How do you define a ban?

[Kate]

Could someone please tell me how the FDA actions against importing vaping products and their statements saying it's not allowed do not add up to a ban?

Even if their authority is challenged they still can and do enforce a 'ban' on imports.

ban definition | Dictionary.com

 

[lordmage]

exactly Kate if they ban the imports. they cant say anything about whats already states side unless they change federal laws to make em illegal to even own or use.

here is one i like edited of course to apply to what i mean

"A prohibition imposed by law or official decree: a ban on E-cigarette smoking juice or device"
But first they need a LAW to enforce and even then it would only apply to how the law is worded and also may only apply to imports and not domestic items unless said LAW has the wording to allow it's enforcement domestically

 

[Kate]

My understanding is that they have banned them and are enforcing that with imports.

They might not have enforced their position with internal sales but that doesn't mean there's no ban.

Or am I wrong?

 

[lordmage]

currently the way i understand it is any claims to safety or health makes devices and juice fall under current fda guidelines which would allow them to enforce their new drug policy and stop imports. however until a law or official policy that includes the device and juice as separate issues comes to pass the fda can not control it.

it like saying that "take this pill it will cure your sickness. (FDA control can take place)
but if you say "take this pill it may help you. (FDA may step in but cant with out a policy or law to cover it)

 

[surbitonPete]

I can understand how they could get away with and justify 'banning' nicotine juice but I just can't see how they are getting away with banning the devices. Supposing people wanted to use them to vape just PG? What law can that be breaking? ..and what reason could they possibly have for making that against the law anyway?

I guess I am just being stupid ...I suppose governments don't need to have any reason other than the fact that they don't like it to ban whatever they want. Freedom is only ever an illusion.

 

[TropicalBob]

You are correct, Kate. Some "rosy" assumptions were made after reading FDA statements that it was confiscating on a "case by case" basis. But e-products and liquid are indeed banned for sale and importation. The language is crystal clear. ONLY enforcement is at issue. A fully enforced ban would put a choke hold on the products, and that hasn't been done yet.

So we in the U.S. can still buy here or from abroad.

 

[LaceyUnderall]

TB - I have a quick question for you... are you familiar with the US Consumer Product Safety Commission that deals with the importation of electronics and other goods (including drugs)? Have you had any experience with research on that front?

I started doing a little more digging today. I have heard through a couple of lawyers that I have had contact with that the FDA has some specific rules they are to follow in order to stop importation of a product that is already on the market, of which they did not follow.

These rules, to my understanding, include putting a request for consumer feedback on their website and also posting notification on their website to notify the public of such after they have had consumer feedback... which as to date, they have done neither making any ban, not a ban by their own rules. (This is also what SE/nJoy is arguing... that the FDA did not take the proper steps to ensure the stop of importation.)

Anyways... I was looking for a link to back up and came across another train of thought which was the CPSC. Just curious if anyone has any thoughts on this.

 

[Sun Vaporer]

I can understand how they could get away with and justify 'banning' nicotine juice but I just can't see how they are getting away with banning the devices. Supposing people wanted to use them to vape just PG? What law can that be breaking? ..and what reason could they possibly have for making that against the law anyway?

I guess I am just being stupid ...I suppose governments don't need to have any reason other than the fact that they don't like it to ban whatever they want. Freedom is only ever an illusion.

Pete--their justification is that the device is a delivery system--just like a gun is a delivery system of bullets. Since the FDA has jurisdiction over medical devices, they have jusridiction to ban it. I would be like saying "hey, but I am only going to use blanks in my gun, so you can not ban my gun"---that is what is going on here. I am with you as I use No-Nic--but the FDA has made their postion clear. Enforcement is just a stones throw way--------Sun

 

[Kate]

So, it's for sure a ban, no dispute?

They have banned vaping products and are taking some action. Challenges may be in order but the fact remains that the FDA can and have banned vaping products.

 

[LaceyUnderall]

No. I still firmly stand that this is not a ban. If it were a ban, it would be posted all over their website, warning consumers that the product is banned and not to use it. There is no such warning on their website.

There would also be "cease and desist" letters to suppliers and manufacturers which none have been issued. Johnson Creek Smoke Juice would probably be the first one to have received such notification and as of date, I haven't heard of this from Christian. They are still doing business.

Personally, I believe the FDA is just waiting for the tobacco bill to be signed into law so they do have jurisdiction over nicotine and then no one can say squat about it unless they take them to court.

Right now, all research I have found leads me to believe that the FDA does not have jurisdiction over all nicotine products. Those days appear to be over here quite soon though. Now, which products they decide to regulate first once they gain all of this new power and control will be interesting.

 

[Kate]

What do you call stopping imports?

 

[John Kin]

The senate just passed billed 1256 which will give the FDa authority to regulate tobacco and other related items. Guess who authored this bill????? PHILLIP MORRIS!!

Three and a half million dollars.

That, according to Open Secrets, is what Philip Morris has spent lobbying this year.

It's just over three times what the second biggest company company spent.It's also more than half of all the money spent on Tobacco lobbying in the US.

And what's it spending the money on?

Here's a good guess - the Tobacco Bill due to enter the senate next week.

The Tobacco Bill will lead to a defacto ban on safe alternatives to cigarettes like the electronic cigarette. That means smokers will have no choice but to smoke on regular cigarettes.

The Tobacco Bill will reduce advertising. That means smokers will only remember the most popular brands of cigarettes - which belongs to Philip Morris.

The Tobacco Bill will introduce new restrictions on cigarettes. Can you guess which is the only company to be ready for these restrictions?

 

[yvilla]

Lacey, I agree with your last post, but with one small exception. The legislation that just passed in the Senate is squarely directed at "tobacco" products, not at nicotine per se. The FDA has always had jurisdiction over nicotine-based smoking cessation products, as they are undisputedly drugs.

Our ecigs are still in that gray area, with their classification for legal purposes yet to be finally resolved, I think.

 

[John Kin]

Lacey, I agree with your last post, but with one small exception. The legislation that just passed in the Senate is squarely directed at "tobacco" products, not at nicotine per se. The FDA has always had jurisdiction over nicotine-based smoking cessation products, as they are undisputedly drugs.

Our ecigs are still in that gray area, with their classification for legal purposes yet to be finally resolved, I think.

There are significant ambiguities in both bills with regard to alternative nicotine delivery products (referred to "nicotine-containing products in the Burr bill) -- products that contain nicotine (which may or may not have been derived from tobacco), but no tobacco. The question is whether such products will be considered "tobacco products" or "drugs."


My impression of the Waxman/Kennedy bill -- since it makes no direct reference to such products -- is that, if that bill becomes law in its current form -- electronic cigarettes will be considered drug-delivery devices, regulated as a pharmaceutical product, and, by that means, banned. Even though the pharmacology and toxicology of nicotine has been known for many decades, my impression is that electronic cigarettes, along with the newly marketed nicotine strips, sticks, etc, will be required to randomized clinical trials comparing them to cigarettes. These trials, which would then take more than a decade to complete, and would cost in the millions of dollars per product tested if they could be done -- cannot be done. The reason they cannot be done is because there is no Institutional Review Board that would permit their academic center to participate in a trial in which one or more wings of the trial would require participants to consume a product known to be hazardous to their health (the cigarette wing). Again -- the result will be a de-facto ban.

 

[Kate]

The FDA have classified them and are enforcing an import ban.

Dispute that all you want but the current situation is that they have used their authority to classify and ban.

 

[John Kin]

The fact is.... Phillip morris is writing this bill and lobbying until it passes into law.

Once passes say goodbye to your ecig!!!! That is until philip morris produces one of their own - which won't be for another 10 or so years... I hate our government and the legal bribery that lobbying is.

- John from *web address removed*

 

[LaceyUnderall]

Lacey, I agree with your last post, but with one small exception. The legislation that just passed in the Senate is squarely directed at "tobacco" products, not at nicotine per se. The FDA has always had jurisdiction over nicotine-based smoking cessation products, as they are undisputedly drugs.

Our ecigs are still in that gray area, with their classification for legal purposes yet to be finally resolved, I think.

Yes. I can agree with this.

I say that they will attempt to control all nicotine because the average citizen will not be able to understand that nicotine and tobacco are not one in the same. In essence, I think the FDA will try to pull the same stuff they did in the late 1990's when they ended up in court regarding tobacco. They have a ton of pressure from the pharmaceutical funded anti-smoking groups to bannish the ecig from American soil forever.

It will be an expensive fight, but we just need to buy some time... get more people (doctors and journalists) the ability to see the positives and get behind this as a true revolution in tobacco harm reduction. It also allows us smaller companies some time to get some funding together and provide our own tests on our own products.

I think the ecig falls into a grey area because of suppliers who do not make smoking cessation claims. Those who make claims, will be the first ones that the FDA comes after once they do decide to crack down. Warnings have been given now for some time that health and safety claims are in fact FDA jurisdiction and you do have to prove them with proper testing and trials.

The only products that have been classified or noted as a "new drug" or a "medical device" are those products that make "health", "safety" or "cessation" claims, or were mis-marked on entry, or some customs agent went above and beyond their authority for whatever reason.

 

[Kate]

Denying the current state of affairs doesn't make you right.

The FDA have used their authority to classify and ban vaping products.

 

[LaceyUnderall]

SEC. 516. [21 USC §360f] Banned Devices; General Rule

 

[Kate]

I'm not reading that Lacey, are you saying there is no ban on imports or that the FDA believe they have no jurisdiction?