I was wondering if there are any class action lawsuits filed yet. If the FDA discourages people from using e-cigs, and go back to analogs knowing that e-cigs are safer, wouldn't this make them liable? of course you'd have to prove they knew that e-cigs are safer, or neglected scientific proof. In time, this whole circus run by the FDA could cause alot of problems for themselves. Just a thought.
Class action lawsuit
- Thread starter itsthehost
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I dont think their attitude is go back to analogs, I think its you should just quit smoking if you dont like it, Nobody's forcing you to smoke after all. non smokers figure whats the big deal?
Sorry, but suing the Federal agency who's primary function is "safety" on basses of prohibiting the sale of "unapproved" devices is without merit...
If their primary function is safety, why are they making it as difficult as they can for smokers to give up using these 'safer' devices?
Hypocrasy in action. Completly and utterly.
"Difficult" implies hard to deal with or overcome. To the best of my knowledge, no one has tried, so your statement is illogical.
Trying. Present tense, not past tense. For all intent and purpose, they will (future tense) succeed too.
They undoubtedly will. The topic of this thread is Class Action Lawsuit.
The whole point of my post. If their primary function is safety, why would they want to? And in light of that contradictory statement, that would suggest that their agenda reaches farther than safety in this instance.
'Not in the public interest' springs to mind.
Code:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/834286.stmA Miami jury has ordered America's big cigarette manufacturers to pay out nearly $145bn for knowingly causing smoking related illnesses
How would the same principle not apply if it were proved that the FDA were purposefully surpressing technology that greatly counters smoking related illnesses?
I'm genuinely interested in opinions on this.
PlanetScribbles - I understand the point you make, but FDA does not work and should not work like that. I've copied Janetda's response from another thread. She stated it better than I ever could.
While the FDA seems like the enemy, they really aren't. I'm sure that a lot of what they do is political, their main mission is about safe drugs for the public. Congress has now forced on them new duties that they really didn't want and are not prepared for. Add to that, tremendous pressure from the anti-smoking advocates and a product that does not fit neatly into any of the government's little categories because it's been allowed to free-ball it for the last two years. What did you expect them to do?
The truth is, dog food is better regulated and labeled than our beloved e-cigs and juice. Would I feed my dog a food that came in a cheap plastic container that just said "Dog" on it? Probably not. Am I willing to inhale chemicals into my lungs that comes in a cheap plastic bottle that just says "RY4"? Apparently I will. It just goes to show how much we all want to stop cigarettes, but not smoking. We need to push the idea of risk reduction on the anti-smoking advocates and push the manufactures to start taking this seriously. Then perhaps we can work together with the government to make sure we all get to continue to vape something safe and sane.
The truth is, dog food is better regulated and labeled than our beloved e-cigs and juice. Would I feed my dog a food that came in a cheap plastic container that just said "Dog" on it? Probably not. Am I willing to inhale chemicals into my lungs that comes in a cheap plastic bottle that just says "RY4"? Apparently I will. It just goes to show how much we all want to stop cigarettes, but not smoking. We need to push the idea of risk reduction on the anti-smoking advocates and push the manufactures to start taking this seriously. Then perhaps we can work together with the government to make sure we all get to continue to vape something safe and sane.
Yeah, I agree that regulation needs to happen. Just not a full scale ban under a thin veil of excuses that it is not a proven science.
And certainly not regulated to such an exacting standard that it becomes more expensive than analogues as a result.
And certainly not regulated to such an exacting standard that it becomes more expensive than analogues as a result.
If a Doctor went on TV and claimed Nicorette gum, Commit Lozenges, and Nicontrol inhalers were just as bad as analog cigarettes because they contain PG, nicotine, and carcinogens, they would be just AS GUILTY of medical Malpractice as the FDA with their junk science study that has already been PROVEN to be bologna, as well as opening the doors for ALL companies in the market to open a defamation lawsuit against them, the American Lung Association, American Heart Association, Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, and every other organization that has BLATANTLY tried to shove these falsehoods into our faces.
It seems some people have lost their minds along with their perspective.
There can be no doubt in any reasonable mind that the FDA presented a biased release of biased test results, without providing the proper context that would be expected of any responsible party.
There can be no doubt this was done on purpose, and with malice aforethought. And how anybody can sit there and defend these actions is really starting to blow my mind, and could very possibly cause my head to explode right here on my shoulders.
There can be no doubt in any reasonable mind that the FDA presented a biased release of biased test results, without providing the proper context that would be expected of any responsible party.
There can be no doubt this was done on purpose, and with malice aforethought. And how anybody can sit there and defend these actions is really starting to blow my mind, and could very possibly cause my head to explode right here on my shoulders.
- Status
Similar threads
