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

[JustJulie]

Kristin----

When I cried out in this this thread for ECA or some other group to file a Amicus Brief with Judge Leon to no avail, I repeatedly asked for a group day after day, until Alliance came up. Alliance did not disclose itself on this Forum till the Brief was filed.

I knew we had a group under way as I was bombarded with PM's with questions from one Alliance member about if they were on the right track. Good for Alliance and glad I could answer any questions the Alliance member had.

So for the same reasons, good ones I might add, that Alliance did not disclose till they filed, such is the case here.

Also I do not think my posts are somehow "cryptic" in any way. If anything they clearly spell out the theory of the case.


Sun

I was one of the original members of the Alliance who filed the brief. The original group was quite small, for obvious reasons, and we all kept our own counsel, speaking only to each other and our attorney. I would be very surprised if any of the original group contacted you while we were in the process of preparing the brief. Frankly, you are not an attorney, and while you obviously have some knowledge of the law, we had legal counsel. There was no need to consult you.

While we did not feel the need to consult you or seek advice from you in filing the brief, we did feel badly that you were so obviously blind-sided. In fact, your posts immediately after our filing were actually sowing seeds of panic as you posted about how you had never seen such a thing, how you didn't know who the Alliance was, and how the judge wouldn't allow the brief to be admitted without the names of the Alliance members appended to the petition.

We promptly came forward because we were concerned about the rampant speculation, speculation that you were fostering. Once we came forward, all the posts you made that displayed your lack of knowledge were deleted, presumably by you. To anyone who followed the thread at that time and saw the posts made during those several hours, it was abundantly clear that not only were you not at all involved in advising on the brief, you had no idea that a brief had even been prepared.

After the brief was filed and after we confirmed it with our attorney, we let folks know that anyone who wanted to join the Alliance for purposes of supporting the brief were welcome to do so. Perhaps it is one of those folks who joined after the fact who was "bombarding" you with PMs, but, if so, they were not involved in the original filing.

My purpose in posting this is not to embarrass you, but, rather, to suggest that while you've provided a valuable service to the vaping community and to the ECF forum in general, I can't help but feel that you've set yourself up as some sort of legal expert here, someone with some sort of inside knowledge, and it's not at all clear that you really do have such an expertise.

I have been on this forum since January of 2009, more than a year now. I have followed this thread from the beginning. In that time, I have seen you delete (1) posts from Legal One, lead counsel for SE, (2) posts from Yvilla, a licensed attorney, and (3) your own posts when down the road facts and events proved you wrong and made you look less than credible.

I would respectfully request that if you seek to give advice and opine on this thread under the guise of being some sort of legal expert, you share with the members of the forum what expertise and background you have. In that way, those of us who follow this thread can better decide how much weight and credibility to give your pronouncements.

[Sun Vaporer]

Sorry JustJulie--but that is just hot air, smoke and mirrors. Go read the first post of this thread. Your contentions are a mere pretext and I am not going to respond to nonsense like that. Personal attacks are not warranted as they show desperation. Let people make their own case.
　
As for the Brief, smoke again. I still have the PM's asking how, what, where, when, and why when it came to filing an amicus brief. Your entire post was simply a planed attack and unremarkable and all you did was shed bad light on yourself.
　
Sun

[Sun Vaporer]

Good lord...

Everyone seems to be stuck on the tofu reference .

It was used in an analogy concerning harm reduction and was not a comparison to nicotine. It was simply an analogy comparing a low fat healthier item (Tofu) to a higher fat not-so-healthy item (Red Meat).

As in... An E-cig = usually a lower level and far cleaner (or healthier) form of nicotine delivery when compared to the higher content and far dirtier (not-so-healthy) form found in cigarette smoke.

That's all I was saying.


And sure, nicotine is a poison. But, I don't know of anyone that has been poisoned by an e-cig which makes that as close to a moot point as you can get (imo) when discussing electronic cigarette safety.


As far as the two choices go (if that's all we have), I simply prefer the drug tag over the tobacco tag and have stated my reasons why.

Very soon after e-cigs get recognized as either a tobacco product or as a drug, we will know exactly how close all of us are in our opinions on the matter.

I do hope so my friend----but I think it is going to take a long time to see an end result---we can only hope for the best and step up to the plate as often as we can where needed.

Sun

[Mister]

More then one can "carry the flag"

I heartily agree with this. And I'm sure Kristen, Thulium, and all of CASAA agree, and that they will support as many initiatives as possible. I think some hackles have been raised on this thread for the usual reasons which occur in written communication via the net, reasons which actually don't matter at all and should now be forgotten. You all respect each other, have the same goals, and will support all productive undertakings on behalf of e-cigs. Wrong or right in recent (mis)interpretation of typed communications, time to get on with the good work.

If an action to entirely deny FDA's jurisdiction over e-cigs can be funded this really is awesome news. If it can eventually be won then the efforts to reclassify as tobacco can be dropped with great celebration.

If while such an action is progressing, or if it fails, an action to reclassify as tobacco succeeds then that's a pretty big win too. Not as great a win but still a great step forward from the current situation.

In either case I think that things which increase public awareness are even more important for the long term. A win in either case leaves doors open (much less so in the no FDA regulation action, but still there I expect) to specially tax and/or restrict e-cig usage via specific regulations such as those currently proceeding in a few states. The best way to preclude those problems in both cases will be public awareness. The more people who understand that e-cigs can save 450,000 American lives per year (over 1,200 per day!) the better. Although smokers are a minority, I expect that a majority of the population has at least one loved one. That e-cigs can nearly eliminate those people's 50% chance of dying prematurely will have to be the basis of the long term win in both cases.

