There comes a point in any enterprise where ‘diminishing returns’ are a danger. For example, companies which produced black and white TVs, and only black and white TVs, went out of business once colour TVs became possible and the norm. Diminishing returns can also be caused by competition. The classic ‘get very rich quick’ situation arises where a person invents something which costs pennies to make, but is so desirable that people are prepared to pay pounds to possess such an object. Generally speaking, despite patents, others will invent something very similar and increase the supply and spread the demand and the cost will fall. That is the way that free markets work. Thus, it is clearly fallacious for Tobacco Control to claim that making innovation more difficult and expensive will have economic advantages for the internal market. In fact, it is hard to imagine anything worse for the market than prohibitionist actions (masquerading as ‘standardisation’). It is even worse when the prohibitions and standardisations are promoted for ‘external’ reasons, such as “promotion of health”.
‘Public Health’ is a monopoly, which is the very antithesis of ‘free markets’. Even so, it must eventually suffer from diminishing returns. Thus, we see that the EU Tobacco Directive is expected to reduce smoking by a paltry 2% over five years. It seems odd to think back to the time when Zealots were claiming that smoking would be history by the year 2000.
I think that it is quite comical that the Zealots have turned against the one thing which might possibly have realised their dream – the e-cigarette. Had the Zealots embraced ecigs, then their dream might have been achievable (apart from a rump of old farts like us).
It seems to me that the Zealots have committed themselves to eventual obscurity since they have, collectively, committed themselves to more and more cost along with less and less achievement.
They can only get away with it for so long.
I’ve been reading through the new directive as passed by the EU Parliament. The whole thing can be found here:
[H/T Mr Bates]
Clive Bates has been trying his best for weeks to point out to MEPs the very poor decisions which the new directive enact, such as having a maximum nicotine content of the liquid at 20mg/ml. That level was based upon an average of what most vapers found satisfactory, but, because it is an average, it is not sufficient for a person who is used to smoking a lot of cigs per day. I read about this ‘average’ in an EU fact sheet, or some such, but, in the directive, it says that the 20mg/ml is based upon the nicotine inhaled when a person puffs on a cigarette. Heaven only knows how they worked that out. It is almost certainly a lie – if you read the directive text, you will see that it has been written by Zealots who are not known for their attention to the truth.
As I read the ecigs part of the directive, it struck me that the real difficulties produced by it as regards ecigs is not really stuff like the concentration of nicotine or the restriction of the size of bottles of e-liquid to 10ml. You could buy several bottles and decant them into a bigger bottle if you wished. Even the provision about ‘leak-free’ systems are not, in themselves, particularly onerous, provided that prevalent existing systems, such as applicators for wart remover acids, are considered to be sufficient. My local chemist told me that wart remover liquids are very corrosive. They come in little bottles with a ‘drop applicator’, if you know what I mean. It is up to the individual to take the appropriate precautions, as described in the accompanying leaflet. Interestingly, the directive recommends/demands such leaflets for e-liquids. I think that leaflets are already provided, aren’t they? Ah well…..
The really, really onerous demands are couched in requirements to submit requests for permission to introduce products to the market. For all intents and purposes, these demands are badly disguised medicinal regulations. Is that not odd? The Parliament threw out official medicinal regulation, and then approved medicinal-type regulations. These ecig regulations are really a bit crazy. It is hard to see how they could be implemented. For example, how could a retailer of ecigs know what the youth take up of ecigs might be? Another is a similar requirement for retailers/manufacturers to retain and submit ‘adverse effects’ records. How would they know, and how would they be able to confirm that the allegations were true?
But the directive’s effect on eigs was not my prime reason for reading through the whole load of blather. What I noticed was this:
Manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products ***I
European Parliament legislative resolution of 26 February 2014 on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council 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 (COM(2012)0788 – C7-0420/2012 – 2012/0366(COD))
(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)
Note the highlighted words.
