FDA Sued Over Electronic Cigarette Embargo

[chuck7403]

Sun - I am aware of the elements, I posted them here about three weeks ago. My concern is that by writing letters without any direction from SE lawyers, that things may be said that interfere with their case. None of us know what SE's strategy here is (beyond what we can read in the filings)...

I am not arguing that we should sit here passively, I merely want people to make informed decisions when writing to a Federal Judge...

 

[esmok-e]

If every one who viewed or just replied here:

The ULTIMATE FREE GIVEAWAY! TOTAL 28 PRIZES!

would send the defendant an e-mail.....

Defendant: U.S. FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION represented by Drake S. Cutini Phone: (202) 307-0044
Fax: (202) 514-8742
Email: drake.cutini@usdoj.gov

Defendant: JOSHUA M. SHARFSTEIN represented by Drake S. Cutini Phone: (202) 307-0044
Fax: (202) 514-8742
Email: drake.cutini@usdoj.gov

Defendant: MARGARET HAMBURG represented by Drake S. Cutini Phone: (202) 307-0044
Fax: (202) 514-8742
Email: drake.cutini@usdoj.gov

Defendant: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES represented by Drake S. Cutini Phone: (202) 307-0044
Fax: (202) 514-8742
Email: drake.cutini@usdoj.gov

Defendant: CHARLES JOHNSON represented by Drake S. Cutini Phone: (202) 307-0044
Fax: (202) 514-8742
Email: drake.cutini@usdoj.gov

Defendant: KATHLEEN SEBELIUS represented by Drake S. Cutini Phone: (202) 307-0044
Fax: (202) 514-8742
Email: drake.cutini@usdoj.gov

1:09-cv-00771-RJL SMOKING EVERYWHERE, INC. v. U.S. FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION et al
Richard J. Leon, presiding
Date filed: 04/28/2009
Date of last filing: 04/29/2009


Priorities, priorities....

 

[Sun Vaporer]

Is it in our best long term interests for Smoking Everywhere to win this case?

I don't know but it would be a pity to back a short term fix that causes more long term harm.

Kate--I think you will see other companies here like njoy and others intervene in the case. I hear you about SE but they have the funds and it will only make sense to see NJOY and others jump in--also do not forget Amicus Curiae briefs being filed if the Judge is so inclined to allow---Sun

 

[Caesarea]

If every one who viewed or just replied here:

The ULTIMATE FREE GIVEAWAY! TOTAL 28 PRIZES!

would click on my earlier post and send the defendant an e-mail.....

post the link and I'll take it over there

C

 

[yvilla]

This isn't about the court banning vaping or not, it's about defining what it is.

Please pause US folk and think.

Is it in your best long term interests for vaping products to be tobacco products?

My opinion only - but I strongly feel that it is in our best interests that they be categorized as tobacco harm reduction products, and as alternatives to cigarettes.

Were they to be categorized as "new drug" devices they will definitely be banned, and they could never satisfy/survive the NDA process here in the US, at the least definitely not in the manner we are using them.

 

[Sun Vaporer]

Sun - I am aware of the elements, I posted them here about three weeks ago. My concern is that by writing letters without any direction from SE lawyers, that things may be said that interfere with their case. None of us know what SE's strategy here is (beyond what we can read in the filings)...

I am not arguing that we should sit here passively, I merely want people to make informed decisions when writing to a Federal Judge...

Chuck--it is done all the time--and Counsel can not submit it for you. So just weigh your options as Counsel would love the help they can not solict to get from the public----Sun

 

[Kate]

It doesn't really matter who brings the case, it could be the tobacco industry itself ... the outcome will be a legal definition of vaping.

What would be in your best long term interests ... tobacco, drug or if possible neither?

EDIT

Yes Yvilla, be careful about expecting to support 'tobacco harm reduction products' and ending up with tobacco products.

 

[Sun Vaporer]

My opinion only - but I stongly feel that it is in our best interests that they be categorized as tobacco harm reduction products, and as alternatives to cigarettes.

Were they to be categorized as "new drug" devices they will definitely be banned, and they could never satisfy/survive the NDA process here in the US, at the least definitely not in the manner we are using them.

Yvilla--What you state here is a must!! We have been talking about this for months now--categorized as tobacco harm reduction products, and as alternatives to cigarettes--That is a must---Sun

 

[saintgadreel]

One thing to consider here is that if e-cigs end up categorized as tobacco products, and the Waxman bill passes, e-cigs would be protected from ban (theoretically). Classifying them as such would throw a giant monkey wrench into the obvious revenue protection methods that the Waxman Bill represents for Phillip Morris. I would not be surprised if Phillip Morris stepped in to assist the FDA to prevent such competition from spoiling their sweet legislation deal...

