European Court of Justice rejects all claims against the EU Tobacco Products Directive

The ECJ has concluded that the extensive standardisation of packaging, the future EU-wide prohibition on menthol cigarettes and the special rules for electronic cigarettes are lawful, and rejects objections raised by Poland and Romania, Philip Morris and Pillbox38 (maker of e-cigarettes) respectively.

The European Public Health Alliance (EPHA) welcomes the ECJ judgement and calls for all EU and national institutions to respect the global Framework Convention on Tobacco Control to reduce the damage done by tobacco products worldwide, including 700,000 premature deaths each year in the EU.

European Court of Justice rejects all claims against the EU Tobacco Products Directive

I am not surprised at the ECJ's ruling although quite dismayed that electronic cigarettes have been included in the blanket tobacco directive. The directive comes into force across the whole of the EU on 28th May. I became nicotine-free four weeks ago (only plain juice now) so the directives don't actually apply to me thankfully.

The EU justify the ban on advertising e-cigarettes on the following:

E-cigarettes simulate smoking behaviour and can lead to further experimentation with other nicotine-containing products. Recent studies suggest that e-cigarettes are increasingly used by non-smokers and young people. For example a French study of 2013 revealed that the number of Parisian students experimenting with e-cigarettes has doubled in one year reaching 18%

I have not been able to find this study but will try again tonight as I want to check validity. I can understand the reasons why vaping should not be made attractive to young non-smokers who may be impressionable although I dislike the approach that we are children that need to be looked after for our own good.

I am also not liking the ban on tobacco flavoured e-liquid either (worded as "it cannot have the characteristics of a tobacco flavour"). Is tobacco flavour known to be more dangerous than other flavours? Absolutely not so why pursue something which infantilises responsible adults who enjoy vaping.

As a vaper, my opinion relates to e-cigarettes (ex-smoker 40/day). There are obviously implications for smokers as well which I have not addressed.

EU E-cigarettes Myth Buster

EU Questions & Answers: New rules for tobacco products

More control, more nannying, another reason to get the hell out of this undemocratic mess.

I don't smoke, but used to. Hiding cigarettes away in shops, plain packaging and e-cigs regulation takes away free choice to a certain extent.

Alcohol will be next, maybe fast food, sugary drinks.

None of this will prolong people's lives, it will just seem like it.

a reply to: Morrad

The new rules will not apply to medicinal e-cigarettes (as set out in Directive 2001/83/EC) or medical devices (Directive 93/42/EEC), but will cover all consumer electronic cigarettes placed on the EU market.

Says it all really and just exactly why this law has been made

"Their" reasoning however is

Governments and society as a whole will benefit from improved public health, namely longer healthy lives. Health is a value in its own right, and a healthy population is a key factor for economic growth.

What a crock of #e

Also this blog article sheds some light on further reasons for this new ruling

The Real Reason for E Cigarette Regulation – Damage Limitation

What I find hilarious is that this ruling will mean that any liquid containing nicotine will be restricted to 10ml bottles now, so gone are the 100ml bottles I buy, but I can still buy a litre of Bleach or other "toxic" substances from the supermarket

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
Hiding cigarettes away in shops, plain packaging and e-cigs regulation takes away free choice to a certain extent.

We've had regulations that ban cigarettes from been visibly seen from the counter and plain packaging packs for a while now in Australia... and as a heavy smoker, I'm totally fine with it.

It really has nearly eliminated the whole 'status' element to what brand people smoke... since all cigarette packs just look the same.

Though, I have huge issues with being forced to pay $35 a pack, its extortion and also a war on the poor... since people are far more likely to be smokers if there poor.

But banning tobacco companies from 'branding' there products, is not really a big deal, imo.

a reply to: Discotech

Thanks for the link I will take a look. I used 100ml bottles as well but since stopping nicotine I have been buying VG and PG by the litre (£8) and mix my own concentration (50/50), then add flavour concentrate.

So very tired of Big Mother knowing what is right or wrong for me, or anyone.

TPTB just have to make it look like they are doing something and it's really too bad they couldn't give a spit about anything actually important.

"Mother should I trust the government" and you can briefly see what the response is on the wall.

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
More control, more nannying, another reason to get the hell out of this undemocratic mess.

I don't smoke, but used to. Hiding cigarettes away in shops, plain packaging and e-cigs regulation takes away free choice to a certain extent.

Alcohol will be next, maybe fast food, sugary drinks.

None of this will prolong people's lives, it will just seem like it.

Red meat is on the horizon if the Netherlands is anything to go by.

a reply to: Discotech

"Their" reasoning however is

Health is a value in its own right,and a healthy population is a key factor for economic growth.

Gotta have the slaves live long enough to suck their energy paying off "Fiat" created debt to the Rothschilds Banks, what economic growth...all illusion and fabricated figures, like CPI % that change by government mandate of the day.

a reply to: Ohanka

Well I don't think it will be long before red meat is targeted here, in the U.K.

According to lots of sources, it effects the aging gene in people, it contributes to, if not causes bowel cancer, and the methane generated by the livestock is warming the planet.

But a nice fillet steak, there's nothing finer.

a reply to: Discotech

That article does make a lot of sense. It is the 2ml tank capacity max that really makes me mad. I WILL continue to use 4.5ml tanks and will purchase several more this week. After that I will purchase them from the US and I say bollox to a silly law. As for the EU I stick my middle finger up at them. I will not be dictated to by an unelected incompetent quango.

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
More control, more nannying, another reason to get the hell out of this undemocratic mess.

I don't smoke, but used to. Hiding cigarettes away in shops, plain packaging and e-cigs regulation takes away free choice to a certain extent.

Alcohol will be next, maybe fast food, sugary drinks.

None of this will prolong people's lives, it will just seem like it.

Welll you may be interested to know that according to Paul Craig Roberts, under the Trans Pacific Partnership all any company who is a signatory to the deal, will have to do, is claim that the action which is the subject of this thread, is a restraint on trade.

Then they can take that govt to their own private court where 3 lawyers selected from law firms who are also members or signatories to the deal will try the case and if the govt is found guilty of restraining trade they can order the govt to cease and desist or, fine them whatever they think is a good thing. The 'adjudicators' dont ever have to comment on their decision to anyone or anybody, there is no appeal.

We can see from this, that this deal effectively places corporations who are part of the TPP above sovereign states and we can also see that never again, will any govt ever pass any legislation without getting permission from the TPP first because they wont ever want to offend them. It reasonable and logically follows that the TIPP being negotiated or forced upon, depending on how you see it, europe; in likelihood contain similar provisions to the TPP.

Is this the sort of world you would rather have?

a reply to: Morrad

Thanks for the heads up, I don't use e cigs but a few friends do. I'll have to do more digging since that article just has me questioning.

I'm not sure why menthol cigs are being targeted, usually the filter is flavoured not the tobacco and I like myself flavoured tobacco for a change.

The advertising aspect I'm fine with, the discerning smoker goes by flavour not the packaging.

The closing of the door on tobacco lobbyists I'm glad about tbh, the tobacco giants are greedy and manipulative. Ask any independent tobacconist about the likes of Imperial Tobacco and you will get an ear full.

Again I'm going to have to do some digging. I'm sure I saw ripples from Europe in particular the Netherlands on the banning of snuff and a few other tobacco products. I may be wrong.

People should have a choice in the end. Corraling us smokers or forcing us to change our habits forces many to go underground for our fixes. The illegal tobacco trade does NOT need more reason to thrive.

originally posted by: Azureblue

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
More control, more nannying, another reason to get the hell out of this undemocratic mess.

I don't smoke, but used to. Hiding cigarettes away in shops, plain packaging and e-cigs regulation takes away free choice to a certain extent.

Alcohol will be next, maybe fast food, sugary drinks.

None of this will prolong people's lives, it will just seem like it.

Welll you may be interested to know that according to Paul Craig Roberts, under the Trans Pacific Partnership all any company who is a signatory to the deal, will have to do, is claim that the action which is the subject of this thread, is a restraint on trade.

Then they can take that govt to their own private court where 3 lawyers selected from law firms who are also members or signatories to the deal will try the case and if the govt is found guilty of restraining trade they can order the govt to cease and desist or, fine them whatever they think is a good thing. The 'adjudicators' dont ever have to comment on their decision to anyone or anybody, there is no appeal.

We can see from this, that this deal effectively places corporations who are part of the TPP above sovereign states and we can also see that never again, will any govt ever pass any legislation without getting permission from the TPP first because they wont ever want to offend them. It reasonable and logically follows that the TIPP being negotiated or forced upon, depending on how you see it, europe; in likelihood contain similar provisions to the TPP.

Is this the sort of world you would rather have?

Not particularly and nowhere in my post did I say I did, so I don't quite see why you are asking this question.

I am fully aware of the TTP and I have made it quite clear in a number of threads that I am against the deal.

I am also against the U.K's membership of the E.U, which by the looks of things are ready to sign the deal once the referendum is done. Hopefully the U.K will be out of the deal, because as Obama has stated, we will need to join the back of the queue if we vote to leave.

For 2 years now I have argued that e-cigarettes are no different from smoke/haze machines used in discos and music venues, in fact the air saturation is far more. Why has there never been any concern about these in the last 20-30 years? Why are they not under the same current spotlight as e-cigarettes?

a reply to: RAY1990

I can't find anything which suggest menthol cigarettes are more harmful than ordinary cigarettes and yet there will be an outright ban on them, within the EU, in 2020.

a reply to: Morrad

I totally agree with you on the e-cigs, first time I tried one I said it feels exactly like someone flavoured some smoke machine liquid with flavouring. Same taste, feel and even smell.


In all honesty I have never came across a pre-made cigarette that has the actual tobacco flavoured with menthol. It is always the tip/filter that is flavoured. Even flavoured tobacco, the added flavourings are no more toxic than a pack of sweets.

The only reason I can fathom why they are targeting menthol is the same reason they are making e-cigs harder to use, that is in my eyes targeting the younger crowd within smoking. Basically targeting what would be most popular to them with an aim of discouraging them.

If that is the case it's borderline draconian, I can agree with bans that have scientific reasoning but banning things because they are popular is silly. If people want to smoke they will, I'm living example of that. I know the risks and I know the damage but at the end of the day I chose to take up smoking. You yourself may have seen what pricing smokers out of the market creates, now imagine if someone made that illegal...

I could go on and on, about how they are targeting smokers wrongly, hitting the lowest in society in terms of wealth as some kind of deterrent. I could go on... But I'll refrain and say it's probably smart what they are doing, only smokers want to smoke.

The same EU where when I'm there, I can't walk past a bus stop or news stand or even through a super market without seeing multiple magazines with uncovered hooters on them?

I don't mind looking at hooters, hardly surprising but if the idea is to hide things from children and stop marketing to them, I'd think the hooters would have been hidden years ago.

In the end this is all about the younger generation moving more towards e-cigs and the tobacco industry losing revenue.

I ask you, EU, why can't I look at hooters while enjoying an e-cig? Seems pretty harmless to me. And if we're going to start hiding things from people, can we please, pretty please, start with fat people at beaches. That both makes me lose my appetite and promotes an unhealthy lifestyle.

Oh yeah, that wouldn't be PC though. Forgot about that.

a reply to: MysticPearl

And if we're going to start hiding things from people, can we please, pretty please, start with fat people at beaches. That both makes me lose my appetite and promotes an unhealthy lifestyle.

Aaagh come on! it's the only chance I get to top up on vitamin D... Most of the time I'm sitting on my arse watching Jeremy Kyle. Be reasonable man!

But yeah, I've never seen a lack of nudity in all my time on the mainland. Good point. Not that I'm complaining


Just to add, I've never not seen a pair when I've visited Europe. I smell a conspiracy or maybe I'm holidaying wrong?

a reply to: Azureblue

Welll you may be interested to know that according to Paul Craig Roberts, under the Trans Pacific Partnership all any company who is a signatory to the deal, will have to do, is claim that the action which is the subject of this thread, is a restraint on trade.

This is INCORRECT. Fortunately.

The precedent has already been set. Phillip Morris sued Australia on EXACTLY this issue and LOST. Completely and utterly. PM will probably have to pay Australia's costs.

Australia wins international legal battle with Philip Morris over plain packaging

The Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) in the TPP is virtually identical to the one in the Australia/Hong Kong treaty and the venues for hearing complaints are the same.

I don't like the ISDS features - they leave to much to be abused by venal companies like Phillip Morris and there are better avenues to use for international asset protections. However, I don't like simple minded untruths to drown out the actual problems with it. If your only argument is that it lets foreign companies override legitimate health regulation law then you will lose that argument. You need to argue from fact not from myth.

a reply to: Azureblue

It reasonable and logically follows that the TIPP being negotiated or forced upon, depending on how you see it, europe; in likelihood contain similar provisions to the TPP.

That is also incorrect.

Early versions of the TIPP did include an ISDS. France objected and the negotiations stalled. They are still trying to figure out how to protect investment assets without it. There are other mechanisms than the ISDS, but you have to get agreement from everybody and they haven't got that settled yet.

The point is to protect foreign investment from nationalization or otherwise unreasonable seizure without removing the sovereign right of a nation to govern itself - in other words to prevent exactly that problem of foreign companies imposing their will on the legal governments.

Australia is 'big' enough to defend itself against Phillip Morris without being intimidated by a threat to take it to the ISDS. But someplace like Papua New Guinea or Nigeria or Honduras probably wouldn't be. The PM v Uruguay result will be interesting to look for.

a reply to: Morrad

Extensive eperience and anecdotal evidence gleaned from peoples of the entire world, generally shows the single, largest and most persuasive driver of 'provoking experimentation' of just about all kinds, is to issue blanket bans wholesale.

In the respect of ECJ's comments regarding vaping (they are vapourisers, NOT electronic cigarettes) 'as a form of simulated smoking that has potential to encourage experimentation with other tobacco products' is bizarre.

Do alcohol free beverages encourage the experimentation with whiskey or strong beers? Should beverages with lower alcohol or alcohol free drinks be banned?

Following the ECJ's conclusion, an alcohol free beer, would be a dangerous proposition, as it would encourage those who consumed such beer, to try a beer strong in alcohol.

Vaping is a clear harm reduction strategy for smokers...it's perfectly obvious to any ex-smoker or health professional without an agenda tied to big pharma or big tobacco. Vaping has probably already saved many thousands of lives, and incidentally saved the taxpayer many millions in saved health care costs linked to smoking related diseases..never mind the Human costs of losing loved ones and so on.

My opinion is that there is an agenda at play in and behind this decision, and it has infinitely more to do with large cash stuffed brown envelopes than it does with health concerns.

If health was at the forefront of the desicion making process, vaping would be hailed as the perfect solution to the decades of harm to health from smoking, the fact that it is not, in my humble opinion at least, speaks volumes to the real motivations of thsoe making these legal pronouncements.

Disgusting.