I was just thinking of this and thought it might be a good idea to bring it up here, since this
area deals with Legislation, Calls to Action, and the like...
Cigarette Manufacturers and Companies have been sued over people becoming ill from smoking...
right?
How about ways to use this to an advantage and set examples of states and legislators who
propose bans, initiate bans on sales or use of, or otherwise take the availability of e-cigs away
from people.
Here is one catch -- No one has ever thought of suing states themselves for keeping cigarettes
legal.
The Argument is simple and here is why:
Scenario -- 1
1) Person smokes for 20+ years and never had any health issues prior.
2) After 10 to 20+ years, the person is diagnosed with COPD/Heart Disease/and/or/Cancer/etc.
3) They can now sue the cigarette company for this health issue smoking has caused - even though
the warning is there, the mfg and company did not twist their arm to smoke...
Now -
Scenario -- 2
1) Person has been smoking for 5+ years and does NOT have any health issues but learns about the
affects of smoking and the benefits of e-cigs and NOW decides to pick up e-cigs in an effort to
combat the harm tobacco could have caused.
2) Person has been using an e-cig with no health issues for 2+ years but the State is now proposing
a ban on use/sale/etc., which either pushes the person back to smoking or to an NRT which is both costly
and potentially dangerous in itself.
3) After only one year of being forced to relapse or use another in-effective product, the person has
been diagnosed with smoking related or NRT/Drug related health problems.
Argument in court -- (This is only a potential case scenario and is not based on any real incident)
Person -- I smoked cigarettes for X+ years and was given a clean bill of health by my doctor.
My doctor advised me to stop smoking so I tried to.
I used every single NRT out there and nothing helped.
I either had to go back to smoking or keep putting out tons of money for a product that isn't working.
I found E-Cigs and they work... not only did I stop using cigarettes altogether, my doctor said it was
great that I did that because it may have saved my life.
Since the state has banned e-cigs and I have had to resort back to either smoking or using an NRT,
my doctor now says I have COPD and I am suing for the state forcing me into relapse and for the
money I have spent over the years on a product that did not work.
I cannot sue the makers of e-cigs because during my time of use, they made my health better - not
worse.
Another thing worthy of mention is "Quitting Cold" -- THis has the potential to cause Mental Health
issues and therefore, would also fall in a category of "Suit at Law" due to the compensatory damages
that could be won over such an issue -- since a ban on something that works would effectively cost
a person thousands of dollars in psychologist/psychiatrist bills due to the associated withdraw symptoms.
OK then... here is where setting the example comes in ---
CASAA can effectively act as an advocate here and can institute legal suits for those who are driven
back to an unhealthy and potentially life threatening situation because of states and legislators banning
e-cigs and taking them from markets.
If they cannot act as "Advocate", then they could at least work in conjunction with an attorney should
someone face such issues...
The point here is - If a Person can sue over health issues caused by cigarettes, then a person should be
able to sue the state or FDA for keeping cigarettes legal while banning use and/or sale of e-cigs.
Another thing is -- How come no one has ever sued the FDA and forced them out financially over the
bad NRT products and the deaths and other health issues caused by Chantrix and the like?
In a sense, it is the FDA who is at fault for putting people into a situation of putting their health at risk
by pushing them back to smoking or by forcing them to use NRT's in place of a much more effective
product.
I say people need to start making "Examples" of the FDA and force them out by financially ruining them
since it seems to be a "Financial Position" that keeps them in "Dictatorship" over what we eat, drink, take
as medicines, and the like...
How about it?
Anyone else see where the FDA stands "Just As" liable for adverse health issues by keeping cigarettes legal
while trying to ban other products that not only work but are proven healthier by fact that users are suffering
NO health effects from e-cigs?
Beat them at their own game
Force them into a position to make e-cigs legal and only regulate for quality/consistency and labeling.
I say if a State or Legislator makes any law that threatens the health of ANY individual (in this case, taking
or banning the use/sale of e-cigs), then they should be just as liable as a cigarette company when someone
falls ill due to their blatent and malicious and willful act of putting people into a situation where such health
risks can be avoided.
If a Cigarette MFG or Company CAN be sued successfully for a person falling ill to cigarette smoking even
though they "Never twisted that person's arm to smoke"...
Then the State, Legislators, and FDA can and should be held Just As liable for putting people into that
position as well.
area deals with Legislation, Calls to Action, and the like...
Cigarette Manufacturers and Companies have been sued over people becoming ill from smoking...
right?
How about ways to use this to an advantage and set examples of states and legislators who
propose bans, initiate bans on sales or use of, or otherwise take the availability of e-cigs away
from people.
Here is one catch -- No one has ever thought of suing states themselves for keeping cigarettes
legal.
The Argument is simple and here is why:
Scenario -- 1
1) Person smokes for 20+ years and never had any health issues prior.
2) After 10 to 20+ years, the person is diagnosed with COPD/Heart Disease/and/or/Cancer/etc.
3) They can now sue the cigarette company for this health issue smoking has caused - even though
the warning is there, the mfg and company did not twist their arm to smoke...
Now -
Scenario -- 2
1) Person has been smoking for 5+ years and does NOT have any health issues but learns about the
affects of smoking and the benefits of e-cigs and NOW decides to pick up e-cigs in an effort to
combat the harm tobacco could have caused.
2) Person has been using an e-cig with no health issues for 2+ years but the State is now proposing
a ban on use/sale/etc., which either pushes the person back to smoking or to an NRT which is both costly
and potentially dangerous in itself.
3) After only one year of being forced to relapse or use another in-effective product, the person has
been diagnosed with smoking related or NRT/Drug related health problems.
Argument in court -- (This is only a potential case scenario and is not based on any real incident)
Person -- I smoked cigarettes for X+ years and was given a clean bill of health by my doctor.
My doctor advised me to stop smoking so I tried to.
I used every single NRT out there and nothing helped.
I either had to go back to smoking or keep putting out tons of money for a product that isn't working.
I found E-Cigs and they work... not only did I stop using cigarettes altogether, my doctor said it was
great that I did that because it may have saved my life.
Since the state has banned e-cigs and I have had to resort back to either smoking or using an NRT,
my doctor now says I have COPD and I am suing for the state forcing me into relapse and for the
money I have spent over the years on a product that did not work.
I cannot sue the makers of e-cigs because during my time of use, they made my health better - not
worse.
Another thing worthy of mention is "Quitting Cold" -- THis has the potential to cause Mental Health
issues and therefore, would also fall in a category of "Suit at Law" due to the compensatory damages
that could be won over such an issue -- since a ban on something that works would effectively cost
a person thousands of dollars in psychologist/psychiatrist bills due to the associated withdraw symptoms.
OK then... here is where setting the example comes in ---
CASAA can effectively act as an advocate here and can institute legal suits for those who are driven
back to an unhealthy and potentially life threatening situation because of states and legislators banning
e-cigs and taking them from markets.
If they cannot act as "Advocate", then they could at least work in conjunction with an attorney should
someone face such issues...
The point here is - If a Person can sue over health issues caused by cigarettes, then a person should be
able to sue the state or FDA for keeping cigarettes legal while banning use and/or sale of e-cigs.
Another thing is -- How come no one has ever sued the FDA and forced them out financially over the
bad NRT products and the deaths and other health issues caused by Chantrix and the like?
In a sense, it is the FDA who is at fault for putting people into a situation of putting their health at risk
by pushing them back to smoking or by forcing them to use NRT's in place of a much more effective
product.
I say people need to start making "Examples" of the FDA and force them out by financially ruining them
since it seems to be a "Financial Position" that keeps them in "Dictatorship" over what we eat, drink, take
as medicines, and the like...
How about it?
Anyone else see where the FDA stands "Just As" liable for adverse health issues by keeping cigarettes legal
while trying to ban other products that not only work but are proven healthier by fact that users are suffering
NO health effects from e-cigs?
Beat them at their own game
Force them into a position to make e-cigs legal and only regulate for quality/consistency and labeling.
I say if a State or Legislator makes any law that threatens the health of ANY individual (in this case, taking
or banning the use/sale of e-cigs), then they should be just as liable as a cigarette company when someone
falls ill due to their blatent and malicious and willful act of putting people into a situation where such health
risks can be avoided.
If a Cigarette MFG or Company CAN be sued successfully for a person falling ill to cigarette smoking even
though they "Never twisted that person's arm to smoke"...
Then the State, Legislators, and FDA can and should be held Just As liable for putting people into that
position as well.
Last edited:
