Customs Seizures

[TnA]

ECA, I'm curious to know what your thoughts are on this?

As it stands, a temporary injunction has been put in place to protect SE and njoy shipments from being seized by US Customs.

On the flip-side, there seems to be a lot of new noises being made by (some) suppliers about their shipments being detained, which may be a sign that FDA and Customs have increased their seizure activities of suppliers' shipments.

Due to this, there have been numerous threads with suppliers talking about taking up similar suit against the FDA to protect their shipments, as well. This would mean suppliers banding together to put up a united front and to pool enough money together to afford the cost of such litigation.

Would be curious to know what the ECA's thoughts/stance/intentions are on this?

 

[doots]

I think customs can do about what they want and no one can do thing one about it really.. real world politics it seems.

 

[Webby]

ECA, I'm curious to know what your thoughts are on this?

As it stands, a temporary injunction has been put in place to protect SE and njoy shipments from being seized by US Customs.

On the flip-side, there seems to be a lot of new noises being made by (some) suppliers about their shipments being detained, which may be a sign that FDA and Customs have increased their seizure activities of suppliers' shipments.

Due to this, there have been numerous threads with suppliers talking about taking up similar suit against the FDA to protect their shipments, as well. This would mean suppliers banding together to put up a united front and to pool enough money together to afford the cost of such litigation.

Would be curious to know what the ECA's thoughts/stance/intentions are on this?

Matt,

I'm admittedly curious as to the ECA's interpretation of the fallout as well. I received 4 "lost"shipments personally, but have heard the same rumblings that only SE and Njoy apply to this (albeit temporary) sheilding. If what Adam calls for in www.vaporoptions.com bears merit (and it seems to have teeth other suppliers need as well) We at CASAA and RtV need to be consolidated on a plan of action.

While we all overlap a bit on "who" we say we protect, the common ground seems overwhelming in this case. Unless I'm mistaken, for consumers to ignore supporting suppliers together in this (and vice/versa) we risk running the same "There's a hole in your side of the boat" mentality that has made us all seem like splinter groups with individual selfrighteous agendas.

What effects any of us invariably effects us all.

 

[Sun Vaporer]

Webby--IMO, any Supplier that does not Intervene into the SE case is doing themselves a terrible blow.


Sun

 

[Webby]

Webby--IMO, any Supplier that does not Intervene into the SE case is doing themselves a terrible blow.


Sun

Agreed old friend,

But as individuals? as existing organizations? or as an entirely new consordium of suppliers, large and small. I guess my first question is still what are ECA's intentions on the issue before we jump up and form yet another group - or form mini-cabals to attach ourself to Judge Leon's findings so we don't get left in the cold?

 

[TnA]

I would ideally like to see a Group of Suppliers in there in a perfect world, but the do to competing interests, what is good for one Supplier, may be detrimental for another. So realistically as individual Suppliers. ECA should hold tight for now when it comes to the Suppilers. Its role should be a Friend of the Court.

Sun

Sun, I'm not sure what exactly you mean. How does an organization that states it's mission to be, ".....an association of private sector companies engaged in electronic cigarette technologies...." be better off as a Friend of the Court versus an advocate in the court?

I understand that it is good to have a political arm/entity at times, but at other times (and this may be one of those times), such entities also need to step up and actually roll up their shirt sleeves and wade in the muck to join the fight.

 

[Sun Vaporer]

Sun, I'm not sure what exactly you mean. How does an organization that states it's mission to be, ".....an association of private sector companies engaged in electronic cigarette technologies...." be better off as a Friend of the Court versus an advocate in the court?

I understand that it is good to have a political arm/entity at times, but at other times (and this may be one of those times), such entities also need to step up and actually roll up their shirt sleeves and wade in the muck to join the fight.

TnA--It goes to stratagy---Sometimes it is little that does more.


Sun

 

[zapped]

Seems to me a good lawyer could argue that the F.D.A interpretation of the injunction , seizing all other shipments except Njoy and SE gives them a decidedly unfair trade advantage against the rest of us.

 

[TnA]

TnA--It goes to stratagy---Sometimes it is little that does more.


