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

[jmvallee]

Sun or Legal One...If SE actually goes under while awaiting this decision, what is likely to happen? Seems like grounds for appeal to me.

[SheerLuckHolmes]

well at least it speaks volume about how he might feel about SE....

Since no one can see inside of the judges head, one could make an argument that the judge is taking his time so that more and more people become aware of e-cigs. The more that become aware and start using them the more ground swell there is to support their use.

We are just guessing without any true information and that will only drive us more nuts.

[LuckyCharm]

This article appeared prominently in my local paper today. Feel free to chime in, anyone! I already have (LuckyCharm), but would appreciate any backup!

[Sun Vaporer]

Sun or Legal One...If SE actually goes under while awaiting this decision, what is likely to happen? Seems like grounds for appeal to me.

JM---this simply is not going to happen. There is too much money at stake for SE and a ruling, one way or the other, is coming any day now---rest assured.


Sun

[Sun Vaporer]

This article appeared prominently in my local paper today. Feel free to chime in, anyone! I already have (LuckyCharm), but would appreciate any backup!

Lucky--The Doc makes a good point here:

"Dr. Ira Jeffry Strumpf, a pulmonologist who teaches at UCLA and is a spokesman for the American Lung Association, said e-cigarettes have not been independently proven as a safe alternative to tobacco.
“The vapor that you inhale is not without risk,” Strumpf says. “It’s not pure nicotine. It has with it some contaminants. When the FDA looked at 19 of these cartridges, they found half the samples contain impurities that are known to be toxic to humans."

Hopefully the NON FDA studies will show one way or the other exactly what is going on and I think we all want to know.


Sun

[yvilla]

Personally, I don't think that doctor makes a good point at all. Not when he fails to put the "impurities" or "contaminants" found in the FDA testing into perspective - with respect to quantitation, both in absolute terms and in comparison to FDA approved NRT products and cigarettes themselves!

Nor when he points to the fact that ecigs don't contain "pure nicotine", as if it were a negative. If they did contain "pure" nicotine, then that would definitely be a negative - for then they would be literally deadly. Thus, his failure to acknowledge that the admixture is primarily propylene glycol, a product approved for a myriad of pharmaceutical, inhalation and food uses for over half a century, is disingenuous.

Edit for afterthought: Dr. Rodu, on the other hand, does make a good point!

[Our House]

Question:

If a carcinogen is in quantities lower than the level of toxicity, should it still be called a "carcinogen"?

Because if that is the case with the FDA vs. ecigs (the NJOY Exponent report seems to suggest so), then one HAS to wonder how it can apply only to ecigs -- not other products -- and still not be completely misleading/disingenuous at the same time.

[Sun Vaporer]

well at least it speaks volume about how he might feel about SE....

Box--no one knows for sure what Judge Leon thinks about SE. The delay in the ruling may not mean anything. Rest assured though that his ruling will spell out exactly where he stands. I do hope we see something this week.


Sun

[Sun Vaporer]

Question:

If a carcinogen is in quantities lower than the level of toxicity, should it still be called a "carcinogen"?

Because if that is the case with the FDA vs. ecigs (the NJOY Exponent report seems to suggest so), then one HAS to wonder how it can apply only to ecigs -- not other products -- and still not be completely misleading/disingenuous at the same time.

Our House---good point and I hope it gets addressed. What the FDA was in no way represenative of a true study or evidence of any toxicity. Like I said, I do hope some good NON FDA studies are done to answer these questions once and for all.

Sun

[MrKai]

...that there is a great chasm between "we want to know"/"not proven safe" and "dangerous"...and this is where the "giving credit" has to be tread upon very, VERY lightly.

The anti-smoking people at the forefront are NOT honest about their aim. The want a nicotine prohibition.

I mean, look, any of us can gallop down to the neighborhood druggist and buy a big ol' bottle of glycerin, dilute it, and blow clouds of smoke like there is no tomorrow.

Does anyone, even the most cynical amongst us, think this is deadly? We need to get that settled right here, right now.

Moving on, there is nicotine. Don't drink 15mg of high concentration juice. Bad idea.

And flavorings. Ah yes, the flavorings of doom. Dilute oil based natural extracts. I'm thinking the fatality level here is going to be fairly low.

My point being this: We don't know that these things are as safe as air...and depending on where you live, "safe air" is quite oxymoronic.

But giving *any* credence whatsoever, even a little, to claims that even remotely shadow "cigarette smoking danger" levels is equally, if not more irresponsible because while we might not know the long-long-long-long term effects we do know what is actually in refill stuff from "reputable" distributors and we know what is in stuff we make ourselves and outside the nicotine, should one choose to use it, we have a ridiculously high level of certitude that no one is dropping over from usage.

If you want to say anything, the thing to say is that while the good doctor is correct, those test showed without a doubt that e-cigarettes are at least 99% less dangerous than tobacco ones.

-K