Nicotine extracted from tobacco plants (or related species) falls under this definition
The Lemmingtopian Government welcomes the Regulation of Tobacco advertising. However, our Health Commission has identified serious and damaging flaws in this proposal.
It is imperative that any resolution dealing with tobacco or it's advertising recognises the significant and important difference between "safe" nicotine product (which does not exist) and "safer" nicotine product, which is a minorly harmful substance yet has the ability, when used for the treatment of nicotine dependence, to dramatically improve health. Without making this important distinction, this resolution will enforce warning labels on safer nicotine products.
Therefore,
We find it regrettable that this proposal seeks to irresponsibly place a warning stamp on medical nicotine - an unsafe yet safer substance, which is commonly used in health products to tackle the underlying causes, dangers and ritual aspects of the addiction of smoking while reducing or delaying, and in many people eradicating, the actual physical symptoms of nicotine withdrawal while behavioural issues associated with addiction and underlying causes are addressed.
We further find it regrettable that this proposal seeks to place the same warning stamp on "e-liquids", which, when used as a treatment beginning at a high enough concentration with a good quality delivery device, have been found to be even more effective than traditional Nicotine Replacement Therapies in maintaining abstinence from traditional, extremely unsafe products.
We would welcome and support a subsequent proposal that addresses this vital issue.
We would also further support regulation of tobacco advertising regarding placement (i.e a ban around schools and residential areas), as this proposal actually does very little to regulate advertising (mandating warning labels has nothing to do with advertising).