Sun

Sun, being a career military man and a military planner, I can understand strategy. On the other hand, I have no taste for politics and therefore, have never bothered to educate myself on the nuances of it.

In simple laymen's terms, what I cannot understand is an association that bills itself as a voice for the e-cigarette business (and requests money from such businesses) sitting quietly on the sidelines and waiting for said businesses to rally together on their own to fight the good fight.

At a minimum, I would think such an organization would at least lend some expertise, thoughts, opinions, and advice as a minimal form of assistance.

What's the point of leadership if you will not lead?

Now, I will gladly acknowledge that similar concerns have previously been made about ECA's apparent lack of action and ECA eventually came out with some type of action. But during that span of time, the ECA also lent itself to a lot of hypothesizing and criticism. Communication, even the smallest bit, can provide some credibility. I'm not asking for an entire strategic plan. But how about chiming in, for starters?

 

[Instead]

My name is James Watt. Along with 6 other individuals from member companies, I am on the ECA Board of Directors. I am not a lawyer nor is my opinion legal advice. I have discussed this issue with other suppliers, including ECA members.

Judge Leon was clear that the ruling applied to NJoy and SE. He was also clear that certain claims may entitle the FDA to take action over a particular company. In order for a company to receive the same injunction they would need to enter the case. The ECA is not a supplier so it couldn't enter the case. Nor does the ECA have the necessary funds to do so even it was allowed to enter on behalf of it's members.

A group of suppliers may be able to enter the case together, but each would need to provide evidence that it is obeying current regulations.

Contacting a lawyer as suggested here: vaporoptions.com may be the best course of action for those suppliers who have had products seized.

I caution suppliers who join any such group to ensure the other members are and have been obeying current regulations.

I am not sure how one rouge member would effect the other suppliers in the group, but this is a good question to ask a lawyer.

 

[TnA]

My name is James Watt. Along with 6 other individuals from member companies, I am on the ECA Board of Directors. I am not a lawyer nor is my opinion legal advice. I have discussed this issue with other suppliers, including ECA members.

Judge Leon was clear that the ruling applied to NJoy and SE. He was also clear that certain claims may entitle the FDA to take action over a particular company. In order for a company to receive the same injunction they would need to enter the case. The ECA is not a supplier so it couldn't enter the case. Nor does the ECA have the necessary funds to do so even it was allowed to enter on behalf of it's members.

A group of suppliers may be able to enter the case together, but each would need to provide evidence that it is obeying current regulations.

Contacting a lawyer as suggested here: vaporoptions.com may be the best course of action for those suppliers who have had products seized.

I caution suppliers who join any such group to ensure the other members are and have been obeying current regulations.

I am not sure how one rouge member would effect the other suppliers in the group, but this is a good question to ask a lawyer.

Thank you for chiming in James. Just your (or any other ECA board member's) participation alone in this discussion is a good start. However, not to sound argumentative, but if the ACLU can step into trials as a representative (I don't know all the legal terms and jargon) of a party or side, why couldn't the ECA take similar action? A good example would be Mr. Banhzaf stepping into the trials as a "friend of the court(?)".

I can completely understand the monetary aspect, and I don't think there is a single (sane) supplier who would expect ECA to foot the bill. But a bunch of beatnik suppliers joining together is a completely different picture from a move led by a trade association with the beatnik suppliers in support.

Again, thanks for chiming in. The suppliers are talking this over and trying to formulate a plan of action. What was missing from the discussion was interaction with the named organizations. ECA's "participation" in formulating a plan of action, alone, would do wonders and would speak highly of the value of the organization.

 

[eric]

The ECA doesn't want to chime in to defend other suppliers for more specific reasons than this, I'm sure. I'll refrain from saying anymore on the matter.

 

[Instead]

TnA,

Originally we did discuss filing an amicus brief, however decided in the end that an organization based on suppliers may not pull any weight with the judge as the "supplier" point of view was already being argued. In any case, the judge apparently doesn't need any more input, as he has stated his opinion quite clearly.

