implementation of the national action plan against smoking by children and young people) 6. Products Concerned S00S - HEALTH, MEDICAL EQUIPMENT 7. Notification Under Another Act - Directive 2014/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products and repealing Directive 2001/37/EC - Article 24(2) and (3) 8. Main Content - Display ban: tobacco products, tobacco substitutes and electronic cigarettes are not to be visible to consumers at points of sale, including on the Internet, until a customer specifically requests them. This does not however apply to: physical shops that specialise in the sale of cigars, pipes and pipe tobacco respectively, and the sale of electronic cigarettes: - Stricter ban on advertising and sponsorship: all forms of direct and indirect advertising and sponsorship are banned and, as an additional element, tobacco substitutes and herbal products for smoking are also covered by the ban. - Standardised packaging: all tobacco products, herbal products for smoking and electronic cigarettes must have a uniform appearance. This does not however apply to cigars, pipe tobacco and pipes. The standardisation means, among other things, that the manufacturer and product name must appear in a standardised way, that logos must not stand out and that the colour etc. of the packaging must be standardised. Standardisation can limit the advertising effect of the packaging. - Smoke-free school time: to avoid school pupils being confronted with smoking etc. during school hours, it is proposed that school time should be smoke-free in all primary schools, boarding schools, continuation schools and upper secondary education facilities. - Smoke-free properties: upper secondary education facilities including children and young people under 18 years of age and not covered by the current requirements for smoke-free properties are proposed to be included. - Ban on the sale of tobacco, tobacco substitutes, herbal products for smoking and electronic cigarettes and refill containers with and without nicotine in primary schools, boarding schools, continuation schools and upper secondary education facilities. - Ban on flavourings in tobacco products and electronic cigarettes: the sale of electronic cigarettes etc. with characteristic flavours other than the taste of tobacco and menthol is banned. The same is proposed for those tobacco products that are not already covered by the ban on characteristic flavours, although not for pipe tobacco and cigars or herbal products for smoking. - Regulation of tobacco substitutes (nicotine products): not previously regulated in Danish law, but proposed to be covered by the same regulation as tobacco products with respect to, for example, advertising regulations, age limits, etc. Requirements are also proposed on health warnings on the packaging in line with the current regulations for electronic cigarettes. - Age control system and stricter penalty levels: requirements are laid down for all retailers marketing over the Internet to ensure a system that effectively verifies the age of the purchaser, and the penalty of breaching the age limit is proposed to be made stricter. - Registration scheme for retailers of electronic cigarettes and refill containers with and without nicotine, registration scheme for tobacco substitutes and refill containers without nicotine. - Stricter penalties for breaches of the Act on smoke-free environments. - Easier access for municipalities to provide free smoking cessation medication. 9. Brief Statement of Grounds The bill implements an agreement on a national action plan against smoking by children and young people agreed on 18 December 2019 between the Government (Social Democrats) and Venstre (Danish Liberal Party), Radikale Venstre (Danish Social Liberal Party), Socialistisk Folkeparti (Socialist People’s Party), Enhedslisten (Red-Green Alliance), Det Konservative Folkeparti (Conservative People’s Party) and Alternativet (the Alternative). The agreement includes a wide range of initiatives intended to stop and prevent smoking and nicotine dependency among children and young people, and the agreement implements a number of the initiatives that patient associations and professionals have urged for several years. With the proposal, the Danish Ministry of Health emphasises that smoking is extremely damaging to health. It is the combination of all the initiatives that is to effectively contribute to reducing the proportion of young people who smoke in Denmark and in the long term contribute to reducing health inequality. 10. Reference Documents - Basic Texts No basic text(s) available 11. Invocation of the Emergency Procedure No 12. Grounds for the Emergency - 13. Confidentiality No 14. Fiscal measures No 15. Impact assessment Yes 16. TBT and SPS aspects WTO aspect No - the draft is neither a technical regulation nor a conformity assessment procedure. SPS aspect No - the draft is neither a sanitary nor phytosanitary measure. ********** European Commission Contact point Directive (EU) 2015/1535 Fax: +32 229 98043 email: grow-dir2015-1535-central@ec.europa.eu |
Stakeholders Contributions
The TRIS website makes it easy for you or your organization to share your views on any given notification.
Due to the end of standstill we are currently not accepting any further contributions for this notification via the website.
Interessengemeinschaft E-Dampfen e.V. is a consumer organization of German vapers. We have no financial interest in any industry.
The “impact assessment” has its focus almost exclusively on “youth”. Why? Most countries have already banned sales to minors. Some even banned all mail order sales (much to the delight of the cigarette industry). Does the Danish health ministry consider their law enforcement incompetent? Shouldn’t they rather assess the impact of those proposed regulations on legal consumers: adult (former) smokers?
Ignoring the significant harm reduction aspect of vaping vs smoking is a violation of WHO FCTC Article 1 (d):
“tobacco control” means a range of supply, demand and harm reduction strategies that aim to improve the health of a population by eliminating or reducing their consumption of tobacco products and exposure to tobacco smoke;
The proposal contains many restrictions that are either irrelevant, annoying, or fatal for consumers. Most of all: The flavour ban for vaping products.
The gist of the argument for a flavour ban is that “flavours only attract kids, adults can still use tobacco flavours”. All the nicotine products from the pharma industry come in nice, fruity flavours, not tobacco. Does that imply that they are targeting kids? Or do they know what the majority of vapers knows: You need a different, more appealing taste to prevent relapse?
As a different, better taste prevents relapse to smoking, it also prevents progression to smoking for non-smokers experimenting (illegally in case of minors) with vaping. You wouldn’t “progress” from delicious fruit juices, cocktails and liqueurs to more expensive, nasty, methanol contaminated prohibition era moonshine. Banning flavours creates the mythical “Gateway to smoking” and closes the real Gateway from smoking.
Several gold standard studies (RCT) have already shown that (flavoured) vaping, when used as a cessation aid, is more effective than the more expensive (flavoured) NRT products from the pharmaceutical industry. Yet the former will be suppressed and the latter promoted.
We fully support DADAVO’s view.
Ayant arrêté de fumer il y a plus de 4 ans grâce au vapotage, chose que je pensais définitivement impossible après plusieurs tentatives d'arrêt à l'aide de substituts plus pharmaceutiques, je ne peux que recommander une large diffusion de l'information sur tout support, ayant moi-même y été sensibilisé par une publicité lorsque ces dernières étaient encore autorisées.
Les arômes autres que le goût tabac permettent à chacun de trouver la vape qui lui convient et la découverte de ces différents parfums associe un côté très ludique à cet arrêt tabagique, une association gagnante pour beaucoup.
Réduire ces arômes au seul tabac ( qu'à titre individuel je ne supporte pas) équivaudrait, pour évoquer une image, à instaurer un régime alimentaire de perte de poids à base d'un seul et unique aliment à consommer ad nauseam.
Peu y arriveraient.
As an ex-smoker I implore the Danish government not to go down this path and to look at and mirror the huge success being enjoyed by anti-smoking organisations in the United Kingdom.
For example, the advice being given out by Smokefree Sheffield (https://www.smokefreesheffield.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/SFS_e-cig_DL_3.1.pdf) and Birmingham city Council (https://www.birmingham.gov.uk/info/50238/wellbeing_during_the_coronavirus_covid-19/2135/smoking_and_covid/5) recognises the harm reduction benefits of vaping.
These benefits are only gained from smokers choosing to vape - and research has demonstrated time and again that the flavours Denmark is looking to ban are the ones that motivate smokers to become vapers.
Couple this with the fact the the UK has the most progressive vape-friendly tobacco harm reduction policies in the world, and yet in over a decade of use we have still not seen an uptick in non-smoking teens taking up vaping or progressing to tobacco use - as highlighted by the latest ONS figures (https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/UKONS/bulletins/2945829).
Please reconsider this move. Vaping really does save lives.
Norsk Dampselskap is a consumer organization for Norwegian vapers. Also known as Norwegian Union of Vapers. We have no financial interest in the industry. Our goal is to safeguard users' rights.
We support DADAFO's view and emphasize that good selection of flavors are necessary to be able to keep cigarettes as an attractive alternative to tobacco products.
Self-reporting suggests that it is the diversity of flavors that makes consumers choose electronic sigarettes over tobacco sigarettes. It is also important to remember that the diversity of flavors means that people remain smoke-free.
It should be a goal to maintain the product's attractiveness so that we can use e-cigarettes as a harm reduction product in the fight against tobacco cigarettes, smoking-related illness and death.
Att förbjuda smaksättningar till e-cigaretter är rena hyckleriet. Det är knappast smaksättningarna som utgör någon fara - eller ska ni förbjuda smaksättningar i matprodukter också? Med tanke på att godis är smaksatt och socker är cancerframkallande bör det bli ett godisförbud i hela EU. Och när ni ändå är igång - förbjud smaksatt alkohol som cider, sprit och likörer, för alkohol är definitivt inte nyttigt - och om det nu är så farligt med smaksättningar för att det tilltalar unga människor så bör ju alla sorters smaksättningar vara lika farliga. Logik?
Detta kommer leda till att folk experimenterar själva och försöker framställa smakessenser på egen hand, vilket är farligt och skadligt för lungorna då egentillverkade essenser inte är godkända enligt EU-lagstiftning och FDA.
Detta är en studie som visar att lung- och luftvägsskador hos användare av e-cigaretter enbart påträffas hos de som har rökt vanlig tobak tidigare. De som enbart har brukat e-cigaretter har inga sådana problem. Det finns flera studier som visar samma sak, bland annat New England Studie of Medicin.
https://rodutobaccotruth.blogspot.com/2020/07/e-cigarettes-and-respiratory-disease-no.html
Jag anser att hela EU borde gå på Englands spår, då de förespråkar bruk av e-cigaretter och har implementerat särskilda vape shops på sjukhusen för att patienterna ska sluta röka tobak. Är det inte dags att bojkotta tobaksbolagen, då deras produkter innehåller omkring 5000 gifter per cigarett? Anser ni att det är hållbart att människor ska få sjukdomar som cancer och KOL för att tobaksbolagen betalar biljontals kronor till länder för att få fortsätta sälja sina produkter?
Enligt min erfarenhet har jag inte sett några omyndiga personer som brukar e-cigaretter, men många unga som brukar cigaretter och alkohol. Jag känner flera före detta rökare i vuxen ålder som har övergått till e-cigaretter - flera av dem efter rekommendation från kardiologer. Dessa före detta rökare har fått omfattande positiva hälsoeffekter av att bruka e-cigaretter istället för tobak. De har dessutom brukat e-cigaretter i cirka ett decennium.
