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

[Vocalek]

This case ultimately boils down to whether nicotine will be allowed to be used like alcohol, caffeine or any number of products that have some physical effect on the body but are not used for therapeutic purposes.

And the irony of all this is that, when you separate it from the deadly delivery method (tobacco smoke), nicotine is the least harmful of these substances.

[raddiver]

I'm really not trying to be argumentative here, but here is my argument...lol:

Nicotine is not a tobacco product. Nicotine is in all plants and is used in photosynthesis to gain food from sunlight.

While it's true that tobacco contains higher amounts of nicotine than most plants, it certainly is not unique to tobacco.

Also, synthetic nicotine can be built in the lab. So, a question to those on here like me who ponder this weird stuff: When I create nicotine in a lab am I manufacturing a tobacco product?

Of course not. I am creating a chemical necessary to all plants that stay alive using photosynthesis. By this logic I think it most prudent to conclude that nicotine is NOT a tobacco product because it is not unique to tobacco.

Then is nicotine a drug? No.

In pharmacology, a drug is "a chemical substance used in the treatment, cure, prevention, or diagnosis of disease."

Drug - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nicotine does acutely effect the body, but only temporarily so. So does vodka. So does caffeine....Then when you have that morning coffee, are you doing drugs?

Of course not.

I can find no logic that would allow me to conclude that nicotine is a tobacco product or a drug. Therefore the ecig cannot be a drug delivery device nor can juice be seen as a tobacco product.

I was kind of thinking along these same lines.
What if nicotine was extracted from eggplant (second in quantity to tobacco, but is still a much lower amount) rather than tobacco?
What footing does the fda have then?

[PhiHalcyon]

As far as the argument that the e-liquid contains a small fraction of derived from tobacco and is therefore not derived from tobacco because it is not "primarily" derived from - that is incorrect - the active ingredient at issue here - nicotine - is 100% derived from tobacco.

This essentially conforms with my earlier assumption, but, in taking a closer look, I had a difficult time gleaning such an interpretation from the definition of tobacco product. Nonetheless, assuming you are correct, what is to prevent the FDA from classifying SE's product as an unapproved modified risk tobacco product? Even still today, it took me less than a minute to find this statement on SE's website: "Smoking Everywhere E-Cigarette has no tobacco, no tar, no real smoke and no other chemicals like traditional cigarettes that are known to cause lung cancer."

[Sun Vaporer]

I was kind of thinking along these same lines.
What if nicotine was extracted from eggplant (second in quantity to tobacco, but is still a much lower amount) rather than tobacco?
What footing does the fda have then?

It comes down to the intended use--IE--are these, in Judge Leon's opinion being used to mitigate tobacco use and hence are really nothing more then NRT for long and indefinite use. Where the nicotine comes from is not relevent.

Sun

[Our House]

There really is a problem with the "intended use" argument when a product (such as this one) has many intended uses. For example, let's say that the (main) intended uses of an ecig are as follows:

Quit smoking - 30% of users
Healthier - 15 % of users
Save money - 15% of users
Smoke indoors - 20% of users
Get rid of the smell - 10% of users
Avoid use of matches, lighters, ashtrays - 5% of users
Reduce risk of fire - 5% of users
etc...

Now granted, the "majority" intends to use ecigs as a smoking cessation product. But it's not the COLLECTIVE majority! Why should 70% of users suffer because of the intended use of 30%? The FDA's stance is flawed here and they know it.

[BigJimW]

Court closed today for the Holiday---wonder if Judge Leon is pondering it or is on the golf couse today---what do you think---and this is a true rendition of Judge Leon-


Sun

Where did you find that cartoon? Is it an editorial drawing?

[Sun Vaporer]

Where did you find that cartoon? Is it an editorial drawing?

BigJim--it appeared in an MSNBC article about Judge Leon's ruling in litigation over detentions at Guantanamo.

[Legal One]

What is preventing FDA from classifying an e-cigarette as a "modified risk tobacco product" is FDA itself - they insist it is a drug. It is a correct statement that an e-cigarette contains no tobacco - it is not correct to state that it is not derived from tobacco. The intended use is the same as a traditional cigarette. the basis for the remaining staements are the subject of ongoing litigation so I can not comment. Again, if the FDA is correct in its position, all e-cigarettes, vaporizers and the like are illegal - producing and selling them would be a felony and this whole thread becomes moot. If it is a tobacco product then we can move on to developing the approriate regulations, testing criteria, permissible components, permissible statements (we still have a 1st amendment although that is eroding too) and so on.

[Sun Vaporer]

What is preventing FDA from classifying an e-cigarette as a "modified risk tobacco product" is FDA itself - they insist it is a drug. It is a correct statement that an e-cigarette contains no tobacco - it is not correct to state that it is not derived from tobacco. The intended use is the same as a traditional cigarette. the basis for the remaining staements are the subject of ongoing litigation so I can not comment. Again, if the FDA is correct in its position, all e-cigarettes, vaporizers and the like are illegal - producing and selling them would be a felony and this whole thread becomes moot. If it is a tobacco product then we can move on to developing the approriate regulations, testing criteria, permissible components, permissible statements (we still have a 1st amendment although that is eroding too) and so on.

So Legal One concurs that NJOY is in the same boat as SE. This business about a split decision never sounded right to me and was a lot of "cheerleading' for NJOY just becasue they made "no claims"---As previously stated, making no claims in not going to save the day. So NJOY is in the same boat.


Sun

[umop apisdn]

I'm really not trying to be argumentative here, but here is my argument...lol:

Nicotine is not a tobacco product. Nicotine is in all plants and is used in photosynthesis to gain food from sunlight.

While it's true that tobacco contains higher amounts of nicotine than most plants, it certainly is not unique to tobacco.

Also, synthetic nicotine can be built in the lab. So, a question to those on here like me who ponder this weird stuff: When I create nicotine in a lab am I manufacturing a tobacco product?

Of course not. I am creating a chemical necessary to all plants that stay alive using photosynthesis. By this logic I think it most prudent to conclude that nicotine is NOT a tobacco product because it is not unique to tobacco.

Then is nicotine a drug? No.

In pharmacology, a drug is "a chemical substance used in the treatment, cure, prevention, or diagnosis of disease."

Drug - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nicotine does acutely effect the body, but only temporarily so. So does vodka. So does caffeine....Then when you have that morning coffee, are you doing drugs?

Of course not.

I can find no logic that would allow me to conclude that nicotine is a tobacco product or a drug. Therefore the ecig cannot be a drug delivery device nor can juice be seen as a tobacco product.

I don't know if what you're saying can make sense. "Drug" has no universally accepted definition. Pharmacology defines it the way you do, straight out of wikipedia (everyone knows how reliable wikipedia is).

I personally agree with the first statement in article though. "A drug, broadly speaking, is any substance that, when absorbed into the body of a living organism, alters normal bodily function." As far as I'm concerned, nicotine definitely still affects me acutely. I still get that nic rush when I finish a good vaping session.

Just because nicotine is a plant derived substance doesn't mean it's not a drug either. Look at ..., psilocybin [sp?], divinorin, caffeine, opium, ......., or any other poison you can think of. Can you say they are not drugs?

Digressing, is there anything wrong with drugs fundamentally? Of course there's a societal stigma brought upon by the "War on Drugs", and of course many do have adverse affects on health from frequent and habitual use. But then again, recreational drugs can make people happy. Think of the enjoyment you get from vaping. I'd like to say that we're guaranteed the right to make our own decisions on matters like these, it falls under "pursuit of happiness".

Just because it's legal now, does it really mean that it's not a drug? Of course most people don't like to see themselves as drug users, but once you really look at it head on, and accept that the things you were taught in D.A.R.E. in middle school aren't necessarily full truth, it's not as bad as you think.

Everyone knows its a stimulant and does cause bodily damage (although, definitely not as much as the effects from smoke of a cigarette) and it's definitely more harmful and more addictive than nearly any other drug you'd find on the street. Only hard drugs can compete with it. Just because nicotine doesn't adversely affect your life like other drugs can doesn't mean it's not one either.

tl;dr: Nicotine is a drug, learn to accept that fact. (It doesn't mean it's a bad thing!) It may not be a pharmacological one as there aren't any accepted medical benefits from it, but it's still a drug nonetheless. With the logic you gave, even crack isn't a drug.