E Juice not a tobacco product????

Status
Not open for further replies.

dr g

Moved On
ECF Veteran
Mar 12, 2012
3,554
2,406
Paradise
Maybe it's a matter of semantics, because tobacco regulation probably is unavoidable.

Don't think it is. I think there's a high chance of the creation of a new category for vaping, or the modification of an old category. The online sale question is a big one, IMO.

Any legal remedies would need to come after the fact.

As far as I know you can't really have a legal remedy until there is something to remedy.
And there won't be anything to remedy until the FDA tells us what the regulations are going to be.

Actually the discussed legal remedy would address an existing fact -- that the FDA can regulate ecigarettes as tobacco. We already know they intend to regulate.
 
Last edited:

DC2

Tootie Puffer
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jun 21, 2009
24,161
40,974
San Diego
To provide a Remedy, there has to be an Injured Party to provide the Remedy to.

So yes, you would have to Bring Forth a Suit Claiming that some Party was Injured because of the FDA's Actions.

And the Chances of winning that Suit are about the Same as Winning the Lotto while Being Struck by Lightning.
It's funny, my wife passed the bar exam and got her license, yet she NEVER thinks you can successfully sue for anything I ever bring up.
Maybe that's why she never actually started practicing law.
:laugh:
 

Uncle Willie

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
May 27, 2011
2,395
102,613
Meet Me in St Louie Louie
To provide a Remedy, there has to be an Injured Party to provide the Remedy to.

So yes, you would have to Bring Forth a Suit Claiming that some Party was Injured because of the FDA's Actions.

And the Chances of winning that Suit are about the Same as Winning the Lotto while Being Struck by Lightning.

When Smoking Everywhere / NJOY won the case, the battle lines were drawn .. and since then, the FDA has been lining up it's next move carefully and methodically .. so as not to be caught again by surprise ..

Yes, when the bell tolls for the next round, the legal folks on our side will certainly be back in court ,, but it's going to be a whole different ballgame ..
 

DC2

Tootie Puffer
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jun 21, 2009
24,161
40,974
San Diego
Don't think it is. I think there's a high chance of the creation of a new category for vaping, or the modification of an old category. The online sale question is a big one, IMO.
I'm not sure if you missed my earlier post in this thread, but there already IS a new category that vaping can be put in...

The FSPTCA mandates that the FDA come up with rules for being accepted as a Modified Risk Tobacco Product.

Here is the Draft Guidance that they issued in March 2012...
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/TobaccoProducts/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/UCM297751.pdf

Here is a critique of that Draft Guidance as issued...
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2012/04/fda-guidance-on-modified-risk-tobacco.html

I guess you're saying that there should be a legal challenge to the concept of calling nicotine a tobacco product.

Is the nature of that challenge (what form it would take) outlined in this thread already?
If so, I would consider going back to try and find it.
:)
 

Punkonjunk

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
May 13, 2013
77
42
37
green bay, wisconsin
Most estrogen is derived from pregnant horse piss.

Seriously.

Does that mean all people on hormone therapy are horses? Or piss drinkers?

That's the distinction here. Just because you might need estrogen doesn't mean you want people to call you a piss drinker.

The distinction is in the end product, explicitly. The reason we want to make the distinction so badly is because it's not a tobacco product comparable to the wide variety of them. We're extracting a single component from tobacco, unlike everything else; snus, pipe tobac, shisha, cigarettes.... they are a whole leaf product.

We make this distinction because we are not piss-drinkers.

We use a single component that has been extracted, much like so, so many other things in the world, where we don't call these the same ....... thing.

It's not hard, and I'm not sure what's up with the argument.
 

dr g

Moved On
ECF Veteran
Mar 12, 2012
3,554
2,406
Paradise
I'm not sure if you missed my earlier post in this thread, but there already IS a new category that vaping can be put in...

Yes I do know about that category. It is also tobacco regulation and we would likely lose online sales, along with many retailers if the standards of scientific proof are too costly to certify.

I guess you're saying that there should be a legal challenge to the concept of calling nicotine a tobacco product.