As for the ECA actually intervening into the case, not all ECA members would want to be involved in the case as they have not had shipments stopped. Any supplier seeking an injunction against the FDA would need to have had product stopped by the FDA (opinion....again not a lawyer). It is possible that a specific group of suppliers within the ECA and/or those not involved in the ECA would intervene, but that is something that needs further discussion among interested suppliers. Even in the unlikely case that the ECA as a whole did enter the case, it could only represent it's members, not every US supplier as the preliminary injunction is company specific.

Eric,

How can we better help you, a US supplier?

 

[TnA]

TnA,

Originally we did discuss filing an amicus brief, however decided in the end that an organization based on suppliers may not pull any weight with the judge as the "supplier" point of view was already being argued. In any case, the judge apparently doesn't need any more input, as he has stated his opinion quite clearly.

As for the ECA actually intervening into the case, not all ECA members would want to be involved in the case as they have not had shipments stopped. Any supplier seeking an injunction against the FDA would need to have had product stopped by the FDA (opinion....again not a lawyer). It is possible that a specific group of suppliers within the ECA and/or those not involved in the ECA would intervene, but that is something that needs further discussion among interested suppliers. Even in the unlikely case that the ECA as a whole did enter the case, it could only represent it's members, not every US supplier as the preliminary injunction is company specific.

Eric,

How can we better help you, a US supplier?

James, not to sound argumentative (because I think I understand where the ECA is coming from), but this line of reasoning (in bold) is one of the reasons why I hesitate in becoming a supporting member of the ECA.

I think we heard the mantra before about asking for money before seeing any proof. So, until suppliers see more proof of viability in usability of the ECA, what reason do suppliers have for becoming supporting members?

I liken it to a union. Why would a employee of a company join a union where they have to pay union dues until they know the union dues will be used to their advantage?

These are just my thoughts and in no way meant as any kind of bash on ECA.

 

[77fro]

all i gota say is $#%^ the customs and the fda

 

[TnA]

all i gota say is $#%^ the customs and the fda

I don't disagree with your feelings, 77fro....but unfortunately, your post is not helpful to the current discussion.

 

[Instead]

I too wish that $300 per month or even the lowest level ECA membership of $100 per month would be enough to ensure the FDA left me alone, but that is not realistic. If we had 50 members of the ECA then maybe we could all discuss using some of the money to at least get a lawyers opinion, but again we have very limited resources. It appears you want a trade organization to help you before you will join. If that is the case, that is fine, just let me know what we need to do.

Any group or group of suppliers who enters the case would have to represent specific companies, not the industry as a whole.

Rather than bolding "it could only represent it's members" it would be more accurate to bold "it could only represent it's members, not every US supplier as the preliminary injunction is company specific."

If you have a way for every US supplier to enter the case and gain a preliminary junction against the FDA, let me know.

 

[hawk]

I found this description on a Nurses medical website.
"
The Nicotrol Inhaler, developed by Pharmacia & Upjohn Inc. but marketed by McNeil Consumer Products has recently been approved by the FDA and is available by prescription. The inhaler looks like a fat plastic cigarette, and a foil-wrapped nicotine cartridge is inserted into a white tube. Each puff of the inhaler contains eight to ten times less nicotine than a puff of a cigarette, and none of the tar and toxins from regular cigarettes. The inhaler provides a "hand-to-mouth" behavior, and it provides a sensation on the back of the throat similar to the feeling of inhaling a cigarette. Nicotine inhaled through the mouthpiece is absorbed bucally (through the mouth), rather than through the lungs.

Does this sound familiar...other than no vaporization...the product delivery system intention is the same. Provide an experience similar to actual smoking with out the noxious smoke.....hmmmmmmmm

 

[SMILIN]

I have had over 100K seized, and just received letter that FDA wants to destroy about45k cost. I have been wanting to join and sit on the board, and offered substantial fuding, but, this went nowhere. I guess I am on my own now to hire atty's. I was ready, willing, and able to join lawsuit. Just the facts.

I have defiinately, been harmed, no?

Steve

 

[68stang]

over 100k? Wow.....this stuff is not even illigal .....it's sick that they can get away with that