Ancienne fumeuse, j'ai testée la vape avec succés, à ce jour, je ne vapote plus non plus et le tout en douceur. Grosses fumeuses, ma mère et ma soeur ont cessé également de fumer grâce à la "cigarette électronique", 80% des fumeurs de mon entourage professionnel également... Le gros avantage des parfums, c'est qu'ils éloignent encore plus le vapoteur de son envie de reprendre la clope, le goût tabac étant perçu tel qu'est est ressenti une fois sevré, c'est à dire entre mauvais et dégoûtant. En interdisant les arômes, vous réduisez encore les chances de sevrage de fumeurs décidés à arrêter. Et au vu des dégâts et décès provoqués par le tabac, pour moi c'est incompréhensible et criminel. Bien à vous.
Smagsforbud!!
Det virker total tåbeligt, og begrundelserne er at børn/unge mennesker drages imod det. For det første viser alle tal at det ikke er tilfældet, Og en ting man kan undre sig over er, hvorfor er det tilladt i alkohol. Og hvorfor skal der være så mange restriktioner på noget som er en 1000% bedre måde at stoppe med rygning på. Lad os bare lege med ideen om at vi stadig ikke ved, de langsigtede effekter af damp, vi er på nuværende tidspunkt jo godt klar over at det er meget meget bedre end tobak, hvorfor ikke omfavne det faktum, frem for at forbyde.
At forbyde smagesstoffer i dampen, er som at skyde sig selv i foden. Der findes ikke nogle dampere som ikke har forsøgt sig med flere forskellige smage før de ender et sted med nogle fortrukne, og rigtig mange af dem er frugt/søde sager. Så giver det jo ingen mening at gøre et virkelig godt rygestop produkt dårliger end det er nu. Som om man gerne vil have folk til at ryge. STOP SMAGS FORBUD.
hi i think the taste ban on vape flavors is wrong.
it helped me quit.
today i vape everything from
fruit to cola flavors and pastries.
i was a smoker for over 20 years and the flavor helpt me
stop.
if it wasent for the flavors I would still smoke harmfull combustible tobacco and if you see that england they premote vaping and even started vape stores in hospitals.
and england take their responsibility you should too.
the tobacco industry are evil and it was them who started slavery and i know that countries get paid from tobacco industry to "reduce damages"
but I do not think this should be a matter of money, it should be for harm reduce and noting else and dont forget that we wote to and it is proven that vaping is atlest 95% safer then smoking
kind regards from Tony Hansson
At fjerne alle smage fra E cigaretterne er tåbeligt og en skadelig handling!
Der er ingen evidens for at børn skulle lokkes til at Dampe p.g.a. smagene og så siden hen skifte til rigtige cigaretter ? (de smager af H til)
Ecigaretten har hjulpet mig bort fra +25 års cigaret forbrug a. 20 - 25 stks dagl.
Til at jeg ikke har rør en alm. cigaret i +10 år nu!
Jeg har kvitte smøgerne helt ved hjælp af vaping med lakrids og frugt smag. Det er 6 år siden jeg lagde smøgerne på hylden og har ikke rørt en siden. Inden for kort tid mærkede jeg en bedre kondi, lugte sans og mine lunge funktions test på sygehuset blev bedre og bedre for hver gang jeg kom.
Jeg er godt tilfreds med den lov vi har nu om at man skal være 18+ år for at handle i damp butikkerne og jeg føler at dette bliver fint overholdt. Har i hverfald aldrig oplevet salg til mindre årige.
Ved at forbyde de forskellige smagsstoffer frygter jeg at vi får et stort ureguleret sort marked. Det ville kunne betyde frygtelige sygdomme fordi der findes folk, som dem i USA, der kan finde på at blande olier i aromaer e for at gøre væsken tykkere. Vi fjerner ikke dampen men gør markedet meget usikkert og i vil med den lov gøre hr og fru dansker til kriminelle fordi vi jo så må skaffe og blande produkter på egen hånd.
Jeg kan slet ikke forstå at regeringen og EU ikke kan se fordelene ved dampen. Kunne vi få flere rygere til at dampe ville vi kunne begrænse, måske endda forhindre en del af de følgesygdomme der er ved rygning.
Damp er ikke uskadeligt, men det er et langt bedre alternativ end rygning.
Mvh Sabrina Bendixen
The complete response by the Consumer Choice Center is attached as a PDF document.
Click here to download the attached file Nu har jeg været i kontakt med e-rygning siden 2013, og har aldrig haft det bedre. Der Dampes med diverse frugtsmage, da tobaks smag er noget forfærtelig noget. Endvidere dampes der med 0 mg. da nikotinen længe er blevet fjernet. e-cigaretten sparer en for en masse slik og dermed kg. på kontoen, da e-cigaret smag om det er frugt eller andre søde smage, så koster det ikke ekstra kg. på kroppen. Igen en sunhedsfordel.
Fedme og tobaks relaterede sygdomme koster meget på vores fælles budget, så hvorfor forbyde noget, som kan nedsætte disse udgifter.
Salg til unge menesker under 18 år kan med vores it-teknologi nemt udgåes, det er blot et sprøgsmål om udvikling af den rette identites teknologi.
Lad os have vores e-cigaret i fred uden yderligere restrektioner, den gavner samfundet mere end den skader.
I have been a smoker for 35 years and have tryed to stop smoking many times with gum and the mist spray.
None of the conventionel "stop-smoking" that I have tryed worked and I have always gone back to cigarets.
1½ year ago I began to vape so I could stop smoking and it worked. I have been smoke free for 1½ years and never smoked again.
The smart thing is that I can regulate my nicotine and have been lovering it gradualy and I have planed to be off nicotine in about a year.
My health has improved. I'm 55 years old and had trouble getting up stairs. After a few weeks of quitting smoking by vaping that was not any problem longer. My sleep patterne improved also.
The flavor I used to get smok free was strawberry cheese cake. I have never vaped tobaco flavors.
Look at the sience behind vaping and flavors. Take a look at England. There must be something about vaping as a stop-smoking-program since England have vapeshops in some hospitals and encurage people to stop smoking by using flavored e-liquid and vape.
Dansk version nederst / Danish version below
Att. The European Commission
Regarding notification: 2020/0228/DK - S00S / Bill amending the act on the ban on tobacco advertising etc., act on tobacco products etc., act on electronic cigarettes etc. and various other acts (Implementation of the national action plan against smoking by children and young people)
SMOKE-IT would first and foremost like to thank you for the opportunity to be able to contribute to the process, with our thoughts and views on the matter at hand.
We are NOT "Big Tobacco"
Neither users, manufacturers or dealers/vape shops has been asked for advice in relation to the making of the agreement or the bill. The reason for this given, has been that Denmark is obliged to comply with the WHO framework convention for tobacco control, FCTC. However, e-cigarettes is NOT a part of the FCTC, and as such it would appear, that the Danish Ministry of health and Elderly has grossly misunderstood the actual EU-law regarding e-cigarettes, which is in fact a separate law, and as such it is NOT subject to the strict regulations that apply to the tobacco industry.
E-cigarettes help smokers quit, and as such the e-cigarette industry is selling products that help smokers escape the claws of the tobacco industry. In recent years we have seen the tobacco industry gain an elevated interest in tobacco harm reduction (THR), including e-cigarettes. This has had the unfortunate effect, that it has become much easier for "the tobacco control" to wrongly place the e-cigarette industry in the same box as the tobacco industry. Furthermore, this approach has had the unfortunate effect, that more and more smokers erroneously believe, that e-cigarettes are just as harmful as traditional tobacco products.
We have become victims to the foul play of this tobacco control, yet we are NOT the tobacco industry. On the contrary. We are former smokers, who have succeeded in running a business, selling e-cigarettes to aid ADULTS in their struggle to quit smoking - and it is solely done on a basis of personal experience and user interaction, yet with relevant science and research behind it. So why would we have any interest in keeping smokers in the grasp of the tobacco industry?
Denmark is leading the battle against the smoking habits of children and young people, and SMOKE-IT applauds and welcomes the majority of actions and regulations of the law, which outlines the effort to restrict and limit smoking among the children and the young.
We believe that NO-ONE, neither children, young or non-smoking adults, should ever begin a nicotine-usage, regardless of which product it might be. But the e-cigarette industry has become caught between a rock and a hard place - and it does appear as if we have become a bargaining chip in a negotiation, where the government, in consideration of the socially vulnerable, did not opt for the much higher cigarette prices.
Let's get this straight: E-cigarettes are for smokers, who wish to quit smoking. They are NOT products for new, potential nicotine users, and as such the products MUST be seen as an aid in conjunction with smoking cessation.
The number of young users of e-cigarettes, has seen a steadily decline since 2014.
With the statement "more young people are using nicotine products", the National Health Board has successfully convinced the Danish Government, that more and more kids and young also use e-cigarettes, despite the fact that ALL reports, including a.o. HBSC 2014 compared to HBSC 2018, showing the direct opposite, and that the amount of young users of e-cigarettes, has dropped significantly since 2014 - and is STILL decreasing.
Resulting numbers from the annual report, "Danish people's smoking habits", supports this fact, showing a significant decrease in the amount of e-cigarette users in general, and in particularly among the youth, since 2018.
Young people constantly seek out new trends - and have always done so.
In the light of this it is also worth noting, that more and more surveys show, that the youth no longer finds e-cigarettes trendy, but on the contrary believe that e-cigarettes are "lame" and only meant for people who wish to quit smoking.
E-cigarettes was a craze, just like the fidget spinners.
The concern for the children and youth e-cigarette usage in Denmark, has it's origin in the so-called "epidemic" from the USA, where more and more young people began using e-cigarettes - and especially one brand kept gaining the media's attention - Juul.
Juul took the criticism upon their shoulders, and decided to remove all sweet and fruit flavors from retail businesses, leaving only flavors that were tobacco and mint. A survey later showed that the sweet and fruit flavors were in fact NOT the reason why the youth purchased Juul, but more so it was the stylish design and especially the massive amount of nicotine content sold with the product. So by removing the fruit flavors, the youth simply turned to whatever flavors were available to them - being tobacco and mint.
Juul is not available in Denmark, and most likely never will be, since the product does not conform to the restrictions on child proofing of e-cigarettes, as issued by the Danish Safety Board.
The politicians have been misinformed
Most Danish politicians have not yet opened their eyes the potential of the e-cigarette as a smoking cessation product - which is quite understandable. Through recent years the tobacco control has been quite successful, in hand picking specific data from various surveys and research. Unfortunately neither the media nor the politicians themselves, have implemented an ample, critical approach to the data they have been presented, and as such no relevant questions have been asked, whether or not the conclusions are representative of the data from which they were derived, or if they are in fact painting an unnuanced and factually wrong picture.
It is deeply concerning when politicians subsidize the sorting of relevant and important information and data to civil services and appointed officials, as it often shows that especially relevant data and information is left out of the conclusions presented to the politicians.
When users and dealers/vape shops addresses government officials and politicians, they're met with reports and standard responses from the Danish Health Board. In general the response is usually the same, rehearsed - but factually wrong - conclusions, while avoiding the questions asked, rather than engage in a reasonable dialogue.
But we also know and read the reports - we have access to the very same data, used to shape these inaccurate conclusions - and when the reports misrepresents and excludes some of the most important data, it is pivotal for us to alert the politicians to this.
The utmost important task for elected politicians, is to rule and make laws on an enlightened, thought through and well documented foundation - NOT from emotions and carefully selected statements, which in THIS particular matter, potentially only serves as the fatal deconstruction of an industry, that basically has the same goal as that of the Board of Health: to help smokers quit smoking.
The concern for children and youth nicotine usage should not revolve around e-cigarette flavors, but instead focus on marketing and availability.
We understand the concern, but availability in particular is the issue, rather than flavorings, and we strongly believe that THIS is the issue to address, rather than to regulate the e-cigarette market so dramatically, when it is already so very well regulated.
Every dealer/vape shop only wishes for their business to survive, and to be able to continually help smokers quit, but the current implementation of TPD has already made this quite difficult, and even though the Danish Safety Board regularly performs unannounced spot checks and general control with the shops, they have yet to find any violation of the age control. The current regulations are functioning as they were intended.
We are more than willing to cooperate and work WITH the authorities, but we do believe that the proposed actions to the draft of the bill, are crossing the line.
The Danish Government does not believe that any other actions, will have a significant impact as the proposed actions - but they're simultaneously unwilling to be monitoring the effect for future reference - how is that in any way considered due diligence?
We hoped for an open and reasonable dialogue during the negotiations, as we do believe we have proper solutions to keeping e-cigarettes out of the hands of our children and youth.
We wish to submit a suggestion, that limits the sale of e-cigarettes to specialized shops only - where the age control is much better implemented, than in convenient stores, gas stations and kiosks.
We are aware of the big responsibility, but it is a responsibility that we are willing to impose on ourselves, and invest in. It matters greatly to us, to convince the government that we run a serious and responsible business, that do NOT deal e-cigarette products to non-adults, under the legal age of 18 years.
Thank you.
_________________
Jens N. Andersen
CEO
Jens@smoke-it.dk
SMOKE-IT ApS
Erhvervsparken Klank 3
DK-8464 Galten
CVR 32 33 72 60
Til Den Europæiske Kommission
Vedr. notification: 2020/0228/DK - S00S / Bill amending the act on the ban on tobacco advertising etc., act on tobacco products etc., act on electronic cigarettes etc. and various other acts (Implementation of the national action plan against smoking by children and young people)
SMOKE-IT ønsker først og fremmest takke for muligheden for, at få lov til at bidrage med vores synspunkter i forbindelse med det nye lovforslag.
Vi er IKKE Tobaksindustrien, tværtimod.
Hverken forbrugere, producenter eller forhandlere er blevet spurgt til råds i forbindelse med udfærdigelsen af aftalen eller lovforslaget, begrundelsen herfor har været, at Danmark er forpligtet til at overholde WHO’s rammekonvention for tobakskontrol, FCTC. E-cigaretter hører imidlertid IKKE under FCTC, og derfor kunne det se ud til, at Sundheds og Ældreministeriet har misforstået EU-lovgivning for området vedr. e-cigaretter, som er særskilt lov og derfor IKKE er underlagt de strenge regler, som gør sig gældende for Tobaksindustrien.
E-cigaretter hjælper rygere med at stoppe med at ryge, e-cigaretbranchen sælger altså produkter der hjælper rygerne med at komme ud af tobaksindustriens kløer. De senere år vi set, at tobaksindustrien har fået øjnene op for ”tobaksskadesreduktion”, herunder e-cigaretter, dette har betydet, at det er blevet nemt for ”tobakskontrollen”, at skære alle over én kam. Det er lykkes tobakskontrollen, med WHO i spidsen, at få overbevist politikere og sundhedsfolk, at e-cigaretbranchen, er lige så slemme som tobaksindustrien, og desværre ser vi, at flere og flere rygere efterhånden fejlagtigt tror, at e-cigaretter er lige så skadelige som cigaretter.
Vi er blevet ofre for tobakskontrollens spil, men vi er IKKE Tobaksindustrien, tværtimod. Vi er tidligere rygere, for hvem det er lykkes at drive forretning med salg af e-cigaretter, for at hjælpe VOKSNE rygere med at stoppe med at ryge, på baggrund af egne erfaringer og brugerinteraktion i samspil med relevant videnskab og forskning! Hvorfor skulle vi ønske at fastholde rygerne i tobaksindustriens kløer?
Danmark går forrest i kampen mod børn og unges rygning, og SMOKE-IT bifalder de øvrige tiltag i loven der skal være med til at forhindre børn og unges rygning. Vi mener, at INGEN, hverken børn, unge eller voksne ikke-rygere, bør starte et nikotinforbrug uanset hvilket produkt der er tale om, men e-cigaretter er kommet i klemme, og det virker lidt som om vi er blevet ofre for forhandling, fordi regeringen ikke ønskede alt for høje cigaretpriser af hensyn til socialt udsatte.
E-cigaretter er for rygere der ønsker at holde op med at ryge, e-cigaretter er IKKE produkter for nye potentielle nikotinbrugere og derfor anses produkterne, for at være hjælpemidler i forbindelse med rygestop.
Antallet af unge brugere af e-cigaretter er faldet siden 2014.
Med udsagnet ”flere unge bruger nikotinprodukter”, er det lykkes Sundhedsstyrelsen og tobakskontrollen i Danmark, at overbevise regeringen, om at flere børn og unge også bruger e-cigaretter, dette selvom ALLE rapporter, b.la. Skolebørnsundersøgelsen 2014 sammenlignet med Skolebørnsundersøgelsen 2018 , viser det modsatte, og at antallet af unge brugere af e-cigaretter oveni købet er faldet siden 2014, og tallene er i øvrigt stadig nedadgående. Tal fra rapporten ”Danskernes rygevaner” viser også, at antallet af brugere af e-cigaretter generelt er faldet, og særligt blandt de unge er faldet markant siden 2018.
De unge søger nye trends hele tiden - og har alle dage gjort det
Derfor er det også værd at bemærke, at flere undersøgelser viser, at de unge ikke længere synes e-cigaretter er trendy, tværtimod mener de unge, at e-cigaretter er kiksede og kun beregnet personer der vil stoppe med at ryge.
E-cigaretter var en dille, ligesom ”Fidget Spinners” også var det
Bekymringen for børn og unges brug af e-cigaretter i Danmark, udspringer af den såkaldte ”epidemi” i USA, hvor flere unge begyndte at bruge e-cigaretter, og særligt ét mærke blev fremhævet i forbindelse med overskrifter i medierne – Juul.
Juul tog kritikken til sig, og besluttede at fjerne frugtsmage fra hylderne i almindelig detailhandel, dette efterlod tobak og mintsmag tilbage. En undersøgelse viste senere, at smagen ikke var den primære årsag til, at de unge købte Juul, men derimod det stilede design, og de voldsomme nikotinstyrker produktet sælges med. Ved at fjerne frugt- og andre søde smage brugte de unge altså bare de smage der var tilgængelige - altså tobak eller mint.
Juul er ikke tilgængelig i Danmark og bliver det højst sandsynligt heller ikke, produktet lever nemlig ikke op til Sikkerhedsstyrelsens krav om børnesikring af e-cigaretter.
Politikerne er blevet misinformeret
De fleste danske politikere har endnu ikke fået øjnene op for e-cigaretters potentiale, hvilket er forståeligt. Igennem de seneste år er det lykkes tobakskontrollen i Danmark at håndplukke udvalgte data fra diverse undersøgelser. Desværre har hverken medier eller politikere haft en tilstrækkelig kritisk tilgang til den data de er blevet præsenteret for, og derfor er der heller ikke blevet stillet spørgsmål om hvorvidt konklusionerne er repræsentative for de data de udspringer fra, eller om man tegner et unuanceret og faktuelt forkert billede.
Det er bekymrende at politikerne overlader sortering af vigtig information og data til embedsværket, særligt fordi vi kan se, at netop vigtige data bliver udeladt i de konklusioner der videregives til politikerne. Når brugere og forhandlere af e-cigaretter henvender sig til diverse embedsmænd og ikke mindst politikere, bliver der henvist til Sundhedsstyrelsens rapporter og udtalelser. Man responderer ganske enkelt med de samme indstuderede, men faktuelt forkerte konklusioner, frem for at tage en åben dialog. Men vi kender rapporterne, og vi har også de den data der danner grundlag for dem, men når rapporterne udelader de vigtigste data, er det os magtpåliggende at gøre politikerne opmærksom herpå.
Politikernes fornemste opgave bør altid være, at lave lovgivning ud fra oplyste, gennemtænkte og veldokumenterede grundlag, og IKKE ud fra følelser og særligt udvalgte udsagn, der i dette tilfælde potentielt får den fatale konsekvens, at man demonterer en branche der ønsker fuldstændig det samme som Sundhedsstyrelsen - at få rygerne til at stoppe med at ryge!
Bekymringen bør slet ikke omhandle smag i e-cigaretter, men bør i stedet omhandle markedsføring og tilgængelighed.
Bekymringen for børn og unges brug af nikotinprodukter er reel, men her bør man se på tilgængeligheden af produkterne, og det er netop her vi mener man bør gribe ind i stedet for at regulere et marked der allerede er velreguleret.
Enhver forhandler af e-cigaretter ønsker blot, at forretningen overlever, og indførslen af TPD har allerede gjort det svært nok.
Sikkerhedsstyrelsen i Danmark kontrollerer forhandlerne i Danmark, og under kontrolbesøg i butikkerne er der ikke fundet overtrædelser i forbindelse med alderskontrol.
Vi er samarbejdsvillige, men vi mener at tiltagene foreslået i udkastet til lovforslaget er over stregen.
Den danske regering mener ikke, at andre tiltag vil have lige så stor effekt som de foreslåede tiltag, men de vil heller ikke måle effekten af tiltagene i fremtiden – hvordan hænger det sammen?
Vi ønskede dialog under forhandlingerne, og vi mener vi har løsningerne til hvordan man kan forhindre børn og unge i, at købe e-cigaretter.
Derfor ønsker vi at stille forslag om, at e-cigaretter udelukkende sælges i specialforretninger.
Vi er klar over, at det er et stort ansvar, men det er et ansvar vi er villige til at tage for at overbevise regeringen om, at vi tager vores forretning alvorligt, og at vi IKKE sælger produkter til personer under 18 år.
Tak.
