Do we have a policy on ecigs yet?

(Mofosyne) #1

Considering it is increasingly clear that e-cigs are safer than traditional cigarettes. From the point of harm reduction, we should probably encourage regulations framework to stop the selling of nicotine ecigs liquids from being illegal for cigarettes stores to sell.

The regulation should focus on preventing pure concentrated nicotine from being sold from the store counter, instead we should encourage the sale of premixed version. Which is safer to use compared to the pure version. (The seller can import concentrates, but needs to mix it up themselves with the right concentration that is under safe levels.)

Poster about legal status of ecigs around Australia. Currently it’s a mishmash of laws.

(Jesse Hermans) #2

Given the party’s policy on currently illicit drugs, I would expect that a position on legalising and regulating e-cigs nationally would be widely supported. As for regulation and excise, that may be a matter of debate. Personally I am not sure whether concentrates should be banned. It might make more sense to tax increasing concentrations at a progressive rate of excise. Although you need to demonstrate whether it is such a problem of trends consumer. I don’t see why labelling requirements warning consumers that concentration should be diluted, the harmful effects of nicotine etc.

What if it’s better for someone to get a single concentrated nicotine hit than to continuously vape smaller doses over a longer period though? It seems a bit presumptuous that concentrates are something which should be descriminated against.

(Jesse Hermans) #3

If you want, I invite you to write up a brief amendment to our drugs policy on e-cigs. You just need a category on “legalise, regulate and tax e-cigarrettes and nicotine fluid nation wide”, with an explaination of all the different types of things which need to be consistently legalised across Australia e.g. The e-cig, the nicotine fluid, the sale etc. How liquid nicotine and e-cig fluid interacts with tobacco excise, and a brief paragraph on why e-cigs should be legalised with a reference to academic support over conventional smoking. There’s probably a policy you can rip off the LDP.

It’s probably too late to have ready for this congress, but it could easily be ready for the next one.

(Jesse Hermans) #4

Actually you don’t need to worry about excise, in our policy we already state:

Tax rates will be set at a level which balances the need to manage health impacts with the need to provide financial incentives to avoid the black market.

Which implies that we use this for tobacco and liquid nicotine.

(Solo Recluse) #5


Roasted tobacco exists with a proper noun of Charms, India. Can be recommended for all tobacco.

In the ecig or sheesha or simply through water, hookah variant, all the tar gets removed before going into the lungs. Further reduction in cancer rates.

Now the statistic that one in every 13 cigarettes causes a genetic mutation may not be such a bad thing. It’s called growing up!

Reduce cancer rates.

Thanks and regards.

(pip linney-barber) #6

Hi all, thanks for having me. First post here and apologies for bumping a tiny issue back to the top. I’m actually a member of Reason but i’m a great admirer of your platform document and the party generally.

Anyway, i note that vaping hasn’t been explicitly included - although the drug law reform section clearly implies the likely policy toward the use of ecigs. Nevertheless, as a vaper, it has come to my attention that many people who use ecigs are furious with the current legislative situation and astonishingly have opted to support David Leyonhjelm purely on the grounds that he is overtly pushing for law reform on this issue. For many, this is such an important issue they are willing to overlook Leyonhjelm’s…other, less savory policies.

Just wondering if vaping may at some stage be added to the Law and Order section rather than leaving the issue as an implied policy.


(twisty) #7

A’hoy @PLB … welcome aboard.

Yep. If someone decides to do the work.

(pip linney-barber) #8

Hi and thanks for the welcome and the challenge. It would be worthwhile work.

(twisty) #9

It wasn’t a challenge, really. There is a process to follow. If you’re interested you might start here …


(pip linney-barber) #10

It’s a logical policy. E-cigs are less harmful to the health than tobacco according to multiple studies. The current legislation is chaotic, varies from State to State and is almost entirely ignored by every user of e-cigs in the nation. Given the improved health outcomes liberalising the e-cig industry would reduce the medical costs associated with long term smoking and ensure the safety and quality of domestically manufactured products, thus also generating a niche local industry.

Electorally, most non-vapers or non-smokers assume e-cigs are already legal (they’re everywhere) so there’s unlikely to be negative community response, or at least not a significant one, whilst every vaper in the country would be supportive.

It’s a win-win. It’s just logical and reasonable and supported by evidence.

I will check out that link.

(Solo Recluse) #11

Vaping or passing tobacco smoke through water has demonstrated lower or non existent amount of tar. Tar is very highly correlated with incidents of cancer. Reliable sources have mentioned that the stuff in ecigs also is 0 tar.

(Jesse Hermans) #12

Currently we actually have no Policy Dev Officer since I decided to take a break end of last term. However in principle I don’t think there is anything which prevents someone (even from outside the party) from submitting a developed policy to the PDC, and then having it approved to be submitted to the members. Come to think of it, you don’t even need PDC endorsement to have a policy go to an AGM (congress) to be voted on. It just needs to be lodged before the AGM. I’d have to double check that…

(Alex Jago) #13

I think you’re correct on all counts.