查詢結果分析
相關文獻
- 電子煙的法律管制--從「浮士德公司進口電子煙油案」相關行政判決談起
- 從加熱式菸品探討新興菸品之管制政策
- 美國食品藥物署--電子煙的規範尚有不足:以更嚴格的措施真正限制菸草之使用並保護百萬人民健康
- 美國食品藥物管理局對於電子煙或菸草相關產品立法限制
- 2022年「菸害防制法」修正草案之立法評析
- 違法搜索與證據禁止
- 大學自治、受大學教育權與法律保留原則--「二一退學制度」合憲性的探討
- 機關間權限分配與職權行使之研究--以入出國及移民法為例
- 菸品標示「吸菸有害健康」的憲法問題
- 從學術自由及大學自治行政權論大學退學制度之合憲性--臺北高等行政法院八十九年度訴字第一八三三號及八十九年度訴字第二三一一號判決評釋
頁籤選單縮合
| 題 名 | 電子煙的法律管制--從「浮士德公司進口電子煙油案」相關行政判決談起=Legal Control of Electronic Cigarettes: From the “Faust Company Imported e-liquid Case” Related Judgements of the Administrative Court |
|---|---|
| 作 者 | 羅承宗; 宓芳儀; | 書刊名 | 治未指錄:健康政策與法律論叢 |
| 卷 期 | 6 2018.01[民107.01] |
| 頁 次 | 頁161-183 |
| 分類號 | 587.426 |
| 關鍵詞 | 電子煙; 電子菸油; 菸害防制法; 法律保留原則; Electronic cigarette; E-cigarette; Vape; E-liquid; E-juice; Tobacco Hazards Prevention Act; Principle of legal reservation; |
| 語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
| 中文摘要 | 電子煙的問世與風行,對於各國既有的菸品管制法令亦造成了相當的衝擊。在我國,若查獲之電子煙含毒品,則依毒品危害防制條例處理。若含有尼古丁,則屬偽劣假藥,依藥事法處理;倘電子煙產品宣稱具「幫助戒菸」、「減少菸癮」或「減輕戒斷症狀效果」等醫療效能詞句,即使不含尼古丁成分,亦違反藥事法有關廣告之規定。若未含有尼古丁,然認為電子煙「形似菸品形狀」,則依菸害防制法第14條,亦即「任何人不得製造、輸入或販賣菸品形狀之糖果、點心、玩具或其他任何物品」之規定處罰。然而,如此法律適用方式是否妥適?不無疑義。本文爰以「浮士德公司進口電子煙油案」所涉及的兩個相關行政訴訟判決,進行評述。本文並認為基於法律保留原則,非菸品形狀的電子煙油,應不屬於菸害防制法第14條管制範圍。 |
| 英文摘要 | The development of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) have caused considerable impact on the existing tobacco control laws and regulations in various countries. In Taiwan, if e-cigarettes contain narcotic drugs, it should be regulated in accordance with the regulations by Narcotics Hazard Prevention Act. If nicotine is contained, it is a counterfeit drugs or misbranded drugs and it should be regulated in accordance with the regulations by Pharmaceutical Affairs Act; if e-cigarettes allege to have “medical help quitting smoking,” “reduce tobacco addiction,” or “reduce the effect of withdrawal symptoms,” even if it does not contain nicotine, it still violates the provisions of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act concerning advertising. If no nicotine is contained, it should be punished according to Article 14 of the Tobacco Hazards Prevention Act, “No person shall manufacture, import or sell candies, snacks, toys or any other objects in form of tobacco products.” However, Taiwan’s current regulatory model requires further clarifications and revisions. This article reviews the two related judgements of the Administrative Court in the case of Faust Company Imported e-liquid. This article considers that based on the principle of legal reservation, e-liquid is not in form of tobacco product, should not be the subject matter of Article 14 of the Tobacco Hazards Prevention Act. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。