“The sale of tobacco”
Interestingly, there is almost nothing in the directive which concerns ‘the sale of tobacco’, but there are implications. The matter is just touched upon, in the sense that the directive suggests that States might wish to control ‘the sale of tobacco’. I think that Poland, for example, taxes tobacco plant leaves, or, at least, the sale of cured tobacco leaves. But I’m not sure precisely – it may just be some sort of VAT. At the moment, however, I can see nothing specific about controlling the trade in the raw produce other than that.
Interestingly, the actual proposed regulations of fags etc is not very important to smokers. According to the propaganda within the directive, the whole thing is aimed at persuading youths not to start smoking. Old smokers are to be allowed to continue until they peg out. Thereafter, there will be a new dawn and tobacco (not only smoking) and nicotine will disappear. I think that was the expectation when prohibition was enacted in the USA in the early 1900s. Oh, and many US States also banned tobacco at the same time. Fat lot of good that did.
The directive demands that States put bigger obscene pictures of diseased body parts on fag packets, regardless of whether or not these diseased body parts were caused to be diseased by smoking. Curiously, the directive requires that snus should also carry health warnings, such as: “This stuff is addictive”. There is no certainty that snus is addictive at all, but that is what is recommended.
The whole thing is an absolute mess. It is a combination of vague, uncertain, unconfirmed factoids and propaganda.
Throughout the directive, there is a constant theme, which is that the prohibitions and standardisations will somehow contribute to the efficiency of the common market. No account is taken of the need for competition to improve efficiency.
Health has replaced religion as the opium of the people.
There was a play (we used to call them ‘plays’ then) on the TV some thirty years or so ago. It certainly seems an awful long time ago. It was called: “The Machine Stops”.
The story was placed many centuries into the future. Because of either a nuclear war or something, humanity had abandoned the surface of the Earth which was uninhabitable. It had retreated underground. To maintain the race, but not overburden resources, childbearing was controlled. The main part of the story, however, revolved around the way in which people lived. Every adult had his/her own compact ‘apartment’. Generally speaking, the vast majority of people never left their apartments. They had no need to. Everyday needs, like food and drink, were provided by ‘the machine’. People passed their time by conversing over the TV channels and ‘thinking new thoughts’.
As I said, childbearing was strictly controlled. The method was to allow young men and women to pair up when they were introduced to each other. They were allowed to copulate and produce a child, which was immediately removed to a baby unit. The parents never saw the child again. In fact, they separated and went back to their individual apartments to spend their time ‘thinking new thoughts’.
The ‘play’ was a very good one. The story revolved around two ideas which were intertwined. Idea 1 was that someone asked, in the exchange of ‘new thoughts’, what would happen “If the machine stopped”. That, in itself, started to create chaos in the ‘think-o-sphere’. People started to question the unquestionable. At the same time, a young couple refused to accept the ‘rules’ regarding ‘falling in love’. As a result of someone ‘thinking the new thought’ about what might happen if the machine stopped, people started to leave their apartments and actually meet each other. A fair amount of mayhem ensued. But, needless to say, the main story followed the progress of the young lovers. They found a way to leave the warren and venture onto the surface of the Earth. Over the decades (or centuries), the Earth had cleaned itself and the surface was full of birds and mice and fish, etc.
A New Dawn.
It was a jolly good ‘play’. We could very easily transpose the ideas to the modern day ‘prohibitionism’. The population, as a whole, is ‘living underground’ and closed off from reality. They are ‘fed’ ideas, which they accept and absorb, largely because these ideas don’t really matter to them – well, not as yet, until the ideas actually impinge upon them.
It might take some years before the ‘lovers’ emerge and find their way to the surface. What they might find is a world which is regulation-free, apart from natural and acceptable constraints and government control over monopolies like Public Health. Further, it is obvious that the UN and its subsidiaries (like global warming) are too big for their boots. And it is simple to achieve – take away the money.
Tobacco Control depends entirely upon money. It does not depend upon eternal truths. Its scientific base is ephemeral and equivalent, in the above story, to fear of the contaminated surface of the Earth.
There must come a point where ‘the (tobacco control machine) stops’. But there is a problem. I hate tobacco companies. I hate them because they have messed about for commercial reasons and abandoned their consumers. They are as bad as the Zealots since they do not care about individuals.
I wonder if politicians realise that the EU contrivance will eventually lead to civil war on a grand scale? It must be so since it is self-perpetuating and self-rewarding. The ‘war’ may not be violent, but it will be very destructive,
Yesterday I went to the local (nearest) garden supply place to get a compost bin. At the same time, I thought that I would nip next door to an auto-electric shop and get some advice (not material to the story). When I arrived, I found that the garden place is closed on Mondays. Oh Dear! Never mind. Also, I found that the auto-electrics shop had ceased to exist. Oh Dear! Again. Today, I went again to the garden place and found that they did not stock compost bins. Sods law, I suppose. When I went into the garden place, I vaguely looked around. There was something in the back of my mind that I wanted, but it would not come. Only when I started to prepare my propagator tonight for the seeds did it come to me what I wanted – a new propagator!
OK – So I’m stuck with the old one for this year. Sod it – it will do. You can see in the pic below that it is shot at.
I’m getting my seeds into the propagator now, so I’m going to do a little commentary.
01:30 Here is the propagator filled with compost. The compost is just ordinary all purpose compost:
So there’s the tray with its insert of cells, complete with compost. I’ve poured a little hot water into each cell to warm the compost up, but it has now cooled. The next step is to put the seeds in.
There, I’ve emptied quite a lot of seeds onto a plain piece of white paper. They are so small that it would be difficult to see them otherwise. The next step is to separate a few:
I have shoved a few onto a sheet of white paper which has been folded to create a crease. From there, I can let the seeds fall into each cell of the propagator in turn. I insert a little tag in the cell that I am filling so that I know where I am up to.
The next event will be when all the cells are filled ……………………….
All the cells are filled, and the propagator is now on the worktop in the kitchen which has a radiator underneath. The rad will keep the worktop warmish and thus the prop:
In the morning, I expect to see the cover misted up a little inside. That would be perfect. In about three days, I expect to see tiny white dots on the surface of the compost, which will be the plants starting to protrude. After about seven days, the leaves will have started to form. A week or so later, I can start to thin out the seedlings.
I shall not be using my heated propagator because I don’t need to if past experience is anything to go by, but, this year, I am started the germination later than I have in the past, so I may decide to use the heated propagator if the heat from the radiator in the kitchen is insufficient. But it should be OK. If the cover is not misted in the morning, then I’ll put the whole thing in the heated prop. It will fit inside.
So there we are then. Let battle commence! The 2014 season has begun!
UPDATE 4pm 5th March.
As I expected, the cover of the propagator has misted up. But I have decided to bring the heated propagator into use because, during the day, the thermostat will turn the radiators off. I have simply turned on the propagator and placed the whole small, unheated prop inside:
I’ll just leave it on for the next few days. It does not consume much electricity. The seedlings should start to show about Saturday.
Readers might remember this pic:
It is of a tobacco plant which somehow lodged itself in the gap between the paving and the house wall. Believe it or not, I actually harvested the leaves eventually! Anyway, I forgot about it and was surprised a couple of weeks ago to see that a few small leaves had survived through the winter.
Today, I noticed that there were three tiny leaves still hanging on the plant and which had turned brown, so I picked them. I rinsed them and dried them, and then I shredded them. There was just enough material to make a fag.
It was awful! The taste was acrid and bitter – a little like the effect that ensues when a lady walks past you in the pub on her way to the loo and her scent hits your conk just as you are about to take a swig of your pint. Umm …. Perhaps not such a good similitude. It is hard to provide an example. The acrid taste of a firework? Something like that on a small scale. Sufficient to say that, although the little leaves had turned brown, they had definitely not ‘fermented’. I had the same experience when I hung a leaf in the shed for months and waited for it to go brown. It didn’t, but I tried to smoke the resultant stuff, and it tasted much like this stuff. Thus we see, again, that it is insufficient for the leaves to have merely turned to a brown colour. They must also ferment in order to turn starches into sugars.
It would be wrong to compare fermentation of tobacco with fermentation of beer or wine. Beer and wine rely upon the activity of yeast, which is somewhat similar to a spore. It is not exactly a seed, but is similar. It can grow and divide and create new spores and, in doing so, can turn starches into sugars. That is roughly what happens in beers and wines.
In tobacco, the active ingredients are not yeasts. They are enzymes within the tobacco leaves. Given the right temperature and humidity, chemical changes occur within the leaves which turn starches into sugars and sweeten the taste of the tobacco. Of course, other flavours can be added, but the attractiveness of those flavours are a matter for each individual.
Having tried to smoke this thing for about five minutes, I put it out. It was nasty.
This little tale is significant because tomorrow I intend to start to germinate my home-produced seeds. It is the 4th of March and I think that the time is right with a view to planting out around mid May. In due course, as compared with the little experiment described above, I should be dealing with a reasonable amount of produce, and the produce will be fermented, as per the Junican/Rose process.
It is bound to happen eventually.
I do not mean the break-up of the EU, but that might also happen. What I mean is disobedience. EU affiliated States cannot go on for ever ignoring the wishes of their people and obeying the dictats of the EU. Sooner or later, a State will say, “NO!!! WE WILL NOT COMPLY“
You see, what has been happening is that the Elite in the EU have been playing one country against another, and one group of people against another. So far, it has worked terribly well. The latest Tobacco Products Directive is a good example. The original proposal was to treat ecigs as medicines. That idea did not get through, but the proposal was watered down somewhat and secret discussions ensued. In the event, the proposal which was passed (with a huge majority, note) was little different, in effect, from the original proposal which was rejected. But the important thing is that it was passed, which means that States are going to be forced to adopt it.
But will they? They might. Even those States which do not have a Health Dept which is hopelessly corrupt might well comply. Some may pay lip-service while actually doing nothing to implement the directive. They might turn a blind eye to import of ecigs and liquid which do not comply. Imagine the difficulties of actually enforcing the directive as regards ecigs and the liquids! How big an army of officials and police is going to be required?
I don’t see any need to withdraw from the EU. I see it the opposite way round. I see the EU being challenged to throw, say, the UK out of the EU. Or it may be France, or Germany, or a combination of Spain, Italy and Greece. It would not be difficult to imagine the leaders of those countries getting their heads together and deciding to default on their debts to the EU-front banks and set up their own ‘free trade’ area. They would not need to withdraw from the EU to do so. They could just do it.
The EU is a lot more fragile than one might think. It really does not exist as an entity. It is a construct. It has no real power any more that the UN and the WHO have any real power. They are as flimsy as their funding is flimsy. Terminate the funding and you terminate the UN. It is as simple as that. Terminate the EU funding and you terminate the EU. The EU has no land and no people. It is artificial.
It is bound to happen sooner or later. A State, or a group of States, is sure to defy a directive and throw out a challenge. Might this obscene directive on ecigs be the issue which causes the rift? I doubt it. It will happen when a people, such as the Greeks or Italians, overthrow the puppet government which has been imposed upon them. The key, as is often the case, is THE MONEY. It is literally a case of the new rulers of these States marching into their central banks with army and police and a set of skilled money-men and taking over physically. They do not need to leave the EU. They need only take over their own destiny.
I said a couple of days ago that I would have another go at creating the graph which showed mortality in relation to heavy smokers, moderate smokers, light smokers and non smokers.
