Class Action

[dagit]

I imagine a world in which the community came together to support and fund a class action suit requiring government not to intervene in our basic human right to pursue and preserve our health.

Ideally, the manufacturers would lead the way as they're the ones at the backend making the dough from products they claim to help us. But I get the idea that Chinese-based manufacturers aren't likely to want to take on the the governments of other countries.

To my understanding, the suppliers are in a rough spot - they have business interests and money on the line, but they don't have any hard assets (other than inventory) and aren't really in a position to 100% back a particular product version or chemical formula (that is, what they don't make and control the quality of, is hard for them to back).

What about us, "we the people", the e-cigers? Are there enough of us to put together the organized support and funding?

We'd have to tackle one government at a time - a key player that other countries would look to for guidance. I'm Canadian so tend to think in Canadian terms and how such a thing would relate to our human rights laws, etc. But I don't imagine Canada is "big" enough to make it worth our collective while. What about the USA?

We'd do better keeping the "message" short - not just about x product version or x chemical formula or maybe even about x type of product (e-cig), but maybe broader... keep the message broad so as to draw in public support as widely as possible. Rather than arguing for the "rights of smokers to have e-cigs", we argue for the rights of people to create, produce and access any resource possible to pursue and preserve their health....

 

[IntoxiNation]

Considering the costs involved with class action suits, it would take quiet a bit of money. I can only really speak of the United States, but when you start adding in appeals and all that, then the costs will skyrocket. It would probably be cheaper to sponsor some sort of clinical testing to prove that e-cigs are much safer than analogs.

 

[ratfink]

I imagine a world in which the community came together to support and fund a class action suit requiring government not to intervene in our basic human right to pursue and preserve our health.

Class action suits are for civil torts. Injunctions are for compelling the opposing party to do or stop doing something, which only takes a single individual to file a case.

 

[wyzardd]

You libertarian!

Government shouldn't be trying to protect us from ourselves anyway, in my opinion.

 

[palermo45]

You libertarian!

Government shouldn't be trying to protect us from ourselves anyway, in my opinion.

You are absolutely correct!! Furthermore if the FDA does gain control of tobacco what do you think they will do? I am under the impression they want to dramatically lower the dosages of nicotine per cigarette. Won't that simply make people smoke much more then they already are in an effort to get their nicotine dosage? That simply equates to double or triple the health hazards and deaths related to smoking which are currently seen. Government is the problem!! If they elliminate e-cigs and I develop a terminal illness because I go back to analogs, I will make sure I am found at the footseps of the FDA. Lol,,a little too dramatic huh?

 

[katink]

That simply equates to double or triple the health hazards and deaths related to smoking which are currently seen.

Yes, but it also will double or triple tobacco-related income for BT, BP and governments...

 

[Boston George]

If you go to court and say 'my e-cigarette is healthy' the judge will save prove it. The statement 'well I feel better' isn't proof nor is really its lack of chemicals. There are a lot of questions about some of the flavorings being very bad to breathe in over long periods of time.

However, making the case that an e-cig isn't a medical device, now there you may gain some traction.

 

[CaseyNY]

And acceptable proof is??

The sad thing is, if we prove it safe, like maybe the nic-inhaler thing, they might approve it since it is.

But even if we prove it not healthy, it should be able to be sold, aka cigarettes.

The fact that we don't "KNOW" measn it can't be approved, sold, or whatever.

Ahhhh, to live in an 'ir-rational' world! No wonder we're all whacked!

In the end, I agree with wyzardd, once someone reaches 18, its their call! If they want to eat trans fat, then go for it. If they want to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, go for it. ETC. Freedom is an illusion .... and their not even trying to hide it well now days!

Ok, I will jump off the soap box (wherever that term came from), grab the 901 and go outside in the sun for a vape. Will arrive out there, take two drags, change the battery because its dead already and hope my SD is at my house when I get home.

 

[leaford]

Class action suits are for civil torts. Injunctions are for compelling the opposing party to do or stop doing something, which only takes a single individual to file a case.

If you go to court and say 'my e-cigarette is healthy' the judge will save prove it. The statement 'well I feel better' isn't proof nor is really its lack of chemicals. There are a lot of questions about some of the flavorings being very bad to breathe in over long periods of time.

However, making the case that an e-cig isn't a medical device, now there you may gain some traction.

But the standard of proof in a court of law might be a lower bar to hurdle. At the least, an injunction pending further study could buy the industry time. With the right lawyers, line up expert testimony from people like Dr Siegel, a few good witnesses...

I smell a Boston Legal script!

 

[chuck7403]

Usually, in the US, a court will only grant a temporary injunction when: (1) the plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted; (2) the plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law; (3) the plaintiff has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; and (4) the injunction will serve the public interest.

