Australian Vaping community is in outrage since the Cancer Council of Western Australia has taken legal action against a product which is known to be 100-1000 times safer than tobacco cigarettes.
If the Cancer Council of Western Australia mission is “to minimise the incidence and impact of cancer on the community through advocacy, research, education,…”; anybody could expected serious researches done to prove the effectiveness of quitting cigarettes to minimise Australia wide tobacco smoking through the use of electronic vaporisers / cigarettes, but instead they researched and interpreted a piece of legislation found on the tobacco products control Act 2006, which prevents the sale of products resembling tobacco products.
The legislation used in court to ban e-cigarettes in W.A is as follow:
Section 106 of the Tobacco products control act 2006. “A person must not sell any food, toy or other product that is not a tobacco product but is (a) designed to resemble a tobacco product or a package; or (b) in packaging that is designed to resemble a tobacco product or a package”
The only resemblance between a tobacco cigarette and an electronic vaporiser / cigarette is the hand to mouth action and the exhaling of “Smoke”, which visually could be equivalent to “Vapour”, but by definition Smoke and Vapour are vastly different to one another.
Smoke by definition is “A visible suspension of carbon or other particles in air, typically one emitted from a burning substance”. Vapour on the other hand is defined “A gaseous substance that is below its critical temperature, and can therefore be liquefied by pressure alone” which is the same definition of gas.
Back in October 2013 a court in Western Australia ruled that an electronic cigarette, e-cigarette does not resemble a tobacco cigarette but more like a “fountain pen” and unlike an analogue cigarette, it also requires its user to manually press a button. So, what motives have driven the Cancer Council six (6) month later to bring this case back to court to rule electronic cigarettes as “look like” a cigarette when exhaling?
To anybody this ruling and the e-cigarette ban is unfair, unjust and discriminative towards the Vaping Community (-ex-smokers-) who have found this safer alternative to be the only solution to quit harmful tobacco cigarettes. So why punishing people for switching to this alternative that works for them, which helped them kick the harmful smoking habit, while still they can enjoy what they enjoyed from smoking?
The law is often down to interpretation, how someone interprets the wording. When it comes to wording courts often turn to the oxford dictionary to define words.