What drew me actually redrawing that graph was that I noticed that the two axes, the x and the y, were not to the same scale. I’ll show you what I mean:
By the way, that graph is of survivors. I had to change it round to convert it into deaths.
If you look carefully, you can see that the ten percent divisions on the vertical axis correspond with about five year periods on the horizontal axis. [There is nothing wrong with that, but it can give false impressions] Also, you will note that the horizontal axis starts at age 35. [Again, nothing wrong with that in itself] Even so, since the human life-time is maximised at about 100 years, it fits nicely into a ‘square’ graph with equal axes of ages and percentages.
My first effort was fine, but I made a couple of (rather insignificant) errors. One was to chose my reference points in a rather higgledy-piggledy manner. Another was to clutter the graph with text. There isn’t much difference between the two graphs, except that the new one one is ‘smoother’.
The original graph with which I was working was actually a little smaller than the one above and there were no grid-lines (the ones in the pic above are mine), and so you can see the real difficulties of picking out reference points. Her is the revised graph:
What you can see immediately when you compare the two graphs is that, what seems to be a gentle, gradual pegging out of heavy smokers years before non smokers is nothing of the sort. Nothing much happens at all until around the age of fifty, then, fairly suddenly, things start to happen. At 50, 2% of non smokers had died and 8% of heavy smokers with moderates and lights somewhere between the two. At 60, 8% of non smokers had died and 18% of heavy smokers, but light smokers were only 12%. At 70, non smokers were 18% dead and light smokers were 31%.
You may say that the graph shows that smoking is pretty awful, and you may be right, but we must remember that no other factors have been taken into account. What about alcohol consumption? What about air pollution? What about locality of both work and home? What about war experiences? (I am considering only external facts here and not stuff like genetic susceptibility) But what intrigues me most is the parallel nature of the lines once people start to peg out. Do you see the significance? It means that heavy smokers, moderate smokers, light smokers and non smoker were all dying at the same rate, even though non smokers survived for longer before they started to peg out at the same rate. What ought to have happened, if smoking was so bad, is that the lines should have continued to diverge as they did between the ages of 50 and 65. They should have fanned out. What that suggests to me is that non smoking, at best, merely postpones the inevitable.
But there is another point worth observing, which is that Doll’s definition of light smoking was between 1 and 14 cigs per day. In today’s climate, I think that light smoking would be confined to less than 10 per day. I think that nowadays, there would have been at least four categories: 1 – 9, 10 -19, 20 – 29, 30 +. It could even extend to five by going 30 – 39, 40 +.
Also, there is another peculiarity which is the statement below Doll’s graph. It is hard to read. Here is what it says:
“Overall survival but with cigarette smokers subdivided by the amount they were smoking at the time their last questionnaire was returned”
I suppose that, if heavy smokers were going down like ninepins, Doll had no option, but who is to know when the last questionnaire was issued and returned?
There is another observation worth noting which is that, at the age of 80, there were still 20% of the original heavy smokers still alive. Why? How did they come to survive into very old age? What was it about them which defied the consensus?
Also, we have Garyk’s calculations in the previous post a couple of days ago which indicate that there is only a fractional difference between smokers who die from ‘smoking related diseases’ and non smokers who die from the same diseases. It may be true that smokers die earlier from these diseases, but non smokers still die from the same diseases.
Further, in the longer view, McMillan estimates that more and more people will be living with cancer as time progresses and more and more people live longer and longer. It has been estimated by McMillan that some 40% of aged people with be living with cancer in a few years time.
Whenever I think about these things, I cannot help but return to the McTear Case. Here was a guy who contracted squamous cell carcinoma of the bronchi and died at the age of 53 or thereabouts. His ‘CV’ indicates that he was a right character – couldn’t hold down a job, thrown out of the army, constantly in trouble with the police, set fire to his own house a couple of times, had a family history of LC, but smoked a lot and was chosen by ASH ET AL to be the test case in the the McTear Case. ASH ET AL must have been struggling to find a single person who qualified to be the test case if they had to chose McTear. It looks to me a though they had no candidates who were living quiet lives and being very good but still got LC and smoked a lot. If they had, they would have chosen such a person, wouldn’t they?
