Docket Update November 10, 2009

**Sun Vaporer** · 11-10-2009, 05:20 PM

Originally Posted by JustMeAgain

I've been wondering - What if a decision simply doesn't come down - or as LegalOne says, it takes years?

We've heard SE's shipments have been released -does that also mean that other shipments are not being seized?

Just me--This is a ruling on a Motion we are waiting for, not a final decision. Rulings on Motions do not take "years". Legal One is simply saying ---"it takes time".

Originally Posted by SheerLuckHolmes

This is the only case that we are giving attention to, for obvious reasons.

How many cases might Judge Leon have before his court? How many of those are of more significance (to the gereral public ~ to the law community ~ etc.) than this one? Might this have some barring upon why or how one case (ours) can get pushed to the bottom of the stack?

To the Contrary, this case if very important with regards to the actions of many people including AG's offices in several states waiting for this decision.

Originally Posted by Mitty

Sun:

The only thing I can think of, having worked in a law firm for a while, is that there may be some closed door , 3rd party arbitration going on which may make the ruling moot. He might be waiting on that outcome before making his ruling public. Thoughts ?

-Mitty

Mitty---Well we just had Counsel for SE come on and state in no uncertain terms that the FDA will not back down on their postion and there are no negotiations going on. The parties want a legal ruling.

Sun

**Legal One** · 11-10-2009, 05:50 PM

Be careful what you use as the benchmarkl for time. Bear in mind that this started as a challenge to FDA authority then became a determination of the proper placement of FDA authority followed by several supplemental briefs and motions. All things considered the totality of the case has been sitting for about a month and change. Saying it has been 6months is overlooking the subsequent events.

**Sun Vaporer** · 11-10-2009, 05:55 PM

Originally Posted by Legal One

Be careful what you use as the benchmarkl for time. Bear in mind that this started as a challenge to FDA authority then became a determination of the proper placement of FDA authority followed by several supplemental briefs and motions. All things considered the totality of the case has been sitting for about a month and change. Saying it has been 6months is overlooking the subsequent events.

Correct Legal and we are. I do not thing a ruling is going to be that far out now.

Sun

**Bill Godshall** · 11-10-2009, 06:15 PM

The FDA has been painting itself into a corner on this issue, and hopefully agency officials will begin recognizing and reconciling their incompatable and excessive regulatory schemes for both (and nearly identical) smokefree tobacco products and smokefree nicotine products (as compared to cigarettes).

And hopefully, the FDA will soon acknowledge that ALL smokefree tobacco/nicotine products (especially ALL low-nitrosamine smokefree tobacco/nicotine products) are vastly less hazardous alternatives to cigarettes, that smokers have a human right to truthful health information, and that the agency has an ethical duty to truthfully inform smokers about the comparable risks of different tobacco and nicotine products.

The following news excerpt indicates that Reynolds is now negotiating to buy Niconovum
Niconovum AB | Market leading Nicotine Replacement Therapies | Zonnic and/or its patents, which share many similarities to e-cigarettes (both are smokefree nicotine products marketed as alternatives to cigarettes). A key question for Reynolds is whether to market these products as tobacco products, drug-devices for smoking cessation, or perhaps a combination of both. This also could help convince the FDA that its time to develop reasonable, responsible and compatable regulations for all smokefree tobacco/nicotine products.

Also, yesterday Joel Nitzkin and another AAPHP member spoke to FDA's Josh Sharfstein and Lawrence Deyton (at the APHA conference in Philly) about the criticial need to for FDA to develop sound regulations for all smokefree tobacco/nicotine products.

"RICHMOND, Va. (AP) _ Reynolds American Inc., maker of Camel cigarettes and Grizzly smokeless tobacco, is in talks to buy a Swedish company that helps people stop smoking, a tobacco expert who said he was briefed by people close to the talks told The Associated Press Monday.

The second-largest U.S. tobacco company is eyeing Niconovum AB, which sells cigarette replacement products in gum, pouch and spray form outside the U.S., according to David Sweanor, a Canadian law professor and tobacco expert.

The deal, which could be worth $44.5 million, could be imminent, he said.

Sweanor said Reynolds' interest in Niconovum may be focused on offering smoking alternatives rather than products meant to help people stop using nicotine and tobacco.

"The market's coming to understand that nicotine products exist on a very broad continuum of risk, and cigarettes are at the far risky end of that, and it's possible to have far less hazardous products that would probably meet the needs for a very significant number of smokers," Sweanor said.

The possibility of a deal between Reynolds and Niconovum was first reported by the Wall Street Journal.

Karl Olov Fagerstrom, an expert on smoking cessation and nicotine dependence, formed Niconovum in 2000, according to its Web site. Niconovum did not immediately return calls seeking comment.

Reynolds American spokesman David Howard declined to comment."

**Vocalek** · 11-10-2009, 06:54 PM

Dr. Fagerstrom developed the famous "Test for Nicotine Dependence." I visited the site and was impressed by this statement:

Niconovum believe that there is a market for a range of NRT products that will deliver nicotine more quickly and effectively than those currently available, thereby giving the consumer a perceived better control of cravings.

Zonnic pouches (non-tobacco), gum, and mouth spray are the products.

**ritalin** · 11-10-2009, 07:04 PM

Originally Posted by PhiHalcyon

You make a great point in regards to the truth about some smokeless tobacco products, but what would an ecig ad look like if you couldn't talk about what is not in the vapor, or why it is less harmful than smoking regular cigarettes? What's the point in having a product with such benefits and not being able to tell consumers about them?

You seem to feel that all consumers are mindless idiots, in an information vacuum. Lets not even talk about the non-add based information available on the internet which the FDA CAN NOT remove. You also seem to be forgetting about word of mouth which is still a very powerful consumer tool. Just because a company can not make heath claims about its product does not mean that the heath claims will not exist and be spread to other consumers. The FDA would not be able to stop me from stating to friends and family that I can now breath better, have more energy, etc.... and it was all from switching to the e-cig.

I hate to point fingers PhiHalcyon, but you seem to be a very, glass is half empty kind of person.

**deewal** · 11-10-2009, 07:24 PM

I don't care who win's, loses or draws anymore. I just want this bloody thread to disappear.

**lotus14** · 11-10-2009, 08:16 PM

Originally Posted by deewal

I don't care who win's, loses or draws anymore. I just want this bloody thread to disappear.

Umm...you might wanna just stop reading it then.

After the ruling there will be countless posts about what it means and how the appeal(s) stack up and when and the new lawsuits challenging FDA regulations yet to come and...