There are other factors and elements various courts will examine when ruling on a temporary injunction, but the above are the common elements...

 

[LaceyUnderall]

Usually, in the US, a court will only grant a temporary injunction when: (1) the plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted; (2) the plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law; (3) the plaintiff has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; and (4) the injunction will serve the public interest.

There are other factors and elements various courts will examine when ruling on a temporary injunction, but the above are the common elements...

And all of these appear to be in the favor of the e-cig user.

1. if plaintiff smokes tobacco again, the chances of suffering harm from tobacco cigarettes is x, as proven by studies x, y, and z.
2. there are currently no laws in place giving the FDA the right to control all nicotine.
3. x amount of users in class action suit would be forced to return to tobacco to intake a legal substance. x amount of users in class action suit have refrained from tobacco use for x amount of time, (then break down the users)
4. by providing suppliers/manufacturers a reasonable set time period to come up with necessary test results before placing unreasonable restrictions, could potentially be saving thousands from dying an unnecessary death from nicotine use as nicotine is not the devastating factor in tobacco smoking.

As a user group, David Sweanor, Senior Legal council for the Non-Smokers Rights Association would be a POWERFUL lawyer, if he would do it. Alternative Nicotine Delivery as a Harm-Reduction Strategy - Non-Smokers' Rights Association

 

[swoods93631]

And all of these appear to be in the favor of the e-cig user.

1. if plaintiff smokes tobacco again, the chances of suffering harm from tobacco cigarettes is x, as proven by studies x, y, and z.
2. there are currently no laws in place giving the FDA the right to control all nicotine.
3. x amount of users in class action suit would be forced to return to tobacco to intake a legal substance. x amount of users in class action suit have refrained from tobacco use for x amount of time, (then break down the users)
4. by providing suppliers/manufacturers a reasonable set time period to come up with necessary test results before placing unreasonable restrictions, could potentially be saving thousands from dying an unnecessary death from nicotine use as nicotine is not the devastating factor in tobacco smoking.

As a user group, David Sweanor, Senior Legal council for the Non-Smokers Rights Association would be a POWERFUL lawyer, if he would do it. Alternative Nicotine Delivery as a Harm-Reduction Strategy - Non-Smokers' Rights Association

Males sense to me, I would think based on that with a good lawyer we could get an injunction. Some lawyers might do this pro-bono, for publicity that is.

 

[taz3cat]

Have you noticed that everyone including rapiest and child molestors get help from ACLU and other lawyer groups to protect their rights and none have stepped forward to help smokers much less e-cigarettes users. They will never get money from me that is a fact.

 

[ratfink]

Have you noticed that everyone including rapiest and child molestors get help from ACLU and other lawyer groups to protect their rights and none have stepped forward to help smokers much less e-cigarettes users. They will never get money from me that is a fact.

The ACLU is a constitutional rights group. I don't see why you would think they would have anything to do with this.

 

[taz3cat]

I guess smokers and person who vape don't have constitutional rights. I thought I was a citizen of the United States and had constitutional rights, guess I was wrong. I guess the constitutional rights, apply to only certain groups of people such as rapiest and child molesters.

Wait till the salt, fat, sugar and your job because your 10lb overweigth get taken away. Will you have constitutional right then?

 

[DisMan]

The *only* people who make money on class-action lawsuits are the lawyers. The companies always stay in business and the recipients always get a pissant amount of money.

A larger statement would be 5,000 people all filing injunctions.

 

[ratfink]

I guess smokers and person who vape don't have constitutional rights. I thought I was a citizen of the United States and had constitutional rights, guess I was wrong. I guess the constitutional rights, apply to only certain groups of people such as rapiest and child molesters.

Unless there was a recent amendment to the constitution granting the right to vape, it's not a constitutional issue. Things like speech (1st) and the way in which people are arrested, tried and jailed (4th-8th) and equal protection (14th). All of those rights granted apply to both you and all other citizens which includes rapists and child molesters, that is sorta the point of the whole thing.

Like it or not vaping is not a constitutional right and it's probably never going to be, the sooner we get past that rhetoric the sooner we can aproach this in a manner that may actually lead an outcome we are looking for.

 

[ratfink]

A larger statement would be 5,000 people all filing injunctions.

You only need one case plus all the inevitable appeals for an injunction to stand.

 

[Terraphon]

Please keep in mind, too, that if statements are made claiming that irreparable harm will befall vapers if the products are banned, the burden will be upon the vaping community to prove such a claim. That means testing, trials, research, etc...

Probably not a good path to take at this time.

 

[Letzin Hale]

David Sweanor interview.