_________________ _
Jens N. Andersen
CEO
Jens@smoke-it.dk
SMOKE-IT ApS
Erhvervsparken Klank 3
DK-8464 Galten
CVR 32 33 72 60
Stoppede med at ryge efter 50år, har kun lykkes med at stoppe, takket være damp/vaping :)
At fjerne alle smage undtagen tobak og mentol, er totalt idiotisk. Ville jeg have tobakssamg, ville jeg have fortsat med smøgerne. Alkohol afhængige bliver ikke lang tid på alkoholfri øl, for smagen vil hele tiden minde dem om hvorfor de drak !!!!
Damp/vaping er ikke så populært blandt unge, de har prøvet det og gået videre til partydrugs og alkohol.
Red livet på flere rygere, tillad damp / vaping uden disse restriktioner !!
Concerne : Notification Number 2020/0228/DK - S00S
Soumission de Poirson Philippe, de l’association Sovape.
Je déclare n’avoir aucun liens d’intérêt avec quelconque industrie, en particulier l’industrie du tabac, de la pharmaceutique ni avec aucune entreprise de vapotage.
Mon lien d’intérêt intellectuel sur le sujet est né de mon arrêt tabagique en 2014 grâce au vapotage.
Je suis membre du comité de l’association Sovape à titre bénévole depuis 2018.
SOVAPE – 88 avenue des Ternes – 75017 PARIS - https://www.sovape.fr/
Le 15 juillet 2020.
La notification du projet de loi du Danemark soulève plusieurs problèmes concernant sa validité. De graves défaillances dans l’analyse d’impact de plusieurs mesures contre le vapotage ne sont pas conformes au niveau d’exigence nécessaire pour de telles restrictions de libertés individuelles. Les conséquences indésirables sont hautement probables et font que les mesures contre le vapotage auront très probablement un effet inverse à l’objectif annoncé par les autorités danoises. Plusieurs mesures ne respectent pas les textes européens, notamment la directive sur les produits du tabac (TPD - directive 2014/40/UE). Les conséquences pourraient créer une zone de non-droit débordant des frontières danoises pour contaminer les autres pays européens et sont potentiellement dangereuses pour les citoyens européens.
Nous avons relevé notamment ces problèmes :
- Étude d’impact défaillante sur les effets de l’interdiction d’arômes concernant les jeunes, concernant l’art. 25 a du projet de la loi sur les cigarettes électroniques présenté.
L’étude d’impact concernant les effets de l’interdiction des arômes de vapotage sur les jeunes est défaillante à plusieurs titres.
Elle affirme que cette mesure est nécessaire car l’usage du vapotage chez les jeunes serait causalement lié à un tabagisme ultérieur. Or aucun élément sérieux scientifique n’a démontré ce point.
Le rapport de l’OMS Europe tout comme le rapport de la NASEM évoque des corrélations entre vapotage et tabagisme ultérieur chez les jeunes. « Les données disponibles jusqu’à présent ne prouvent toutefois pas que cette association est causale », souligne le rapport de l’OMS Europe (p. 8)[1]. En l’absence de preuve d’un tel lien, il y a un fort risque que les mesures prises produisent des effets inattendus et potentiellement contre-productifs en n’agissant pas sur les facteurs déterminants.
Les recherches de Public Health England et de l’Observatoire français des drogues et toxicomanies (OFDT) ne montrent aucun effet passerelle de nature causale du vapotage vers le tabagisme des jeunes. Ces analyses, peu ou pas du tout considérées dans l’étude d’impact danoise, sont pourtant dans des environnements législatifs, cadrés par la directive européenne TPD, beaucoup plus proches du Danemark que l’exemple des Etats-Unis.
En France, l’examen précis des données de près de 39000 adolescents de l’OFDT conclut à une probabilité réduite de 38% de tabagisme chez les jeunes à 17 ans qui ont expérimenté le vapotage par rapport à ceux qui ne l’ont pas expérimenté[2].
A notre connaissance, les études américaines - notamment celle référencée de Soneji et al., 2017 - évoquées par les autorités danoises n’ont pas pris en compte le facteur essentiel du tabagisme de l’entourage des jeunes. Le risque de tabagisme adolescent peut pourtant être multiplié jusqu’à neuf fois lorsque le jeune a des parents et des proches fumeurs par rapport à un jeune n’ayant aucun proche fumeur. Ce point incite à considérer qu’une action permettant aux fumeurs adultes de sortir du tabagisme pourrait fortement bénéficier aux adolescents.
Le modèle de prohibition des arômes envisagée par le gouvernement danois est déjà en place à San Francisco en Californie depuis le 1er janvier 2019. Les conséquences indésirables ont surgi rapidement avec une hausse vertigineuse du tabagisme des 18 à 24 ans. De 27 % de fumeurs avant l’interdiction, ils sont passés à 37 % de fumeurs 11 mois après[3].
La prohibition des arômes en Estonie en 2018 a engendré le développement incontrôlé d’un marché noir. Il est estimé que près de 80% des liquides de vapotage consommés proviennent de sources parallèles. Le phénomène semble avoir acquis une dimension de trafic organisé atteignant aussi les adolescents[4].
L’inspiration américaine de l’argumentaire des autorités danoises nous semble sujet à caution devant les récentes crises sanitaires aux Etats-Unis[5]. Ces crises illustrent que la démission des autorités à réguler et contrôler un marché en le rendant illégal est une politique inefficace et dangereuse. L’histoire du 20e siècle est parsemée de catastrophes de Santé publique découlant directement de politiques prohibitionnistes. Les danois et les européens méritent mieux que le bégaiement politique de tels désastres.
Les statistiques danoises imprécises mélangent dans la même catégorie les adolescents de 15 à 18 ans et les jeunes adultes jusqu’à 24 ans. Il est étrange que les autorités danoises s’appuient sur des données aussi mal conçues pour élaborer leur politique. « J’ai l’impression que la consommation de vapotage des adolescents s’est tassée depuis l’implémentation de la directive européenne. Mais nos dernières données remontent à 2016 alors ce n’est pas très clair », déclare Niels Them Kjaer, directeur de la prévention du tabac à la Danish Cancer Society[6].
Chez les jeunes adolescents de 11 à 15 ans, l’expérimentation de vapotage s’est écroulée d’environ la moitié entre 2014 et 2018, selon l’enquête auprès des collégiens de Copenhague[7].
Ces indications contredisent l’affirmation des autorités danoises selon qui leur « objectif ne peut être atteint par d’autres mesures alternatives et moins intrusives pouvant produire un résultat analogue », puisque de facto une baisse du tabagisme et du vapotage des jeunes danois sont déjà en cours.
En l’absence d’une analyse d’impact sérieuse, ce point du projet de loi semble invalide et devoir être très sérieusement reconsidérer par le gouvernement danois.
- Aucune étude d’impact concernant les effets pour la population en général (!), concernant l’art. 25 a du projet de la loi sur les cigarettes électroniques présentée.
Les mesures envisagées sur le vapotage auront des conséquences sur la population adulte qui ne sont pas du tout prises en compte dans l’étude d’impact. Cette lacune discrédite ce travail, et suffit à rejeter la validité de l’étude d’impact, et ce faisant des mesures qu’elle supporte.
La tradition démocratique garantit le droit à l’intégrité personnelle. En entravant l’accès à un produit de réduction des risques de manière disproportionnée et sans fondement par rapport aux buts annoncés, le gouvernement danois restreint exagérément le droit à prendre soin de sa propre santé aux vapoteurs et aux fumeurs susceptibles d’arrêter de fumer avec le vapotage. L’Union Européenne ne devrait pas accepter la violation d’un droit humain fondamental de la part d’un de ses États membres.
Dans le cas d’une mise en œuvre de ces mesures, les citoyens danois seraient légitimes pour entamer des recours en justice afin de défendre leur droit à l’intégrité personnelle.
En l’absence d’une analyse d’impact sérieuse, ce point du projet de loi semble invalide et devoir être très sérieusement reconsidérer par le gouvernement danois.
- Aucun étude d’impact concernant les emballages neutres des produits de vapotage n’est présentée. Cette mesure semble totalement disproportionnée et inadéquate à son objet, concernant l’art. 9 a du projet de la loi sur les cigarettes électroniques présenté.
L’intérêt d’imposer un emballage neutre aux produits de vapotage ne repose sur aucune étude. Elle contrevient à la directive TFUE sans présenter le moindre argument en sa faveur. Elle est disproportionnée et inadéquate.
Imposer à un moyen à risque réduit, utilisé principalement pour arrêter de fumer, est une perversion des restrictions profilées contre le produit le plus nocif. Par ailleurs, la mesure pourrait se révéler discriminatoire contre les entreprises indépendantes face aux multinationales du tabac.
En l’absence d’une analyse d’impact sérieuse, ce point du projet de loi semble invalide et devoir être très sérieusement reconsidérer par le gouvernement danois.
- Violation du principe de réduction des risques précisé dans la définition de la lutte anti-tabac de la convention cadre pour la lutte anti-tabac (CCLAT art. 1 d)
Il est de notoriété publique que le traitement du vapotage par l’Organisation Mondiale de la Santé (OMS) est actuellement entachée de conflits d’intérêt. Des leaders mondiaux de la production de tabac, telles que l’Inde ou la Thaïlande, ont acquis une influence notoire sur les contenus produits par l’OMS au sujet du vapotage. Dans un tel contexte, les pays européens doivent élever le niveau d’exigence scientifique et éthique.
Dans cette perspective, revenir au respect des principes fondateurs et fondamentaux de la Convention-cadre pour la lutte anti-tabac de 2005 serait salutaire. Son article 1er lettre d, intègre dans la définition de la lutte anti-tabac l’ensemble des mesures permettant de réduire les dommages du tabagisme.
Les mesures anti-vapotage envisagées par le gouvernement danois contreviennent à ce principe en rendant inaccessible légalement l’extrême majorité des produits de vapotage[8], dont la réduction des risques est au moins de 95% pour les fumeurs qui s’y convertissent[9].
Par ailleurs, le gouvernement danois n’a pas respecté la charte d’Ottawa sur l’implication des communautés dans les mesures les concernant[10]. Aucune écoute ni prise en compte des associations de défense des droits des utilisateurs n’a eu lieu. L’attitude particulièrement méprisante du Ministre de la Santé Magnus Heunicke face aux utilisateurs nous a choqué. Le processus d’élaboration des mesures contre les vapoteurs a manqué de respect de démocratie sanitaire. Les décisions imposées sans implications des usagers sont rarement efficaces, a fortiori lorsqu’elles sont inadéquates, par absence d’adhésion ou réactance du public.
- Non conformité avec le droit européen de la plupart des articles concernant le vapotage. Le gouvernement du Danemark se réfère abusivement à la directive des produits du tabac (TPD) pour justifier l’interdiction des liquides aromatisés sans nicotine. La Cour administrative Suprême de Finlande a déjà rejeté une tentative similaire de l’administration finlandaise.
