FDA Any other News on Today's Court Arguments?

[Endor]

Nicotine free eliquid is not covered if you walk the tight rope. Free samples would be permitted since they are not covered. But, if you become successful, they will create the data set to show your product is expected to be mixed with nicotine and crush you. Absolutely no mention of their earlier stated reasoning: a hardware unit that may be used to vaporize a nicotine containing liquid is used to vaporize a nicotine free liquid; therefore, the nicotine free liquid that is used with the tobacco free tobacco product is now a tobacco product.

Very interesting observation...

There is also mention that an NFL may become a "tobacco product" based on how it is being used by the public; in other words, once somebody mentions mixing a NFL with nicotine in a public forum (like here) or social media, that NFL could then be classified as a tobacco product.

 

[zoiDman]

Very interesting observation...

There is also mention that an NFL may become a "tobacco product" based on how it is being used by the public; in other words, once somebody mentions mixing a NFL with nicotine in a public forum (like here) or social media, that NFL could then be classified as a tobacco product.

The Break Down in the FDA's Logic is just because someone Talks about doing something Doesn't mean that Congress gave them a Regulatory Authority to include a Non-Tobacco Product as Tobacco Product.

And Legally, does the FDA have a Legal Authority to Regulate Products based on what a User may do with them After the product has been Sold?

 

[Lessifer]

The Break Down in the FDA's Logic is just because someone Talks about doing something Doesn't mean that Congress gave them a Regulatory Authority to include a Non-Tobacco Product as Tobacco Product.

And Legally, does the FDA have a Legal Authority to Regulate Products based on what a User may do with them After the product has been Sold?

My question would be, does intended use even matter? Take Margarita Mix, there is no question that the intended use is to be mixed with alcohol, it's even in the directions on most bottles, though it can be used to mix "virgin" drinks as well, or for cooking. It is not regulated as an alcohol product, because it contains no alcohol.

 

[Alexander Mundy]

My question would be, does intended use even matter? Take Margarita Mix, there is no question that the intended use is to be mixed with alcohol, it's even in the directions on most bottles, though it can be used to mix "virgin" drinks as well, or for cooking. It is not regulated as an alcohol product, because it contains no alcohol.

Excellent analogy!

 

[zoiDman]

My question would be, does intended use even matter? Take Margarita Mix, there is no question that the intended use is to be mixed with alcohol, it's even in the directions on most bottles, though it can be used to mix "virgin" drinks as well, or for cooking. It is not regulated as an alcohol product, because it contains no alcohol.

Don't give them Any Ideas Les.

 

[Endor]

My question would be, does intended use even matter? Take Margarita Mix, there is no question that the intended use is to be mixed with alcohol, it's even in the directions on most bottles, though it can be used to mix "virgin" drinks as well, or for cooking. It is not regulated as an alcohol product, because it contains no alcohol.

I'm certain that the FDA is going to use any excuse to shut down zero-nic, so I'm sure there will be future litigation on the matter.

This analogy is a fantastic argument to the absurdity of intended use. What somebody does with a product once they purchase it and bring it home is nobody's business, and certainly not the government's.