FDA Sued Over Electronic Cigarette Embargo
- Thread starter Sun Vaporer
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
-
- Tags
- baker fda legal regulation usa
- Status
Chuck - I refer you to Sun's comments. I also would remind you that keeping true to yourself and writing about your own experience with the ecig will create an emotional, yet rational letter. Those will be read and considered.
Don't worry about all of the other stuff. If you start to write and find yourself reaching above your head... then your letter will not come off as you intend it to. It will also become a miserable experience and it shouldn't be.
I am not sure if letter writing is good or bad in this case...I do understand that this case could effect people who vape. However, I am not a party to this civil action - so why would a judge entertain my opinions?
I do not think a Federal Judge would take any case too lightly.
I think letter writing to elected officials is a great idea, but again I am not sure if it would be beneficial in this case. It is my understanding that filing an amicus brief would be the proper way for non-parties to express opinions to the court. Maybe someone ought to contact the attorneys in this case and get their opinions regarding letter writing...
I could be completely wrong here, just stating some initial thoughts (and playing a bit of devils advocate). I want to be certain that every step is taken correctly to ensure that these great devices remain legal.
It's crap like this that will get ecigs pulled off the market faster than anything.
PS. I don't think I want E-Cigs considered a tobacco product. Then it falls under various bans as well. By doing this for a few months of sales it may even further doom E-Cig users.
Last edited:
I've seen links to the judge's official information, but does anyone have any history of this judge and any similar cases that may have been brought before him?
Might give some insight into which argument he may lean towards.
Ivisi
Might give some insight into which argument he may lean towards.
Ivisi
Chuck, you're right. Writing letters to a judge is a silly idea. He is not judging e-smoking. He is judging a specific corporation's complaint of illegal action. E-smokers have nothing of value to say to him.
When a Judge looks at a the merits of a Preliminary Injuction --they take into account many factors--one of them is the public. So although as a user, you do not have standing in the case or contraversy--you are a member of the public that is affected by the outcome---write the letter. Judges talk with their Clerks all the time and kick ideas around before making a ruling--If they know that these are being used by many as an alternative to cigarettes--it will show them that their is a public interest.
As it stands now, the Judge and the Clerks will think this is just Some NOVELTY THAT IS A JOKE AND NOBODY USES OR CARES ABOUT ANYWAY----So please bear that in mind.-----Sun
If you have been there and know what goes on behind the scenes, TB you would not make that statement at all--You need to know how the Judges and their Clerks work and how they make decisions---they are people and broad discersion is given to Judges when deciding to balance the equitys------Sun
1. Can you please set up something that is sort of like a guidelines letter? Like how to address the court?
2. A fax number* would be nice
(free internet faxing)
3. Tell us what we should put in it, like our personal experiences, etc.?
Thank you!
I will Faethe--it is so important that the Court knows what is going on here and that this is not a toy---Sun
This is true, the public interest is one of the 4 factors considered when granting a preliminary injunction. However, I am still unsure if letter writing is the appropriate way to prove to the court that the public interest is served by granting such an injunction...
What if somebody's letter mistakenly said something harmful to our cause?
Maybe soliciting letters should be up to the attorneys in this case...
This does not logically follow. All the bans are expressly and specifically designed to protect the public from second-hand smoke. They all center directly around ignition/combustion/lighting of tobacco products. Ecigs, while according to SE's arguments in this matter are the functional equivalent of cigarettes, and their cartridge liquids are derived from tobacco, nonetheless contain no tobacco, and most importantly as to the question of bans, involve no combustion and no smoke.
I am watching this thread, but if you want to start another one I am all over it
I have quit smoking. I mean, I have really quit and it just boggles my mind because I thought it would be impossible. So anything to keep these things coming, most especially to peoples who are addicted and can no longer afford cigarettes because of taxes.
Chuck--do what you like--but to hide in the sand when you have an opportunity to be heard is not the way I am going:
The four well-established criteria for granting a preliminary injunction: (1) likelihood of success on the merits; (2) likelihood of irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) the balance of equities between the parties; and (4) the public interest
I am making sure I am going to see that "my" public interest is at least advanced------------Sun
Not only can we, as the public, inform the court that the injunction serves our interest, but we as users can also briefly explain that, without access to this technology, many of us may return to smoking tobacco products again, thus showing 'likelihood of irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief."
I do agree, though, that if we do write letters to the court about this case, it should be with the guidance and blessing of plaintiff's counsel.
Ivisi
Edited: for typos
Last edited:
Caesarea--Counsel is not permitted to solicit or submit letters from the public in the Federal Courts--so you have to submit it yourself---Sun
Yes. Because the tobacco lobbies here are insidiously effective at swaying legislation. Why do you think nicotine is not in the purview of the Food and rig Adminsitration? They have their own personal agency - Tobacco, Alcohol and Firearms. I know this seems daft, because it unquestionably is. But this is the way our government is established.
Hint - don't under any circumstances move here until this is ALL sorted out. It may get nasty. I'm not kidding. I am sodding off to New Zealand as soon as my Aussie passport is sorted (I am a dual citizen which in the USA, means I am a problem lol!).
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
