Damn.... They only offer 1 day to file objections etc. You gotta be quick if you want to disagree with a judge.
Deeming Regulations have been released!!!!
- Thread starter Oliver
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
Going on Longer than I Realized!
March 21, 2000
The Supreme Court rules that the FDA has no authority to regulate tobacco - FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., No. 98-1152 (U.S. 03-21-2000)
Since the court found that the FDA had no authority over tobacco, all of the FDA regulations affecting tobacco are now voided. The FDA's retains it's authority to regulated nicotine
, which does have some therapeutic uses beyond its use as an anti-smoking agent, but it cannot use this authority to regulate tobacco products.
***It is not clear what role the FDA has as regard to "smokeless" cigarettes, which are very clearly a nicotine delivery device and do not involve the a traditional use for tobacco.
This opinion does not affect state level regulation of tobacco, to the extent that it does not conflict with other state laws, nor does it affect the FTC and other agencies that do have statutory authority over tobacco.
There must be something we have missed
March 21, 2000
The Supreme Court rules that the FDA has no authority to regulate tobacco - FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., No. 98-1152 (U.S. 03-21-2000)
Since the court found that the FDA had no authority over tobacco, all of the FDA regulations affecting tobacco are now voided. The FDA's retains it's authority to regulated nicotine
, which does have some therapeutic uses beyond its use as an anti-smoking agent, but it cannot use this authority to regulate tobacco products.***It is not clear what role the FDA has as regard to "smokeless" cigarettes, which are very clearly a nicotine delivery device and do not involve the a traditional use for tobacco.
This opinion does not affect state level regulation of tobacco, to the extent that it does not conflict with other state laws, nor does it affect the FTC and other agencies that do have statutory authority over tobacco.There must be something we have missed
I don't think the format for objecting is that big of a deal and most likely is a quick pre-formatted document to submit to the court.
In this case, I don't think there'll be any objections. Since both cases are suing on the same point of law, it's better to get it all put together and put the hammer down. If they had remained separate, if the first case had gone for the FDA, the second probably would have been dismissed outright with no chance at a hearing.
Anyone ever read up on the XA Project? An actual possibly Safe, or safer Cigarette that never came to market(Due to BT Pressures)
Part of this:
"Safer" Cigarettes: A History — NOVA | PBS
Part of this:
"Safer" Cigarettes: A History — NOVA | PBS
Going on Longer than I Realized!
March 21, 2000
The Supreme Court rules that the FDA has no authority to regulate tobacco - FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., No. 98-1152 (U.S. 03-21-2000)
Since the court found that the FDA had no authority over tobacco, all of the FDA regulations affecting tobacco are now voided. The FDA's retains it's authority to regulated nicotine
***It is not clear what role the FDA has as regard to "smokeless" cigarettes, which are very clearly a nicotine delivery device and do not involve the a traditional use for tobacco.
There must be something we have missed
I believe the basis of that ruling was that the FDA was never given legislative jurisdiction over tobacco at that time. however, when the Tobacco Control Act was passed into law that granted the FDA jurisdiction. Once Congress enacted that legislation, the FDA had clear authority over tobacco products. That's not to say all the grounds currently being argued won't matter, but that Supreme court ruling will not directly impact these deeming regulations.
Agreed, we still need to approach Congress to Bottle up Nicotine and take it away from the FDA.
I truly do not believe the
Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act
Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Was intended to Prevent Solutions to Traditional Tobacco Consumption.
Legislation is clearly the most effective way to handle this. Unfortunately, my faith in Congress to get something done is about as high as snow in July in Arizona.
well, this is District........so yep, Appeals.
Right. Of course, legally speaking, you're right. Appeals will follow. But it's the losing side that will have to regroup and reorganize and appeal. In the meantime, the psychological impact of winning the first battle might be extremely valuable--on all fronts. I believe it would help our cause tremendously, not only with other law suits, but also legislatively (Cole-Bishop, etc).
A girl can dream, right?
Last edited:
It's possible that the courts will look at this and gut the whole thing due to the FDA overreach on what they consider tobacco products, then toss the whole thing in Congress' lap to modify the Tobacco Act.
Not likely but yes, this is a possibility and it wouldn't be the first time the courts dumped a case back on the congress for clarification.
You are Right.
And the Biggest thing is that if a court rules in Our Favor on a count, then that Portion of the FDA's over-reach would be removed. Whereas if the court rules with the FDA on a Count, then that portion would Remain in affect while an Appeal was Done.
I dunno. The judge is a go getter and doesn't roll over when the Administration throws a hissy fit. She's one smart cookie and it's doubtful the government can pull the wool over her eyes.
Good, I hope she kicks some .....
Just want to add a thought I brought up previously that didn't seem to impress anyone. There are a number of avenues that are underway or in the future which would knock the pins out from under these regulations. Legislatively, there is HR2058 and Cole-Bishop. Legally, there are several lawsuits. And from the executive we have an election this year that changes the current executive. Retired just brought up another possibility from the legal avenue. Folks, there are lots of possibilities out there which can derail these regulations (or the most damaging parts of the regulations). By themselves, they are low odds. In total, they are much better odds. In other words, we need just one possibility to come true. When looked at it in this viewpoint, I like our odds and put them over 50% which makes it likely we will kill the most damaging parts of these regulations. That's not optimism. That's math.
I kinda hate to say it, but I wouldn't pin my hopes on the legislative angle, especially in an election year. I think we'll have to eye the court battles as our most likely avenue to beat this thing.
As I said in my post you're referring to...no one single avenue has good odds. So yes, you are correct. That said, take all the avenues in their totality knowing only one has to succeed and the odds go up dramatically. It's basic finite mathematics.
I don't think anybody here disagrees that we should explore every possible avenue. Lawsuits, Congress, A Billion Lives, Sen. Johnson... Whatever works. We just need to keep making noise and support everyone who fights to save vaping. Anyway, that's what I'm doing.
Death by a thousand cuts?
The Judge may order consolidation when the claims are substantially similar to save time, reduce costs, and conserve the resources of the court. Objections to consolidation are unlikely to be filed. The court may provide separate judgements.Doesn't matter, as any Judgement would be reflected in any following cases. Swamp dries up quick.
I wounder if this will reduce overall legal fees
I already like her, Judge Amy Berman Jackson:
Judge rejects Obama's executive privilege claim over Fast and Furious records
And that is the point. We should not give up on anything. It's too easy to look at only one thing and get depressed (which I see a lot of on this thread). But that's the wrong way to look at it. We have to look at it in its totality, work toward success in all areas, and be confident at least one will succeed.I don't think anybody here disagrees that we should explore every possible avenue. Lawsuits, Congress, A Billion Lives, Sen. Johnson... Whatever works. We just need to keep making noise and support everyone who fights to save vaping. Anyway, that's what I'm doing.
Similar threads
- Locked
