Class Action Against the FDA

[Tampa2]

This has got to be at least the 4 thread about a class-action suit against the FDA I've read in the last year. It's already been determined here in the forum, that e-cigs must first be banned/illegal and showing clear harm will be the result of the illegal classification. Until then, you can't file a suit. Do some research first through the search function of the forum, noobies. It might have already been discussed ad nauseum.

Only the 4th? If you don't like "ad nauseum" then why are you reading and commenting on this thread? You shouldn't look so far down your nose at "noobies", chris/317. It may well be a "noobie" that puts up the cash and fights the fight for people such as yourself! All while you are still sitting on your tush looking down your nose at them!

 

[DarthVapr]

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...-fda-regulation-limits-sales.html#post1536975


http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...6-class-action-against-fda-health-canada.html

This is just a couple. Do a forum search on class action+FDA, should find a bunch of posts.

Thing is, until there declared illegal, you can't file anything.

I'd like to sue them for slander, defamation of character, and being really, really bad at their jobs. This is from the FDA website:

What We Do

The FDA is responsible for protecting the public health by assuring the safety, efficacy, and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, medical devices, our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation.

The FDA is also responsible for advancing the public health by helping to speed innovations that make medicines and foods more effective, safer, and more affordable; and helping the public get the accurate, science-based information they need to use medicines and foods to improve their health.
​

I rest my case.
------------
Vape Free or Die!

 

[thephoenix]

You shouldn't look so far down your nose at "noobies"

for reals. LOL.

My bad - I thought we were all on the same side...

I didn't realize this was the World of Warcraft forum...

Back to you DarthVpr...

 

[kristin]

The second hurdle to a class action suit is the cost. We aren't talking a few hundred thousand dollars - we're talking MILLIONS of dollars. It'd be nearly impossible to raise that kind of money within the e-cig community.

 

[DarthVapr]

for reals. LOL.

My bad - I thought we were all on the same side...

I didn't realize this was the World of Warcraft forum...

Back to you DarthVpr...

I prefer StarCraft and Starcraft II.

---------------
Vape till you puke!

 

[thephoenix]

but certainly we just can't throw up our hands and do nothing...

the fact that none of the other ECig organizations are standing shoulder-to-shoulder with NJOY on this court battle confounds me - bare minimum they should be filing amicus briefs on NJOYs behalf...

the entire FDA case is based on spin & misconceptions...and dare i say flat out lies...and everyone in the e-cig community should be right on the front lines in support of NJOY...

I mean - if not now - when?

 

[DarthVapr]

The second hurdle to a class action suit is the cost. We aren't talking a few hundred thousand dollars - we're talking MILLIONS of dollars. It'd be nearly impossible to raise that kind of money within the e-cig community.

You're thinking too big for the beginning. Think small, establish a local victory, and build on it. The publicity could spark positive developments.

If someone doesn't buy an eCig product because they read some of the lame propaganda put out by the FDA and these "public health groups" that the BT and BP corporations fund, sue them in your local small claims court. You don't need a lawyer, and the cost is minimal.

We have the science on our side, and a great number of doctors and medical experts who have published on the subject, or done videos.

Never underestimate your ability to light a fuse, and never overlook the value of small victories.

 

[kristin]

the fact that none of the other ECig organizations are standing shoulder-to-shoulder with NJOY on this court battle confounds me - bare minimum they should be filing amicus briefs on NJOYs behalf...

Unless you are an ecig company who has the same exact complaint against the FDA as Njoy and Smoking Everywhere, you cannot just add yourself to this lawsuit. The lawsuit is about seized property and blocked shipments. Even if other companies DO have a case, they have to have the funds to contribute - Njoy isn't going to give them a free ride. Unfortunately, most companies don't have that kind of money.

Groups like CASAA can only lend our support in other ways. Interested parties ARE filing amicus briefs. Just because you aren't aware of something yet doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

[kristin]

You're thinking too big for the beginning. Think small, establish a local victory, and build on it. The publicity could spark positive developments.

If someone doesn't buy an eCig product because they read some of the lame propaganda put out by the FDA and these "public health groups" that the BT and BP corporations fund, sue them in your local small claims court. You don't need a lawyer, and the cost is minimal.

