Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17
Like Tree5Likes

Thread: Can we not burn bridges with Coral Gartner please?

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    793

    Can we not burn bridges with Coral Gartner please?

    I understand there's a few who are upset over Coral Gartner's support for S.C's licensing idea. I read Mathy's email he posted up on NV and it was quite a harsh email.

    The current situation with nicotine-ejuice in Australia is that it's a complete sales ban, and this could be a first attempt to unlocking this ban. Coral Gartner expressed that she thinks that even Pharmaceutical companies shouldn't have to jump through so many hoops to get a nicotine product on the shelf, so I don't think Coral Gartner is out to find an over-controlling framework for the ecig or nicotine market in general. She expressed that the licensing scheme may be used to scale back the availability of nicotine if they are found in future to be harmful. The inverse of this, I hope, would be that it would be relaxed if ecigs are found to be helpful.

    It is definitely not a good a plan for the long run as its a sure way to deter people from switching. But it's a start, and the way that ecigs are regulated, there is absolutely no way to get them through anyway.

    I think its best to maintain civil discourse with the Queensland team. Instead of essentially telling them that you don't want be part of their research any more, let them elaborate on their position. From what I understand, they're having difficulties even setting up the clinical trials due to the current legal environment in Australia.

  2. #2
    AVF Regular
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    sydney
    Posts
    2,445
    can someone link the methodology and report of the 'queensland' findings?

    I agree with the stance, to a degree, but unless the position can be reflected in it's entirety with full supporting information, I am unable to formulate an opinion either way.

    taking a 30,000 foot view without the whole picture is as dangerous as taking no view or a bloody minded one.

    no offence meant to you marty - this is meant in a caring and considerate way
    sc_rufctr likes this.
    amount saved by not smoking: $lots
    amount spent on vaping: $not enough

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    793
    The only way that this licensing deal could work is if you could register for the license in-shop.

    So for example, a smoker can walk into Steam-ecigs B&M store, sign up for the one-time payment ecig license, and purchase their gear at the same time.

    From then on, they can go back to the store, and the steamers will swipe the card for every purchase.

    That wouldnt bother me so much, provided that that Steam-ecigs were allowed to sell 24mg/mL nicotine ejuice.

  4. #4
    AVF Regular
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    sydney
    Posts
    2,445
    I meant agree with the stance not to burn coral, not to dispute the license idea.

    I am against licensing, but fully appreciate that others may hold an 'educated and informed' view.

    personally apart from the glans idiot, I don't think I would burn anyone (oh except the yank dude who's name I wish to forget and have done).
    amount saved by not smoking: $lots
    amount spent on vaping: $not enough

  5. #5
    AVF Regular
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    572
    **** them.,

  6. #6
    AVF Regular
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    572
    F u#k Them

  7. #7
    AVF Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sydney (vaping since Nov 2011)
    Posts
    2,144
    don't know exactly what to think of it, could be a softly softly approach she has to take to appease certain people, and what of internet sales, would they have to be stopped so that this policy can truly be implemented properly.

    if you have to line up at a chemist and have some record in a database updated every time you purchase from their limited range of product well what then (i can hear the squeaking of guinea pigs lemmings)
    marty likes this.

  8. #8
    AVF Regular
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    572
    Line up , just like the cattle I used to see going into the abitors (sp?) to be slaughtered, bleating in fear about the death that was waiting.
    \
    They knew!

    So do we?

    Do we just go along with it, because these cows protested the best they could, they moo'ed, because that is all they could do.

    Can we as human beings do more than Moo, up to us I suppose.

    We have chosen evil to rule us because we were stupid, let us act human and try to find our humanity again.

    Let us just be human, again.

    We need to change things a bit though.

    That is ok.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,474
    Quote Originally Posted by marty View Post
    I understand there's a few who are upset over Coral Gartner's support for S.C's licensing idea. I read Mathy's email he posted up on NV and it was quite a harsh email.

    The current situation with nicotine-ejuice in Australia is that it's a complete sales ban, and this could be a first attempt to unlocking this ban. Coral Gartner expressed that she thinks that even Pharmaceutical companies shouldn't have to jump through so many hoops to get a nicotine product on the shelf, so I don't think Coral Gartner is out to find an over-controlling framework for the ecig or nicotine market in general. She expressed that the licensing scheme may be used to scale back the availability of nicotine if they are found in future to be harmful. The inverse of this, I hope, would be that it would be relaxed if ecigs are found to be helpful.

    It is definitely not a good a plan for the long run as its a sure way to deter people from switching. But it's a start, and the way that ecigs are regulated, there is absolutely no way to get them through anyway.

    I think its best to maintain civil discourse with the Queensland team. Instead of essentially telling them that you don't want be part of their research any more, let them elaborate on their position. From what I understand, they're having difficulties even setting up the clinical trials due to the current legal environment in Australia.
    e: wrong forum



  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    793
    Quote Originally Posted by tugboatofdeath View Post
    don't know exactly what to think of it, could be a softly softly approach she has to take to appease certain people, and what of internet sales, would they have to be stopped so that this policy can truly be implemented properly.

    if you have to line up at a chemist and have some record in a database updated every time you purchase from their limited range of product well what then (i can hear the squeaking of guinea pigs lemmings)
    It would only work if vapeshops could set a person up with a license themselves.

    I don't think internet sales would be affected. Entering your license number into your account details could be part of your online shopping routine. You may only have to enter it in once when you register an account with your online vapestore.

    But this is the main problem with the whole idea: the maintenance and continuous updating and monitoring of the database. It took years for the Government to set up the mygov website. And how is this database going to be funded?

    Itd be far easier and cheaper to put the responsibility on the vendor. Why cant there simply be a monthly limit to how much nicotine a vendor can sell to an individual?

 

 
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.4
Copyright © 2019 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0
All times are GMT +11. The time now is 09:34 AM.