Search results

Do we, really? I consider my social circle to have a good number of affluent people, yet only lawyers I know are dealing with real estate and traffic tickets. I am not here because I am interested in legal arguments, I am here in spite of them, because I need my nicotine and want to stay...

Sheepherder, let me start with pointing out where we agree. Using cartoon advertising is bad for an adult product. However, this is not because cartoon advertising necessarily means that you're advertising to kids, rather that it can be easily abused by corrupt politicians as a vote-picking...

That was my guess as well, but Phi wasn't a lawyer, and Sheepherder claims he is. Although from his style of argument, I doubt he manages to persuade anyone in court, much less herd sheep :tongue: Seriously Sheepherder, if you're listening, it is almost like you try really, really, really...

Amazing news!!! I was just about to order extra attys from another supplier, but you made me wait :-)

It indeed does, I am using 901/510, but that makes it longer and bulkier. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using Tapatalk

Pozdrav svima iz Sj. Karoline!

I recently got eGo-T (Tank system), and for the first time, I am as excited (if not more), as I was 2 years ago, when I got my first 901. No more messing with carts, or spilling liquid while dripping. As close to consistent performance as you can get. I see that puresmoker carries regular eGo...

It's a Holiday. Courts, markets and other companies will be back to work tomorrow.

You can't have it both ways. Either solvents and vehicles don't affect the nature of a product, or intent has to have a great relevance. Otherwise a mixture between celluloses and tobacco that we commonly call a cigarette would trigger 201(rr)(4). Exactly, so are you conceding that it is a...

Again, it is arbitrary unless you define what you use for measurement. Is it mass, volume or something else? Where in the law is that stated? Once again, solvents, vehicles and excipients, do not change the nature of a product. Intent does. Stonewalls are actually good example. The fact that...

Simple. Candy is food. 201(rr)(4) prohibits mixing tobacco with food. PG/VG is indeed used to make candy as well as other foods or even drugs, cosmetics and dietary supplements but that doesn't make it food, drug, cosmetic or dietary supplement in our case. It is indeed sold as a skin product...

Where do you get the obviousness of the proportion from the above?!?!? Proportions in relation to what exactly? Mass, volume, taste, smell, ...? Just for fun, if it is mass, I'd say that more than 50% of those Virginia Slims are non-tobacco (paper and filter). My example with milk has a lot to...

Is this 50% something that was written in the law, or just your assumption? Either way, although it might seem intuitive, there are numerous examples where it just doesn't stand. Let's start with the fact that much of the milk used world wide is first condensed and then mixed with water from...

While this might work for practical purposes, it is still fraudulent. Remember, the reason why you're labeling it like that is to make customs think that some special rule applies to this address. Since it doesn't, you're effectively defrauding them. For example, there's no explicit law against...

In short, FDA appealed, and the court asked for details from the FDA until Thu, and the response until Mon. Until appeals court rules (possibly shortly after submission deadline on Mon), SEs and NJOYs shipments are still in limbo.

It is understood. However, you implied that while other suppliers might try to enter the case, it wouldn't make much difference. Which still holds true with regards to the final ruling. Nevertheless, final ruling can be months if not years from now, and during that time there's no way for other...

I agree, and I don't see them being able to argue that on the appeal. However, would they be able to bring it in as evidence during the regular trial?

Back to the drug classification, are we? Go and read the ruling. Judge already unequivocally said that the only recourse for FDA is to treat it as a tobacco product, because classifying it as a drug would destroy the wall between those two classifications that congress intentionally put there...

They can probably try to do that, but it can also be questioned in court. Especially the date, and "substantially equivalent" clause. Truthfully, the best recourse for FDA is to approach SE & NJOY and start discussing the regulation. Banning it outright would be beyond arrogant. Basically...

But he really needs it for his business to work out :D