Is the nature of that challenge (what form it would take) outlined in this thread already?
If so, I would consider going back to try and find it.
:)

Yup that's what we were discussing. Basically a non-tobacco nicotine test case.
 

madstabber

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jan 20, 2013
3,961
7,061
Concoction Creating Cave
Ejuice and tobacco are 2 completely different things. Tobacco is a plant, e-juice is pg or vg or both, flavor and nicotine. Just because they both contain one ingredient that is the same doesn't mean it's the same thing, that's incredibly dumb. That's like saying bottled water is a chicken product, or cars are a petroleum product. Complete ignorance.
 

zoiDman

My -0^10 = Nothing at All*
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Apr 16, 2010
41,648
1
84,845
So-Cal
http://wivapers.blogspot.com/2013/07/are-nicotine-e-cigarettes-tobacco.html

Déjà vu

Nicotine isn't regulated by what form it takes, but instead by "intended use" in the US.

If the nicotine is contained in a product with an "intended use" as a smoking cessation or other treatment, it is then regulated as a "drug" and must go through clinical trials, studies, etc., and the product must meet strict manufacturing protocols before release to the public. If the nicotine is contained in a product with an intended use of "recreational" (ie. intended for human consumption but not as a treatment of any kind) it is regulated as a tobacco product. (A third classification is a pesticide, but that form of nicotine is not allowed for human consumption.)

It was this "intended use" criteria which kept the FDA from being able to deem non-therapeutic e-cigarettes as unapproved drugs. So long as the manufacturer/retailer made no treatment/health/therapeutic claims, they weren't considered a drug, but that meant the only other option was "tobacco product." The FDA defines a "tobacco product" as any product that not only contains tobacco leaf, but also any derivative (ie. "a compound derived or obtained from another and containing essential elements of the parent substance") of tobacco. Nicotine is clearly a "derivative" of tobacco. While it is also a derivative of other plants, the nicotine in e-liquid is currently all derived from tobacco. However, since nicotine is classified by "intended use" and not the source, even nicotine from other plant material could be deemed a substantial equivalent and treated exactly the same as tobacco-derived nicotine, because of it's intended use. It's obvious to everyone that we use e-cigarettes with the same "intended use" as other tobacco products - mainly, the same way we used to use traditional cigarettes. It may be a far safer form of recreational nicotine use that regulators never foresaw, but it is still technically "recreational use" of nicotine derived from tobacco.

It's important to note that the only "bad" things about being considered a tobacco product is 1) the public perception that all tobacco products are equally harmful and 2) the threat that the FDA will regulate them as if all tobacco is equally harmful. Educating the public and correcting this perception and convincing the FDA and politicians not to regulate low-risk tobacco products identically to high-risk products is CASAA's goal. Changing perceptions and exposing the lie that there "is no safe tobacco product" will also go a long way towards gaining social acceptance. (ie. If the public still believes that all nicotine use should be discouraged because it's equally dangerous, it won't matter if e-liquid gets a separate category. They will just regulate that category as strictly as tobacco - possibly worse. We could end up with less hoops to jump through than drug products, but far more than if we are a tobacco product.) The chance that the FDA will treat a product that is derived from tobacco and used like tobacco as a whole separate category, with less rules than tobacco, is extremely slim. Especially if the public continues to believe that the ultimate goal in smoking cessation is eliminating the nicotine addiction instead of eliminating exposure to smoke.
 

zoiDman

My -0^10 = Nothing at All*
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Apr 16, 2010
41,648
1
84,845
So-Cal
Oh yeah, I remember now... eggplants.
:)

Uummmmmm, Nicotine.

aubergine_-_eggplant.jpg
 

zoiDman

My -0^10 = Nothing at All*
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Apr 16, 2010
41,648
1
84,845
So-Cal
Yes, I read that. And that's exactly the paradigm that needs to be court-challenged. It might not even make it to a decision, as the scientific evidence is piling up rapidly.

I'm trying to be Nice Here...

But on what Legal Basis is this "paradigm" going to Challenged?
 

BigBen2k

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jul 1, 2013
2,323
1,678
MA, USA
It's also in tomatoes... Anyone in favor of regulating ketchup? :p

Last I checked, suing the FDA for a regulation that doesn't yet exist, is going to get dismissed; there's no injustice present to argue about.

Yes, the FDA has the authority to regulate nicotine, because of a previous case where it was argued that, between a medical device or a tobacco product, it should be considered a tobacco product. Strangely, this was considered a loss for the FDA, and they didn't opt to appeal it.

