CASAA Makes a Donation to Help Preserve Consumer Access to E-Cigarettes in Western Australia

[JustJulie]

Consumers in Western Australia are facing a particularly difficult situation now that the Supreme Court of Western Australia has ruled that the sale of e-cigarettes violates the provisions of Section 106a of the tobacco Products Control Act, an act designed to outlaw the sale of candy cigarettes. Even more inexplicable, the devices that were the subject of the legal action were not cigalikes and did not contain nicotine.

To help preserve consumer access to e-cigarettes in Western Australia, CASAA has made a donation of $500 to help fund the legal battle to keep e-cigarettes available to consumers in Western Australia.

While CASAA is a U.S. organization, we recognize that we are a part of a global community. We remain focused on our U.S. efforts, but we realize the importance of established organizations reaching out to assist with efforts in other countries when we can help make a difference.

The following website provides details about not only the court action, but also information about the trust fund and safeguards put in place to protect contributions towards this effort:Ecigs. Our right not to smoke Tobacco. by Vince van Heerden - GoFundMe

CASAA: CASAA Makes a Donation to Help Preserve Consumer Access to E-Cigarettes in Western Australia

 

[Nate760]

The way I understand it, in the majority of countries where there's a total prohibition on vapor products, it's due to the same situation as in Western Australia: because they have laws against products that "simulate smoking", and were enacted solely with candy/bubble gum cigarettes in mind. So it's like I was saying in the EU thread with respect to moral-panic based legislation; the real-world implications of such laws are never considered by those who author them, they're never close to what was intended, and they invariably wind up doing far more harm than good.

 

[JustJulie]

I agree, Nate, that many of these laws on the books that they're bludgeoning us with are being used in a manner never intended by the authors.

We're being beaten about the head with the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, and e-cigarettes were never the target when that act passed. In reality, the Tobacco Control Act was designed to make it virtually impossible for any new tobacco products to come onto the market. And yet here we are with a product that EVERYONE with an ounce of intelligence realizes is far, far less hazardous than smoking, and we're fighting for our very existence.

But back to Western Australia . . . my personal hope is that people will dig into their pocketbooks a bit to help out on this one. I've seen vapers generously contribute to efforts that were far less critically important than this. I keep thinking if a few thousand vapers donated even $5, the goal would be reached, and Western Australia would at least have a fighting chance.

It's sad, but so much of the advocacy often comes down to legal battles. Case in point, if Smoking Everywhere and NJOY hadn't challenged the FDA's actions back in 2009, chances are that FDA would have been successful in shutting down e-cigs as unapproved drugs.

Bad state action needs to be challenged.

 

[Nate760]

It's sad, but so much of the advocacy often comes down to legal battles. Case in point, if Smoking Everywhere and NJOY hadn't challenged the FDA's actions back in 2009, chances are that FDA would have been successful in shutting down e-cigs as unapproved drugs.

For a time, perhaps. But it was such a brazenly illegal act on the part of the FDA (and thus open to such a wide variety of legal challenges) that it's hard to imagine the end result not being what it was. The astounding thing is that they actually thought there was any chance of their actions being deemed legal and proper in a court of law.

 

[AndriaD]

The entire e-cig debacle just goes to show you what horrors and miscarriages of justice await any gov't that tries to get into the morality business. The gov't has no damn business trying to say one word about morality or personal choices. The entire MSA was a HUGE miscarriage of justice, I knew even then when it passed, and now we're seeing how that miscarriage is playing out -- to our detriment!

Kudos to CASAA for trying to lend a helping hand to Australia. They deserve healthier choices as much as anyone else does.

Andria

 

[Nate760]

The entire e-cig debacle just goes to show you what horrors and miscarriages of justice await any gov't that tries to get into the morality business. The gov't has no damn business trying to say one word about morality or personal choices.

Moreover, as we often talk about around here, government cannot simultaneously be in the business of safeguarding individual rights and socially engineering someone's vision of a health and safety utopia. The two concepts are antithetical and mutually exclusive. You have to pick one or the other. If rights are what we value, then the right to do stupid things with your own body in your own home is no less important than any other right.

 

[JustJulie]

For a time, perhaps. But it was such a brazenly illegal act on the part of the FDA (and thus open to such a wide variety of legal challenges) that it's hard to imagine the end result not being what it was. The astounding thing is that they actually thought there was any chance of their actions being deemed legal and proper in a court of law.

I agree . . . brazen, indeed. But the fact is that the only way to challenge FDA's actions at that point was a lawsuit.

And while it seems so terribly self-evident now that it was gross over-reaching by the FDA, at the time, there were some serious concerns about which side would prevail in the lawsuit.

 

[NorthOfAtlanta]

Moreover, as we often talk about around here, government cannot simultaneously be in the business of safeguarding individual rights and socially engineering someone's vision of a health and safety utopia. The two concepts are antithetical and mutually exclusive. You have to pick one or the other. If rights are what we value, then the right to do stupid things with your own body in your own home is no less important than any other right.

Not to mention taking 60% of the price of a pack of cigarettes and trying to claim no reason except health and the children for attempting to ban a 99% safer product.

It's still follow the money and yeah BP I'm looking at you too.