Deeming Regulations have been released!!!!

[Philabos]

I know we're going a bit far afield, but what agencies exist that you believe are unconstitutional and why do you believe that? Just because you don't like the policies of any given agency doesn't make them unconstitutional.

Every federal agency was voted into existence under law by congress, is funded by congress, and all that is signed by the president. Besides, they are under the executive branch which means they all, in one way or another, answer to the chief executive. There are very few that are run independently but still require Senate confirmation for the officers like the Federal Reserve, and that was done with great reason.

If you eliminate every agency as "unconstitutional" just who is supposed to execute any law that's passed? Which means there is no rule of law as there's no one to enforce it. If anyone ever worries about judicial rule from the bench now, what would happen if you eliminated every federal agency?

Not agreeing or liking a policy is one thing, but suggesting that they're unconstitutional is unhelpful in attempting to influence a policy you disagree with. Like it if not, the IRS is legal, the FDA is legal, as are all the rest.

While I agree with most of your post, the issue is not the bureaucracy OR the judiciary, today we have them both.
Activist groups, including the anti vape lot, file cases before friendly judges. You can believe they research this carefully to select the right jurisdiction. The AG has even pointed out the concern about federal judges announcing wide ranging national policy from the bench, but we are there like it or not. The bureaucracy is also noted for helping activist groups file cases to essentially force compliance along their lines of desire. The bureaucracy also engages in wide interpretation of intentionally vague laws passed by Congress. But that is exactly want Congress wants in the end. Rule by fiat is so much easier.
Between the two of them, IMHO we stand zero chance.
Ironic, since most of them want to legalize other substances which stand almost a 100% chance of happening.
Welcome to today's America.

 

[Eskie]

While I agree with most of your post, the issue is not the bureaucracy OR the judiciary, today we have them both.
Activist groups, including the anti vape lot, file cases before friendly judges. You can believe they research this carefully to select the right jurisdiction. The AG has even pointed out the concern about federal judges announcing wide ranging national policy from the bench, but we are there like it or not. The bureaucracy is also noted for helping activist groups file cases to essentially force compliance along their lines of desire. The bureaucracy also engages in wide interpretation of intentionally vague laws passed by Congress. But that is exactly want Congress wants in the end. Rule by fiat is so much easier.
Between the two of them, IMHO we stand zero chance.
Ironic, since most of them want to legalize other substances which stand almost a 100% chance of happening.
Welcome to today's America.

Oh, I agree the system is seriously damaged. It's why lobbyists get to drive such nice cars.

I've always wondered how it is that many of these activist groups and associations even have standing to bring a case into court. I get that they can file briefs in support of one side or another for the court to consider, but how is it they get to be the actual plaintiffs in the first place?

 

[Ceejay0875]

Oh, I agree the system is seriously damaged. It's why lobbyists get to drive such nice cars.

I've always wondered how it is that many of these activist groups and associations even have standing to bring a case into court. I get that they can file briefs in support of one side or another for the court to consider, but how is it they get to be the actual plaintiffs in the first place?

They've got the cash for the court filing fees. That's all it takes.

 

[Rossum]

They've got the cash for the court filing fees. That's all it takes.

To initiate a suit, yeah, that's all it takes. But for a court not to throw it out, one generally has to have "standing", and that usually means the party suing has to have been "injured" in some way. That's the part that @Eskie is questioning. How exactly does this delay "injure" the American Academy of Pediatrics?
Standing (law) - Wikipedia

 

[zoiDman]

Does someone like the AAP need to be an "Injured Party"? Or can they act pro alio.

As long as they can Satisfy a Court that the below applies to them...

2. The party is not directly harmed by the conditions by which they are petitioning the court for relief but asks for it because the harm involved has some reasonable relation to their situation, and the continued existence of the harm may affect others who might not be able to ask a court for relief. In the United States, this is the grounds for asking for a law to be struck down as violating the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, because while the plaintiff might not be directly affected, the law might so adversely affect others that one might never know what was not done or created by those who fear they would become subject to the law – the so-called "chilling effects" doctrine.

Standing (law) - Wikipedia

 

[Eskie]

And its that "reasonable relation" that's a big enough loophole to fly a 747 through. For example, if the AAP has concern based on their reasonable relation to underage vaping, preexisting law making such use unlawful should be a sufficient remedy. Where is the interest for that group to petition over the entire regulatory approval process itself? Besides, as cigarettes will always remain legal and available in the US under the TCA, perhaps concern for assuring innovative smoking cessation options exist for their pediatric patients once they grow up is more appropriate. It's not like once they hit 18, a pediatrician shouldn't care what happens to them down the road.

Too many challenges are brought by groups with weak, nebulous relations to a law or regulation in a lot more cases than just this one.

 

[DaveP]

Sure, but it's kinda like saying, "Yes, dear" to the wife.

That approach is usually the right one in the long term. Any other tactic doesn't usually turn out well, but male that I am I frequently have to speak my mind, however tactfully or not. Balance of power is sometimes beneficial once they start talking to you again.

I do my most efficient yard work during those times.

 

[DaveP]

What I say to smokers is what I said to myself. Smoke whenever you want but start vaping too and don't stop vaping. I was a dual user for 6 weeks. A brother of mine did both for 10 months. Over time cigs started to taste awful. Today I would say vaping is an entirely superior experience. I wouldn't go back to smoking if you gave me free cigs and garranteed my health.

Smoking a carton a week cost me $3,000 a year. Cost of ingredients for a year supply of DIY is less than $36. Mix and rebuild and don't buy stuff you don't need and vaping is free.

And that's another area where DIY pays off. Just about everyone could justify a new car payment from the savings gained by quitting smoking, especially in the last few years when cigarette prices soared.

 

[zoiDman]

And its that "reasonable relation" that's a big enough loophole to fly a 747 through. ...

Sometimes it May. Sometimes it May Not.

But this... "and the continued existence of the harm may affect others who might not be able to ask a court for relief." is something that may have a lot of Mitigating Weight if the reasonable relation is Vague or might be considered Dubious.

 

[DaveP]

I read a study a while back that said it’s the rhythm of the inhale and exhale, much like meditation. Don’t know how valid that is, but it definitely slows down my frantic brain.

That, and concentrating on your measured breathing. It's hard to do that and think about what's bugging you. A clear mind is a good thing.

 

[DaveP]

Re-posting here, in case it was missed from another thread:
FDA finalizes guidance for premarket tobacco product applications for electronic nicotine delivery systems as part of commitment to continuing a strong oversight of e-cigarettes

https://www.fda.gov/media/127853/download

They are including battery safety as one of the areas that will be addressed for a PMTA. We might be limited to a 30W and under approval parameter (just reading between the lines).

FDA finalizes guidance for premarket tobacco product applications for electronic nicotine delivery systems as part of commitment to continuing a strong oversight of e-cigarettes

Additionally, to enable the FDA to assess the risks of a battery to be used in a particular product, the agency is also recommending that applications include, among other things, information on: amperage, voltage, wattage, battery type (chemistry), whether the battery is consumer-replaceable, testing certificates for any voluntary electrical standards for the battery or device—including UL 8139, the recently published, first-ever standard specifically for ENDS products—and under- or over-voltage protections, as well as plans for addressing the likelihood of use and foreseeable misuse leading to overheating, fire and explosion during operation, charging, storage and transportation for distribution.

 

[Eskie]

Sometimes it May. Sometimes it May Not.

But this... "and the continued existence of the harm may affect others who might not be able to ask a court for relief." is something that may have a lot of Mitigating Weight if the reasonable relation is Vague or might be considered Dubious.

Which I can see that as a utility for the Pacific Spotted Crosseyed Owl needing the Sierra club (maybe) because owls are horrible at filing motions in a timely manner, but adult humans have the ability to ask for relief. Just like I as a person could bring suit against the FDA for eliminating a product through excessive regulation that spares me from the dangers of continued cigarette addiction out of existence.