As of right now, there isn't a case to argue, and there's no case to appeal, that will reclassify nicotine outside of where it currently stands.

We're just waiting for the FDA's next move, and the following lawsuit(s), to finally settle this, once and for all.

The sad part in all this, is how a simple technological improvement is so difficult to handle; what will happen when these technological improvements are a daily occurrence? :unsure: Ecigs are simply a battery wired to a heating coil, with a liquid feeding system; they are far from being an engineering marvel.:closedeyes:
 

dr g

Moved On
ECF Veteran
Mar 12, 2012
3,554
2,406
Paradise
I'm trying to be Nice Here...

But on what Legal Basis is this "paradigm" going to Challenged?

Enough of the FSPTCA hinges on tobacco products being derived from tobacco that it could probably be challenged on those grounds per se. I actually didn't find the language in the FSPTCA about intended use or alternative nicotine sources, can anyone find it?
 

kristin

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Aug 16, 2009
10,448
21,120
CASAA - Wisconsin
casaa.org
My point is, if nicotine was extracted from other sources, would it be subject to regulation as well?
Nicotine, just like caffeine, is a naturally occurring substance. If the nic was extracted from eggplant or tomatoes, would it demand such attention as if it were extracted from tobacco? Yes it would.

The arguement is invalid.
What people need to understand is that nicotine in the US is regulated by INTENDED USE, not by its source. There are 4 classifications of "intended use": 1) drug treatment/therapeutic 2) tobacco product 3) modified risk tobacco product (MRTP) and 4) commercial pesticide. Ideally, e-cigarette liquid would fall under #3, but it is literally impossible to meet the standards. For #4 (the only one that allows the use of synthetic nicotine) it is not approved for human consumption. So, we are left with #1 or #2. With #1, each company must get FDA approval - after clinical trials proving their brand works as a treatment for nicotine addiction - and must be removed from the market until approved. That leaves #2, which basically covers all nicotine products intended for recreational use and not approved as a drug treatment or MRTP. If e-cig companies ever find a comparable way to extract from non-tobacco sources, because of the intended use (recreational use nicotine) it would likely still be regulated exactly as tobacco-sourced nicotine. The FDA will be able to deem regulations for nicotine regardless of the source - it is a product that is sold to people to be consumed, is considered highly addictive and a "possible gateway to other tobacco use."

Think of it this way - vodka and wine are both made from very different sources, but they are both regulated as alcohol products because of intended use - and regulated far different than rubbing alcohol and ethanol. No matter what the source, the FDA will treat nicotine by its intended use. Because of their intended use, it is highly unlikely that e-cigarettes would be regulated any less heavy-handed under their own category.
 
Last edited:

dr g

Moved On
ECF Veteran
Mar 12, 2012
3,554
2,406
Paradise
What people need to understand is that nicotine in the US is regulated by INTENDED USE, not by its source. There are 4 classifications of "intended use": 1) drug treatment/therapeutic 2) tobacco product 3) modified risk tobacco product (MRTP) and 4) commercial pesticide. Ideally, e-cigarette liquid would fall under #3, but it is literally impossible to meet the standards. For #4 (the only one that allows the use of synthetic nicotine) it is not approved for human consumption. So, we are left with #1 or #2. With #1, each company must get FDA approval - after clinical trials proving their brand works as a treatment for nicotine addiction - and must be removed from the matket until approved. That leaves #2, which basically covers all nicotine products intended for recreational use and not approved as a drug treatment or MRTP. If e-cig companies ever find a comparable way to extract from non-tobacco sources, because of the intended use (recreational use nicotine) it would likely still be regulated exactly as tobacco-sourced nicotine. The FDA will be able to deem regulations for nicotine regardless of the source - it is a product that is sold to people to be consumed, is considered highly addictive and a "possible gateway to other tobacco use."

Think of it this way - vodka and wine are both made from very different sources, but they are both regulated as alcohol products because of intended use - and regulated far different than rubbing alcohol and ethanol. No matter what the source, the FDA will treat nicotine by its intended use. Because of their intended use, it is highly unlikely that e-cigarettes would be regulated any less heavy-handed under their own category.

Can you provide a link to the legislative language of this? I'm having trouble finding it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread