FDA Lawsuits more concerning

[zoiDman]

I stand in opposition to the idea that they want to tax rather than ban.
Taxing is the secondary goal, should the first goal fail.

So if you and AndriaD have found common ground, I'll go ahead and stand in opposition.
We have to keep the thread interesting.

That's Cool DC2. I can see why Someone may feel that way.

It just don't make Economic sense to Me to Ban e-Cigarettes. I'm not even sure it could Legally be done once e-liquids that contain Nicotine are Deemed a "Tobacco Product".

It is also Very Hard to get the Tooth Paste back in the Tube once it is Out.

 

[Kent C]

[/THREAD]

huh?

 

[DC2]

huh?

That means you killed the topic by posting all that needs to be said.

 

[LaraC]

So if you and AndriaD have found common ground, I'll go ahead and stand in opposition.
We have to keep the thread interesting.


EDIT: I didn't even know that you and AndriaD had a thing going on
EDIT: I'm usually up on these things
EDIT:

To be clear, I'm not laughing AT either zoiDman or Andria. It's just that my quirky sense of humor got tickled bigtime by DC2's tongue-in-cheek "EDIT" silly remarks. Still laughing...

 

[Kent C]

That means you killed the topic by posting all that needs to be said.

Ah... a drop the mic moment :- ) While that may be true, that never happens. lol.

 

[Lessifer]

I'm not sure if they're being orchestrated by the anti-vaping crowd, but the timing of the lawsuits is definitely serendipitous for them. I do believe in the right to sue, but I despise frivolous lawsuits. I wish people would have their facts straight before rushing to sue, like, was I lied to or did I just form a false impression? Have I been "harmed" by this lie? Who is responsible for the safety of X?

These lawsuits certainly don't help us, because most people don't care who wins. The headline is the important part, and you don't even have to actually go to court to get the headline that Company A is being sued for lying about X. God forbid Company A decides to settle, for less than the cost of an expensive trial, because we all know that a settlement is an admission of guilt, right?

The lawsuits may not be ANTZ driven, the media spin on them definitely is.

 

[AndriaD]

I stand in opposition to the idea that they want to tax rather than ban.
Taxing is the secondary goal, should the first goal fail.

So if you and AndriaD have found common ground, I'll go ahead and stand in opposition.
We have to keep the thread interesting.


EDIT: I didn't even know that you and AndriaD had a thing going on
EDIT: I'm usually up on these things
EDIT:

I just think it's funny and flat out amazing that I actually agree with him about something, considering that at first I thought he was an ANTZ troll. Think I even had him on ignore for awhile, but that was only because of a spat going on between him and another user that was just plain annoying. Once that was over, I realized that his "bristles" were actually quite a lot like my own. Lots of people disagree with me, too. (oh and I also just looooooooooove Jethro Tull but that's probably a different thread! )

Andria

 

[DC2]

I just think it's funny and flat out amazing that I actually agree with him about something...

Is there ANYONE here on this forum you ALWAYS agree with?

 

[AndriaD]

Is there ANYONE here on this forum you ALWAYS agree with?

To answer that question... I don't think so. Most of those in THIS thread, I agree with MOST of the time... but not always. But the thing about *most* of those in this thread, is that at least reading their posts doesn't insult my intelligence. (ETA: except for zoid's random capitals of course, but that's a given. )

Andria

 

[Jman8]

I'm not sure if they're being orchestrated by the anti-vaping crowd, but the timing of the lawsuits is definitely serendipitous for them. I do believe in the right to sue, but I despise frivolous lawsuits. I wish people would have their facts straight before rushing to sue, like, was I lied to or did I just form a false impression? Have I been "harmed" by this lie? Who is responsible for the safety of X?

These lawsuits certainly don't help us, because most people don't care who wins. The headline is the important part, and you don't even have to actually go to court to get the headline that Company A is being sued for lying about X. God forbid Company A decides to settle, for less than the cost of an expensive trial, because we all know that a settlement is an admission of guilt, right?

The lawsuits may not be ANTZ driven, the media spin on them definitely is.

What would something ANTZ driven look like to you (or anyone reading this)?

I obviously think it is ANTZ driven, but am curious why I'm one of a few that thinks this. Like is it possible to you/others that regulations on vaping (state or national) are ANTZ driven? If yes, how might one go about proving that?

I'll also just note that it doesn't really matter who wins the suit UNLESS plaintiffs in suit lose and have to pay all fees, cause in reality, the suit is secondary to idea of making vaping vendors spend lots of money on defending claims that consumers didn't feel lied to.

 

[DC2]

These lawsuits COULD be ANTZ driven, but in this case they probably are not.
At least in my opinion.

But we've seen the ANTZ attempt to drive lawsuits, so we KNOW it's possible...
The Rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary: Action on Smoking and Health Encouraging Lawsuits Against Electronic Cigarette Sellers Over Hidden Carcinogens

 

[Lessifer]

What would something ANTZ driven look like to you (or anyone reading this)?

I obviously think it is ANTZ driven, but am curious why I'm one of a few that thinks this. Like is it possible to you/others that regulations on vaping (state or national) are ANTZ driven? If yes, how might one go about proving that?

I'll also just note that it doesn't really matter who wins the suit UNLESS plaintiffs in suit lose and have to pay all fees, cause in reality, the suit is secondary to idea of making vaping vendors spend lots of money on defending claims that consumers didn't feel lied to.

As a definite ANTZ driven suit, I would expect either a plaintiff or one of the backers to be the Center for Tobacco Control, or any one of the alphabet gang, ALA, ACS, etc. and if it weren't california(for the most part) I'd be much more suspicious. California has groups of lawyers who make incredible amounts of money filing prop 65 suits and ADA suits.

They very well could be backing these suits, I just haven't seen any direct evidence to suggest that. It doesn't really matter though, because they will USE the suits in their favor.

 

[Jman8]

As a definite ANTZ driven suit, I would expect either a plaintiff or one of the backers to be the Center for Tobacco Control, or any one of the alphabet gang, ALA, ACS, etc. and if it weren't california(for the most part) I'd be much more suspicious. California has groups of lawyers who make incredible amounts of money filing prop 65 suits and ADA suits.

They very well could be backing these suits, I just haven't seen any direct evidence to suggest that. It doesn't really matter though, because they will USE the suits in their favor.

So one of the plaintiffs (lawyers) has gone after more than one vaping company and has won I think the largest suit in U.S. history for person suing BT claiming they had no idea traditional cigs posed any harm to its users (this years after MSA). The law firm, I believe, is based in FL.

From what I've seen so far on this issue, this would easily be way more effective way to bring down the vaping industry. Bankrupt the companies via the suits, and don't have vapers resist them at all, as it is mostly to only about those evil companies.

With the suits that exist so far, and what they are purporting:
1. didn't know product contained nicotine
2. didn't know product contained carcinogens
3. didn't know product contained DA/AP
4. was told product was safe/healthy (alternative)

...I do not see a vaping vendor currently existing that is beyond the idea of being sued. And the alternative to not getting sued is to fully comply with the harshest of regulations from FDA. But even then, they could still be sued for they weren't always like that and if plaintiff can make case (simply by filing suit) that the company wasn't always aligned with strict regulations, then the lawsuits will always be open UNLESS entire industry agrees to some sort of MSA, acknowledging that eCigs are inherently dangerous and are deserving of high taxes to take care of all the ensuing problems that are likely to occur from a consumer base that doesn't know any better than what the evil vendors are trying to get away with.

Here's hoping I'm way off base on this position. But if I'm right, this will be done to us when we said we were most politically active and resisting harsh changes, and done with many vapers saying "they should be sued!"

 

[Lessifer]

So one of the plaintiffs (lawyers) has gone after more than one vaping company and has won I think the largest suit in U.S. history for person suing BT claiming they had no idea traditional cigs posed any harm to its users (this years after MSA). The law firm, I believe, is based in FL.

From what I've seen so far on this issue, this would easily be way more effective way to bring down the vaping industry. Bankrupt the companies via the suits, and don't have vapers resist them at all, as it is mostly to only about those evil companies.

With the suits that exist so far, and what they are purporting:
1. didn't know product contained nicotine
2. didn't know product contained carcinogens
3. didn't know product contained DA/AP
4. was told product was safe/healthy (alternative)

...I do not see a vaping vendor currently existing that is beyond the idea of being sued. And the alternative to not getting sued is to fully comply with the harshest of regulations from FDA. But even then, they could still be sued for they weren't always like that and if plaintiff can make case (simply by filing suit) that the company wasn't always aligned with strict regulations, then the lawsuits will always be open UNLESS entire industry agrees to some sort of MSA, acknowledging that eCigs are inherently dangerous and are deserving of high taxes to take care of all the ensuing problems that are likely to occur from a consumer base that doesn't know any better than what the evil vendors are trying to get away with.

Here's hoping I'm way off base on this position. But if I'm right, this will be done to us when we said we were most politically active and resisting harsh changes, and done with many vapers saying "they should be sued!"

I agree, I'm just not positive that the suits are ANTZ driven. There is no doubt that they will benefit the ANTZ objectives. I also agree that all of this will happen with at least some of the vaping "community" cheering them on. It seems like every move against vaping has at least some support from vapers, and that makes me sad, and angry, and glad that I bought my first bottle of nic for the freezer.

 

[AndriaD]

I agree, I'm just not positive that the suits are ANTZ driven. There is no doubt that they will benefit the ANTZ objectives. I also agree that all of this will happen with at least some of the vaping "community" cheering them on. It seems like every move against vaping has at least some support from vapers, and that makes me sad, and angry, and glad that I bought my first bottle of nic for the freezer.

I agree. As much as I'm in favor of "wronged" people, or lied-to people, having the right to sue, this is a really bad time for anyone in that position to exercise that right, just because of the hayday it provides for the ANTZ. I think it has to come down to, "ok, I was wronged, but if I sue, I could be part of wronging the entire vape industry and vape community" -- I believe in personal, individual rights, but I do think there are times to consider the well-being of the "herd", and that sometimes the rights of the herd may outweigh the individual's rights.

When we were frantically looking for a house to buy, that we could afford and get into in time to prevent becoming homeless because of our landlady's zeal to raise our rent to cover her under-water mortgage, we found one house we really liked, I mean, liked a LOT, and it was affordable. But we discovered that the lady who owned this home was short-selling because HER mortgage was underwater, and she was trying to sell it to someone she knew, who was going to let her keep living there and pay a moderate rent. We had every right to buy that house, and could have competed fairly on the price with her preferred buyer -- but I decided that we would gracefully withdraw our offer, to allow her to proceed as she preferred -- because I knew just how it felt to be facing the threat of homelessness, and I didn't want to have any part of her becoming homeless. We then found a house that suited much better, cost less, and was closer to my husband's job -- I interpret that as a karmic blessing for not helping that lady to homelessness.

Foregoing one's individual rights, in this situation, would definitely benefit the entire herd of vapers and the industry that supports them.

Andria

 

[Jman8]

What I also don't understand (fully) is we fight against harsh regulations via CTA's and the like. We fight them because our perception is that not fighting them will just allow regulations to take the 10,000 (or so) companies and whittle it down to 5 (or so).

That part I understand, but if we are also saying "all vendors that lie ought to be sued" then why not just favor the regulations that make it so "lying" would be far more challenging? I mean if regulations make it so full disclosure on every conceivable aspect of the product is being done, then consumers (who say they care) ought to favor regulations. Yes, it may get rid of a whole bunch of players, but the suits do the same thing and vapers are seemingly okay with that type of whittling down, then it seems challenging to understand why same type of vaper wouldn't support (harsh) regulations.

So challenging that the divide being created over this (in my mind, without leadership weighing in) strikes me as I'm not sure we are on same side when CTA's occur. It's not like CTA's always result in uniform action/words, so any (alleged) vaper could be using the CTA to ... well, you know.

I guess I wonder if anything being thrown at us (pro-vaping enthusiasts) right now to make vaping as non-free market as possible is seen as 'ANTZ driven?' Like is FDA deeming of eCigs as a tobacco product, ANTZ driven, for you? Or is the existence of FSPTCA, ANTZ driven, for you? Both of these items benefit ANTZ objectives, but are they actually driven/orchestrated by ANTZ?

To think we have to even ask that type of question here in 2015, and weeks away from the deeming just boggles my mind.

Perhaps it is all just good science and caring individuals that are making all these things happen, and while it may not work out well for vaping consumers, dem da breaks.

 

[Lessifer]

I agree. As much as I'm in favor of "wronged" people, or lied-to people, having the right to sue, this is a really bad time for anyone in that position to exercise that right, just because of the hayday it provides for the ANTZ. I think it has to come down to, "ok, I was wronged, but if I sue, I could be part of wronging the entire vape industry and vape community" -- I believe in personal, individual rights, but I do think there are times to consider the well-being of the "herd", and that sometimes the rights of the herd may outweigh the individual's rights.

When we were frantically looking for a house to buy, that we could afford and get into in time to prevent becoming homeless because of our landlady's zeal to raise our rent to cover her under-water mortgage, we found one house we really liked, I mean, liked a LOT, and it was affordable. But we discovered that the lady who owned this home was short-selling because HER mortgage was underwater, and she was trying to sell it to someone she knew, who was going to let her keep living there and pay a moderate rent. We had every right to buy that house, and could have competed fairly on the price with her preferred buyer -- but I decided that we would gracefully withdraw our offer, to allow her to proceed as she preferred -- because I knew just how it felt to be facing the threat of homelessness, and I didn't want to have any part of her becoming homeless. We then found a house that suited much better, cost less, and was closer to my husband's job -- I interpret that as a karmic blessing for not helping that lady to homelessness.

Foregoing one's individual rights, in this situation, would definitely benefit the entire herd of vapers and the industry that supports them.

Andria

I believe in the right to sue, but in the cases that I've seen so far either there is no actual harm that has been done, or in the few cases where someone has been physically harmed by something like a battery related fire, I believe the wrong party is being sued.

Of course I see many topics as still highly debatable while others see them as black and white. Every time I ask for actual evidence of harm, I am disappointed, but that doesn't stop them from making the claims.

What I also don't understand (fully) is we fight against harsh regulations via CTA's and the like. We fight them because our perception is that not fighting them will just allow regulations to take the 10,000 (or so) companies and whittle it down to 5 (or so).

That part I understand, but if we are also saying "all vendors that lie ought to be sued" then why not just favor the regulations that make it so "lying" would be far more challenging? I mean if regulations make it so full disclosure on every conceivable aspect of the product is being done, then consumers (who say they care) ought to favor regulations. Yes, it may get rid of a whole bunch of players, but the suits do the same thing and vapers are seemingly okay with that type of whittling down, then it seems challenging to understand why same type of vaper wouldn't support (harsh) regulations.

So challenging that the divide being created over this (in my mind, without leadership weighing in) strikes me as I'm not sure we are on same side when CTA's occur. It's not like CTA's always result in uniform action/words, so any (alleged) vaper could be using the CTA to ... well, you know.

I guess I wonder if anything being thrown at us (pro-vaping enthusiasts) right now to make vaping as non-free market as possible is seen as 'ANTZ driven?' Like is FDA deeming of eCigs as a tobacco product, ANTZ driven, for you? Or is the existence of FSPTCA, ANTZ driven, for you? Both of these items benefit ANTZ objectives, but are they actually driven/orchestrated by ANTZ?

To think we have to even ask that type of question here in 2015, and weeks away from the deeming just boggles my mind.

Perhaps it is all just good science and caring individuals that are making all these things happen, and while it may not work out well for vaping consumers, dem da breaks.

I think you know that I don't agree with the suits that have been filed. No actual harm, wrong party being held accountable, self inflicted injury due to lack of knowledge, etc.

I think what people bristle at the most with you, is that you point out the same things that I point out, that in most cases we are fighting ourselves. We are fighting our own hypocrisy. I just avoid stating that we are fighting the "ANTZ among us" because it tends to make people stop reading. I am able to recognize that when you say that someone's argument is ANTZ-like, you are not accusing them of being an ANTZ spy, you are simply pointing out that the possibly unintended consequences of an action or attitude can be very pro-ANTZ. No one likes to read that they are contributing to their own downfall. I for one am glad that you point it out.

 

[Jman8]

I believe in the right to sue, but in the cases that I've seen so far either there is no actual harm that has been done, or in the few cases where someone has been physically harmed by something like a battery related fire, I believe the wrong party is being sued.

I believe in right to sue as well. I think though that the right is abused (like many other rights) and that in this case it is tantamount to 'right to regulate.' These suits are making all sorts of claims about eCigs in their document. Like the suits could be written as "while vaping is very popular and a very good thing, our plaintiffs feel they were lied to. Here's what we expect to show in court to prove our case." Instead, the suits are written as, "while vaping is very popular, it is a dangerous thing, and our plaintiffs were lied to which plausibly endangered them. They were harmed so badly, they lost money from vendors who are clearly greedy and harming their consumers. We expect to show in court all the ways in which vaping is probably dangerous, and how defendants are contributing to that."

I think what people bristle at the most with you, is that you point out the same things that I point out, that in most cases we are fighting ourselves. We are fighting our own hypocrisy. I just avoid stating that we are fighting the "ANTZ among us" because it tends to make people stop reading. I am able to recognize that when you say that someone's argument is ANTZ-like, you are not accusing them of being an ANTZ spy, you are simply pointing out that the possibly unintended consequences of an action or attitude can be very pro-ANTZ. No one likes to read that they are contributing to their own downfall. I for one am glad that you point it out.

Fair point being made, and I'm glad it came from you.

I've gone as far as saying ANTZ are within us, as in within me, Jman8. I've expounded on this point more than once, and choose to do it again because of what you are conveying. I find it nearly impossible to be 100% non-ANTZ and live on this planet today. Thus, I don't really expect anyone to have zero degrees of ANTZ in them. But do hope that all people will think critically on that when the rhetoric is espoused. To honestly embrace their own ANTZ ideology and to overcome it (in their own way).

When I say ANTZ-driven, I am talking about people amongst us (very likely not active members on this forum) who fully support the rhetoric and are taking actions (their own version of CTA's) to a) eradicate nicotine / tobacco from the planet, or at very least from recreational use and b) shaming users along the way. I think the second one is actually the ultimate goal, even while politically, the first one is easier to relate to, regardless of how viable it actually is. But the shaming part, however that appears, is the part that critical thinking, honest discussion can plausibly overcome. Might not, but is very possible and deserving of critical rebuttal.

If the rhetoric toward vaper or vendor is only about how shameful their behavior is and there is lack of being critical, then I'm compelled to jump in and change that dynamic. And not hold back, while also very likely not engaging in ad hominem. When I do engage in ad hom, I like to be called out on it. Cause I very much enjoy attacking the point(s) of ANTZ while hopefully not attacking the poster.

 

[AndriaD]

What I also don't understand (fully) is we fight against harsh regulations via CTA's and the like. We fight them because our perception is that not fighting them will just allow regulations to take the 10,000 (or so) companies and whittle it down to 5 (or so).

That part I understand, but if we are also saying "all vendors that lie ought to be sued" then why not just favor the regulations that make it so "lying" would be far more challenging? I mean if regulations make it so full disclosure on every conceivable aspect of the product is being done, then consumers (who say they care) ought to favor regulations. Yes, it may get rid of a whole bunch of players, but the suits do the same thing and vapers are seemingly okay with that type of whittling down, then it seems challenging to understand why same type of vaper wouldn't support (harsh) regulations.

So challenging that the divide being created over this (in my mind, without leadership weighing in) strikes me as I'm not sure we are on same side when CTA's occur. It's not like CTA's always result in uniform action/words, so any (alleged) vaper could be using the CTA to ... well, you know.

I guess I wonder if anything being thrown at us (pro-vaping enthusiasts) right now to make vaping as non-free market as possible is seen as 'ANTZ driven?' Like is FDA deeming of eCigs as a tobacco product, ANTZ driven, for you? Or is the existence of FSPTCA, ANTZ driven, for you? Both of these items benefit ANTZ objectives, but are they actually driven/orchestrated by ANTZ?

To think we have to even ask that type of question here in 2015, and weeks away from the deeming just boggles my mind.

Perhaps it is all just good science and caring individuals that are making all these things happen, and while it may not work out well for vaping consumers, dem da breaks.

I think the FSPTCA is probably, mostly ANTZ-driven -- with the unintended side-effect of limiting BT's competition. This crap with the FDA... I think the bad non-science that they're basing some of it on, is definitely ANTZ-driven... but the whole affair, with its CLEARLY INTENDED side effect of driving 99% of the vape industry out of business, is mostly money-driven -- all the big players -- BT, BP, and of course the tax-man -- are scared silly of what vaping is doing and is going to do to their comfy little niches and cash cows, so they have to squash it, just to maintain any portion of the status quo.

What they don't get, they REFUSE to get, is that the status quo is already dead, just from the millions who've already switched and have no intention of being cowed by this stupid regulation. Sure, they can hang on to probably a good percentage of those who still smoke, for probably some indefinite time, because of these regulations -- but the genii is out of the bottle, the ship has already sailed, and it's really just a matter of time before vaping overtakes smoking by at least 90%, if not entirely. They're clutching at straws to hold back that tide, but eventually, they will fail. When something is KNOWN, it cannot be NOT KNOWN. Just like the nuclear bomb.

Andria

 

[Nimaz]

When I started smoking as a teenager, I wasn't well aware of the danger in cigarettes, yet I knew that was bad for me. They were sold without any warning at that time and extensively advertised in media especially targeting the youth. The law suites against the tobacco industry didn't prevent them to sell their products. They just added different kind of warnings on their packages and we kept smoking...

Based on this model, the law suites against the vaping industry, if validated, should not interfere with the sale of the their products even if they present known risks for our health. Instead, new labels stating the potential dangers will be required, like it is already for many other products in the industry. As it goes today, this is our sole responsability to educate our-self, evaluate the risks and decide how we vape, what we vape, with what we vape or if we should vape at all. I noticed, in some threads in here, some individuals seemingly aiming at digging material with potential relevance in law suite cases. It's just my opinion though, and of course, I can be wrong.

I have the impression that many vaping businesses are striving to make their products as safe as our knowledge of the risks goes. Whether it concerns the devices or the consumables, a business is at fault if it sells products not performing as advertised or with the knowledge of dangers without appropriate warnings. These businesses can fairly expect to be sued if someone get hurt or if they attract the attention of opportunists. I suppose that businesses which excel in these matters will survive over time because they are gaining customers confidence. The development of a heath of safety department that would address potential safety issues of vaping products would me a must from my stand point.

The fight against the banning of vaping products by the FDA is taking place at the Senate. I was addressed a response letter from the U.S. Senator Dean Heller for my support for the FDA Deeming Authority Clarification H.R.2058, which could prevent the FDA from banning the vaping products introduced after 2007. Our opinions seem to be taken into consideration, if companion legislation is introduced to the Senate for debate or a vote. I found that letter somehow encouraging.