CBC Asleep at the Wheel: HASN'T Reported on Historic FDA Loss over E-Cigs!!

[rachelcoffe]

Hey there fellow Canadians!

OK it's currently 1:30am EST, December 8th 2010. Almost 12 hours have passed since Nasdaq.com reported yesterday on the historic ruling against the FDA, which ruled 3 to 0 (unanimously!!!!

) that the FDA does not have the authority to classify e-cigs as drugs or drug delivery devices and does not have the authority to prevent them from entering the U.S. Yeah!!

Unfortunately, incredibly...not a peep about it on CBC!

CBC News - Latest Canada, World, Entertainment and Business News will take you to their news page. There is a search option, which also lets you sort by date. I've searched using:

electronic nicotine
nicotine
fda nicotine

- and nada!!! The latest story they have on e-cigs is a 208-word non-story from October 26th (that inaccurately refers to e-juice as a "nicotine oil" no less, lol).

CBC is asleep at the wheel!!! This news should be a huge headline. It's up to us to push them to report on this amazing, wonderful news ASAP. Because they need to - at the moment, they're not even acknowledging the news at all! Here's how you can help, and it'll just take one minute. Go to:

CBC.ca - Contact Us Page

There's a phone number there, as well as an email form. My bet is that phoning & trying to get ahold of a live person would be better. But by all means, can't hurt to do both. Only a minute of your time is needed to briefly say "hey CBC, why haven't you reported on this historic ruling about electronic cigarettes? News outlets in the U.S. had it covered early yesterday afternoon" - it will make a difference!!! Here are two relevant news links to pass along to them:

Appeals Court: FDA Authority Over E-Cigarettes Is Limited
FDA Loses Appeal, Can’t Regulate E-Cigarettes as Drug - BusinessWeek

Please don't say "ah someone else will do it." It only takes a minute. We've been given such a gift with this news...we owe it to ourselves, vapers everywhere, the judges who ruled in our favour, and to the world...to take a minute or two to shake CBC awake.

And now...here's the post I wrote earlier in the huge thread regarding this case, stickied in the e-cigarette-news section of ECF:

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaay!!!!

This wonderful news is the best x-mas gift we could've hoped for. We're in Canada, but this is an excellent precedent that will radically strengthen our efforts here in Canada & those across the globe to see vaping continue & become more conspicuously available.

Many, many thanks to JustJulie as well for her tireless work in watching this docket throughout 2010 & keeping us informed.

A brief quote from the Nasdaq article:
WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- A U.S. federal appeals court in a decision Tuesday found that as long as electronic cigarettes aren't marketed as a way to treat or cure a disease, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has no authority to block the importation of the battery-powered products."

And from Businessweek:
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration lacks the authority to regulate electronic cigarettes as drugs or devices, an appeals court ruled, upholding a lower-court decision.

We'll say it again - yaaaaaaaaay!!! Happy holidays & merry x-mas all!! And happy vaping!

 

[VAPOINSANO]

amen ! rachelcoffe!!
you are absolutley right!!!
we as a pro ecig forum HAVE to get this snowball to avalanche !
i called already+hope many fellow canucks(vapors) do too, what can it hurt?
to sit and do nothing ,cmon all we seem to do is ....*+moan,
well heres to a good start, remember squeaky wheel eh!
V.I.

merry christmas to all...happy vaping!

 

[kanadiankat]

Thanks tons for the information!!!

This is the best news!!!

CBC - by the way - did report that Health Canada has decided to stop focusing on smoking cessation and start focusing on "stopping contraband tobacco". Which, in gov-speak, means they're finally coming clean that it's all about the revenue - and not about our health.

Canadian Vapers - now is the time to put the heavy shoulders to our MP's and demand some resolution to the nonsense we're abiding in this country over ecigs.

 

[rachelcoffe]

Agreed, V.I.!

Everyone, I copy & pasted my request for CBC to wake up & report on this three times. Once as a question re: their website, then as a question re: the CBC News Network, then a third time as a complaint re: their website. Alas I meant to share it with you here but I accidentally copied something else before pasting it into Notepad. But no worries, it was simple...along the lines of:

"Why has CBC not yet reported on yesterday's historic ruling on electronic cigarettes in the United States - a unanimous ruling against the FDA? Other news sites & agencies reported on it nearly 12 hours ago, but there is still nothing at all about it on your site. [Then I gave them the two links.] This wonderful, historic news is not only of major import to the United States, but will radically affect the future status of electronic cigarettes in Canada as well. I am shocked that you haven't reported on this news, and urge you to do so ASAP. Please wake up & smell the coffe! Sincerely.."

To kanadiankat...quite right! It's a shockingly shameful, thinly-veiled pro-tobacco position that Health Canada has taken. I could so go into that more, but I won't in this thread. Thankfully (and more importantly) Health Canada's anti-vaping baloney has just had its legs sharply kicked out from underneath it by this wonderful new ruling from down south.

Yesterday's unanimous ruling against the FDA from the U.S. Federal Court of Appeals was long-awaited, the product of a year's careful examination & reflection by that court. And above all, it was very clear. A huge precedent, the ruling will certainly strongly affect the future of electronic cigarettes here in Canada too. So yay!!

Anyway...let's press the CBC to report, folks. Ridiculous that we should need to...but since we apparently do need to, let's get to it! Thanks in advance for doing your bit.

 

[smokum]

CBC is too busy doing stories on police abuse, misdoings, and accountability, which IS a good thing, lol.... but hopefully they'll follow suit soon enough.

Regarding the US ruling.... it will be very interesting to see how this will now play out being covered under the Tobacco Act as far as sin taxing and indoor / public spaces use while being bundled with the whole "smoking" issue and public views. Seems like it just may only result in a department jurisdiction shift and not really make things for vapers any easier in the end aside from only making them readily available in general by avoiding the "medical device" approval nightmare.

Time will tell I suppose.......

VapeOn,
Greg

 

[rachelcoffe]

Greg - like you, I certainly hope they will report on this soon enough.

But as to the notion of the CBC "being too busy" reporting on other stuff...I don't at all follow. This is a huge news story. U.S. sources were already reporting on it yesterday. Nasdaq & BusinessWeek are not insignificant sources. We're not talking about a flaky blog somewhere. Unless I'm very mistaken about how news works, big news is big news is big news. In an open society, the media (especially taxpayer-funded media) has a duty to report such news. It's not at all a matter of "hmm, will we or won't we report on this?" - and it's certainly not a matter of "we have these three other stories...so we'll ignore this one." It doesn't work that way.

CBC is our flagship publicly-funded media outlet in Canada. For them to pretend like this news hasn't happened, or wait for goodness knows how long before mentioning it, is 110% unacceptable. It would be nothing short of censorship by omission. I mean why else would a major news outlet fail to report major news when it happens?

I urge every Canadian here on ECF - everyone (yes, you reading this!) - to do their civic duty by writing to and/or calling the CBC asap to demand why they haven't reported at all (not even in the smallest degree) on this huge, historic news story a day after it has broken & been reported on by other major U.S. news sources. This ruling will significantly bolster our cause here - news doesn't get any better for a vaper than yesterday's. But from every side, it is a significant, breakthrough development / news story. The ruling must be formally reported by the Canadian press.

Please don't delay, fellow vapers!

 

[Switched]

Not to pee on anyone's parade here, yes the ruling was a small victory to the US vaping community, but it is not over yet. The ruling only stated they cannot regulated it as a drug delivery device, and hence stopping/preventing imports into the US, under those grounds. If they are to be involved, the FDA can regulate it as a tobacco product. What does that mean? It means that if they are to regulate it, regulations will be developed, which takes time (good for us) BT have been working closely with the FDA on this for years now, BT is probably the only faction outside BP, to be able to meet FDA requirements (inside info). What does that mean to us? The average vendor will not be able to comply and stay in business, and you can bet your booties the industry will be taxed accordingly, because at the end of the day it had nothing to do about safety but lack of tax revenue.

OTOH "our" government does not necessarily have to follow in the footsteps of our Southern brothers. I can categorically say that vaping is safer, but I will categorically state that vaping is not 100% safe. I know.

BTW the glass is half full for those who wonder which side of the thinking fence I am on.

 

[dk2]

I don't have a problem with taxation. I do have a problem with certain types of regulation but then I welcome other types of regulation.

Here's what I want for regulation in regards to eliquid keep in mind this is my opinion.


eliquid to be taxed for (research, enforcement of regulations and for government coffers)
Only USP grade VG and PG to be allowed as the base liquid
flavoring to continue but only food grade flavoring
ingredient's listed on bottles
nic content listed on bottles
warning lables advising that product contains nicotine, must be kept out of reach of children and pets
child proof caps on all bottles containing eliquid being sold by vendors
bottles sizes that contain nicotine limited to thirty mls or less from vendors (larger sizes are dangerous)
no more than 36mg nic content per bottle (anything above this is dangerous)
no additives other than pg, vg, food grade flavoring, sweetener and alcohol (used to thin out liquids) - we don't need dangerous chemical additives such as the ones BT has put in cigarettes

 

[Mathew R Taylor]

Switched - I agree, but more exposure would be helpful. I relayed this information to CTV as well.

 

[rachelcoffe]

dk2, I totally agree with what you had to say. Ditto your post, Mathew. I would add triacetin to the list of safe e-juice ingredients though, dk2. It's GRAS, food-safe, a common flavour carrier, and part of the glycerin family. Inhalation tests have shown no outstanding issues. PG, VG & triacetin are all closely related. (I mention this mainly because triacetin is the main carrier in some of my favourite flavourings from Perfumer's Apprentice.)

Respectfully Switched, I disagree with most of your earlier post (which probably doesn't surprise you - we've had our differences before). This ruling was a huge victory for vapers, not a small one. (I mean if you consider yesterday's news "small"...what would it take for news to be "huge"?) Also, news sources such as CBC were quick to report the FDA's faulty misinformation & the case itself, over and over again, when there wasn't a decision. Why suddenly no interest when a decision favourable to vapers is reached?

Secondly, I don't believe there will ever be (or ever could be) a sin tax on e-cigs or e-juice...at least, not in Canada. With tobacco, the justification for such a tax is very clear. Tobacco smoking is proven to place an immense burden (financial & otherwise) upon society. With vaping, there's no such burden on public health or what have you...hence no justification. If anything, increased vaping would benefit society & do much to relieve present burdens. There's no way for our government to explain sin-taxing it that would make a lick of sense (including "lost tobacco tax revenue!" as I'll explain further down). Especially in the event that vaping was fully freed from Health Canada's quasi-ban (which would be a prerequisite to any talk of taxation). Freed from the quasi-ban, the full facts about vaping would become far more known to far more Canadians...and those facts would reveal - yep - that there's no justification to tax vaping beyond HST.

Thirdly, just about everything in life is not categorically 100% safe. Sitting still in a chair is not 100% safe, lol.

Any decent doctor will tell you that a simple thing like the caffeine content within coffe can (technically) be harmful to a person with high blood pressure. Does that mean the average person should be leery of it? No. A cold can technically be very serious to an elderly person, or someone who is already quite ill. But for the average person in good health, a cold is little more than a chance nuisance to endure for a few days. Along the same line...to the average person in good health, vaping (with nicotine, at the average levels found in e-juice, or without) is no more harmful than consuming caffeinated coffe. I don't want to rehash any arguments about nicotine in this thread...but there is more than enough conclusive evidence to support what I've said.

Anti-vaping interests love to blow miniscule negatives (such as the tobacco-specific nitrosamines in nicotine, measurable only at parts per trillion) waaay out of proportion. I think it behooves us to focus on the overall practical reality of vaping's safety, rather than give our enemies ammo by unnecessarily focusing on a miniscule negative (like the nitrosamines) that - when viewed in context - has no real practical bearing on vaping's safety. Nicotine is naturally present in tomatoes too - but in such a small quantity that it is not worthy of mention. You see what I'm saying? We need to keep a proper perspective on these things.

Fourthly...I don't agree that regulation of e-cigs or e-juice as "tobacco products" would put most vendors out of business. Far from it. Regulation exists to ensure quality control, routine testing, proper labelling, material quality, etc etc etc. Regulation has not hampered the ability of NRT, for example, to be marketed & sold. The vaping industry has thus far done a remarkable job, overall, of self-regulating (and let's not forget, the countries where PV's & e-juice are made maintain strict regulatory & monitoring standards as well). Health Canada could easily allow the open sale of e-cigs & e-juice today, and conduct the same sort of regulatory monitoring that it does for other industries that sell product within Canada. The reason they haven't is because they don't want the product to be authorized, period, for political reasons.

Fifthly (and I really didn't want to go into this point within this thread)...if knowledge of vaping & the conspicuous availability of e-cigs & e-juice become widespread in Canada, and the majority of smokers then quit smoking & start vaping (I have little doubt that such will occur under those circumstances - discovering vaping is for a smoker like discovering a long-thought-impossible dream come true)...there will be far, far more overall tax revenue gathered from that healthier, happier, longer-lived population - in everyday life (working, consuming, selling/buying etc etc)...than an unfairly propped-up tobacco tax could ever dream of earning through the sale of a deadly, now-obsolete product to a sickened, demoralized population facing the certainty of painful, premature death. Factor in the billions of healthcare dollars too that will be saved when they are no longer being used out of necessity on tobacco-related illness...and the financial benefit to the government's coffers is even larger. An embrace of vaping in Canada not only makes moral & medical sense...it makes economic, financial sense. Tobacco is no longer sustainable.

We are in a fight to see the unfair, harmful restrictions on vaping completely removed so that all Canadian smokers can learn about the miracle of vaping & have it available to them. They deserve that knowledge, and that choice. So that they can do what we lucky few have already done: leave deadly tobacco behind forever. And on this day of all days, when vapers down south have won a significant victory that will affect us all...I think we ought to focus on the positive. There are bumps enough in the road ahead; let's take encouragement from the sections that have been smoothed for us.

You & I are probably never gonna reach an exact consensus on most of these things, Switched. But we can agree to disagree & still respect each other. You're a valued member of our vaping community, and I'm glad you are.

But I think we've also gotten way off-topic, lol! Let's please keep the focus of this thread on getting the CBC to report yesterday's long-awaited, wonderful ruling from the U.S. Federal Court of Appeals. If you haven't already taken a moment to do so...please contact the CBC by email or phone to demand why they haven't reported at all (not even in the smallest degree) on this huge, historic news story a day after it has broken & been reported on by other major U.S. news sources.

This ruling will significantly bolster our cause here - news doesn't get any better for a vaper than yesterday's. But from every side, it is a significant, breakthrough development / news story. The ruling must be formally reported by the Canadian press. I am frankly amazed that it hasn't been yet. I'm heading to bed now; hopefully there'll be news after a good night's sleep. Night!

 

[Switched]

Secondly, I don't believe there will ever be (or ever could be) a sin tax on e-cigs or e-juice...at least, not in Canada. With tobacco, the justification for such a tax is very clear. Tobacco smoking is proven to place an immense burden (financial & otherwise) upon society. With vaping, there's no such burden on public health or what have you...hence no justification. If anything, increased vaping would benefit society & do much to relieve present burdens. There's no way for our government to explain sin-taxing it that would make a lick of sense (including "lost tobacco tax revenue!" as I'll explain further down). Especially in the event that vaping was fully freed from Health Canada's quasi-ban (which would be a prerequisite to any talk of taxation). Freed from the quasi-ban, the full facts about vaping would become far more known to far more Canadians...and those facts would reveal - yep - that there's no justification to tax vaping beyond HST.

Wow! I am not going to disagree with you that we probably will never agree. With all due respect, if you really believe that what I have just quoted is true, then with absolutely no disrespect intended I believe that you are delusional, and I mean this is an utmost respectful way. That is what GOVERNMENTS would like you to believe, while they continue to pillage your pockets or purse, and has sweet frigg all to do with health. Just like the tax charged at the pumps goes for road improvement.

Edit: I did read your entire post.

 

[Switched]

Switched - I agree, but more exposure would be helpful. I relayed this information to CTV as well.

Couldn't agree with you more Mathew. Hey please don't get me wrong vaping offered me an alternative to get off cigs, and although not perfect, the only method that has worked relatively well to date.

However, what folks need to see clearly it is about money, and nothing else. Just like NY complaining about the loss of tax revenue from bootleg cigarettes after they increased the state taxes on cigs in an exorbitant amount, showing the uninformed public that it was for everyone's best interest.

If tomorrow smoking cigarettes was outlawed, where would the money come for our Health Care System. Don't you believe they would tax something else for the loss of revenue to pay their debt? The pumps and heat would probably get dinged right after booze. See folks complaining then. It is alright to pee on the de-generates of society (smokers) who have bled the Health Care System dry as long as nobody increases our taxes. Oh, and the majority of them are all for increased in taxes, as long as they don't have to pay.

It is funny how when the smoking ban hit NS and Halifax, that it was every public venue, with the exception of the Casino, which the government had a share in. Who are the hypocrites?

No folks I am not a pessimist, just a realist.

 

[Switched]

I am still searching for a couple of comments from our "legal" vaping representatives (lawyers) wrt interpretation of the ruling. This is still the best non legalese representation of the case YouTube - my take on the guys that are suing the FDA over ecigs or...
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...peals-rules-against-fda-3-0-favor-njoy-2.html from post 41 on and post 85

 

[Switched]

The ultimate impact of this court decision will be to lift the current import restrictions on NJOY electronic cigarettes and provide a regulatory framework for NJOY to make progress on its mission to be the most responsible electronic cigarette manufacturer on the market.

NJOY Electronic Cigarettes to Be Regulated by FDA as a Tobacco Product -- SCOTTSDALE, Ariz., Dec. 7, 2010 /PRNewswire/ --

But let’s not get too excited yet. No one wants to rain on a parade, in particular when most of the news regarding this truly remarkable alternative to smoking tends to be either composed from fabricated health concerns or just dismissive. Had this ruling gone the other way, e-cigarettes in America would truly have been in jeopardy. So the first instinct is to be elated (and you will find plenty of that in almost every other blog about this, we would guess) but, and the metaphors are starting to pile up here, the war is not yet won.

Law and facts can change. The appeals court emphasized that FDA had produced no evidence that anyone had ever been harmed by an e-cigarette, but the extremists tend to find whatever they are looking for, whether it is there or not, so though the evidence may not change, the “evidence” may change and another case might follow. As the appeals court pointed out, Congress can always choose to change the law so that e-cigs can be regulated however the FDA prefers, or could even ban them outright.

http://smokles.wordpress.com/2010/1...t-ban-e-cigarettes-as-unapproved-therapy-yet/

 

[Nuck]

Regulation as a tobacco product as opposed to a drug is a pretty significant victory for vapers. This is also the only way we will ever be able to legally enjoy this product as a non NRT.

Health Canada will follow the lead of the FDA as they have done my entire life so the courts decision will ultimately impact directly on Canadian vapers.

All in all, a very pleasant surprise for vapers everywhere.

 

[Neon]

Regulation as a tobacco product as opposed to a drug is a pretty significant victory for vapers. This is also the only way we will ever be able to legally enjoy this product as a non NRT.

Health Canada will follow the lead of the FDA as they have done my entire life so the courts decision will ultimately impact directly on Canadian vapers.

All in all, a very pleasant surprise for vapers everywhere.

Well said Nuck, I agree 100 percent, this is cause to celebrate

Neon

 

[rachelcoffe]

Well said Nuck, I agree 100 percent, this is cause to celebrate

Neon

Thank you Nuck & Neon!

Yeah!!

Switched, I love you man - and I appreciate the conciliatory nature of the quote from Carl Philips that you posted in post #14 of this thread. I don't wish to be overly argumentative, especially in this merry time of year (a time of goodwill, peace & joy). But there are definitely times when I don't see you as a "glass half full" guy, but more like a "broken empty glass, with one drop in the bottom & a bug in it" kind of guy.

99% of ECF is absolutely ecstatic over Tuesday's news - people are breaking out their champagne-flavoured e-juice; some are crying tears of joy. All are thrilled. But you're not. You essentially dismissed it...saying (and/or implying) "this isn't a big deal, it's small and it won't make much difference to anything; big tobacco will take over vaping, the vendors will all be driven out of business (?!), government will tax the living crap out of it, and basically the whole thing is hopeless...why bother writing to CBC. Bah humbug." If I've misinterpreted you, my apologies & I would appreciate clarification. If I haven't, then your attitude is all wrong. And your views are being informed by conspiracy theories that don't hold water.

Cynicism is categorically useless - it leads nowhere, discourages involvement, & deflates the drive to action. Ditto prophecies of gloom & doom. The fact that even Tuesday's incredible, wonderful news apparently failed to encourage you shows how locked into your cynicism you've become. Great news, and it didn't phase you. You expect the worst, and expect defeat, so why even try right?

Big tobacco could not possibly, in a million years, "take over vaping." I would bet my life on it without hesitation. The whole concept - a battery, a liquid holding cartridge, and an atomizer - is ultra-generic. E-cig design has moved well beyond the limited patent range of the earliest models. You can patent a particular design of automobile, or trademark it - but you cannot say "hey - everyone else, stop making automobiles." This truth is a large part of the reason why big tobacco & big pharma hate vaping: there's no way for them to corner the market, or patent it. It's not profitable enough. At the very best, as untrustworthy latecomers, they would forever be the Bing to Joyetech's Google.

One should also consider that the 'mods' genie is out of the bottle, too. There will never, ever, ever be a circumstance where the only way to get a PV is through one source.

The above applies to e-juice as well, with or without nicotine. The ingredients are all generic, non-patentable, and readily available already. Any attempt to quash legitimate producers (such as Dekang) would fail. They already have fairly tight manafacturing oversight there at home. Regulatory oversight here would simply exist to ensure that the product is safe & as specified, quality controlled, properly labelled, properly packaged, and only sold to those of age. In fact, regulation would only open up the opportunity for increased competition (doubtless several "made in Canada" e-juice manafacturers would spring up). It would mean more choice for we consumers, not less.

I gotta say...all legal wrangling & what have you aside, vapers are on the right side of these issues, without question. And we don't need discouragement, especially when it's unjustified. No one spreading the word about vaping wants a black cloud in the room, glumly saying failure is inevitable (which is certainly isn't). When things go badly, we need to encourage each other. When things go our way (as they did on Tuesday) we need to celebrate! We waited a year for that decision. I think we've earned the right to enjoy the win. We're emotional beings & our emotional health benefits from a boost as much as our physical health does.

I'd like to touch as well, Switched, on your earlier comment about taxes & driving. Driving gasoline-fueled automobiles demonstrably places a burden on the shared resources of society, i.e. roads, time, labour & the environment. Drivers use gasoline in order to drive on publicly-owned, taxpayer-funded roads. Their driving damages the roads. Their gasoline usage releases harmful emissions into the air, which affect the environment.

Someone needs to pay to repair the damaged roads and deal with the emissions. Driving is obviously necessary...and I comprehend that you're saying a tax on gasoline isn't actually going to road repair or emission control in many cases. But the point is, with driving...everyone understands the basis for such a tax, the reasoning behind it. In principle it totally makes sense. If they're not spending the collected tax the proper way, that's an entirely different issue. The tax itself is justifiable.

But I have yet to hear or even imagine any conceivable argument that could be used by a government to successfully justify sin-taxing vaping (like excessively taxing it beyond HST). Put it this way - I wouldn't put it past some governments to at least try to do so (on the only premise they could - lost tobacco tax revenue). But in the same breath I will say that the odds of our successfully defeating such a move are extremely high. Such a tax would not pass - hands down, we'd win. Or they'd lose. Result is the same.

Why? Because governments can't just go around arbitrarily taxing things. They can't say "well...if everyone quits smoking, we'll place a $5 tax on oranges." An oranges tax would make as much sense as a vaping tax. Taxation isn't an entitlement: they have to justify new taxes somehow, to the opposition parties before the House (where the proposal is voted on) & to the people - especially since governments rely on the goodwill of the people to stay in office, and if there's one thing that makes most people cranky towards governments, it's more taxes - the less sensical, the crankier they (rightly) get. In the event that vaping became totally legal & freely marketable in Canada, I don't see any government wasting precious political energy on a nonsensical, indefensible tax that doesn't have a chance of getting passed & would only paint them as unpopular, idiotic, and ready to get the boot from office.

Especially since we (and I dare say opposition parties) would rightly argue how increased vaping actually benefits society, relieving present burdens (not adding to them) as well as increasing overall tax-revenue even without raising taxes. Far from sin-taxing it...Health Canada & the provincial health ministries should spend millions on promoting vaping as a safe alternative to deadly smoking.

Secondly, while this case is the FDA vs NJOY (or Sottera, Inc. as it is now called)...it sets a huge precedent. And that affects all the other manafacturers, for the better. Any future cases against other manafacturers would be judged through the lens of this ruling, and therefore almost certainly be wins for the manafacturers. Joyetech isn't going anywhere (and since they're my manfacturer of choice, yay).

The FDA made a sloppy, ineffective case against vaping & they lost. Twice. This new ruling does not give them the grounds to push for some sort of impossible-to-meet regulations that no one could meet except (miraculously) big tobacco. I am certain that any such attempt would result in a new court case, which again would be viewed through the lens of the previous rulings. A quote from Tuesday's Nasdaq article:

"Leon's decision was based on a Supreme Court case decided in 2000 called FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. In that case, the court decided that allowing cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products to be marketed as drugs or devices would result in their being banned from the market."

So you see, any attempt at trickery by the FDA to use regulation as a means to ban vaping (either largely or in full) would fail. The Supreme Court recognized a decade ago that the FDA was attempting to use regulation as a means to ban a product, rather than actually regulate it. And they said "no dice." A decade later, that ruling has informed the new one on e-cigs.

All in all, I still feel like celebrating!

But still (getting back to the original intent of this thread) - why has CBC not reported on this ruling? It's news - big news! It's now December 9th...what gives? They reported all the FDA's ridiculous misinformation, and on the case itself...over and over again. Why the sudden censorship by omission when a ruling favourable to vapers is handed down?

Switched, surely you would agree that for CBC to not even tokenly report on this news is a disturbing thing. I urge everyone here...we've had a great win, and now we each need to take a minute to contact the CBC & demand why they've not reported on it. Don't be lazy or cynical. Please write the email and/or make the call. Many thanks in advance for doing your bit!

Happiest of holidays too!

 

[rachelcoffe]

Regulation as a tobacco product as opposed to a drug is a pretty significant victory for vapers. This is also the only way we will ever be able to legally enjoy this product as a non NRT.

Health Canada will follow the lead of the FDA as they have done my entire life so the courts decision will ultimately impact directly on Canadian vapers.

All in all, a very pleasant surprise for vapers everywhere.

Thank you Nuck, and happiest of vaping & holidays to you! Just had to quote your lovely post (I really appreciated it) and hug you too.

 

[WiηgC¤mmαηdεя]

Regulation as a tobacco product as opposed to a drug is a pretty significant victory for vapers. This is also the only way we will ever be able to legally enjoy this product as a non NRT.

Health Canada will follow the lead of the FDA as they have done my entire life so the courts decision will ultimately impact directly on Canadian vapers.

All in all, a very pleasant surprise for vapers everywhere.

Well said Nuck.
At this time I am being cautiously optimistic, and hopeful that we are traveling in the right direction.

 

[Switched]

Thank you Nuck & Neon!

Yeah!!

Switched, I love you man - and I appreciate the conciliatory nature of the quote from Carl Philips that you posted in post #14 of this thread. I don't wish to be overly argumentative, especially in this merry time of year (a time of goodwill, peace & joy). But there are definitely times when I don't see you as a "glass half full" guy, but more like a "broken empty glass, with one drop in the bottom & a bug in it" kind of guy.

99% of ECF is absolutely ecstatic over Tuesday's news - people are breaking out their champagne-flavoured e-juice; some are crying tears of joy. All are thrilled. But you're not. You essentially dismissed it...saying (and/or implying) "this isn't a big deal, it's small and it won't make much difference to anything; big tobacco will take over vaping, the vendors will all be driven out of business (?!), government will tax the living crap out of it, and basically the whole thing is hopeless...why bother writing to CBC. Bah humbug." If I've misinterpreted you, my apologies & I would appreciate clarification. If I haven't, then your attitude is all wrong. And your views are being informed by conspiracy theories that don't hold water.

Cynicism is categorically useless - it leads nowhere, discourages involvement, & deflates the drive to action. Ditto prophecies of gloom & doom. The fact that even Tuesday's incredible, wonderful news apparently failed to encourage you shows how locked into your cynicism you've become. Great news, and it didn't phase you. You expect the worst, and expect defeat, so why even try right?

Big tobacco could not possibly, in a million years, "take over vaping." I would bet my life on it without hesitation. The whole concept - a battery, a liquid holding cartridge, and an atomizer - is ultra-generic. E-cig design has moved well beyond the limited patent range of the earliest models. You can patent a particular design of automobile, or trademark it - but you cannot say "hey - everyone else, stop making automobiles." This truth is a large part of the reason why big tobacco & big pharma hate vaping: there's no way for them to corner the market, or patent it. It's not profitable enough. At the very best, as untrustworthy latecomers, they would forever be the Bing to Joyetech's Google.

One should also consider that the 'mods' genie is out of the bottle, too. There will never, ever, ever be a circumstance where the only way to get a PV is through one source.

The above applies to e-juice as well, with or without nicotine. The ingredients are all generic, non-patentable, and readily available already. Any attempt to quash legitimate producers (such as Dekang) would fail. They already have fairly tight manafacturing oversight there at home. Regulatory oversight here would simply exist to ensure that the product is safe & as specified, quality controlled, properly labelled, properly packaged, and only sold to those of age. In fact, regulation would only open up the opportunity for increased competition (doubtless several "made in Canada" e-juice manafacturers would spring up). It would mean more choice for we consumers, not less.

I gotta say...all legal wrangling & what have you aside, vapers are on the right side of these issues, without question. And we don't need discouragement, especially when it's unjustified. No one spreading the word about vaping wants a black cloud in the room, glumly saying failure is inevitable (which is certainly isn't). When things go badly, we need to encourage each other. When things go our way (as they did on Tuesday) we need to celebrate! We waited a year for that decision. I think we've earned the right to enjoy the win. We're emotional beings & our emotional health benefits from a boost as much as our physical health does.

I'd like to touch as well, Switched, on your earlier comment about taxes & driving. Driving gasoline-fueled automobiles demonstrably places a burden on the shared resources of society, i.e. roads, time, labour & the environment. Drivers use gasoline in order to drive on publicly-owned, taxpayer-funded roads. Their driving damages the roads. Their gasoline usage releases harmful emissions into the air, which affect the environment.

Someone needs to pay to repair the damaged roads and deal with the emissions. Driving is obviously necessary...and I comprehend that you're saying a tax on gasoline isn't actually going to road repair or emission control in many cases. But the point is, with driving...everyone understands the basis for such a tax, the reasoning behind it. In principle it totally makes sense. If they're not spending the collected tax the proper way, that's an entirely different issue. The tax itself is justifiable.

But I have yet to hear or even imagine any conceivable argument that could be used by a government to successfully justify sin-taxing vaping (like excessively taxing it beyond HST). Put it this way - I wouldn't put it past some governments to at least try to do so (on the only premise they could - lost tobacco tax revenue). But in the same breath I will say that the odds of our successfully defeating such a move are extremely high. Such a tax would not pass - hands down, we'd win. Or they'd lose. Result is the same.

Why? Because governments can't just go around arbitrarily taxing things. They can't say "well...if everyone quits smoking, we'll place a $5 tax on oranges." An oranges tax would make as much sense as a vaping tax. Taxation isn't an entitlement: they have to justify new taxes somehow, to the opposition parties before the House (where the proposal is voted on) & to the people - especially since governments rely on the goodwill of the people to stay in office, and if there's one thing that makes most people cranky towards governments, it's more taxes - the less sensical, the crankier they (rightly) get. In the event that vaping became totally legal & freely marketable in Canada, I don't see any government wasting precious political energy on a nonsensical, indefensible tax that doesn't have a chance of getting passed & would only paint them as unpopular, idiotic, and ready to get the boot from office.

Especially since we (and I dare say opposition parties) would rightly argue how increased vaping actually benefits society, relieving present burdens (not adding to them) as well as increasing overall tax-revenue even without raising taxes. Far from sin-taxing it...Health Canada & the provincial health ministries should spend millions on promoting vaping as a safe alternative to deadly smoking.

Secondly, while this case is the FDA vs NJOY (or Sottera, Inc. as it is now called)...it sets a huge precedent. And that affects all the other manafacturers, for the better. Any future cases against other manafacturers would be judged through the lens of this ruling, and therefore almost certainly be wins for the manafacturers. Joyetech isn't going anywhere (and since they're my manfacturer of choice, yay).

The FDA made a sloppy, ineffective case against vaping & they lost. Twice. This new ruling does not give them the grounds to push for some sort of impossible-to-meet regulations that no one could meet except (miraculously) big tobacco. I am certain that any such attempt would result in a new court case, which again would be viewed through the lens of the previous rulings. A quote from Tuesday's Nasdaq article:

"Leon's decision was based on a Supreme Court case decided in 2000 called FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. In that case, the court decided that allowing cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products to be marketed as drugs or devices would result in their being banned from the market."

So you see, any attempt at trickery by the FDA to use regulation as a means to ban vaping (either largely or in full) would fail. The Supreme Court recognized a decade ago that the FDA was attempting to use regulation as a means to ban a product, rather than actually regulate it. And they said "no dice." A decade later, that ruling has informed the new one on e-cigs.

All in all, I still feel like celebrating!

But still (getting back to the original intent of this thread) - why has CBC not reported on this ruling? It's news - big news! It's now December 9th...what gives? They reported all the FDA's ridiculous misinformation, and on the case itself...over and over again. Why the sudden censorship by omission when a ruling favourable to vapers is handed down?

Switched, surely you would agree that for CBC to not even tokenly report on this news is a disturbing thing. I urge everyone here...we've had a great win, and now we each need to take a minute to contact the CBC & demand why they've not reported on it. Don't be lazy or cynical. Please write the email and/or make the call. Many thanks in advance for doing your bit!

Happiest of holidays too!

Wow! With a dissertation like that I am totally speechless... you are absolutely, unequivocally, 100 % right. How did I ever misconstrue how governments really function. What was I thinking? My bad...