 

[chuck7403]

Chuck--it is done all the time--and Counsel can not submit it for you. So just weigh your options as Counsel would love the help they can not solict to get from the public----Sun

Fair enough...Counsel could very well want these letters to be sent...I would just want to be 100% certain...There are all kinds of unforeseen issues that letters could raise....(especially considering that many writers may be the same people who have publicly posted about the harm SE has done with their marketing claims)...

I was unaware that attorney's in the Federal District Courts could not solicit letters, do you have a cite for this? I am not disagreeing here, just want to educate myself a bit...

 

[Kate]

Is Smoking Everywhere seeking a definition of tobacco harm reduction products or tobacco products?

 

[Faethe]

One thing to consider here is that if e-cigs end up categorized as tobacco products, and the Waxman bill passes, e-cigs would be protected from ban (theoretically). Classifying them as such would throw a giant monkey wrench into the obvious revenue protection methods that the Waxman Bill represents for Phillip Morris. I would not be surprised if Phillip Morris stepped in to assist the FDA to prevent such competition from spoiling their sweet legislation deal...

I really don't think people truly understand how incredibly powerful the tobacco lobbies are. They don't just influence us, they influence the entire world. Using their own money against them in the form of lobbyist is sweet sweet justice.

 

[Faethe]

BTW WE NEED A NEW THREAD WITH THESE LINKS

and a sample letter, etc.

 

[OutWest]

Is Smoking Everywhere seeking a definition of tobacco harm reduction products or tobacco products?

I dont think they are, but I havent read the full thing.
Documents filed with the court:
http://ronbenvenisti.com/SEFDA1.pdf
and
http://www.alternasmokes.com/SE-Memo_in_Support_of_TRO.pdf

 

[Ivisi]

It doesn't really matter who brings the case, it could be the tobacco industry itself ... the outcome will be a legal definition of vaping.

What would be in your best long term interests ... tobacco, drug or if possible neither?

EDIT

Yes Yvilla, be careful about expecting to support 'tobacco harm reduction products' and ending up with tobacco products.

Neither would be my obvious choice, but honestly, I do believe that the e-liquid (not the devices) need some sort of manufacturing regulation or oversight. As it is now, we're taking the manufacturers at their word about what is in the E-Liquid to begin with. Yes, the ingredients appear to be what is advertised, and there doesn't appear to be much in the way of risk associated with using it (there's no such thing as 'no risk'. Never), but at this point I know more about the ingredients and proportion of ingredients in my Chips Ahoy cookies than I do about my E-Liquid. And I would never dream of inhaling Chips Ahoy cookies. Choking hazard.

Yes, we do need to carefully choose which court battle we're going to back, and I am not particularly confortable backing the argument that SE has placed before the court. But that doesn't preclude me from supporting the injunction.

Ivisi

P.S. Ok, I lied. I've 'inhaled' many a sleeve of Chips Ahoy cookies.

 

[Kate]

What are the long term implications of being a tobacco product in the US?

Is the outlook attractive?

 

[westcoast2]

if e-cigs end up categorized as tobacco products then there is the potential to:-
Ban them in public places
Have additional taxation
Ban (restrictive) advertising. (This is important if the EU follow this line.)

There is a mass of EU/US legislation related to tobacco products that is not just about taxes.

I agree with others here, that e-cigs need to have a separate classification that does not tie them in with medical or tobacco products.

The public interest can be served by the lack of harm to others (as mentioned earlier on this thread).

 

[OutWest]

in looking closer, part of their argument is that they should be regulated the same as tobacco products, but all they are asking for is a temporary restraining order against the FDA and an injunction to lift the import ban.

 

[Faethe]

What are the long term implications of being a tobacco product in the US?

Is the outlook attractive?

1. Does in fact cause cancer

2. Has killed millions

3. Has survived multi billion dollar settlements

Oh yes. Hmmmm. It's hard to express how critical the tobacco industry is here in States like North Carolina. Phillip Morris is devious. That's an understatement. They went back in time and invented deviancy so they could use it to make money. They own Kraft foods and numerous subsidiaries. If you poke at one aspect of Phillip Morris, all the others sort of line up and squeal.

Many, many books have been written on this. In general, you could prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that touching a cigarette will diminish your life expectancy by 30 years and the only thing that would happen is another warning label would be added onto the packaging.

 

[Ivisi]

What are the long term implications of being a tobacco product in the US?

Is the outlook attractive?

I, for one, would not want my PV categorized as a tobacco product. Regardless of the type of product, anything associated with tobacco gets attacked relentlessly, especially with the 'think of the children' types. Cigarettes, chewing tobacco, snuff, snus, tobacco 'candies', you name it, all have been under fire at some point by various groups, and all have a stigma associated with them. Filing PV's as a tobacco product will doom it as 'guilt by association'.

Ivisi