It does with a "Fully Informed Jury."
Deeming Regulations have been released!!!!
- Thread starter Oliver
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
True, in criminal matters. Unfortunately, this is an administrative law matter. Apologies for not being clear enough in my original reply.
Oh, it can.
But!
There's a time and place for everything.
Imagine we took a huge collection at the onset of this suit and hired an Orenthal James dream team to help represent Nicopure.
Or... dream team lawyers just happened to be vapers and volunteered their services.
Tapatyped
I have learned something interesting today. Would you think Wikileaks would be interested in what the FDA is up to.? I may just write out some stuff and see if I get a response. I think they love catching the .gov with their pants down. OMG! Can I say that?
My take on Dimitrius is he is full of himself and likes telling people what to do. Just my opinion and worth what you paid for it.
Anyone here have access to these?
E-Cig Makers Grilled On Challenge To FDA Rules - Law360
E-Cig Makers Grilled On Challenge To FDA Rules
E-Cig Makers Grilled On Challenge To FDA Rules - Law360
E-Cig Makers Grilled On Challenge To FDA Rules
I posted this elsewhere but, most people don't read the posts there. Thought it may interest some of you. It is the first that I have heard of it.
E-Cigarette Regulations Go Under Magnifying Glass
E-Cigarette Regulations Go Under Magnifying Glass | White Cloud
E-Cigarette Regulations Go Under Magnifying Glass
E-Cigarette Regulations Go Under Magnifying Glass | White Cloud
Well, whatever the ruling is that eventually comes out, it will help define how they will proceed on appeal. And there's still Cole Bishop as well as H.R. 2058 to get through Congress. Still glad my freezer is full.
What's really ridiculous is that vaping products are deemed tobacco products when there is no tobacco in them anywhere. The only connection vaping products have in common is nicotine, which is not tobacco. Also nicotine is squeezed out of tobacco and added back in at certain amounts. Does the action of removing nicotine from tobacco (that's what it's called) make nicotine a different chemical altogether than tobacco? Are nicotine patches, lozenges, patches, and gums deemed tobacco products because they contain nicotine? Nicotine is not even exclusively in tobacco. It's not even nicotine that's the substance that's the killer.
But here I am again beating a dead horse to the wrong audience. : (
But here I am again beating a dead horse to the wrong audience. : (
Feels good to get it off your chest though, huh?
Oh, you are too sweet! It does feel good.
@seminolewind ,I see you must have missed the memo.
BP nicotine = pure as the wind driven snow mixed with
fairy dust.
Nicotine used in e-cigarettes = the most evil,poisonous,
most highly addictive child attracting substance ever known
to mankind.
It was in all the papers.
Regards
Mike
Courtroom drama: the battle begins to save vaping - Vaping360
First article I've been able to find. Tell a friend. Tell a family member. Tell CONGRESS PERSON!! Change the date!! No it isn't a final solution but it would grant more time for bias to change and those pesky "long term" studies to develop.
First article I've been able to find. Tell a friend. Tell a family member. Tell CONGRESS PERSON!! Change the date!! No it isn't a final solution but it would grant more time for bias to change and those pesky "long term" studies to develop.
If, as the linked article suggests, this judge still doesn't understand the difference between open and closed system products and plaintiffs' counsel failed to explain it to her, there's a serious and fundamental problem with the way this case is being presented.
I was glad the judge expressed interest in whether the FDA was required to conduct a cost/benefit analysis because the FDA's cost/benefit analysis was essentially nonexistent. If she concludes that it was required, she'll rule for the plaintiffs. Of course, an argument can be made that it isn't required because the enabling statute (FSPTCA) doesn't specifically require it. The counter-argument is it does require that any regulation must be "appropriate," and how can the FDA determine if it's appropriate without a cost/benefit analysis?
That said, I wouldn't try to predict how this is going to turn out based on what transpired yesterday. You can't tell how a judge is leaning based on questions asked at oral argument. I've argued cases in all levels of state and federal courts with the sole exception of the SCOTUS, and I've learned not to read anything into the questions asked or how they're asked. Many judges will question what later turns out to be the winning side much more aggressively.
Also please bear in mine that this case will be reviewed all over again ("de novo") in the Circuit Court of Appeals. New briefs will be written and new oral arguments will be presented. On appeal in cases of this kind the district court's ruling is entitled to zero deference.
@seminolewind ,I see you must have missed the memo.
BP nicotine = pure as the wind driven snow mixed with
fairy dust.
Nicotine used in e-cigarettes = the most evil,poisonous,
most highly addictive child attracting substance ever known
to mankind.
It was in all the papers.
Regards
Mike
Sorry, I did miss the memo. Thanks for letting me know! LOL
Similar threads
- Locked
