Speaking of the Constitution, and trying to get back on topic, if a statute is hopelessly vague, such that people can't figure out what it covers and what it doesn't so that they can adjust their behavior accordingly, the statute may be declared "void for vagueness" and thus unconstitutional. The FSPTCA, particularly as interpreted and applied by the FDA, may be void for vagueness and I am surprised that neither of the lawsuits filed to date has made this attack.Only concern should be on actual Constitutionality of action.....
I have the right to believe you can believe what you want.......and so can I
Specifically, The FSPTCA defines "tobacco product" to mean "any product made or derived from tobacco that is intended for human consumption, including any component, part, or accessory of a tobacco product (except for raw materials other than tobacco used in manufacturing a component, part, or accessory of a tobacco product)."
This definition is badly flawed. When writing a definition, you must not include the defined term in the definition. This is particularly important when writing statutory definitions. It makes the definition circle back on itself.
In this case, when a "tobacco product" is initially limited to things which are made or derived from tobacco, and then they try to expand the definition to include other things, but those other things must also be "of a tobacco product" as initially defined, then it would seem to me that these other things could only qualify as tobacco products if they were likewise made or derived from tobacco. That would exclude such things as atomizers and battery powered mods, which conceptually differ very little, if at all, from smoking pipes--just equipment for using tobacco and things derived from tobacco.
