Askin' and gettin' are two different things. Jury trials in administrative review actions are quite rare.
Lawsuits mount against FDA regs on e-cigarettes
- Thread starter oplholik
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Except that e-cigarettes ARE NOT CIGARETTES and there really is no reason to assume they carry any similar risks. I honestly don't know if the courts would make that distinction, or if this is really just a matter of the law, but I'm afraid it's the latter and I don't know if there is a strong case under the law.
Exactly. I for one never thought they would just say "okay, you win".
Which is why just responding to all this with "this sucks" doesn't really accomplish anything. A thoughtful analysis of some of the phrases they have used, and where they are wrong (as well as where the DEFENDANTS need to strengthen their case and get some ducks in a row because it can always be done better) seems like it would be useful. ??
I'm sure the defendant lawyers will learn something from reading the decision and tweak their approach accordingly for future battles.
Legal initiatives are, again, a PROCESS. It takes time and sometimes many years. And lots of money.
Again if the vaping industry had centralized early on, and pooled resources, and had a very clear leadership, I think there would have been a lot more $$ in a pot somewhere, not to mention a lot more input, resource-sharing, education, and better "brain trust huddling". In a way many were just riding on a high of selling, while the getting was good, and didn't really have much thought for the future. (some who thought that way will be out of business shortly of course.......which isn't the end of the world for them, since they appear to be the get in get out type of businesses anyway).
The ones that are in it for the long haul....Big Vaping......will have to continue to bring lawsuits, put forward studies, etc.
I have never been one to get "bogged down" in process. When you do that life becomes pretty unmanageable in general.
Maybe people have lost their ABILITY for long haul. I know couples who work on problems and there were many nights they stayed up all night, until they really were able to keep communicating and solving things......and that is sometimes an on-going process.
People who just get emotionally angry, and throw up hands..... there is no longevity to that approach. Most problems in life are not solved with FINGER SNAPPING speed.
I guess I'm older so used to waiting it out........sort of like camping and it rains for the first 2 days straight........you keep on keepin on...........
While it would have been better if he had included quantity changes in the ruling, it's still a step in the right direction. It's nice to have someone recognize how absurd the regulations are.
{{meta.pageTitle}}
Altria Group, Inc. v. Good - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Correct if I am wrong. Did the cigarette companies actually advertise their products
that were 'light' or 'low tar' were safer than than their regular (full strength brands).
(post regulatory restrictions)
I can see why anti-smoking proponents would claim as much for all the obvious reasons.
However the link to out right deception is nebulous at best. ( Altria lost to a 5/4 decision)
Even 'health' related descriptors such as mild are taboo. Any smoker can tell you that depending
on the brand,blend or,specific type of tobacco one uses it can and does taste mild,harsh or in between.
How many products now say,gluten,sugar,caffeine or,salt free while not making health claims
never had the ingredients in the first place.
Certainly even before a case was presented to the courts anti-smoking organizations
et al were screaming at the top of their lungs that that 'light' or 'low tar' did not mean
safer. How the courts determined that Alteria was deceitful (lying?) is beyond me.
I certainly can see why this case is an important milestone of the ANTZ's mantra
portraying BT as deceitful,lying and,deliberate killers of unsuspecting smokers.
Well people who drink light beer think it's healthier than regular beer. Go figure.
So much for who gets to be a liar and deceiver and who does not.
Regards
Mike
This may be a good thing.
Sounds like the court is signaling that it intends to rule strictly on the basis of the law, and not be swayed by any kind of public opinion.
CASAA (or a similar organization) can still file a complaint on behalf of vaping CONSUMERS
Sounds like the court is signaling that it intends to rule strictly on the basis of the law, and not be swayed by any kind of public opinion.
CASAA (or a similar organization) can still file a complaint on behalf of vaping CONSUMERS
It doesn't matter if they are or arent' cigarettes. You're missing the point. They could be moondrops or fountain of youth inhalers........my point was that the FDA is saying they already went thru all that "this is safe!" song and dance before, and it turned out very badly for everybody.
They are not going to make that mistake again.
