Smoking Everywhere V. FDA Daily Docket Sheet Update--APPEAL's COURT ISSUES STAY

[mudmanc4]

Originally Posted by Sun Vaporer

Richard Leon, a judge for the U.S. District Court for Washington DC, ruled that five Algerian detainees at Guantanamo Bay be released after serving seven years at the prison. The ruling comes after the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the detainees have the legal right to contest their imprisonment.The New York Times: Judge Orders Five Detainees Freed From Guantánamo (November 20, 2008)1

The lawyers of the released detainees argued that their clients should not be considered "enemy combatants" because they were not captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan. Government attorneys countered that defense by claiming that the men were planning to travel to Afghanistan to join al-Qaeda.The Boston Globe: Lawyers debate 'enemy combatant' (October 24, 2008)2
<LI id=sort-section_550543 sizcache="3" sizset="0" pinned="0" layout_order="1">Fast Facts

1. Born: 1949
2. Alma mater: College of the Holy Cross, 1971U.S. District Court, Washington, DC: Judge Richard J. Leon3
3. Received a J.D. from Suffolk Law SchoolU.S. District Court, Washington, DC: Judge Richard J. Leon3
4. Received an LL.M. from Harvard Law School in 1981
5. Appointed to the United States District Court in February 2002
6. 1987: Deputy Chief Minority Counsel for the [[U.S. House Select “Iran-Contra” Committee]]U.S. District Court, Washington, DC: Judge Richard J. Leon3
7. 1994: Special Counsel to the U.S. House Banking Committee for its "Whitewater" investigationU.S. District Court, Washington, DC: Judge Richard J. Leon3
8. 1997: Special Counsel to the bipartisan U.S. House Ethics Reform Task ForceU.S. District Court, Washington, DC: Judge Richard J. Leon3
9. Currently an adjunct law professor at the Georgetown University Law Center and the George Washington University Law SchoolU.S. District Court, Washington, DC: Judge Richard J. Leon3

Thanks for the encouragement.

[sherid]

Originally Posted by Sun Vaporer

Sherid--It took only 59 minutes from the time I posted for someone to pick up on that!! I think that is a given. He approved Banzhaf's Leave of Court to file ASH's Brief in 24 hours.


Sun

OTOH, not everyone who knows Banzhaf is enamored of him...LOL

[JerryRM]

Oh, what tangled webs they weave !! Look at the bright side, the longer this case lasts, the more time we have to stockpile supplies.

[J W in Texas]

Originally Posted by MaDPimP

The question is sun, will any of us still be alive to read it when it finally does? quite frankly it seems like the decision is going to be coming out sometime between now and the end of time as we know it....

OMG..it's going to take until 2012?! I'd say that we won't have to worry about having the time to stock up then

[SquirrilahFish]

Originally Posted by Sun Vaporer

The Docket Sheet again shows no movement today. Sure is a lot of dust building up on this file. But a ruling on this Motion will come.
　
Sun

Man are you running out of stuff to say about no movement yet?

[Sun Vaporer]

Originally Posted by SquirrilahFish

Man are you running out of stuff to say about no movement yet?

What would you like me to say? As that is about all I can tell everyone --no news is news.


Sun

[jerrydon10]

Originally Posted by PhiHalcyon

Consequently, if the FDA insists that the ecig not be marketed as anything other than a fully approved drug product, then that is precisely what shall happen. Please plan accordingly, for the writing is on the wall.

I got ten attys in today. I am planning accordingly. But I am not ready to concede that the FDA has won this.

Someone pointed out that delay, when considering that we are on the weaker side, could actually translate that Judge Leon is majorly contemplating ruling on our side. This could be.

Perhaps this Judge could rule on the side of the people rather than the elitists? It's rare, but it could happen.

We shall see..........

[Sun Vaporer]

Originally Posted by jerrydon10

I got ten attys in today. I am planning accordingly. But I am not ready to concede that the FDA has won this.

Someone pointed out that delay, when considering that we are on the weaker side, could actually translate that Judge Leon is majorly contemplating ruling on our side. This could be.

Perhaps this Judge could rule on the side of the people rather than the elitists? It's rare, but it could happen.

We shall see..........

Problem is Jerry--if you look at what Counsel for SE wrote and I agree, even he conceeds that no matter how it turns out---there is going to be regulation, either as a tobacco product or as a drug. So even if Judge Leon finds for SE, there is going to be some kind of mandates--the scope of them will be the troubling part.


Sun

[SheerLuckHolmes]

Originally Posted by Sun Vaporer

What would you like me to say? As that is about all I can tell everyone --no news is news. Sun

How about with a little show music? {sung to the Ethel Merman song "There's No Business Like Show Business"}

There's no ruling like No Rulings - There's no ruling today.
Even though a rulling is appealing
Even though we're waiting partiently
Even though a company is failing - we're just flailing - away our days...

Some dancing girls, some spotlights. what's not to like?

[PhiHalcyon]

If asked the question: Is e-liquid derived from tobacco?, the answer is: E-liquid does contain tobacco derivatives, but it is not wholly derived from tobacco. Nor is it even primarily derived from tobacco.
E-liquid is primarily a flavored solution of propelyene glycol, and/or glycerine, to which, in most cases, one or more tobacco derivates are added. In other words, tobacco product additives have become the product - and tobacco product derivatives have become the additives.

The definition of tobacco product does not say 'partially, primarily, or wholly derived from tobacco'. It just says 'derived from tobacco'. Since all commercially marketed tobacco products fit a 'primarily or wholly derived from tobacco' standard, (and because a TicTac added to a bottle of whiskey does not make a bottle of whiskey a candy product), it is reasonably fair to conclude that 'derived from tobacco' means 'primarily or wholly derived from tobacco'.

Therefore, since e-liquid is partially, but neither primarily, nor wholly, derived from tobacco, it is fair to conclude that e-liquid is not a tobacco product. And if e-liquid is not a tobacco product, then any claims or beliefs to the contrary (including my own) have been wrong. As a result, the legal status and definition of e-liquid is the same today as it was before the Tobacco Control Act was passed.

I don't like being wrong any more than the next person, but, the way I see it, everything I have stated in the past has merely been my contribution towards our collective effort in arriving at the truth. And the unfortunate truth is: the ecig is an unapproved drug/device combination product.

If anyone wishes to make a complete coherent argument to the contrary, then, please, be my guest.