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

[Vaporer]

Now I know why Sun had his sale ! lol

Thanks for the updates Sun, much appreciated.

[JerryRM]

Sun

Bribing a judge!!! That's ok, I won't tell anyone, I'll keep it a secret!!

[JerryRM]

It's been very quiet here today, too quiet!! Was there a ruling today??

[yknotagain]

As much as we all want some answers, I'm not sure any of us want to see it when it finally comes down.

[PhiHalcyon]

So possibly the liquid can be declared a tobacco product, as the propylene glycol would be a component of the tobacco product ...

On the surface of things, this does not seem like an unreasonable position. However, if this were to be considered a valid argument with e-liquid, then why not with nicotine candy, or nicotine beverages ... which are the very type of products that the combination provision is intended to prohibit?

The very existence of the special rule for cigarettes (regarding characterizing flavor additives) would tend to support the argument that mere additives to a tobacco product do not inherently constitute a violation of the combination prohibition. Nonetheless, when glycerin and/or propylene glycol make up at least 75% of the e-liquid product, it gets rather difficult to argue that they are mere additives. For, after all, additives are defined as: "A substance added in small amounts to something else to improve, strengthen, or otherwise alter it."

[SLDS181]

On the surface of things, this does not seem like an unreasonable position. However, if this were to be considered a valid argument with e-liquid, then why not with nicotine candy, or nicotine beverages ... which are the very type of products that the combination provision is intended to prohibit?

Or skincare products, various foods.... etc.

[PhiHalcyon]

Or skincare products, various foods.... etc.

Yes. Exactly.

[JacobT26]

On the surface of things, this does not seem like an unreasonable position. However, if this were to be considered a valid argument with e-liquid, then why not with nicotine candy, or nicotine beverages ... which are the very type of products that the combination provision is intended to prohibit?

The very existence of the special rule for cigarettes (regarding characterizing flavor additives) would tend to support the argument that mere additives to a tobacco product do not inherently constitute a violation of the combination prohibition. Nonetheless, when glycerin and/or propylene glycol make up at least 75% of the e-liquid product, it gets rather difficult to argue that they are mere additives. For, after all, additives are defined as: "A substance added in small amounts to something else to improve, strengthen, or otherwise alter it."

I don't quite agree with your point with the idea of nicotine candy, as propylene glycol is not sold as anything other than an additive in various things while candy is, well, candy. But I will agree that your points do hold water in the legal sense, and we really only have a slim chance for this to go our way.

[Sun Vaporer]

Today again is not the day Judge Leon has choosen to publish his ruling. Maybe before the weekend---at least we know that we do have one and it is going to come soon.


Sun

[yknotagain]

Once again, many thanks for all your work Sun.