What is becoming more and more obvious by the day is that any minority, whether they be smokers, fatties, or mental patients, cannot expect to receive the support and protection of politicians; indeed, condemnation and persecution is what they can expect. Will there be any consolation? Well – no – until a modern day Wilberforce stands up and condemns the slavery and persecution.
I don’t know precisely how these things work, but it seems that the EU has some sort of system whereby it is possible for different bits of a directive to be extracted from the general vote and voted upon separately. This can only be done by appeal to the President of the EU who, presumably, follows some sort of procedure to decide.
Representations had been made to the President to allow a separate vote on Article 18 (re ecigs). It seems that he did so. However, the decision was only made known at 10.49 am – just 41 minutes before the vote was due to be taken – far too late for any action to be taken to actually have Article 18 voted upon separately.
You can read all about it here:
The political skulduggery involved in these machinations is almost impossible to believe. But it seems to be par for the course in the EU. No underhand trick, regardless of the obvious fraud involved, is beyond the pail. This is very indicative of the autocratic nature of the EU structure, and the dictatorial attitude among the elite. “The people have no bread? Then let them eat cake! Ha! Ha!”
But perhaps we should all take heart from this atrocity. Such as system cannot last. It is just too monarchical. “L’Etat – c’est moi”. We are back in pre-revolution France.
All is not lost. The EU has no actual authority. It is up to member states to decide what they actually do. They can decide when and if they introduce legislation to put the directive into effect. Of course, the Tobacco Control Industry will go into overdrive to have the provisions enacted, but there are already tricky problems in the pipe-line. The car smoking thing and PP are by no means forgone certainties. Frankly, there is so much anti-tobacco and anti-ecig emotion building up that Government (that is, the political part) must be getting fed up with all the hysteria. It is hard to believe that the political government would wish to waste parliamentary time on measures which will have no effect, regardless of how much the Zealots push.
For me, this whole charade is becoming more of an amusement than a real thing. The Tobacco Control Industry is building up more and more antagonism and making more and more enemies.
I, and many others, have accepted my status as a disgusting, filthy, stinking outlaw. Frankly, I quite enjoy that status. It means that no charity will get a penny from me because they are inlaws while I am outlaw. I need not consider it my duty to cooperate – I may or may not. I need to have no conscience. I am an outlaw.
There is an interesting facet to being an outlaw. The question is, “What other outlaws does one sympathise with?” I have no difficulty with sympathising with smugglers and people who grow cannabis in their lofts or dealers in cocaine. They are also outlaws. But I do not sympathise with burglars and such, even though they might also be outlaws. The reason is that such people are not anti-establishment but are anti-people.
The more that I think about these matters, the more that I achieve a level of equanimity. Let them pass their laws. They do not apply to me.
This post must necessarily be seen as somewhat tongue in cheek.
First, let us briefly consider the results of the Doll Doctors Study regarding the health effects of smoking on ‘light’ smokers. Light smokers were defined as 1 – 14 cigs per day.
The above graph is the best I could do in converting a Doll graph and it is not as good as it could be, but it gives the idea. (I really ought to do it again)
The green line on the extreme right is non-smoker deaths. The line next to it is ‘light’ smokers (up to 14 cigs per day). You can see at a glance that there is not a lot of difference. For example, at the age of 60, some 8% of non-smokers were dead whereas some 10% of light smokers were dead. At 70, some 20% of non-smokers were dead as compared with some 30% of light smokers. Why had 20% of non-smokers died? Did they die prematurely in comparison with other non-smokers and smokers generally? Why did they die? THEY WERE NON-SMOKERS!
My point is that light smoking is not very dodgy.
