I've only read the posts to page 5 and only MOST of the pdf file. But, I see a couple of problems that stand out, too. SE is focusing on the FDA's focus on tobacco as the "drug" and reminding the court of the FDA's past refusal to get involved with tobacco and the tobacco companies' suit against the FDA rather than this being a nicotine issue and that they want to have control over nicotine. Then, all the FDA has to say is that this is a nicotine issue and there's no tobacco in the items-- and that nicotine is a known poisonous substance. From where I am in the pdf document, nicotine is barely mentioned. The FDA won't "barely mention" it unless they are ....... Really, I think that SE should have kept the liquid issue completely separate.
I took a pause before submitting this post and realized that SE CAN'T separate the liquid since they only sell cartridges and not liquid.
This changes our own issues somewhat because we buy everything separately mostly. As a matter of fact, if cartridges always came dry, we'd be perfectly fine with this since we all are buying bottles of liquid. But, if the FDA makes a ruling on this based on the e-cig as a COMPLETE product rather than components, i.e., the e-cig with or without a cartridge and then the juice separately, this could really affect us negatively. If the court would have to consider these components separately from the juice (and if SE was pushing them to do this), this might be an entirely different ruling (when it's actually ruled).
I hope these thoughts are clear!
From my limited legal knowledge, I would think that dealing with these as an e-cig that can vaporize glycerine based products would be something the FDA would not have authority over. But, once you add in nicotine, this takes the case in a different direction and it's one that SE's proposed argument doesn't really cover too well.
Of course, everyone-- the FDA, SE, and the judge may all disagree on this and/or may miss this argument entirely.
I took a pause before submitting this post and realized that SE CAN'T separate the liquid since they only sell cartridges and not liquid.
This changes our own issues somewhat because we buy everything separately mostly. As a matter of fact, if cartridges always came dry, we'd be perfectly fine with this since we all are buying bottles of liquid. But, if the FDA makes a ruling on this based on the e-cig as a COMPLETE product rather than components, i.e., the e-cig with or without a cartridge and then the juice separately, this could really affect us negatively. If the court would have to consider these components separately from the juice (and if SE was pushing them to do this), this might be an entirely different ruling (when it's actually ruled).
I hope these thoughts are clear!
From my limited legal knowledge, I would think that dealing with these as an e-cig that can vaporize glycerine based products would be something the FDA would not have authority over. But, once you add in nicotine, this takes the case in a different direction and it's one that SE's proposed argument doesn't really cover too well.
Of course, everyone-- the FDA, SE, and the judge may all disagree on this and/or may miss this argument entirely.
damn-it Smokey! 
