Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20
Like Tree31Likes

Thread: Health Canada strikes again!

  1. #11
    Ultra Member Verified Member WillyZee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    2,222

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave_in_OK View Post
    IF Health Canada is interfering with ones livelihood with false claims could some form of class action suite be brought against them?
    would be very difficult ... and would take extremely deep pockets ... the vape industry is still in it's infancy here in Canada.
    Dave_in_OK likes this.
    Smoke Free since Sept. 22nd 2013 ... Keep Calm & Vape On

  2. #12
    Full Member ECF Veteran Greg__B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Ottawa, ON Canada
    Posts
    109

    Default

    The more we can grow the industry at this point, the better. The bigger we are and the bigger we get, the harder it is for them to stuff the genie back in the bottle.


    Sent from Mars using my Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator
    WillyZee likes this.

  3. #13
    PV Master Supporting Member AgentAnia's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Orbiting Sirius B
    Posts
    3,293

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Greg__B View Post
    For the most part, absolutely nothing. They continually refer to a press release directing people not to use them as they have not been deemed as safe that they issued in 2009. There has been no further info from them since though. They make the media think that ecigs are illegal in Canada but the simple fact is that that is completely false. This is just the tip of the iceberg of what we are dealing with here in canada as vapers.
    Am I correct in understanding that the only basis for Health Canada's actions against ecigs is their 2009 press release and that there is no actual law on the books outlawing ecigs?
    Uma likes this.

    "Since we don't know the long-term negative impacts of unchecked prohibitionists, the prudent move should be to ban prohibitionists until further evidence proving their safety and efficacy has been published." (Steve K's Vaping World)

  4. #14
    Full Member ECF Veteran Greg__B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Ottawa, ON Canada
    Posts
    109

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AgentAnia View Post
    Am I correct in understanding that the only basis for Health Canada's actions against ecigs is their 2009 press release and that there is no actual law on the books outlawing ecigs?
    Yes. That's exactly the case. Everything is based of of laws regarding nicotine for medical use. Despite the fact that what we're using is not a medical device. As long as you don't call it that, it's completely legal.


    Sent from Mars using my Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator
    Dave_in_OK and AgentAnia like this.

  5. #15
    Super Member ECF Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    CanTheBan
    Posts
    469

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AgentAnia View Post
    Am I correct in understanding that the only basis for Health Canada's actions against ecigs is their 2009 press release and that there is no actual law on the books outlawing ecigs?

    That is correct, below is a quote from the e-cigarettepolictics.com site on Canada's HC actions..

    In practice it appears that sales of the hardware are allowed, zero-nic refills are allowed; and nicotine refills are not prohibited by any law; but HC is bullying vendors to try and prevent nic refills from being sold. It is reported that vendors who refuse to submit to illegal threats cannot be prosecuted, since there is no law applicable. In this climate various difficulties will be experienced, but a prosecution does not seem likely.
    The most important is that vendors in Canada must not make health claims..
    AgentAnia likes this.

  6. #16
    Full Member Notorious C.I.G.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    132

    Default

    From the article:
    "The concept of vaping is one of concern," said Mohammed Al-hamdani, manager of health initiatives with Lung Association Nova Scotia. "It's a renormalization of smoking behaviour."

    The concept? If it's a form that doesn't kill you, what's wrong with normalizing it? Why can't an alternative to smoking that's magnitudes safer be embraced? I think it is just sigma hard wired into their simple brains... almost bigotry at this point really.

    loooks like smooooke, it must be baaad

    Only these zombies don't want our brains, that want or vapes... too bad, they could use some brains

  7. #17
    PV Master Supporting Member AgentAnia's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Orbiting Sirius B
    Posts
    3,293

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Notorious C.I.G. View Post
    From the article:
    "The concept of vaping is one of concern," said Mohammed Al-hamdani, manager of health initiatives with Lung Association Nova Scotia. "It's a renormalization of smoking behaviour."

    The concept? If it's a form that doesn't kill you, what's wrong with normalizing it? Why can't an alternative to smoking that's magnitudes safer be embraced? I think it is just sigma hard wired into their simple brains... almost bigotry at this point really.

    loooks like smooooke, it must be baaad

    Only these zombies don't want our brains, that want or vapes... too bad, they could use some brains
    Apparently Mr. Al-hamdani believes the majority of people are stupid enough not to be able to distinguish between vaping and smoking, or between an ecig and a lit tobacco cigarette. Yessiree, I can see that my ecig (day-glo orange eGo, ProTank mini, red agate drip tip) could be mistaken for a Marlboro red... and my peach-flavored vapor for cigarette smoke... yessiree

    Vaping does not "renormalize" smoking, it "normalizes" vaping!

    "Since we don't know the long-term negative impacts of unchecked prohibitionists, the prudent move should be to ban prohibitionists until further evidence proving their safety and efficacy has been published." (Steve K's Vaping World)

  8. #18
    Senior Member Verified Member
    Supporting Member
    Camay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Birmingham, AL
    Posts
    291
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Dave_in_OK: The answer is no. Health Canada is Canadian federal agency. Here, you cannot sue a federal government agency - they are protected by the government immunity doctrine (I am sure Canada has established this doctrine as well). What cmknight is suggesting would be the more appropriate way to handle the situation. It is the exact same procedure that we do here in the states when a tainted law requires an amendment, i.e., we call and write our congressmen to change or alter existing/proposed legislation.

  9. #19
    CASAA Activist Vaping Advocate
    ECF Veteran
    Supporting Member
    Vocalek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Springfield, VA
    Posts
    7,107
    Blog Entries
    7

    Default

    In the U.S., you can sue a Federal Agency, but cannot collect damages from them. For example, when the FDA issued an order to Customs officials to confiscate shipments of e-cigarettes coming in from China, Smoking Everywhere filed suit in the U.S. District of Columbia, seeking an injunction against the seizures. They had to prove that their business was being harmed and that the seizures were unwarranted to get the injunction, but could not get back all the monies that were lost. Soterra, Inc (d/b/a NJOY) joined in the suit. Many months later, the injunction was granted but then was lifted almost immediately when the FDA appealed the decision. When the appeals court upheld the lower court ruling (re-granting the injunction against product seizures), NJOY was the only plaintiff left because Smoking Everywhere had gone bankrupt.

    BTW: The ANTZ like to claim that the Federal courts ordered the FDA to regulate e-cigarettes as tobacco products. However, it is more accurate to say that this was a suggestion. Judge Leon noted that the FDA had presented no evidence that anyone had been harmed by the product. Nevertheless, if the Agency was concerned about product safety, it had an avenue other than regulating the products as drugs/devices under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act (FDCA). Since the definition of "tobacco product" was so broad that it included any product "derived from" tobacco, the Agency could regulate them as a "modified risk tobacco products" (MRTP) under the Tobacco Act. Little did the judge know that when the ANTZ were done with it, the "Guidance" for approval as an MRTP would be every bit as onerous as the regulations for gaining approval for a new drug or device under the FDCA. You can read the Judge's opinion document and see if you agree with my assessment. http://www.casaa.org/uploads/SE-vs-FDA-Opinion.pdf

  10. #20
    Ultra Member Verified Member
    ECF Veteran
    Supporting Member
    NorthOfAtlanta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Canton, GA
    Posts
    1,004

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vocalek View Post
    In the U.S., you can sue a Federal Agency, but cannot collect damages from them. For example, when the FDA issued an order to Customs officials to confiscate shipments of e-cigarettes coming in from China, Smoking Everywhere filed suit in the U.S. District of Columbia, seeking an injunction against the seizures. They had to prove that their business was being harmed and that the seizures were unwarranted to get the injunction, but could not get back all the monies that were lost. Soterra, Inc (d/b/a NJOY) joined in the suit. Many months later, the injunction was granted but then was lifted almost immediately when the FDA appealed the decision. When the appeals court upheld the lower court ruling (re-granting the injunction against product seizures), NJOY was the only plaintiff left because Smoking Everywhere had gone bankrupt.

    BTW: The ANTZ like to claim that the Federal courts ordered the FDA to regulate e-cigarettes as tobacco products. However, it is more accurate to say that this was a suggestion. Judge Leon noted that the FDA had presented no evidence that anyone had been harmed by the product. Nevertheless, if the Agency was concerned about product safety, it had an avenue other than regulating the products as drugs/devices under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act (FDCA). Since the definition of "tobacco product" was so broad that it included any product "derived from" tobacco, the Agency could regulate them as a "modified risk tobacco products" (MRTP) under the Tobacco Act. Little did the judge know that when the ANTZ were done with it, the "Guidance" for approval as an MRTP would be every bit as onerous as the regulations for gaining approval for a new drug or device under the FDCA. You can read the Judge's opinion document and see if you agree with my assessment. http://www.casaa.org/uploads/SE-vs-FDA-Opinion.pdf

    This, the government can spend unlimited amounts of our tax money to fight something like this without penalty and bankrupt those who would challenge them. See seat belt and alcohol laws and what they threatened the States with if they didn't tow the line.
    rothenbj and AgentAnia like this.
    Support CASAA http://casaa.org/


Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •