FDA Sued Over Electronic Cigarette Embargo

[Sun Vaporer]

Hi Sun, I wonder if sending a copy of our petition with over 5,600 signatures on it would help at all? (to the judge)

Vince--absolutley would help in my opinion. The Court has to see that this is not some little novel toy trying to be marketed to Childern--rather what it is--a smoking alternative. You can be sure the Anti's , Big tobacco, Phama, and Child Advocates will have their lobbying power going with the Court as well trying to say that only kids are buying these thinks--The petition would make them aware of all of us out here----Sun

 

[Kate]

Personally I think vaping is a moral issue, not a health one but that's irrelevant.

What we have here is an attempt to profit from the classification of vaping as a tobacco product with all that entails.

Smoking Everywhere are short term money makers, they will make their money with the uninformed and desperate. When people are educated and have choices they will not be a chosen brand.

They want the legal definition of vaping products to be tobacco products by the sound of things to me and I'm not convinced it's good strategy for us in the long term. Their interests are about making money from us, our interests are long term acceptance of vaping.

 

[Vista Chris]

Personally I think vaping is a moral issue, not a health one but that's irrelevant.

What we have here is an attempt to profit from the classification of vaping as a tobacco product with all that entails.

Smoking Everywhere are short term money makers, they will make their money with the uninformed and desperate. When people are educated and have choices they will not be a chosen brand.

They want the legal definition of vaping products to be tobacco products by the sound of things to me and I'm not convinced it's good strategy for us in the long term. Their interests are about making money from us, our interests are long term acceptance of vaping.

Still reading through the doc, but can you highlight where it was suggested that PV's be classified as tobacco products?

I really hope that's not the case and if so we do need to take the time to voice our opinions on the matter through letters, emails, etc.

C

 

[jmoney]

It is a moral issue, the problem is and always has been choice, but the FDA has laws that they claim are to prevent ourselves from doing harm to ourselves by keeping shady people who make wonderful claims that in the long run end up hurting people, its a shame when they use this power against something like this

 

[Smokingfreely]

Sun, The suit contends the e-cig is a tobacco product, which the FDA cannot regulate. The first part is debatable, the second part is true. But if Congress hands the FDA control over tobacco and alternatives, then what a court rules on "tobacco product or not" becomes meaningless.

The issue is hardly "moot." First of all Tropical Bob, if you think if it's not a tobacco product, then it is clearly suspect whether or not the Waxman legislation would apply even in it's current form. If it is a tobacco product, it was also around prior to 1997, so, again, it is not totally clear whether the Waxman bill would apply. Why so doom and gloom? This is good news!

 

[Kate]

Still reading through the doc, but can you highlight where it was suggested that PV's be classified as tobacco products?

I really hope that's not the case and if so we do need to take the time to voice our opinions on the matter through letters, emails, etc.

C

Sorry, I might be wrong. Maybe something like treating vaping as a tobacco product was said? I haven't read anything properly myself but just thought I'd try to encourage a little more debate before jumping into support of Smoking Everywhere.

I wouldn't be surprised if I'm completely wrong.

It is a moral issue, the problem is and always has been choice, but the FDA has laws that they claim are to prevent ourselves from doing harm to ourselves by keeping shady people who make wonderful claims that in the long run end up hurting people, its a shame when they use this power against something like this

Yes, it's confused for sure. For us to support a shady dealer also could hurt people. I think outfits like Smoking Everywhere should be regulated but they seem intent to drag the rest of us with them.

 

[yvilla]

Kate, SE is making the only legal argument they can - if they want a chance in hell of winning this case.

They are simply relying on FDA V. BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORP., and it's holding that the FDA has no jurisdiction to regulate tobacco products.

Were it not for that holding of the US Supreme Court, the FDA would have free reign to classify ecigs as new drug devices requiring a NDA approval before their sale here in the US.

 

[Vince1]

Hi Kate, I have to side with you on this and wonder about our position. However, if we support SE's lawsuit we may damage our future but if we take a stand against them will it really make any difference at this point and have any effect on the outcome?
They are going to do this and we can't stop them, so is our input really going to make much difference either way at this point.
I feel we may just have to sit by and watch the outcome.

 

[NY JETS]

Personally I think vaping is a moral issue, not a health one but that's irrelevant.

What we have here is an attempt to profit from the classification of vaping as a tobacco product with all that entails.

Smoking Everywhere are short term money makers, they will make their money with the uninformed and desperate. When people are educated and have choices they will not be a chosen brand.

They want the legal definition of vaping products to be tobacco products by the sound of things to me and I'm not convinced it's good strategy for us in the long term. Their interests are about making money from us, our interests are long term acceptance of vaping.

Gotta agree with you Kate, the long term consequences of this action do not seem to favor the members of this community. Its a shame that SE is the only one who has the funds to fight this battle right now. We would stand a much better chance if one of the suppliers on this board were behind the suit. Unfortunately, filing suit against the FDA would leave all of us bankrupt fast.

 

[Wildsky]

I think there are only two options here. Tobacco product or New drug. I'd rather go with tobacco product if it came down to it.

 

[esmok-e]

Hi Kate, I have to side with you on this and wonder about our position. However, if we support SE's lawsuit we may damage our future but if we take a stand against them will it really make any difference at this point and have any effect on the outcome?
They are going to do this and we can't stop them, so is our input really going to make much difference either way at this point.
I feel we may just have to sit by and watch the outcome.

Updated...

IMO

So there goes my Monika's Magic Menthol Mania Merengue flavor options?

Tobacco?

How much actual tobacco is in it?

Not enough to smoke; not enough to chew; not enough to measure without super-sensitive science!

Where did nicotine go in this picture?

It's a pleasure issue. It's a constitutional right issue. It's the pursuit of happiness without hurting yourself or society or civilization at large.

It's about WHO and FDA and BTP (big tobacco & pharma inc.) defining our rights.

WHO should have looked at PG before there even was a WHO. The health technology was out there. Screw the flu - 69 years too late.

FDA: Peanuts, Tomatoes, Lettuce, Vioxx (the name is scary).

BTP: Vioxx (Prozac, Theophylline, etc.); Newport, Marlboro, Parliament, Camel or how about a Life or True or Real or Vantage or Lucky Strike!? And the sick and dead win that lottery - in court. Now if a few hundred billion gets paid out to the "winners", how much did that really hurt BTP? Books please; emails please.....

NRT, Tobacco, PV, Electronic Cigarette.

Whatever you want to call it, it is exactly what it is: a safer and healthier option to a cultural behavior which has relatively recently been found to be dangerous in a large variety of ways (including but not limited to burning your house, town or favorite forest down).

The only thing it threatens is tyrannical power.

And they want to define "Life" and what's "Real" and "True" or a "Vantage" (your BTP vantage from the grave)? Protecting their little cemeteries is just a part of it. There are huge profits. They very efficiently manage an international money machine with huge control and power to ensure those huge profits. And everyone wins. Governments get taxes, health care makes money too. No bailout money here.

No bailouts for us either. But we lose.

There's a big picture here. The thumbnail is this fiasco about this simple little device and it's benefits being battered and hammered with preemptive tactics.
The fresco is a strategy to get this whole planet healthy way beyond tobacco and nicotine.

From my "vantage" point there are too many millions of dying babies without even water or electricity or sewers in this world. That is "True", that is "Real" - we need to respect "Life" and hope all this is more than just a "Lucky Strike".

So now I'll be labeled a radical vaporist. What's next? DHS (Homeland Security); FBI; CIA; any other three letter acronyms care to join in?

Call me an A**? It's a free country, right?

 

[Kate]

Kate, SD is making the only legal argument they can - if they want a chance in hell of winning this case.

They are simply relying on FDA V. BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORP., and it's holding that the FDA has no jurisdiction to regulate tobacco products.

Were it not for that holding of the US Supreme Court, the FDA would have free reign to classify ecigs as new drug devices requiring a NDA approval before their sale here in the US.

Sure, I can see that's the best argument for Smoking Everywhere. Is it an argument we want to win? What will it do to vaping? Is there another way for us as consumers rather than vested interests?

So some FDA enforcement is going on ... a very short term solution to that could mean very long term problems.

I don't want to imply that I have any answers because I don't, just more questions and grave reservations about siding with Smoking Everywhere.

Personally I'd do nothing until I was more convinced of what is the best course of action for the vaping community ... not SE.

 

[Sun Vaporer]

Kate, SD is making the only legal argument they can - if they want a chance in hell of winning this case.

They are simply relying on FDA V. BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORP., and it's holding that the FDA has no jurisdiction to regulate tobacco products.

Were it not for that holding of the US Supreme Court, the FDA would have free reign to classify ecigs as new drug devices requiring a NDA approval before their sale here in the US.

Yvilla--you are correct--thank you. That is the only argument they have at the moment. It is not a question of "jumping on the banwagon of SD" --rather it is trying to get over the hurdel--so staying on the sideline is the most dangerous think you can do here as you do not get to relitigate the case just because it is a different Planitiff.

If NJOY or any other company filed suit ---it would just be consolidated into this case---so this is the case whether you like the Plaintiff or not. Precedent will be set here and I for one would not want to be sitting on the sidelines. The system simply just does not work that way. ---Sun

 

[CJsKee]

Still reading through the doc, but can you highlight where it was suggested that PV's be classified as tobacco products?

I really hope that's not the case and if so we do need to take the time to voice our opinions on the matter through letters, emails, etc.

C

See my post #116...
In SE's Memorandum in Support of their Motion for injunctive relief, SE says:

"Electronic cigarettes are made from tobacco and are the functional equivalent of traditional cigarettes and should be regulated in the same manner as traditional cigarettes.”

Here is a link to the memorandum... http://www.alternasmokes.com/SE-Memo_in_Support_of_TRO.pdf

Quote is at the top of page 2.

 

[Vapinginmyboots]

My 2 cents: With a potential pandemic coming that affects the RESPIRATORY system, doesnt it make sense to encourage smokers to find a better alternative? If this swine flu really gets nasty, dont we have the right to use something many times safer than tobacco? I think so, no doubt. Its all politics now though IMO

 

[RayJ1]

What's the bottomline here? Even if PV's are not ruled a tobacco product....they will be classified as a drug delivery device. The device is being used as a nicotine delivery device, and the mfr's claim that they are smoking cessation devices and a healthier alternative to smoking. As a smoking cessation device with nicotine delivery, is the FDA just going to allow all nicotine delivery systems free reign? Even if the FDA has overstepped it's bounds on it's regulatory authority and pressure on customs in this instance....they will be able to ban the import of nicotine delivery devices and the liquids that are touted as smoking cessation devices and a healthier alternative to smoking.

If the judge does find for SE in this instance... the shipment may get through. If that ends up being the case... what's the FDA going to do then? Ban the sales of there devices and the liquids due to smoking cessation claims and as a nicotine delivery system?

It seems that this litigation will just bring a speedier end to our vaping of nicotine liquids until the FDA has it's protocol met with testing. That will take years and years!

Even though I firmly believe in these things, I'm not sure our voice is loud enough...and our wallets fat enough to make any change in the legislation that will give the FDA complete reign over PV's and the nicotine liquids.

 

[Vista Chris]

See my post #116...
In SE's Memorandum in Support of their Motion for injunctive relief, SE says:

"Electronic cigarettes are made from tobacco and are the functional equivalent of traditional cigarettes and should be regulated in the same manner as traditional cigarettes.”

Here is a link to the memorandum... http://www.alternasmokes.com/SE-Memo_in_Support_of_TRO.pdf

Quote is at the top of page 2.

Thanks CJ. Like others said, it may not be the preferred defense, but it may be the best one... for the short term.

 

[jmoney]

or if they are deemed a new drug, because they all the sudden are now such an issue maybe in order to allow the technology to further develop and discover methods for even more added safety, all distributors should be registered with the FDA, and they should cap any new distributors from importing the product. With something like this it would only make logical sense to allow the continued sale from already established and reputable dealers, and to begin weeding out the corrupt business men out there. They should allow the current distributors to submit their products in a timely fashion, simply stopping the sale would end the technology, and quite possibly something that might save hundreds of thousands of American lives a year.

 

[yvilla]

Sure, I can see that's the best argument for Smoking Everywhere. Is it an argument we want to win? What will it do to vaping? Is there another way for us as consumers rather than vested interests?

So some FDA enforcement is going on ... a very short term solution to that could mean very long term problems.

I don't want to imply that I have any answers because I don't, just more questions and grave reservations about siding with Smoking Everywhere.

Personally I'd do nothing until I was more convinced of what is the best course of action for the vaping community ... not SE.

First, pardon my typo which I since corrected in the post (I'm so used to writing SD that that came out instead of SE)

But, I don't see that there is any other way for us as consumers. Ecigs as "new drug devices" are never going to get FDA approval.

And even if they did get an NDA approval in ten years or so, they would be something so far removed from what we are using now that they might as well ban them as far as I'm concerned. Would you want a sealed cartridge-only product, by prescription only, sold as a 10 or 12 week nicotine reduction down to nothing program only, hugely more expensive, with no consumer control whatsoever over nicotine dosage, taste, looks, etc, etc? I wouldn't!

 

[Oldnamenomore]

the problem with it being tobacco is if FDA gains control of tobacco regulation(waxmen bill) and outright bans them, and taxing the **** out of them. They wont be banned in public because they don't even as a tobacco product break the parameters of the ban (which is combustion).