U.S.A: PACT Act 2009

[Stubby]

Angle, I think you're we'll on your way to getting a Darwin award.
Best of luck to you. I'm sure we'll all be proud of you when that medal is laid on your coffin.

We are coming up on the 150th anniversary of the publication of The Origin of Species.

[Bill Godshall]

The posts on this thread have gotten off topic in the past two days.

But I think it important to note that the PACT Act wouldn't apply to e-cigarettes unless/until the FDA chooses to redefine e-cigarettes as smokeless tobacco products (or perhaps as a noncatagorized tobacco product, which could meet the PACT Act's definition of smokeless tobacco product).

Also, I'd be shocked if Judge Leon ruled that e-cigarettes are tobacco products, as its the FDA's responsibility (not a judge) to assert regulatory jurisdiction over tobacco products. Rather, if the judge chooses to rule against the FDA's assertion that e-cigarettes are unapproved drug-devices, he is likely to limit his ruling to just that (which would put the ball back in the FDA's court, hopefully resulting in the FDA choosing to redefine them as a tobacco product, or preferably as a new catagory of tobacco product).

[JerryRM]

Also, I'd be shocked if Judge Leon ruled that e-cigarettes are tobacco products, as its the FDA's responsibility (not a judge) to assert regulatory jurisdiction over tobacco products. Rather, if the judge chooses to rule against the FDA's assertion that e-cigarettes are unapproved drug-devices, he is likely to limit his ruling to just that (which would put the ball back in the FDA's court, hopefully resulting in the FDA choosing to redefine them as a tobacco product, or preferably as a new catagory of tobacco product).

Bill, why do you say "hopefully"? If the FDA redefines the e-cig as a tobacco product, then we are effectively banned, by the PACT Act. This will no doubt lead to another legal challenge, but in the meantime, we don't have access to the product.

Or am I missing something?

[yvilla]

Bill, why do you say "hopefully"? If the FDA redefines the e-cig as a tobacco product, then we are effectively banned, by the PACT Act. This will no doubt lead to another legal challenge, but in the meantime, we don't have access to the product.

Or am I missing something?

Yes, you ARE missing something.

Namely, the several posts in this very thread explaining that ecigs and nic liquid do NOT fall within the definitions of products that are covered by the PACT Act (cigarettes, and smokeless tobacco). Posts by Bill himself, by me, and others too. Posts that actually quoted the PACT Act's definitional terms, showing that to be the case!

[Slickstick]

Let em have it yvilla!

[yvilla]

Well, now that I've calmed down some, I kind of feel bad for my tone above.

But geez, how many times does factual information have to be posted around here, to stem the tide of flat out mis-information?

[JerryRM]

Yes, you ARE missing something.

Namely, the several posts in this very thread explaining that ecigs and nic liquid do NOT fall within the definitions of products that are covered by the PACT Act (cigarettes, and smokeless tobacco). Posts by Bill himself, by me, and others too. Posts that actually quoted the PACT Act's definitional terms, showing that to be the case!

I went back a few pages and re-read the posts. I saw different opinions on whether if classified a tobacco product, it would be covered by the PACT Act.

My suggestion is - stock up, just in case.

[yvilla]

I went back a few pages and re-read the posts. I saw different opinions on whether if classified a tobacco product, it would be covered by the PACT Act.

My suggestion is - stock up, just in case.

The actual language of a statute is not a matter of "opinion". It is what it is.

[ladysolitary85]

I went back a few pages and re-read the posts. I saw different opinions on whether if classified a tobacco product, it would be covered by the PACT Act.

My suggestion is - stock up, just in case.

I wish I could stock up, unfortunately I'm the only one paying rent/utilities and leaves me with nothing left.... not a happy camper at all.

in another thread, about CVS Pharmacy selling e-cigs online w/o flavors other than menthols also sort of worries me. The reason I bring this up is its because its basically as if their treating it like its a tobacco product by not putting out flavors. At the same time though, I can see why they did that... since the FDA prolly wouldn't of allowed it either way.

[yvilla]

Okay Jerry, let me break it down for you in a way that is maybe easier to understand.

A statute is passed that says: It will be hereinafter illegal to wear yellow shirts made out of cotton.

Do you know how foolish you would sound saying "Omigod, they are going to prevent me from wearing my favorite blue nylon shirt"?

Although the statute only outlawed yellow cotton shirts, you mistakenly assumed it outlawed all shirts.

That is exactly what you are doing here. The PACT Act, as written, covers "cigarettes" and "smokeless tobacco" products. Both of those things have a specific definition found in the act. They are two specifically defined kinds of tobacco products, out of the whole universe of "tobacco products" (it doesn't cover cigars, or pipe tobacco, either).

You are saying that if the ecig is ruled a "tobacco product" (a shirt), omigod the PACT Act must apply to it, despite the fact that it only applies to specific tobacco products (yellow, cotton shirts).