IF you look at the Table of Authorities, Federal Cases, you can see where they are going.....
Last edited:
One of the money shots:
"The e-cigarette manufacturers in Sottera objected to the FDA’s attempt to regulate their products as “drugs” or “devices” under the FDCA, arguing that the products must instead be regulated under the Tobacco Control Act. The D.C. Circuit agreed........."
"There is no meaningful difference between the e-cigarettes at issue here and those in Sottera....."
"The e-cigarette manufacturers in Sottera objected to the FDA’s attempt to regulate their products as “drugs” or “devices” under the FDCA, arguing that the products must instead be regulated under the Tobacco Control Act. The D.C. Circuit agreed........."
"There is no meaningful difference between the e-cigarettes at issue here and those in Sottera....."
I understand your points, but what (at this point in the process) can I do? I'm not going to be involved in the court proceedings, so all I can do is watch.Exactly. I for one never thought they would just say "okay, you win".
Which is why just responding to all this with "this sucks" doesn't really accomplish anything. A thoughtful analysis of some of the phrases they have used, and where they are wrong (as well as where the DEFENDANTS need to strengthen their case and get some ducks in a row because it can always be done better) seems like it would be useful. ??
I'm sure the defendant lawyers will learn something from reading the decision and tweak their approach accordingly for future battles.
Legal initiatives are, again, a PROCESS. It takes time and sometimes many years. And lots of money.
Again if the vaping industry had centralized early on, and pooled resources, and had a very clear leadership, I think there would have been a lot more $$ in a pot somewhere, not to mention a lot more input, resource-sharing, education, and better "brain trust huddling". In a way many were just riding on a high of selling, while the getting was good, and didn't really have much thought for the future. (some who thought that way will be out of business shortly of course.......which isn't the end of the world for them, since they appear to be the get in get out type of businesses anyway).
The ones that are in it for the long haul....Big Vaping......will have to continue to bring lawsuits, put forward studies, etc.
I have never been one to get "bogged down" in process. When you do that life becomes pretty unmanageable in general.
Maybe people have lost their ABILITY for long haul. I know couples who work on problems and there were many nights they stayed up all night, until they really were able to keep communicating and solving things......and that is sometimes an on-going process.
People who just get emotionally angry, and throw up hands..... there is no longevity to that approach. Most problems in life are not solved with FINGER SNAPPING speed.
I guess I'm older so used to waiting it out........sort of like camping and it rains for the first 2 days straight........you keep on keepin on...........
If you read the FDA filing, and didn't say to yourself on some level "Jeez! What a load of BS!" before you went on to a more scholarly analysis, then I might have doubts that you're actually human. (or you're a lawyer, which is even worse) /s/
No, it applies to label changes only - not to product size differences
Federal judge rules label change does not make for new tobacco product
Any lawyers want to decipher this for me?
Tobacco On Trial » Blog Archive » DOCKET for NICOPURE LABS v. FDA et al, Jul 29-Aug 2, 2016
If I'm reading it right, SFATA's testimony will be allowed, CASAA's, Clive Bates, and Vape A Vet will not?
Tobacco On Trial » Blog Archive » DOCKET for NICOPURE LABS v. FDA et al, Jul 29-Aug 2, 2016
If I'm reading it right, SFATA's testimony will be allowed, CASAA's, Clive Bates, and Vape A Vet will not?
I look forward to the outrageous FDA regs being whittled down to acceptable, consumer and industry-agreed regulations (child-proof caps, clean manufacturing, etc). It is the brick-by-brick disassembly of the BS inclusions that will take time. I have nic, flavorings, wire, wick and hardware to sustain until the details are ironed out. Hopefully.
Honestly, I'm more worried about other US and world factors that threaten civilization as a whole (WWIII). While I'm stocked on e-cig stuffs, I'm also stocking water, food and ammunition. Never thought I'd be a prepper, but here I am, just watching the world disintegrate and trying to sustain.
Honestly, I'm more worried about other US and world factors that threaten civilization as a whole (WWIII). While I'm stocked on e-cig stuffs, I'm also stocking water, food and ammunition. Never thought I'd be a prepper, but here I am, just watching the world disintegrate and trying to sustain.
And these are only the beginning. I know groups from China are gearing up to join the lawsuits, and it sounds like other smaller vaping companies are jumping on board, plus we have a senator.
I have hope.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I have hope.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
One thing that I thought of is that the FDA seemed to only give lip service to all the "comments" that people submitted. (I'm guessing there were thousands, however I don't know.) Zeller calls it anecdotal evidence. Yeah it's not scientific evidence but it is the testimony of people's experiences using vaping products. Too bad we couldn't testify under oath. I just think that they should have given it more weight, as they were required to take comments.
..........."Even if the tobacco industry had no history of false and misleading statements about the relative health risk of their products........"
......."The need for review of modified risk tobacco products is illustrated by the tobacco industry’s long history of selling and distributing purportedly “reduced risk” tobacco products that have not, in fact, reduced risk—a history that threatens to repeat itself in the context of ecigarettes, which implicate many of the same actors and already have employed many of the same strategies........."
........."Although there are certainly many smaller manufacturers and independent vape shops in the e-cigarette market, it is dominated by the major tobacco companies........"
........."Altria Group, Inc. v. Goode, 555 U.S. 70, 90 n.14 (2008). And “[w]e now know that low-tar cigarettes not only did not provide a public health benefit, but they also may have contributed to an actual increase in death and disease among smokers.”
It's hard to develop trust when things like this have taken place. Burned once.........
There can still be positive outcome, as more and more research and knowledge come to light, it is just that there are hoops and hurdles that will present in the meantime.
Sort of like life.......eventually things get straightened out but sometimes it takes quite a lot of curly Q's before you get there......I DO see smoother sailing but at the present time, and into the more immediate future, I think things will be very tough for vaping.
Sometimes I even think that while we are waiting around, something else will be developed that is even more technological than vaping. You know with the genome project(s), it may eventually be something as simple as just "flipping a switch". (they have already watched inflammation and obesity genes turn on and turn off....they can actually SEE it happening .......)
......."The need for review of modified risk tobacco products is illustrated by the tobacco industry’s long history of selling and distributing purportedly “reduced risk” tobacco products that have not, in fact, reduced risk—a history that threatens to repeat itself in the context of ecigarettes, which implicate many of the same actors and already have employed many of the same strategies........."
........."Although there are certainly many smaller manufacturers and independent vape shops in the e-cigarette market, it is dominated by the major tobacco companies........"
........."Altria Group, Inc. v. Goode, 555 U.S. 70, 90 n.14 (2008). And “[w]e now know that low-tar cigarettes not only did not provide a public health benefit, but they also may have contributed to an actual increase in death and disease among smokers.”
It's hard to develop trust when things like this have taken place. Burned once.........
There can still be positive outcome, as more and more research and knowledge come to light, it is just that there are hoops and hurdles that will present in the meantime.
Sort of like life.......eventually things get straightened out but sometimes it takes quite a lot of curly Q's before you get there......I DO see smoother sailing but at the present time, and into the more immediate future, I think things will be very tough for vaping.
Sometimes I even think that while we are waiting around, something else will be developed that is even more technological than vaping. You know with the genome project(s), it may eventually be something as simple as just "flipping a switch". (they have already watched inflammation and obesity genes turn on and turn off....they can actually SEE it happening .......)
Last edited:
if you just read the first 3 pages............
there are no words
Yeah they are pretty mired in the "Congress gave the FDA" this task stuff.
But the tobacco companies did so much damage, so much.....there is no way to put that genie back into the bottle and henceforth, everything will be judged on the basis of just how much they lied, about everything and anything.
There is no way anybody is going to let that happen again.......so they will have to be convinced, little by little, with research, studies, and LOTS OF PROOF.
IF they took that same approach with EVERY consumer good they were an authority over, that would make sense, but they don't. They have reason to be wary combustible products made from tobacco. Vapor products bear no resemblance to such products, though I know there is precedence.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
