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

[opuscroakus]

If I, (and any one in my situation) are made to go back to that deadly form of tobacco, for any reason, constitutes "genocide" and "crimes against humanity", via "malice-a forethought"!

I know I am going to get slammed by many for this, but here I go...

If e-cigs are banned you will not be made to go back to smoking analogs for your nicotine fix. There are other sources for nicotine, but you will choose to smoke again and not use other forms of nicotine.

I am in the same situation as most of you in that I want my nicotine in as harmless a form as possible, hence the reason I vape. No one made me switch to vaping or start smoking, it was a choice.If they ban e-cigs I will probably go back to smoking, again by choice.
Let the bashing begin. I am wearing the flame retardant suit.

[eric]

I know I am going to get slammed by many for this, but here I go...

If e-cigs are banned you will not be made to go back to smoking analogs for your nicotine fix. There are other sources for nicotine, but you will choose to smoke again and not use other forms of nicotine.

I am in the same situation as most of you in that I want my nicotine in as harmless a form as possible, hence the reason I vape. No one made me switch to vaping or start smoking, it was a choice.If they ban e-cigs I will probably go back to smoking, again by choice.
Let the bashing begin. I am wearing the flame retardant suit.

Regardless, by removing the option to use a preferred alternative to tobacco cigarettes the FDA is infringing on our right to the pursuit of happiness. If the FDA was to tell you, "You are no longer allowed to eat beef, chicken or lamb. Only tofu, fish, vegetables and fruit for you from now on," what would you say? Would you not consider it unconstitutional? The same fundamental rights are being challenged. Our rights to choose as our habits, practices we believe to be safest for ourselves. We don't need the government meddling in our personal lives, and many of us won't allow it. If they ban e-cigarettes, I will continue vaping.

If you choose to go back to smoking, then you're right: It is your choice.

[jmvallee]

I know I am going to get slammed by many for this, but here I go...

If e-cigs are banned you will not be made to go back to smoking analogs for your nicotine fix. There are other sources for nicotine, but you will choose to smoke again and not use other forms of nicotine.

I am in the same situation as most of you in that I want my nicotine in as harmless a form as possible, hence the reason I vape. No one made me switch to vaping or start smoking, it was a choice.If they ban e-cigs I will probably go back to smoking, again by choice.
Let the bashing begin. I am wearing the flame retardant suit.

I agree... the hand habit of vaping is what appealed to me. No other NRT worked for me to calm the terrible cravings ( I was a chain smoker..)
Plus all I wanted to replace it with was FOOD which made me gain unhealthy amounts of weight (equally as bad for me).

If forced by the gov't to give up my e-cig, I would try to find an underground market before I would return to analogs.

I'm also wearing the flame retardant suit

[opuscroakus]

Regardless, by removing the option to use a preferred alternative to tobacco cigarettes the FDA is infringing on our right to the pursuit of happiness. If the FDA was to tell you, "You are no longer allowed to eat beef, chicken or lamb. Only tofu, fish, vegetables and fruit for you from now on," what would you say? It is the same rights being challenged. Our rights to choose what we believe to be safest for ourselves. We don't need the government meddling in our personal lives, and many of us won't allow it. If they ban e-cigarettes, I will continue vaping.

If you choose to go back to smoking, then you're right: It is your choice.

I agree with what you say. I definitely don't want it taken away and will fight to be able to vape, but if it is unattainable by any means then I will make the choice at that time.

Hope this makes a little more sense.

[jj2]

My view of Opus's point of view.
Okay, a given. But the smoker also made the choice of smoking and then turned around and sued, and won, against tobacco companies. A president has been set. So, if the FDA bans the ecig and the ecig user goes back to tobacco and gets cancer or whatever from this choice that was forced onto them, the FDA could be sued.
AND, if I was on the jury, I'd make the FDA pay big time. So would most of my non-smoking family.

[Sun Vaporer]

My view of Opus's point of view.
Okay, a given. But the smoker also made the choice of smoking and then turned around and sued, and won, against tobacco companies. A president has been set. So, if the FDA bans the ecig and the ecig user goes back to tobacco and gets cancer or whatever from this choice that was forced onto them, the FDA could be sued.
AND, if I was on the jury, I'd make the FDA pay big time. So would most of my non-smoking family.

JJ--that simply is not the law. You do not have a Right to Vape and the FDA can not be held liable for anything they have done. Blame the Manufactures for not following proper protocal.


Sun

[Nestran]

Regardless, by removing the option to use a preferred alternative to tobacco cigarettes the FDA is infringing on our right to the pursuit of happiness. If the FDA was to tell you, "You are no longer allowed to eat beef, chicken or lamb. Only tofu, fish, vegetables and fruit for you from now on," what would you say? Would you not consider it unconstitutional? The same fundamental rights are being challenged. Our rights to choose as our habits, practices we believe to be safest for ourselves. We don't need the government meddling in our personal lives, and many of us won't allow it. If they ban e-cigarettes, I will continue vaping.

If you choose to go back to smoking, then you're right: It is your choice.

Actually, it's more like them saying you cannot buy pre cooked beef, chicken, or lamb (Ejuice). You must buy it uncooked (Cigarettes) because those that are selling it cooked are not making sure the food is ok.

If you don't want the uncooked then you can go to a restaurant like McPatches, Nicotrol King, or Long John Nicogum. Your choice but no un cooked.

Nestran

[eric]

Actually, it's more like them saying you cannot buy pre cooked beef, chicken, or lamb (Ejuice). You must buy it uncooked (Cigarettes) because those that are selling it cooked are not making sure the food is ok.

If you don't want the uncooked then you can go to a restaurant like McPatches, Nicotrol King, or Long John Nicogum. Your choice but no un cooked.

Nestran

Fair enough. The point is, in an ideal society (as America is supposed to be), the government would not have authority over our bodies.

[misterME]

Fair enough. The point is, in an ideal society (as America is supposed to be), the government would not have authority over our bodies.

Alright...don't get me wrong; I'm not unpatriotic. But since when has this country ever been the ideal you describe above? It has been common practice in this country since its inception to legislate some small group's sense of morality to the entire population. Ironic, since this country was supposedly founded on the "separation of Church and State."

If we'd been smart, we as a people would've demanded the "separation of Bank and State." It has always been about money, and it always will be. Not that any other country isn't. Moolah makes the world go 'round. And those who have it or know how to use it as leverage can make anything happen. The rest of us just get stuck with the bill.

[Synthnadz]

Actually, it's more like them saying you cannot buy pre cooked beef, chicken, or lamb (Ejuice). You must buy it uncooked (Cigarettes) because those that are selling it cooked are not making sure the food is ok.

If you don't want the uncooked then you can go to a restaurant like McPatches, Nicotrol King, or Long John Nicogum. Your choice but no un cooked.

Nestran

I'm not sure that your analogy is fair, in all truth. Your 'uncooked' cigarette option has been well-tested and proven to be extremely unsafe. So, it is confirmed as 'very much not OK' - yet for some reason, you're allowed to poison yourself with it freely.

The 'cooked' version - electronic cigarettes - hasn't been legitimately proven to be safe or unsafe in the FDA's eyes, but the little science we do have and every rational assumption point to it being a zillion times safer then a cigarette could ever be. There lies the irony - and the source of my outrage.

If the FDA had proven regular cigarettes to be unsafe and banned their use, then I'd only be half as frustrated as I am. That particular 'food' is undeniably deadly, yet we're allowed to eat it as long as the government gets its tax dollars along with the huge contributions it receives from big tobacco.

The only thing cooking here is hypocrisy.