So...now that we know the names of the judges, let's all write some letters!
Certainly they won't be admissible in court; however, judges are people at the end of the day...and their personal experiences are bound to influence their decisions...
What if each judge receives a few hundred letters imploring them to keep e-cigs legal with a plea from each individual telling his/her story as to how e-cigs saved our lives, how long we've been vaping with no ill effects, etc...
what says, y'all?
Firebrand Electronic Cigarettes - Pure Moxie! http://www.firebrandcigs.com
GREAT IDEA worth a try!
Per Luisa's comment, I'm not aware of any legislation pending in US Congress that would negatively impact e-cigarettes.
No movement on the docket.
Thank you, Julie.
DON'T go back to smoking, no matter what the FDA does.
Going back to smoking will be a huge loss for you, in more ways than one.
Therefore one would need to be extreamly careful so as not to reguard these products purely as smoking cessation devices which would essentially validate one avenue of FDA's assertion and subject them to many years of scientific testing and which would of course likely have them outlawed through the evaluation process. If they eventually ever came to market it would then be under the control of BP.
I do understand your comment about judges being people at the end of the day which seems reasonable to me. I would simply suggest that those who choose to foreward their sentiments choose their words wisely.
Mr. Godshall…let be begin by extending to you my gratitude for your perseverance in this important public health issue. While I am simply a laymen and certainly no kind of activist I have a great deal of respect for the people in our society who get involved in the process and effect outcomes…so long as they aren’t goring my ox.
I am sure most of us can agree that if there are ten people in a room it is unlikely that all ten people could agree that most grass is green. One of these people may be color blind or another may simply want to be difficult and insist most grass is teal. Who knows, a third may be smoking the grass and not even understand the question. Maybe he just wants a donut I don’t know. What we do know however is that “The Devil is in the Details“. Those of us who use our heads for more than just a funnel to our stomachs attempt to sift through the complex and make sense of semantics and other obfuscations.
That being said perhaps you would be so kind as to explain the meaning of the following excerpt :
Since the E-cigarette is not a tobacco product, it and other smokefree nicotine products would not be regulated by the Philip Morris / CTFK negotiated FDA tobacco legislation, which protects cigarettes and Philip Morris in the future at the expense of smokefree tobacco products.
I tend to do a lot of reading at night when I am fairly tired but if memory serves the fore mentioned paragraph is the first part of a post you submitted on this forum in June 2009. If my read on current advocacy positions is correct I should now support E-cigarettes being classified as tobacco products.
I may be able to understand a shift in position regarding the “classification” of E-cigarettes due to the date of that post in relation to the passage of the FSPTCA. After passage and interpretation of FSPTCA it became apparent that Congresses’ intent was to promote a reduced harm approach as well as to empower FDA to regulate those types of products. I can see the political expediency in concession although I do not necessarily agree with it. If a person vapes zero nicotine juice an E-cigarette becomes no more than an atomizer plain and simple, no more no less, lest packaging or marketing claims suggesting otherwise.
Again, how is one to interpret that paragraph? Just how is Philip Morris protected now and in the future and what is the expense to smokefree tobacco products?
Although I shouldn’t end on a sour note I feel compelled to mention my opposition to any further taxation on tobacco products of any kind. These so called “Sin Taxes” are discriminatory as well as being regressive.
If you honestly believe in a reduced harm approach then you must embrace the concept that those of us who choose to use products containing tobacco and / or nicotine will not abstain from their use simply because of increased costs.
The pie is simply divided into different proportions.
My Ox say Ouch!!! ….. By the way……
I am just fearful that some of the most biased Legislators might either propose a ban or attempt to pass a law requiring any new tobacco product go through lengthy testing which could drag on for years.
The FSPTCA, enacted by Congress last year after 5 years of aggressive lobbying, authorizes the FDA to regulate tobacco products (including new tobacco products). Besides, Congress has many other important issues to deal with, most of which won't be addressed this year because its a polemic and political election year.
Per SeriousLevity's comment/inquiry, I posted the statement
Since the E-cigarette is not a tobacco product, it and other smokefree nicotine products would not be regulated by the Philip Morris / CTFK negotiated FDA tobacco legislation, which protects cigarettes and Philip Morris in the future at the expense of smokefree tobacco products. during the same month Congress enacted the FSPTCA, and a month before I began urging the FDA (in July of 2009) to reasonably regulate e-cigarettes as tobacco products.
My goal has always been to attain reasonable and responsible regulations for all tobacco/nicotine products.
Although the FDA could have chosen to reasonably and responsibly regulate e-cigarettes as drug devices, the agency instead chose to try banning the import of e-cigarettes (which is not reasonable nor responsible) by classifying them as drug devices.
Thus, the only practical alternative is to convince the FDA to promulgate regulating e-cigarettes as tobacco products in accordance with the FSPTCA, which can be successfully attained via a victory over the FDA in the SE/NJOY lawsuit.