We have the science on our side, and a great number of doctors and medical experts who have published on the subject, or done videos.

Never underestimate your ability to light a fuse, and never overlook the value of small victories.

Preaching to the choir, Darth.

But even in that small claims court they'd have to prove the FDA and the Axis of Evil actually did them harm. They could only do that if they could show that lack of access to e-cigs cause them damages. And it's only once it gets to the higher (and more expensive) courts that it'll have any impact. I suspect a small claims against the FDA would be thrown out immediately.

Our best bet right now is to keep people informed and educated, sign the petition, step up and show up when ecigs are threatened in your community, etc.

Speaking up and speaking out is our greatest weapon and more people need to be doing it.

There are more studies forthcoming. Once those are published and the FDA loses against Njoy we will have much firmer ground to stand on.

 

[thephoenix]

Just because you aren't aware of something yet doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

fair enough.

would be nice to see a list of who's doing what though...

 

[DemonCowboy]

I'd like to sue them for slander, defamation of character, and being really, really bad at their jobs. This is from the FDA website:

What We Do

The FDA is responsible for protecting the public health by assuring the safety, efficacy, and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, medical devices, our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation.

The FDA is also responsible for advancing the public health by helping to speed innovations that make medicines and foods more effective, safer, and more affordable; and helping the public get the accurate, science-based information they need to use medicines and foods to improve their health.
​

I rest my case.
------------
Vape Free or Die!

You forgot false advertising

 

[DarthVapr]

Preaching to the choir, Darth.

But even in that small claims court they'd have to prove the FDA and the Axis of Evil actually did them harm. They could only do that if they could show that lack of access to e-cigs cause them damages. And it's only once it gets to the higher (and more expensive) courts that it'll have any impact. I suspect a small claims against the FDA would be thrown out immediately.

Our best bet right now is to keep people informed and educated, sign the petition, step up and show up when ecigs are threatened in your community, etc.

Speaking up and speaking out is our greatest weapon and more people need to be doing it.

There are more studies forthcoming. Once those are published and the FDA loses against Njoy we will have much firmer ground to stand on.

Depriving a business of sales by spreading demonstrably false information, which I believe we have the documentation and expert opinion to prove, is something you can sue over. And it doesn't have to be the FDA. Like I said, it could be one of these "public health groups" that have published some really biased and impossible to justify (with actual evidence of harm, etc.) statements which deterred someone from buying an eCig, causing a loss of revenue for the business, and keeping the prospective customer on the traditional cigarettes, also causing them harm.

Who knows, you may get a really righteous judge who has tried quitting before and couldn't, who tries the eCig and comes over to our side. Things like this actually happen sometimes, and make a big difference.

Consider this: if someone who lives in a city where one of these "public health groups" has an office, files a complaint in small claims court against that organization for wrongful interference with a business transaction, I believe that someone who represents that organization either has to appear, or they automatically lose the case. Would you want to be the poor sap that would have to convince the judge that eCigs are more dangerous than tobacco cigarettes, as the FDA spokeswoman, Rita Chappelle, implied recently?

“We’re concerned about the potential for addiction to and abuse of (electronic cigarette) products,” says FDA spokeswoman Rita Chappelle. “Some people may mistakenly perceive these products to be safer alternatives to conventional tobacco use.”

Rita[FONT="] Chappelle, +1-301-827-6242, [EMAIL="rita.chappelle@fda.hhs.gov"]rita.chappelle@fda.hhs.gov[/EMAIL][/FONT]

​

I sure as hell wouldn't, and I think that anyone who tries will be laughed out of court.

[FONT="]-----------------[/FONT]

Vape Free or Die!

 

[kristin]

I'm really not trying to be a naysayer - really I'm not - but a vendor (I realize now that is who you meant) would have the burden of proving that people didn't buy his product because of what was said. Without testimony from people who actually didn't buy because of that, he wouldn't have much of a way to prove it. Unless she specifically said "Ecigs from XYZ Inc. aren't any safer than conventional cigarettes" and even then XYZ would have to have the scientific proof to show that she is not telling the truth. He who makes the claim that they are safer has the burden of proof with current regulations.

 

[DarthVapr]

Again, I keep thinking about Ms Chappelle's statement:

“We’re concerned about the potential for addiction to and abuse of (electronic cigarette) products,” says FDA spokeswoman Rita Chappelle. “Some people may mistakenly perceive these products to be safer alternatives to conventional tobacco use.”

​

Exactly how would one go about "abusing" an electronic cigarette? Poking someone's eye out? But this statement may give us a clue as to the unspoken reason the government is out to get the eCig. When tobacco is smoked by burning, it gives off a distinctive odor. When other "vegetable matter" is burned, it also produces a distinctive aroma, and can lead to certain difficulties. But consider that when it is vapor that is produced, not smoke, that distinctive odor is missing.

Is this the "abuse" she is referring to? It would certainly make the government opposition to eCigs more understandable. And to the moderators, I am not condoning anything. I just believe this is a valid consideration which could explain the irrational suppression of eCigs.
------------
Vape Free or Die!

 

[thephoenix]

DarthVapr for President!

 

[DarthVapr]

I'm really not trying to be a naysayer - really I'm not - but a vendor (I realize now that is who you meant) would have the burden of proving that people didn't buy his product because of what was said. Without testimony from people who actually didn't buy because of that, he wouldn't have much of a way to prove it. Unless she specifically said "Ecigs from XYZ Inc. aren't any safer than conventional cigarettes" and even then XYZ would have to have the scientific proof to show that she is not telling the truth. He who makes the claim that they are safer has the burden of proof with current regulations.

Agreed. But how hard would it be to find someone who could rightfully say that they didn't buy an eCig from XYZ eCig Shop because they read an article (with undocumented claims of vapor harm presented as facts, not opinions) officially sanctioned and published by ABC anti-tobacco group? I'm sure many brick-and-mortar vendors have had someone come into the store (not really so much the internet vendor), look at the eCigs, and not been able to convince them that the eCig actually IS safer to use than real cigarettes. I probably should have been more clear on that point. For internet vendors it would be less likely. But even then, an email exchange with a prospective customer who decides not to buy, could serve the same purpose.

There are people out there that believe the crap that the FDA is writing, and these local health organizations are reprinting, or parroting. This would be just one more way to fight them. It was just an idea. I think I'll move on now.
---------
Vape Free or Die!

 

[Janetda]

I don't believe that is what she meant. I think she was referring to the use of nicotine. IMO, any long term use nicotine is an abuse in their minds.

 

[DarthVapr]

DarthVapr for President!

Just kidding. Like Hawkeye said in a really good episode of M*A*S*H, "Oh no, you're not putting this war in my name!"

And besides, if they thought JFK was trouble for the "Powers that Be" (federal reserve, oil companies, intelligence agencies, etc.), well, you know what they did to him. I wouldn't last a day.

But thanks for the kind words.
---------------
Vape Free or Die!

 

[kristin]

I don't believe that is what she meant. I think she was referring to the use of nicotine. IMO, any long term use nicotine is an abuse in their minds.

Not only that, but we have proof that they were cruising the e-cig forums and reading about people using 100mg liquid, making their own and mods blowing up on people.

Another reason why we caution people about saying stupid stuff on the forums - they WILL use it against us if they can!

 

[HeatherC]

Yes while very true that nicotine is the "drug" in tobacco, the three doctors I've talked to...including my GP and a Cardiologist agree that while nicotine is addictive it does basically the same thing that caffeine does increasing the heartrate and blood pressure while increasing dopamine production in the brain and releasing endorphines(adrenaline)
I also read that they are studying nicotine now as a possible medication to help alzheimer's patients and parkinson's sufferers as well as helping schizophrenics.

The real danger in tobacco smoking is the carbon monoxide and the around 4000 other chemicals that appear in cigarette smoke including the 50 some identified as carcinogens.
The fact that I'm not breathing those toxic chemicals and neither is my son is enuff for me to vape not smoke anymore!!

SOOO to sum up keep telling others about your successes...keep telling your doctor how much better you feel....keep your children safe....KEEP VAPING and I would definately be willing to be part of a class action suit if they ban or make illegal the ecig.