Contrairement à ce qu’affirme le gouvernement danois dans l’ensemble de son argumentaire, la directive TPD ne concerne pas les produits de vapotage sans nicotine. Elle ne peut pas constituer une base aux mesures concernant ceux-ci. Une tentative de mesure abusive similaire de l’administration finlandaise a déjà été rejetée par la Cour Suprême de Finlande[11].
La non-conformité avec la directive TPD (2014/40/UE ) des références aux liquides de vapotage sans nicotine dans l’ensemble des modifications de lois concernant le vapotage du projet impose une révision complète de ces articles invalides.
- L’impact sur les autres pays européens n’a pas été évalué
Les restrictions abusives - telles que l’interdiction d’arômes, des taxes prohibitives, etc. - provoquent l’émergence de marché noir. Deux scenarios peuvent être envisagés. Dans le premier cas, un marché noir d’entraide, sous forme de réseau de résistance de vapoteurs ne voulant pas rechuter dans le tabagisme, se met en place. Les effets indésirables se portent sur les fumeurs qui sont tenus à l’écart d’un accès à bas seuil du moyen à risque réduit pour sortir du tabagisme. Dans ce scenario la conséquence principale est de favoriser le tabagisme.
Dans un second scenario plus inquiétant, le marché noir peut être pris en main par des réseaux criminels organisés. La situation géographique du Danemark, proche de l’Estonie où un marché noir est déjà enkysté, et de la Finlande qui approche la question de manière répressive également, rend ce scenario possible. La probabilité de son émergence serait renforcée si les Pays-Bas adoptaient également une approche prohibitionniste contre les arômes.
Les conséquences seraient une facilité d’accès pour les jeunes sans contrôle ni des autorités, ni du milieu vapoteur citoyen. Les probabilités de produits frelatés et de diffusion par effet d’aubaine de substances psychotropes, telles que les stupéfiants de synthèses, seront élevées. Le Danemark pourrait servir de tête de pont pour les réseaux organisés pour diffuser leurs produits vers l’Europe de l’ouest. A ce titre, les utilisateurs des autres pays européens sont potentiellement très concernés par les effets d’insécurité que peut générer le projet de loi danois.
En l’absence d’une analyse d’impact sérieuse, le projet de loi devrait être totalement repris et repensé.
En conclusion
Le projet de loi notifié par le gouvernement danois comporte plusieurs mesures disproportionnées, inadéquates avec l’objectif affiché, il viole le principe de réduction des risques et du droit à l’intégrité individuelle, il n’a pas pris en compte des données et études essentielles disponibles, le manque de rigueur de l’analyse conduit à une mésinterprétation des données. Enfin, il comporte des abus envers les directives européennes.
Les mesures anti-vape qu’il comprend auraient des effets indésirables pouvant mettre en danger, non seulement la population danoise, mais aussi les populations des autres pays européens en cas d’extension du marché noir qu’elles vont générer.
Le principe de précaution n’est pas respecté en l’absence d’une évaluation scientifique rigoureuse et précise des données existantes et en ne tenant pas compte de conséquences potentielles notamment sur la majeure partie de la population[12]. Face au danger avéré des cigarettes, offrir l’accès aux moyens d’éviter de fumer et ainsi réduire fortement les risques est une mesure de précaution.
Dans l’ensemble, le travail peu sérieux du plan présenté n’honore pas ses rédacteurs. La démarche est symptomatique d’attitudes qui concourent à la perte de confiance des populations dans leurs institutions.
Dans ces conditions, l’Union Européenne n’a pas d’autre choix que de refuser la validation de la notification du projet de loi du gouvernement danois. Celui-ci devrait reprendre tout le projet concernant le vapotage dans une approche plus rationnelle, mieux étudiée et respectant le principe de réduction des risques.
[1] https://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/disease-prevention/tobacco/publications/2020/electronic-nicotine-and-non-nicotine-delivery-systems-a-brief-2020
[2] Sandra Chyderiotis, Tarik Benmarhnia, François Beck, Stanislas Spilka, Stéphane Legleye ; Does e-cigarette experimentation increase the transition to daily smoking among young ever-smokers in France? ; Drug and Alcohol Dependence, Volume 208, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2020.107853
[3] Yang, Yong et al. “The impact of a comprehensive tobacco product flavor ban in San Francisco among young adults.” Addictive behaviors reports vol. 11 100273. 1 Apr. 2020, doi:10.1016/j.abrep.2020.100273
[4] https://ethra.co/news/34-estonia-takes-the-first-steps-towards-recognising-tobacco-harm-reduction
[7] https://www.kk.dk/nyheder/naesten-hver-anden-elev-i-9-klasse-i-koebenhavn-har-proevet-e-cigaretter
[8] https://dadafo.dk/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/DADAFO-E-cigarette-and-vaper-consumer-survey-2019-2020_EN.pdf
[9] A. McNeill et al. Evidence review of e-cigarettes and heated tobacco products 2018. A report commissioned by Public Health England. London: Public Health England.
Hi,
I believe that vaping is a solution for smokers and users of nicotine, I want the age control to be rigorous but banning flavor is a bad move as 99% of my customers wants to have flavors of candy, fruit and bakery, these are adults and former smokers. When I have asked them about tobacco flavored liquids most of them scream no, the do not wish to be reminded of smoking and do not enjoy the taste of tobacco any longer. This must be a steep in the right direction as cigarettes contains 3000 lethal components. If flavor is banned, we might see an increase of black market sales and these guys won´t control the age of the buyers, in that sense we lose control of the market. If there is a flavor ban on e-cigarettes, we should ban candy flavors on hard liquor and other substances, do these producers aim for kids? No, they are for adults, adults also like sweet things as candy and bakery.
Please think about people that wants to kick a bad habit, think about the savings in health care and suffering of people dying from cancer can other related decises,
Is vaping healthy? No but it is healthier than smoking and secondhand vaping is not anywhere near as bad as secondhand smoking.
Thanks for reading my letter.
Best regards,
David Ringius, former nicotine user and owner of RingEJuice AB
Nikan (Nikotinalliansen Norge) støtter Dadafos uttalelse.
Vi mener at et smaksforbud vil medføre at en høy prosentandel av e-sigarettbrukere vil gå tilbake til røyk, kjøpte på det sorte marked eller tilsette smak selv. Det kan medføre at de som ikke er så kjent med å tilsette aroma i e-væske tilsetter smakstilsetninger som ikke er godkjent for e-sigarettbruk. Dette kan igjen medføre store skader og også i enkelte tilfeller dødsfall.
De fleste e-sigarettbrukere startet med tobakkk eller mentholsmak. Etter en periode ønsker de aller fleste å komme vekk fra det som minner om vanlig tobakksrøyk. Det er viktig med et rikholdig smaksutvalg da det er dette mangfoldet som er en hovedårsak til at e-sigarettbrukere forblir røykfrie over tid.
The proposed flavour ban by the Danish government is both ill-conceived and reckless, and will undo the progress that has been made in the fight to reduce smoking rates and tobacco related illnesses and diseases. The use of safer nicotine products, such as e-cigarettes, has quickly become the most popular and effective method of smoking cessation among EU citizens. Countries that have taken a forward thinking approach towards tobacco harm reduction and the regulation of e-cigarettes have seen smoking prevalence falling at historic rates.
One of the main reasons for the success of vaping is the availability of a wide range of flavours and the ability to tailor the vaping experience to suit each individual's needs. The importance of flavours should not be underestimated as numerous studies have shown that while smokers may start with a tobacco flavour, over time they gravitate towards fruit, dessert, bakery and sweet flavours. A recent study by Friedman AS and Xu SQ, published in JAMA, found that “adults who began vaping nontobacco-flavored e-cigarettes were more likely to quit smoking than those who vaped tobacco flavors”
Removing the option of flavours for adults will render the products practically useless and leave 70000 Danish vapers with few options other than sourcing the flavours they want on the black market or returning to smoking. Flavour bans have already led to thriving black markets in Estonia and in the USA. Notably, Estonia have since partially reversed their flavour ban in the face of an ever growing black market.
While the protection of youth is very important, the unintended consequences of overregulation that will impact adults cannot be overlooked. Countries that have data for youth vaping clearly show that regular vaping among those that are not already smokers is very rare. Age restrictions would be a better way to reduce access by underage users, and allow adults continued access to the products that have been so successful in keeping them smoke free.
E-cigarettes are already strictly regulated under the TPD, which is under review at the moment, so it makes no sense to pursue this very damaging policy when it is only one year away from the publishing of the report on the application of the TPD.
I stand against the part of the proposed legislation that contains a restriction on flavoured vape products. I believe that this will lead to an increase in the youth up take of highly addictive, much more harmful, combustible tobacco products.
Every year, in the USA, 440,000 smokers die prematurely from smoking related diseases, according to the official figures. This means that if the large tobacco companies are to maintain their business, they must recruit at least 440,000 young people to the the highly addictive and very harmful smoking habit, every year. Figures show that the rise in use of vaping products, is correlated with a fall in youth up take of combustible tobacco products.
An overly zealous restriction on flavoured vaping would effectively destroy the independent vaping industry, and so would remove a considerable threat to the future profits of large tobacco companies. I speculate that this is the ultimate reason behind current common disinformation, leading to the irrational anti-vaping mood.
Small independent vaping companies represent a real threat to big tobacco, please to not play into the hands of the pro smoking interests, do not excessively restrict flavoured vaping products!
Les arômes ne doivent pas être limités au tabac et à la menthe, cela va décourager beaucoup de vapoteurs qui retourneront à la cigarette tueuse...
Dear Sir or Madam,
as an European, ex-smoker(35 years ) and vaper I’m strongly opposed to
Bill amending the Act on the ban on tobacco advertising etc., Act on tobacco products etc., Act on electronic cigarettes etc. and various other acts (Implementation of the national action plan against smoking by children and young people)
Here are just some reasons why:
- no one wants youth to start smoking / vaping
- flavours are not the reason primary reason for youth to vape, curiosity, experimenting are
- only a very low percentage of youth vape on a DAILY basis; those who do have already often been smokers
flavours are vital for ex-smokers to stay smokefree
- there is NO gateway from smoking to vaping(rather vice versa)
- good parenting and determined enforcement of age restriction will suffice
- unintended consequences are a black market and prevalence of tobacco for combustion
- prohibition has never worked out well; evidence based regulation an harm reduction will
There is a lot of proper science out. Go, look to the UK for example(not the US or Australia).
Facts over ideology. Freedom of choice for adults.
Sincerely
H.-P. Albrecht
E-cigarettes are know to be far less harmful than traditional combustible tobacco if even any harm. The current estimate is 95% less harmful. It also doesn't seem to be the case that young people that don't smoker consistently start using e-cigarettes. While no one would like to see any young non-smokers picking up e-cigarettes, it is important to realise that these products have been extremely successful getting current smokers away from real cigarettes that kill every 2 in 3 users not to mention the effects on bystanders. Smokers that failed to quit with traditional NRT find a way to quit with the help of e-cigarettes. It is shown to be 2 times more effective than traditional NRT. Even better, while some smokers are not interested to even try to quit smoking, there are a lot of smokers that did quite by accident thanks by trying vaping. Smokers that did not want to quit smoking, try vaping to cut cost, find a solution for smoking bans and stay vaping for a better experience for wich flavours are key for all groups to like vaping better above combustible tobacco. Removing these positive and important features of vaping, makes vaping less pleasurable and motivate a move from vaping to 3 dangerous remaining options, combustible cigarettes, DIY making your own flavours or black-market suppliers.
Smokers smoke for the nicotine but die from the tar. If all smokers can be motivated to try and stick with vaping, we would save billions of lives and make smoking of combustible cigarettes a thing from the past in a matter of a decade.
The UK has been very successful by allowing flavours, not including vaping under existing smoking bans, not over-taxing vaping product and allowing advertisement targetted to current smokers. The UK even goes out of its way to advise smokers at their stop smoking services to try e-cigarettes. The UK has not seen an increase in smoking rates, neither an uptake of vaping with young non-smokers. Nothing indicates a gateway from vaping into smoking, but the numbers do show it is a strong gateway out of smoking.
On the other side, Australia has been very hostile against vaping. The result is that smoking rates have not dropped for nearly a decade in Australia, even though Australia is also very hostile, more hostile compared to other western countries, to smoking in general. The absence of vaping products as an alternative for smokers has only had a negative effect. Also in some states in the US where flavoured e-cigarettes have been banned, we are seeing a black-market quickly growing and vapours relapsing back into smoking.
If we really want people to give up smoking and with that make smoking a thing of the past, we should not seek to make e-cigarettes as hard or even harder to get to compared to tobacco, neither should we seek to make the experience less pleasurable by forcing former smokers to only consume a flavour that taste the same as the product they tried to get away from. We should strictly enforce age restrictions, whenever it are shops, social sources or the underaged users themselves. For smokers, we should embrace vaping just like we embraced other NRT's, even though they are less successful compared to vaping because of the lack of pleasure. If we want to save people from an early death, we should promote people to give up smoking as we have done for years now and in addition to that make this also work for the substantial group that has not been able to quite with the old ways, but can and want to quit with vaping.
Vaping saves lives, is not normalising smoking, is not a gateway into smoking, is far safer than smoking in all imaginable ways, is more effective than any other pharmaceutical NRT. Vaping is a gift and should not be dismissed based on ideological bais that lacks scientific evidence.
I smoked for over 20 years and quit deadly combustable cigarettes in 2016 with the help of an E cigarette. Flavors like Vanilla Custard, Apple Cinnamon or Pancake were one of the main reasons that made switching that more easy. Flavors are important because you totally get away from Tobacco at all. I smoked my last cigarette about 2 weeks after I started vaping and never smoked ever since. A flavor ban would hurt those people that haven't switched yet the most, because they won't be able to select a favorite flavor to make a live saving device like an E cigarette work that much more. It will also make vapers get back to deadly cigarettes and create unregulated black markets. Flavors are important, adults like flavors!
Il est préoccupant de lire un tel amalgame entre produits fumés (nocifs pour la santé), produits de réduction des risques avec ou sans tabac, et produits sans fumée qui évitent le tabagisme et constituent aujourd’hui le premier moyen d'aide actuel pour arrêter de fumer. Plus encore l'utilisation de certains arguments qui ne sont pas démontrés voire prouvés mensongers.
Que les autorités d'un pays de l'UE agissent en continuité avec les directives dans le sens de réduire l'offre ou/et la demande de tabac fumé semble compréhensible, qu'elles utilisent cette action pour appliquer les mêmes interdictions ou un sous-ensemble à des produits qui évitent justement de fumer et ne présentent pas les risques sérieux pour la santé du tabac fumé est insensé puisque cela revient à pousser des gens vers une porte fermée, à réduire l'efficacité même des prétendues premières mesures (prétendues car elles sont déjà en grande partie appliquées et les risques largement communiqués donc il s'agit surtout de dissimuler l’application de mesures massives de réduction de l'offre et de la demande contre le vapotage ici).
En tant que représentant des vapoteurs Français, citoyens de l'UE, nous demandons au Danemark de cesser d'empêcher les vapoteurs, dont les voyageurs Français, d'accéder à, et d'être correctement informés, des alternatives au tabagisme en particulier les produits du vapotage. Il est ahurissant d'imaginer arriver au Danemark, de pouvoir acheter des cigarettes dès l’aéroport mais de ne pas trouver de produits du vapotage (puisque sans indication ni publicité) et si on en trouve que ceux-ci soient présentés comme comparables à des cigarettes de tabac et limités à des goûts indésirables, tout cela sans le moindre fondement sanitaire.
Concernant la prétendue analyse d'impact on constate que l'efficacité du vapotage dans l'arrêt du tabagisme n'a pas été prise en compte sincèrement, en France plus de 10% des fumeurs ont arrêté de fumer grâce au vapotage (efficacité supérieure et additionnée aux autres moyens d'arrêt, comme on le constate dans les études scientifiques en France, en Angleterre, aux USA), de même l'absence d'effet d'éloignement du tabagisme a été ignoré, en France la baisse du tabagisme des lycéens est associée à un sain transfert vers le vapotage (comme aussi montré dans les études en Angleterre, aux USA).
Enfin toute analyse d'impact s'affirmant sanitaire se doit de factoriser le risque, évalué à moins de 5% de celui du tabagisme (il faut donc plus de 20 vapoteurs jamais fumeurs pour un fumeur évité ou qui arrête). Quand le vapotage ne fait que réduire le tabagisme, partout où il est diffusé, et que là où il (ou un équivalent) n'est pas diffusé le tabagisme stagne, un tel risque est impossible à argumenter, d’autant plus quand il y a au plus 1% de jamais fumeurs vapoteurs réguliers (encore démontré par les études en France, Angleterre et USA).
Enfin concernant les arguments mensongers, il est ahurissant de lire encore que la nicotine "altèrerait" le développement cérébral quand les "papiers" l'affirmant ne se fondent en rien sur une incapacité mais des modifications observées sur des animaux. Le tabagisme pourtant considérablement plus nocif que la seule nicotine, a diminué environ de moitié en occident en deux générations, on ne constate en rien une évolution positive mesurable des capacités cérébrales (en l'occurrence les indicateurs scolaires, sociaux, psychologiques seraient plutôt signes de l'autre sens avec des niveaux scolaires et de santé mentale en légère baisse).
Appuyer une règlementation sur de telles fausses informations, comme sur un prétendu risque de hausse du tabagisme fumé par le fait de ne pas/plus fumer est inacceptable.
Enfin dans le contexte Européen plus général, une telle opposition à la libre circulation de produits de consommation courante et aux droits fondamentaux des citoyens de l'UE d'accéder à des produits réduisant leurs risques pour la santé (pour mémoire on parle dans ce projet de prohibition d'une classe de produit, les produits du vapotage aromatisés, mais de maintenir la vente lucrative pour l'Etat de cigarettes de tabac à fumer, de cigares et de tabac à fumer) est intolérable.
Claude Bamberger
Président, Aiduce (Association Indépendante des Utilisateurs de Cigarettes Electroniques)
Vejle, den 04.07.2020
Til Den Europæiske Kommission
Angående notifikation 2020/0228/DK - S00S / Bill amending the Act on the ban on tobacco advertising etc., Act on tobacco products etc., A ct on electronic cigarettes etc. and various other acts (Implementation of the national action plan against smoking by children and young people)
Som opfølgning på den nyligt fremsendte notifikation ang. det danske udspil omkring den nationale handleplan mod tobak, med specielt fokus på e-cigaretter/e-damp - vil Dansk e-Damper Forening, på vegne af de danske forbrugere af e-cigaretter/e-dampere, gerne besvare og kommentere Erhvervsstyrelsens og Sundheds- og Ældreministeriets notifikation til Kommissionen.
Skaber lovændringerne bedre folkesundhed, eller forringer loven forbrugere af e-damps helbred?
Fokuspunktet omkring ændringerne til eksisterende lovgivning, bør omhandle hvordan folkesundheden som helhed bliver påvirket af lovforslaget. Der er intetsteds i notifikation fra Erhvervsstyrelsen og Sundheds- og Ældreministeriet foretaget en konsekvensanalyse, af de foreslåede lovændringer og skærpelser, som krævet i enhver EU-proces, og jf. Direktiv 2014/40/EU.
Det er vores opfattelse at indgrebet som primært er fokuseret på at forhindre børn og unges adgang til alle nikotinholdige produkter (undtagen lægemiddelgodkendte nikotinerstatningsprodukter), har en uproportionel slagside/skævvridning i forhold til voksne forbrugere af e-damp. Forbrugere for hvem det er lykkedes at blive enten helt eller delvist røgfri, uden støtte eller hjælp fra de offentlige instanser. Efter vores opfattelse vil lovforslaget gøre det sværere for voksne rygere, at komme ud af deres skadelige forbrug af primært tobakscigaretter - hvis lovforslaget ang. e-cigaretter vedtages i sin nuværende ordlyd.
De mange ændringsforslag var sendt i offentlig høring, og DADAFO indsendte sit høringssvar ang. forslag til lov om ændring af Lov nr. 426, Lov om elektroniske cigaretter m.v. den 21.02.2020.
DADAFOs kommentarer og det oprindelige høringssvar, er vedhæftet dette brev som separat fil, på både dansk (Bilag 01) og engelsk (Bilag 02), og vil i hovedtræk indeholde alle de argumenter som forbrugernes talerør/forbrugerforeningen vil fremføre over for Kommissionen, som kommentar til notifikationen fra Erhvervsstyrelsen og Sundheds- og Ældreministeriet i Danmark.
"Skyldig indtil man er erklæret ikke skyldig"
Specielt henviser vi til den forkerte brug af “forsigtighedsprincippet”, som i Danmark betyder at f.eks. e-damp er fundet skyldig, indtil det modsatte er bevist. Desværre lader det til at bl.a. Sundhedsministeriet ikke er særlig interesseret i at undersøge evt. gode eller dårlige helbredskonsekvenser, som følge af anvendelsen af e-cigaretter/e-damp. Det er vores argument, at fordelene ved at skifte tobakscigaretter ud med e-damp uden tvivl og langt opvejer evt. ulemper.
Lyt til forbrugerne!
Af notifikationsteksten fremsendt til Kommissionen fremgår, at enten har Sundheds- og Ældreministeriet ikke læst vores høringssvar, eller også har de valgt at ignorere vores (forbrugernes) argumenter inden det endelige lovforslag blev sendt til notifikation hos Kommissionen. Ministeriet har hverken taget hensyn til forbrugernes eller forhandlernes/producenternes bemærkninger til de fremsatte ændringer til loven.
Forslaget til lovændringer har endnu ikke været gennem de parlamentariske behandlinger i det danske Folketing, hvilket vi finder besynderligt.
Vi finder det også besynderligt, at regeringen og dens støttepartier ønsker at indføre ny og yderligere restriktiv lovgivning for e-cigaretter, samtidig med at Kommissionen har igangsat en undersøgelse af netop det europæiske marked for e-cigaretter. Inden Kommissionen har dannet sig et overblik over det nuværende marked samt den gældende lovgivning/regulering i de enkelte medlemslande, har Danmark besluttet at foreslå yderligere restriktioner, uden at se på om den eksisterende lovgivning fra 2014/2016 har virket efter hensigten. Det viser sig, at den danske “Lov om elektroniske cigaretter m.v.” faktisk har været effektiv, og måske endda for effektiv, da antallet af unge (under 18) og voksne rygere der begynder at dampe, er faldet i de seneste år.
Lovgivning på videnskabelig, statistisk og juridisk grundlag
Kommissionen hverken kan eller må tillade de foreslåede ændringer til den danske nationale Lov nr. 426, Lov om elektroniske cigaretter m.v. - da der simpelthen ikke foreligger videnskabelig, statistisk eller juridisk grundlag, for at kunne foretage så drastiske ændringer til en lov, som virker efter hensigten - uden at det medfører en række af utilsigtede konsekvenser for flere befolkninggrupper - se DADAFOs oprindelige høringssvar.
Manglende risikovurdering og konsekvensanalyser kan vise sig at være fatalt/katastrofalt
Der er intet sted i notifikationen eller i lov-/ændringsforslaget nævnt en sammenligning i risiko mellem rygning af tobakscigaretter og dampning. Der mangler en risikovurdering og en analyse af de forskellige nikotinholdige produkters overordnede skadelighed for forbrugerne. Hvis A er 95% mindre skadelig end B, bør forbrugere anbefales at skifte til A. Også, og specielt, på længere sigt kan der ikke længere være tvivl om, at lavrisiko alternativer til et fortsat forbrug af tobakscigaretter, må være at anbefale produkter med langt lavere helbredsrisici for rygere, som enten ikke kan eller vil stoppe med at nyde effekten af nikotin.
Børn og unge i Danmark damper ikke i bekymrende grad
Via en forespørgsel hos Sikkerhedsstyrelsen, som varetager tilsyn med bl.a. specialbutikker der sælger e-cigaretter og e-væsker, er vi blevet informeret om at der p.t. via deres tal IKKE lader til at være ulovligt salg af nikotinholdige produkter til unge under 18 år fra specialbutikkerne. Sikkerhedsstyrelsen har via deres kontrol af specialbutikkerne, ikke fundet tilfælde af ulovligt salg af produkter til børn/unge under 18 år i en længere periode. Dvs. branchen har taget deres ansvar alvorligt, og sørger for at håndhæve salgsforbuddet over for unge under 18 år.
Vi vil gøre det helt klart, at DADAFO helst ser at ingen begynder at ryge eller at dampe; hverken unge eller gamle, medmindre de allerede er rygere som forsøger at kvitte tobakken. Men vi ser gerne, at så mange rygere som muligt får muligheden for at holde op igen. E-damp er i vores optik udelukkende et produkt for rygere, som vil forsøge at kvitte tobakscigaretterne.
Restriktioner på smagsvarianter
Yderligere restriktioner på et produkt der allerede efterlever eksisterende lovgivning, uden at give anledning til de store bekymringer, virker for os som overflødig og unødvendig lovgivning. Vi har i Danmark at gøre med et produkt, som allerede er påført stramme restriktioner mht. pris, udvalg, innovation - og yderligere restriktioner vil medføre nogle heftige utilsigtede konsekvenser.
For at beskytte del af befolkningen (de unge under 18 år) bliver de voksne forbrugere ofret, da de fleste af dem anvender e-væsker med en smag, som IKKE er tobak eller menthol. Faktisk viser det sig, at en del faktisk starter med at dampe med en tobaks- eller mentholsmag, men størstedelen vælger at droppe smagen af tobak, da det for mange minder for meget om den “smag”, som de forsøger at komme væk fra.
Og her er smagen af f.eks. jordbær, fersken, vandmelon, karamel eller lakrids faktisk en vigtig faktor for, at så mange rygere som muligt, i løbet af kort tid kan kalde sig selv for eks-rygere. Det bør anbefales at have så bredt og varieret et udvalg af forskellige typer tobakskadereduktionsprodukter som muligt, hvis man vil frembringe en hurtig reduktion i rygeprævalensen. I modsætning, vil restriktioner og forbud blot resultere i at forbrugerne føler sig kriminaliserede og vil i sidste ende enten begynde at ryge igen, eller se sig henvist til et sort marked, for at købe de produkter som de efterspørger (e-væsker med smag, andet end tobak og menthol).
Kommissionen skal være sit ansvar bevidst
Hvis Kommissionen lader den danske regering, repræsenteret ved Sundheds- og Ældreministeren, foretage de drastiske ændringer i lovgivningen omkring e-cigaretter og væsker til fordampning, vil dette med stor sandsyndlighed medføre en glidebane og at andre EU-lande evt. vil følge med, på trods af der som nævnt ikke findes videnskabelig, statistisk eller juridisk evidens for at de foreslåede restriktioner vil medføre en reduktion i antallet af børn/unge der prøver at dampe på en e-cigaret. Specielt ikke, da antallet af børn og unge der damper regelmæssigt, eller prøver at dampe, er forsvindende lavt.
De danske forbrugere vil derfor bede Kommissionen om at lytte til den store viden som forbrugerne sidder inde med. Hvis antallet af rygere skal reduceres hurtigt og effektivt, bør bl.a. e-væsker med andre smage end tobak og menthol være lovlige; og e-væsker og udstyr må ikke påføres uproportionelle afgifter og skatter. Hvis det er nemmere og billigere at købe en pakke tobakscigaretter, så vil en overvejende del af befolkningen tage "det nemme valg". Specielt når der er totalt forbud mod at informere befolkningen om, at der faktisk findes lavrisiko alternativer til rygning af tobak, s.s. e-damp, snus, tobaksfri snus m.m.
Szanowni Państwo,
Nie będę się rozpisywał o tym, że e-palenie jest bezpieczniejsze od palenia konwencjonalengo (zrobili to inni przede mną, w tym niezależne instytucje, które na pewno opisały ten temat znacznie sprawniej niż ja). Chciałbym zwrócić uwagę na coś innego. W Polsce od paru dobrych lat popularność zyskują smakowe alkohole, piwa o różnych owocowych smakach (reklamowanych jako bezalkoholowe, co jest prawdą, ale większosć tych piw ma swoje alkoholowe odpowiedniki), a także wódka o obniżonej mocy, kolorowa, sprzedawana w małych butelkach, a nawet plastikowych kieliszkach, "gotowych do użycia". Każdy z tych produktów jest kierowany do innej grupy konsumentów, jednak dostrzegam tutaj pewną hipokryzję w próbie wprowadzenia zakazu sprzedaży liquidów smakowych przeznaczonych do e-papierosów. Mam 35 lat, paliłem papierosy przez ok. 17 i nie mogłem uwolnić się od tego nałogu...Dopóki nie spróbowałem e-palenia. Potencjalny zakaz może spowodować, że wrócę do palenia konwencjonalnego. Po prostu. To nałóg, który będzie mnie prześladował do końca życia. Rozumiem obawę o zdrowie naszych dzieciaków (chociaż analiza danych dostarczonych z różnych stron świata jasno wskazuje, że epidemia e-palenia wśród młodzieży do delikatne nadużycie), jednak chciałbym zadać pytanie co ze mną? Nie jestem dzieckiem od bardzo dawna, a e-papierosy to doskonała alternatywa dla papierosa, również ze względu na smak (mając do wyboru smak mojego np. ulubionego deseru i smak al'a papieros, który według moich kubków smakowych jest niedobry, wybieram to pierwsze). I tutaj wracam do wspomnianych alkoholi - czy w porządku jest sprzedawać smakowy alkohol, pod płaszczykiem napoju bezalkoholowego, który jest ewidentnie przeznaczony dla ludzi młodych, jednocześnie ograniczając sprzedać środka, który stanowi bezpieczniejsą alternatywę dla trucizny? Czy będą Państwo walczyć również ze smakowymi alkoholami? Dla alkoholu nie ma alternatywy. Albo coś ma procenty, albo nie. E-papierosy nie są rozwiązaniem idealnym, ale lepszym od papierosów konwencjonalnych, nawet jeśli jest te pierwsze są bezpieczniejsze tylko o 10%, a nie o 90% (jak sugerują niektóre badania naukowe, wiadomo, że trzeba do różnych danych podchodzić z dystansem).
Z poważaniem,
Maciej Woszczyk
Vaping is significantly safer than smoking. There is no reliable evidence of a gateway effect. There is considerable evidence that vaping helps smokers quit. There is considerable evidence that vaping is a more effective aid to quitting than nicotine replacement. Vaping appears to be a more acceptable smoking quit aid, for many people, than nicotine replacement. There is no evidence of significant or substantial harm from vaping. So, what should we conclude from the available evidence? The only reasonable conclusion is that if we, public health, really want to reduce the morbidity and mortality associated with smoking we should promote vaping.
If smokers who wish to quit smoking find flavours useful, as the evidence shows, then to remove access to non-tobacco flavours can only reduce the acceptability and effectiveness of vaping. This will benefit no-one except the tobacco companies.
More than six months ago, i nearly lost my mother to sepsis of the lungs, caused by heavy smoking. She has COPD, and we nearly lost her. From that day onward, she switched to vaping, and now she, my father, and myself, all vape. My mother's health has improved significantly. We haven't touched a cigarette since. Let me tell you, vaping 'Does' help people quit cigarettes, but more importantly, flavours are 'very' important in helping adults get away from the lure of tobacco. A lot of other countries have banned flavours under the guise of public health, but it's got nothing to do with that. How could it? Removing the safer option and forcing people back to smoking is nothing short of a crime against humanity. It's immoral, illogical, and considering 8 million people die from smoking a year in the world, taking away the safer option could prove catastrophic. I appeal to you now, as fellow human beings. If you have people who you love dearly, who you'd do anything to help live longer, healthier lives, so you can spend more precious time with, if you've lost anyone to cancer, or any of the other awful diseases caused by smoking, 'Please', do not put this bill through, and potentially condemn more people to a painful and lingering death. Every human life is sacred, and how we treat one another will be remembered by those who follow. Be well, and stay safe,
Thank you.
The statement that vaping is dangerous or even very dangerous is a lie. Who has died ? , no-one , who has been hospitalised ? , very few , who has benefitted from vaping ? , millions worldwide , read the online testaments by thousands of vapers confirming the health benefits of giving up smoking. The only ones who benefit by the banning of vaping are those who make the most profit from smoking. Look at those who are advocating bans and look for the connection with the smoking and pharmaceutical industries , follow the money , they are the only ones who have any reason to disemminate lies , halftruths and innuendo about a consumer product which is not even harming anyone. They want people to keep on smoking , they want people to be sick and dying in agony , it is good for profits. Are there no honest politicians left in the world ?
Vaping flavours has helped me quit smoking cigarettes. I've been off the cigarettes since 2016 thanks to flavoured e-liquids.
I have read several studies done by researchers at Public Health England and they state that vaping 95% safer than smoking cigarettes.
If banning flavoured e-liquid becomes a reality, Im most likely going back to cigarettes.
I understand that taking measures to protect the youth is important. But banning flavours is not going to work.
Banning flavours will open up for a massive black market on flavoured e-liquid.
I believe the right step to protecting youth is to regulate the vaping products (e-cigarettes and e-liquid) by age control.
I the end, if a teenager wants to try something out, they will do so, whether its legal or not, healthy or not.
If you really want to protect the youth from harm, then regulate traditional cigarettes harder. I would like so say ban them, but we must not forget every human's right to choose what they want to put in their bodies. So the best choice is to regulate in a good way.
/ Thomas Dallmann, former smoker, present vaper and e-liquid producer.
(this message is free from nicotine :P)
A flavour ban is illogical and ignores evidence that such measures do not work. When Juul withdrew flavours in the States it resulted in a boom of black market pods from China, and their sales continued to grow https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2020.305667?journalCode=ajph&
Following the ban on flavours in California, rates of teen vaping increased because it is not the driving factor in them trying vaping - it is a driving factor in helping adults to switch away from smoking.
The advent of vaping has helped hundreds of thousands of smokers reduce their exposure to tobacco-related harm across Europe. This would never have happened without flavours. Flavours weren't invented by an industry, vaping grew from the ground up driven by consumers creating the things they wanted that worked best for them - ignoring this misses the point entirely.
Flavours are essential, vaping is efficacious, and the Danish proposal is nonsensical - ignoring all of the evidence from the UK. It has to be stopped.
As a former tobacco smoker, who was able to quit a 25 year habit through vaping products, I am dismayed to learn that Denmark wants to severely restrict the choices to less harmful alternatives while leaving deadly tobacco products on the shelves.
J'ai arrêté de fumer en juin 2013 grâce au vapotage, et retrouvé souffle et odorat . Bientôt 7 ans sans tabagisme . J'avais besoin de ma dose de nicotine (sans combustion) . Le rôle des arômes a été important pour moi . Maintenant je change entre fruités et arômes noisette / vanille et autres . Cette notion est importante pour chaque ex-fumeur, avec une politique de réduction des risques . C'est une notion importante pour tous les pays et (ex-fumeurs) en Europe . Cordialement . Le 29/04/2020 .
The idea that banning flavoured e-liquid would have any benefits on health is based on nothing but prejudice and conjecture. The large reductions in smoking prevalence brought about by using safer nicotine substitutes to combustible have been brought about by the huge increase in choice of ways to consume nicotine. One the one hand you have a product which burns tobacco and kills millions, on the other hand you have an alternative that offers a better taste and doesn't kill millions of people.
Denmark wants to severely restrict the choice to the healthier alternative while leaving the dangerous product untouched? This is madness.
There is no sense whatsoever in prohibiting products which distance adults from smoking by offering more enjoyable flavours. Why on Earth does Denmark think that restricting flavours to tobacco and menthol only can possibly help people to switch away from smoking? It is like treating an alcoholic by giving them beer.
If Denmark wants to inflict a policy of self-destruction on its own, that is fine, but this kind of nonsense must not be allowed to bleed into the rest of the EU.
The best thing you could do for the health of millions of EU vapers and smokers who may wish to quit, is to reject this proposal so that it does not create a precedent across member states.
As a private citizen and long term nicotine consumer over approximately 50 years I find that a proposed flavour ban for e-cigarettes to be ludicrous, totally lacking in any logic whatsoever. I smoked combustible cigarettes for over 40 years and had tried unsuccessfully to stop smoking for maybe the last 10 years of that period. One of the key aspects that helped me to successfully transition over 7 years ago was the very wide availability of interesting flavours that totally distanced me from the taste of tobacco. To propose to remove all flavours from the market would result in unintended consequences :- a rise in black market offerings, increased diy where users add their own flavour( an inappropriate oil based one as eg), a reversion by some existing adults users back to combustibles. Much evidence exists that as a proportion, the flavoured option represents approximately 98% of the ecigarette market. This ludicrous proposal is an ill thought through attempt at trying to obtain a nicotine free society by underhand methods. Honest researchers and advisers well know that flavours are a crucial reason for the success of e-cigarettes in reducing the combustible smoking rate. If the proposal is underpinned by the necessity of removing 'child-appealing' flavours, this yet again is a convenient fallacy. Examine what has happened in the US with the Juul product, as flavours have been curtailed, children have simply swapped to the limited number that remained(there main reason was initially curiosity followed by the desire to use nicotine, flavours played a very minor part in their choice). Similarly, data demonstrates that everyday youth use is relatively small and never smokers in that grouping well under 0.5%. So, from whatever standpoint it is perfectly clear to this contributor, there is not an existing problem with flavour use and that a flavour ban will deliver major unintended consequences, based on zero logic whatsoever
I am a former cigaret smoker who has taken the step to vape instead as it is much less harmful than smoking tobacco.
It is with great concern that I note that e-cigarets are now being targeted for extra tax and that they are in the process of banning most flavours in e-liquid.
Whereas I fully understand that it is desirable not to encourage new smokers, it should also be noted that former cigaret smokers are using e-cigarets in the process of weaning them off smoking or have changed to smoke this much less harmful product.
I do not believe that becayse you can get fx bublegum or pineapple flavoured e-liquid, that that in it self encourages or leads to new smokers.
It concerns me that this will lead to a black marked openingup with unregulated and possible harmful flavour substitutes.
I am against the flavour ban.
J'ai découvert la vape par hasard en juin 2013, étant gros fumeur depuis 35 ans et ayant testé tous les autres substituts nicotiniques et médicament sans aucun effet ni réussite, j'ai alors décidé de tester le produit sans grande illusion, le fait et que sans m'en rendre compte mon envie de fumer s’est estompée, les arômes autres que le le goût tabac mon permis d'éloigner définitivement du tabac et de mon souvenir, un miracle donc personne n'avait prévus. Pourquoi voulez-vous brider la vape et ses arômes diversifiés qui on permit à de nombreux fumeurs de se sortir du tabagisme mortel. Je ne fume plus depuis le 4 juillet 2013 grâce à la vape et ses arômes diversifier.
This proposed legislation is a complete nonsense and a demonstration of an outstanding negligence and lack of knowledge and insight. It is truly irresponsible.
Such a regulation is highly armful for both smokers, vapers, and the whole vaping industry and we encourage you to think twice before considering these amendments. These will have huge consequences :
- Approximatly 85 to 90% of Danish vapers will be deprived from there rights to choose the way they want to pursue their struggle against tobacco. They will be forced to turn to tobacco and menthol flavours, even though they might not like these flavors at all. Eventually, it will considerably decrease the electronic cigarette efficiency at a large scale for a consequent amount of the vaper population, leading them to return to tobacco. We wish to remind you that more than 1 out of 2 will probably die because of this. We also wish to remind you that today, nobody ever died from vaping. What seems like an attempt to protect people from tobacco is in fact creating the exact opposite effect...
- Such regulation will make the black market to thrive at a European scale. Up to now, black markets have mostly been avoided on the European soil but bannishing flavored e-liquids or imposing high taxes will encourage vapers to turn to it and put their health at stake. The recent outbreak of lung disease that occured in the US proved one thing : illicit products can be highly lethal (in that case, the culprit was the vitamin E acetate) and black markets should be avoided at all cost as they bring the general public health in jeaopardy. Any decision that would encourage them would be a tremendous mistake, a disaster for Denmark and subsequently the rest of Europe. Thousand lives could be at risk if not more, especially the younger ones.
- Because of these amendments, appx. 90% of the Danish vape shops will be forced to shut down. The economical impact cannot be neglected. In the meantime, the black market will remain above any regulation, untaxed, out of control. Again, this scenario could also happen at European scale. We are not convinced of the wisdom of this decision, especially during these hard times with the COVID-19 crisis.
- Numerous studies have shown that electronic cigarettes are indeed the most effective way to quit smoking. They also considerably reduce the risks as they offer an healthier alternative to smoking. Moreover, their nocivity have never been proven (by any serious study properly led), unlike many other consumer goods sold on the European markets, freely without any restrictions. The question is : why stubbornly struggling against something that can saves lives and have proven to be at least 95% less toxic than actual cigarettes ?
The validity, the appropriateness and the fairness of the proposed amendments is highly disputable. It seems that it has been done without any scientific consideration or actual data and studies, without consulting any serious and independant tobacco specialists / experts / doctors. As regards the importance of the impacts this decision would have, we appeal to the responsibility of the legislator.
Thank you for your consideration.
I implore the Danish authorities not to proceed with a flavour ban that would limit the availablity of flavours more pleasant than tobacco and menthol. Making vaping more appealing to adult smokers is key to reducing the harms from smoking traditional combustible tobacco.In the Stop Smoking Service I used to run (the first ever to become vape-friendly) it became very clear that adult smokers who switched to vaping found the flavours a real incentive to stick with vaping and not return to smoking. In the UK we have no evidence of young people being tempted to vape if they hadn't already smoked, but adults have made vaping the most successful way of stopping smoking. Please do not deny Danish people a way of switching to vaping and staying switched. They are doing it because they don't want to die of a smoking-related disease. Thank you
These proposals display appalling ignorance about vaping, conflating it with tobacco use. I am 73 and found it easy to switch to vaping after smoking for 50 years and soon moved on from tobacco flavours to fruit flavours; now I could not go back to smoking. My health has improved in so many ways, from shortness of breath to hearing. If there had been advertising, I could have switched years earlier. I do not see school age people vaping in public, only adults. It appears to me that people who vape are ex smokers and there is nothing attractive about it for non smokers. I am beyond dismayed that such a wonderful invention as e-cigarettes that is helping so many people should be dismissed like this and pray for some rationality and common sense.