Of course as long as they leave a single product on the market they could say "well we left you this so it's not like we banned ALL products".

Which is why I'll stick with my stockpile and multiple freezer locations. But then I've always been a consider the worst case scenario and hope for the best.

 

[Eskie]

They are including battery safety as one of the areas that will be addressed for a PMTA. We might be limited to a 30W and under approval parameter (just reading between the lines).

FDA finalizes guidance for premarket tobacco product applications for electronic nicotine delivery systems as part of commitment to continuing a strong oversight of e-cigarettes

IDK if you can determine whether or not devices would be limited to 30W and under from that section. The Innokin Kroma A got UL certification (specifically mentioned as worth including in your application) and it's a 75W device.

 

[mikepetro]

Which is why I'll stick with my stockpile and multiple freezer locations.

Hmmm, never really considered that, but it makes sense. Just like I store computer backups in 3 different locations.

Now you got me thinking about another freezer in a separate location........

 

[zoiDman]

Which I can see that as a utility for the Pacific Spotted Crosseyed Owl needing the Sierra club (maybe) because owls are horrible at filing motions in a timely manner, but adult humans have the ability to ask for relief. Just like I as a person could bring suit against the FDA for eliminating a product through excessive regulation that spares me from the dangers of continued cigarette addiction out of existence.

...

OK. But let me just Flip the Script for second.

If CASAA brought a Lawsuit against the State of New York e-Cigarette Laws, Regulations, and or Taxes on behalf of NY Vaper's, do you think there would be much Push-Back from people here regarding Legal Standing?

Don't get me Wrong. Our Legal System is about as ed Up as it gets. And I'm not trying to Defend or Side with the AAP.

But most times an Individual, or even Group of Individuals, just Can't Afford or have the Legal Expertise to seek a Remedy from someone like a Major Corporation. Or a State. Or our Federal Government.

So yeah... Legal Motions brought "On Behalf" have the distinct possibility of being Misused. But they Also can allow an Individual the Ability to seek a Remedy that they Didn't have without them.

 

[Rossum]

If CASAA brought a Lawsuit against the State of New York e-Cigarette Laws, Regulations, and or Taxes on behalf of NY Vaper's, do you think there would be much Push-Back from people here regarding Legal Standing?

If CASAA were to do that, I'm confident they would do that as joint plaintiffs with actual, individually identifiable vapers who had been "injured", thus obviating any question of standing.

 

[zoiDman]

If CASAA were to do that, I'm confident they would do that as joint plaintiffs with actual, individually identifiable vapers who had been "injured", thus obviating any question of standing.

The Question still remains...

If CASAA, or some other Entity, filed such a Lawsuit against NY State without any joint plaintiffs, do you think there would be Anyone here who would Challenge their ability to do so on the grounds of Legal Standing?

 

[Rossum]

The Question still remains...

If CASAA, or some other Entity, filed such a Lawsuit against NY State without any joint plaintiffs, do you think there would be Anyone here who would Challenge their ability to do so on the grounds of Legal Standing?

Here? No, almost certainly not. People generally don't challenge an action that's likely to benefit them.

 

[zoiDman]

Here? No, almost certainly not. People generally don't challenge an action that's likely to benefit them.

You Hit the Nail Squarely on the Head Rossum.

That's what makes Legality/Illegality such a Strange and Convoluted thing.

 

[DaveP]

It's still all about protecting tobacco tax income for the states until the last tobacco tax dollar is paid to government. It has been and will be until tobacco companies sell their last pack and move on to another revenue stream. Tobacco companies are creating new products and entering into new territory. Products like Vuze are likely to help them recover from lack of cigarette sales, IMO.

E-cigarettes are hard for governments to condemn in spite of the fact that ecigs are killing the revenue stream from tobacco taxes.

People using e-cigarettes are 95 percent more likely to quit smoking: Study- Technology News, Firstpost