Now …. Let us think. Until the appearance of ecigs as a popular commodity, the facts were:
1. Wealthy people were not affected by price.
2. Heavy smokers sought sources of fags which were worth venturing abroad for.
3. Light smokers carried on buying from local shops and put up with price increases. Also, they were likely not to be able to venture abroad.
The result of the above has been an inflexible demand for fags in the light smoking area, bearing in mind that the average number of cigs smoked per day in the UK is 17. This inflexible demand is what the Gov relies upon for it tobacco tax income.
Who are the people most likely to take up ecigs? In terms of health, it ought to be heavy smokers, but is that the reality? I do not know. My gut feeling is that it is the light smokers who are moving to ecigs predominantly. Has there been any research? There may have been, but it might not have been published.
It is the light smokers who continue to pay exorbitant prices for cigs. No heavy smoker in his right mind would do so. A couple of years ago, when I ran out of cheap(er) fags from Spain, I was forced to buy fags in this country. I was horrified! Despite the difficulties of having herself cared for, I went over to Belgium with the guys from N2D asap. A light smoker would not have done that. Such a person has already decided to grovellingly accept the theft of his money.
Ecigs may have changed that scenario. They may have eroded the light smoker inelasticity of demand. It may well be that the major change to ecigs is coming from light smokers, who see cost as a major factor. If that is true, then Government has a big problem. The inelacticity of demand among light smokers is what contributes most to government coffers, and not heavy smokers. When light smokers move to ecigs in vast numbers, then tax income falls dramatically. Ecigs have the potential to erode tobacco taxes exponentially, especially if tax rates are increased.
Recently, I investigated the tax take from cigs and booze. It is hard to find figures which differentiate between to the two. But I did find figures which showed that cig purchases have been falling, even though the tax take has held up.
You can see that the situation is very fluid. But you can also see why the New Aristocrats would want to slow down the growth of the ecig industry.
But I don’t care. I have arrived at a way of life which works for me. I do not need the help of the bastards.
If I do not need it, why does the Gov need it?
And, as I have read, by a substantial majority of some 300 to 60 votes.
But who cares?
What is interesting to me is that “Free Trade” within the EU States has been upheld, as far as I can see. One thing that concerned me was that the directive might permit a State to stop a person from importing, for his own use, tobacco products which do not conform to an individual State’s internal laws about plain packaging. As far as I can see, such a possibility is still regarded as contrary to the Internal Market ideals. Thus, if the UK adopted PP, that would not stop me from buying fags in, say, Spain which did not conform. In fact, as I understand it, this possibility has already been kicked into touch when Iceland tried to impose unilateral demands that imported beers must bear a legend saying specifically “Alcoholic Beverage” (or something like that). That demand was struck down because it imposed a duty which was especially onerous on non-Icelandic companies.
But there are other matters. This directive will take years and years to implement in its entirety. In fact, there are strong possibilities that the mishmash will get not further than an ideology. No State in the EU is obliged to enact laws to put the directive into effect.
But it goes further. Because of the massive time-lapse between the hysterical vote and real life, we should be able to continue to grow our own stuff and import leaf ad inf, for all intents. This is because of the emphasis which has been placed upon peripherals by the EU. We should all be pleased that the EU Zealots are buggering about with with pics on packets while we are ‘making our own arrangements’.
As regards ecigs …. Well, that is for vapers to decide. The courageous course of action for vapers and ecig manufacturers and ecig liquid manufactures, is to refuse to comply. They could do so because they hold “the high moral ground”. But I doubt that they have the courage. It all depends upon whether or not they regard themselves as ‘purveyors of tobacco products’.
But the Zealots have subtly changed the emphasis from ‘smoke’ to ‘nicotine’.
Let’s face it. These Eurocrats do not represent us at all. Let it run – who cares. They amass money for themselves, but they die anyway. Who cares. Sod them. Sod them all.