What we most need is impartial coverage from major media. Having them question the blocking of a device which can save 1,200 lives per day is what will sway opinion. I don't know how to make this happen but I do believe that the more attacks, especially legal ones, against the FDA's current position, the better.

[JustJulie]

Sorry JustJulie--but that is just hot air, smoke and mirrors. Go read the first post of this thread. Your contentions are a mere pretext and I am not going to respond to nonsense like that. Personal attacks are not warranted as they show desperation. Let people make their own case.
　
As for the Brief, smoke again. I still have the PM's asking how, what, where, when, and why when it came to filing an amicus brief. Your entire post was simply a planed attack and unremarkable and all you did was shed bad light on yourself.
　
Sun

Just because someone asked you about filing an amicus brief doesn't mean that person was involved in the filing of the AES amicus brief.

What I really want to know is what background and expertise you have that makes you feel comfortable presenting yourself as a legal expert.

[rothenbj]

Then why did the police recently confiscate them from all places selling them here where I live?

Perhaps the FDA decided to declare the bongs and pipes unapproved medical devices. Have they also confiscated rolling paper, blunts and alligator clips, other potential drug delivery devices.

[rothenbj]

No one here can deny that CASAA is an important ally and friend to the e-cig community. That being said, it appears to me that CASAA is offended at not being informed of any new actions being taken by suppliers against the FDA.

IMO, CASAA would be an important ally in any new legal proceeding, but it is up to the suppliers to decide if and when they want CASAA involved. Apparently, Sun has some insider information, but it is not his right or duty to pass that information on to anyone, public or private.

I have read page after page of Sun defending himself and I don't think he deserves to be treated like that. Day after day he has, at his own expense, kept us informed as to what is happening in the courts. Without Sun, we would be pretty much in the dark.

That's my two cents worth. Post flames if you like, I can take it.

Well worded. I intended to post the same once I got to the end of the thread. It really hasn't read as Sun's place to speak up. We should all respect that. I believe that if you've paid close enough attention to what's been written here, you may get a fairly good idea of potential strategies.

My guess is that this direction is fairly new in overt action, but founded on direction taken early in the PVs introduction to the US market.

[Vicks Vap-oh-Yeah]

Kerist on a cracker! The first and immediate thought that comes to mind while reading the posturing on this thread is "zip up, people, and put the measuring tapes away!"

This pointless posturing does nothing but foster distrust and animosity between us. It's divide and conquer, people, and those arrayed against us are sitting back and watching the PV industry implode under the weight of its own egos.

I've read through the last 10 pages of drivvel on this thread with disgust. Wake up and smell what you're shoveling.

What do you want here? Do you want to be the one with the 'secret society' that saved vaping so you can lord it over the rest? Phhhhht! Utterly assinine, and childish to boot.

Here's the highpoints, for any and all who are interested:

-PV's have been available in the US market since 2007-8ish. They've grown in popularity since then.

-We've seen the formation of the ECA, CAASA, the Alliance & IVC. Now we're seeing another group being hinted at. These groups, from what I've seen, are hesitant to join forces with each other - more measuring and posturing, IMO, as each wants to be 'the one' who saved vaping. BAH!

-The FDA have long-since established their determination to control any and all things nicotine, and have the history to back up that determination and their RIGHT to do so. (Nico water, the lollypops, etc). They WILL have their say. Period. Congress has given them that right.

-The legal 'grey area' that PV's have enjoyed since their inception is coming to an end.

How do we want them regulated? So far, I've heard 3 theories bandied about. Drug, Tobacco, or Recreational Pharmaceutical. Each category has its problems. The discussion here should have been had a long time ago - pick a classification and stick with it. Have everyone on the same page, fighting the same fight. Every time we flip-flop our position, we are seen as a confused, angry, and disorganized group of desperate addicts, who will say anything to get our fix.

Consolidate, people! Make a decision, and follow it.


ONE purpose, ONE goal, ONE MILLION voices raised with ONE message! - Our right to VAPE!

Anything else is next of kin to chaos, and PV's go black-market.

[JustJulie]

-We've seen the formation of the ECA, CAASA, the Alliance & IVC. Now we're seeing another group being hinted at. These groups, from what I've seen, are hesitant to join forces with each other - more measuring and posturing, IMO, as each wants to be 'the one' who saved vaping. BAH!

Well, I can't say I disagree with anything you said, Vicks . . . even the stuff I didn't requote here.

I did want to eliminate any possible confusion, though, about the AES (or the "Alliance," as it's sometimes referred to). The AES was formed for the specific purpose of filing the amicus brief and it is not a continuing entity, per se. In fact, the original members of the AES currently belong to many different PV advocacy groups.

As for the division Vicks speaks of, she's dead-on accurate. At the end of the day, we all have a common goal . . . to keep PVs legal and accessible. If vaping is to be saved, it won't be by the work of a single individual or a single group . . . it will be because of a coordinated effort of many different people all working together for a common goal.

[laurieok]

ONE purpose, ONE goal, ONE MILLION voices raised with ONE message! - Our right to VAPE!

Exactly! You said it so well!! Thank you!