Nearing disaster in New York - please take action NOW to prevent e-cigarette ban.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Luisa

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Apr 8, 2010
690
419
harlingen,texas
Again, I have to say that I vehemently disagree. There can never be a legal definition that fairly or correctly lumps ecigs in with conventional cigarettes.

One is burned, and involves spewing out the products of combustion - the stuff that is universally acknowledged to be the cause of smoking-related illness and death.

The other is not, and does not.

The battle is squarely about getting all those so-called "health" groups and politicians, both federal and state, to finally acknowledge and publish the TRUTH that alternative, smokefree tobacco products are less harmful, by magnitudes, than conventional cigarettes.
Call them what they are for goodness sake----SMOKE FREE CIGARETTES!
 

v1John

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Mar 23, 2010
3,042
110
va
...The battle is squarely about getting all those so-called "health" groups and politicians, both federal and state, to finally acknowledge and publish the TRUTH that alternative, smokefree tobacco products are less harmful, by magnitudes, than conventional cigarettes.


Lacking tobacco, except for nicotine like gums and patches, they would likely fall by themselves in the electronic nicotine device. It could undo the judge's ruling and certainly help the FDA, and I don't think I know how we would even fight that battle, much less win.

But I'm just offering my suggestions. I'm not literally in the NY battle and thank goodness things are fine in Virginia. So you vaping friends from NY decide ultimately.

Also, is NY Gov. Paterson capable of vetoing a bad bill, and has anyone communicated with him about it yet?
 

yvilla

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Nov 18, 2008
2,063
575
Rochester, NY
Lacking tobacco, except for nicotine like gums and patches, they would likely fall by themselves in the electronic nicotine device. It could undo the judge's ruling and certainly help the FDA, and I don't think I know how we would even fight that battle, much less win.

I don't think you are understanding my point, v1John. Judge Leon ruled that ecigs are "tobacco products", not drugs, in accordance with the new tobacco legislation's definition of "tobacco products" - which is: "any product made or derived from tobacco that is intended for human consumption" (21 U.S.C. §321 (rr) (l)) (and per section 2, so long as it is NOT a drug as defined in Chapter 5 of the FDCA, like the NRTs are). Ecig liquid is clearly "derived from" tobacco, as the nicotine in it, its active ingredient and thus the only one that matters for definitional purposes, is derived from tobacco.

And just so there's no confusion, the nicotine in NRT drugs makes for a drug product under Chapter 5 primarily because of "intended use", as opposed to the different "intended use" of nicotine in tobacco products.
 
Last edited:

kristin

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Aug 16, 2009
10,448
21,120
CASAA - Wisconsin
casaa.org
The judge's ruling was based on "intended use," as well.

The FDA was arguing that ecigs were being marketed and used as smoking cessation products and therefore, should be regulated as such.

SE/Njoy argued that they were marketed and used as recreational nicotine products, more like tobacco cigarettes.

The judge agreed with SE/Njoy.

Luisa, they are not smoke free "cigarettes." That would be tobacco rolled up in paper that didn't produce smoke. eCigarettes do not meet the legal definition of cigarettes and are called ecigarettes only as a marketing name for manufacturers to attract tobacco smokers.

What they truly are, are a smoking substitute, alternative or replacement. And as Yvilla points out, they can easily be considered tobacco products because the nicotine is extracted from tobacco.

Saying that ecig liquid isn't a tobacco product is like saying high-fructose corn syrup isn't a corn product.
 
Last edited:

v1John

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Mar 23, 2010
3,042
110
va
Call them what they are for goodness sake----SMOKE FREE CIGARETTES!

heh:)
Reality does say it's an electronic cigarette.
It doesn't mean it's as harmful as tobacco cigarettes, it just means they're used as, and mimic, cigarettes in a safer manner.

Now, trying to shove these new electronic cigarettes into lawbooks that were written in their absence may require a paragraph for themselves, but removing the word cigarette is not in line with reality, much to our benefit.

Had electronic cigarettes not been invented, ... let's say they invented a nicotine device instead. It looks like a balloon, and everytime you need a whif, you turn a knob at the tip and it releases an invisible nicotine gas, you then move your head into the gas and inhale... I would have never bought it. People buy the e-cigs because they're cigarettes--of course they're safer and electronic, change the fact that they're cigarettes, or legally change the word cigarette to device, and you can run into legal troubles that Congressionally established laws protecting cigarette users can no longer be of any avil for defense.

Taken one step further, the FDA could soon thereafter possibly require the electronic cigarette to get rid of the fog and the appearance of a cigarette, and cause it to end up looking like the balloon or a new device.
But that's my opinion.
 

Luisa

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Apr 8, 2010
690
419
harlingen,texas
heh:)
Reality does say it's an electronic cigarette.
It doesn't mean it's as harmful as tobacco cigarettes, it just means they're used as, and mimic, cigarettes in a safer manner.

Now, trying to shove these new electronic cigarettes into lawbooks that were written in their absence may require a paragraph for themselves, but removing the word cigarette is not in line with reality, much to our benefit.

Had electronic cigarettes not been invented, ... let's say they invented a nicotine device instead. It looks like a balloon, and everytime you need a whif, you turn a knob at the tip and it releases an invisible nicotine gas, you then move your head into the gas and inhale... I would have never bought it. People buy the e-cigs because they're cigarettes--of course they're safer and electronic, change the fact that they're cigarettes, or legally change the word cigarette to device, and you can run into legal troubles that Congressionally established laws protecting cigarette users can no longer be of any avil for defense.

Taken one step further, the FDA could soon thereafter possibly require the electronic cigarette to get rid of the fog and the appearance of a cigarette, and cause it to end up looking like the balloon or a new device.
But that's my opinion.
Well,I suppose we had best ask a lawyer what would be the best name for the product we all use. Or to rephrase it--the one that would cause no harm in our lobbying efforts.
 

Luisa

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Apr 8, 2010
690
419
harlingen,texas
The judge's ruling was based on "intended use," as well.

The FDA was arguing that ecigs were being marketed and used as smoking cessation products and therefore, should be regulated as such.

SE/Njoy argued that they were marketed and used as recreational nicotine products, more like tobacco cigarettes.

The judge agreed with SE/Njoy.

Luisa, they are not smoke free "cigarettes." That would be tobacco rolled up in paper that didn't produce smoke. eCigarettes do not meet the legal definition of cigarettes and are called ecigarettes only as a marketing name for manufacturers to attract tobacco smokers.

What they truly are, are a smoking substitute, alternative or replacement. And as Yvilla points out, they can easily be considered tobacco products because the nicotine is extracted from tobacco.

Saying that ecig liquid isn't a tobacco product is like saying high-fructose corn syrup isn't a corn product.
Well,I suppose we had best ask a lawyer what would be the best name for the product we all use. Or to rephrase it--the one that would cause no harm in our lobbying efforts and would soften the first immediate reaction of rejection and bias from the general public. Truly,I am not trying to be argumentative. I have just found when I say I have quit combustible cigarettes and am using a combustible free product,the response is always more positive.
 

v1John

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Mar 23, 2010
3,042
110
va
...
What they truly are, are a smoking substitute, alternative or replacement. And as Yvilla points out, they can easily be considered tobacco products because the nicotine is extracted from tobacco.
...

It seems that nicotine gums, pills, and the bandaids could be considered tobacco products too if they have nicotine from tobacco. But it seems too that the laws and agencies are well past that point, and so you have the FDA with great influence on the gums, patches, pills, etc.,. While they can all be tobacco products according to the corn principle, a classification was created for the FDA to mess with at the whims of hideous agendas (imo).


The only thing that is different now is that the cigarettes, still in the classification NOT granted for the FDA to cause to ban, became so much safer and technologically advanced through the course of scientific human events. That is all. [Let them be. Let them remain in the classification NOT granted for the FDA to ban at their hideous whims.]
 
Last edited:

kristin

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Aug 16, 2009
10,448
21,120
CASAA - Wisconsin
casaa.org
Lawyer or not, I think the horse left the barn on this one - unless you want to use the moniker the researchers have given it: ENI (Electronic Nicotine Inhaler)

The problem is, you can use them WITHOUT nicotine.

They have been electronic cigarettes for 5 years and no matter what we call them, I'm afraid electronic cigarette has just been ingrained too deeply.
 

yvilla

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Nov 18, 2008
2,063
575
Rochester, NY
Luisa, the ecigs or PVs that we all use are widely known as "electronic cigarettes", and I'm afraid it's long past the point of even trying to change that. That's the term used in the litigation going on in federal court, the term used in the several proposed legislative efforts to ban sales, and the term used in the one legislative effort that has already succeeded (the use in public ban in New Jersey). It's also the term term used by our wonderful defenders, the American Association of Public Health Physicians, in its position papers both opposing state bans, and urging the FDA to classify them as "tobacco products" and not as "drug products".

What I was reacting to earlier, however, was v1John's talking about calling them simply "cigarettes", which we should definitely not do, and/or about some perceived benefit to having the term "cigarette" redefined to include electronic cigarettes, which is definitely not a good thing.

Albeit they are known as "electronic cigarettes", there is that huge and critical difference between conventional combusted cigarettes and a smokefree product like electronic cigarettes, that we must always be vigilant to highlight, and never allow to be blurred.
 
Last edited:

yvilla

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Nov 18, 2008
2,063
575
Rochester, NY
It seems that nicotine gums, pills, and the bandaids could be considered tobacco products too if they have nicotine from tobacco.

I guess you just didn't want to read or acknowledge what I already posted. :confused:

yvilla said:
And just so there's no confusion, the nicotine in NRT drugs makes for a drug product under Chapter 5 primarily because of "intended use", as opposed to the different "intended use" of nicotine in tobacco products.

The legislative scheme for all this is pretty clear. Under the FDCA, products containing nicotine that are intended and marketed for use in smoking cessation and treating nicotine dependence are "drug products", regulated under Chapter 5. But products containing nicotine that are NOT so intended, that is, "tobacco products", are to be regulated under the new Chapter of the FDCA created by last summer's tobacco legislation.

Read these quotes from Judge Leon's decision, if you don't want to believe me on this point:

“Under the Tobacco Act, FDA may now regulate tobacco products, which the Act defines as ‘any product made or derived from tobacco that is intended for human consumption,’ 21 U.S.C. §321 (rr) (l), but it cannot regulate those products as it would a drug or device under the FDCA, id. §387a (a). There being no dispute that the nicotine in plaintiffs' electronic cigarettes is naturally distilled from actual tobacco and is intended for human consumption (FDA Supp. Br. [#41] at 5 n.3), plaintiffs assert that their electronic cigarettes qualify as a tobacco product and are therefore exempt from regulation as a drug-device combination.”

“The Court has already concluded based on the information before it that the electronic cigarettes marketed by plaintiffs are not intended for treating the disease of nicotine addiction. To the extent those products are marketed as providing the same experience as traditional cigarettes but without the negative health consequences associated with tar and smoke, they fall within the plain meaning of ‘modified risk tobacco product,’ which the Tobacco Act defines as any tobacco product ‘sold or distributed for use to reduce harm or the risk of tobacco-related disease associated with commercially marketed tobacco products.’ ld. §387k(b)(1). To treat as a drug any tobacco product that merely claims to be a healthier alternative would effectively nullify the provisions relating to modified risk tobacco products, which represent Congress's implicit acknowledgment that those products were outside of FDA's jurisdiction prior to the Tobacco Act.”

http://www.casaa.org/files/SE-vs-FDA-Opinion.pdf
 

v1John

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Mar 23, 2010
3,042
110
va
Well that is basically what I thought I said, except I had not read the Judge's decision, and had not read the Act superceding Congress' cigarette ban protection. (Is this the Obama Act?)

Electronic cigarettes are tobacco products. Maybe we should think of thme as the modern cigarettes?

As such (tobacco products), they cannot be regulated by the FDA under FDCA...drug-devices.

Excerpts from his decision :

As long they're marketed as cigarettes experientially:
To the extent those products are marketed as providing the same experience as traditional cigarettes but without the negative health consequences associated with tar and smoke, they fall within the plain meaning of ‘modified risk tobacco product,’ which the Tobacco Act defines as any tobacco product ‘sold or distributed for use to reduce harm or the risk of tobacco-related disease associated with commercially marketed tobacco products.’

But we must NOT merely claim that they're merely healthy things (in other words, they're still cigarettes, they're ELECTRONIC CIGARETTES):
To treat as a drug any tobacco product that merely claims to be a healthier alternative would effectively nullify the provisions relating to modified risk tobacco products, which represent Congress's implicit acknowledgment that those products were outside of FDA's jurisdiction prior to the Tobacco Act.”

The Tobacco Act I had not read either, apparently that is when the FDA sandbox was created to dump anything with nicotine except cigarettes for the wicked FDA to mess with?





_________________________________
GOD BLESS THE JUDGE !! :thumb:
 
Last edited:

djtonyb

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Mar 19, 2010
796
883
Big Pine Key
I just want to go bang my head against a concrete wall in response to the utter ignorance that is being spewed by the FDA, and their buddies in Pharma and Tobacco. These devices can be used with NO NICOTINE!!! None! Nada! Zilch! Zero! If we remove nicotine derived from tobacco products from the equation, there is absolutely no reason that anybody can ban the personal vaporizer from being sold, unless they stop the entertainment industry from using theatrical fog machines. Long live the "mini foghog"!!!!

{as an aside, all you people with "asthma" that complained about the "smoke machine" when I was a lighting tech can kiss my .... There is no "smoke", and you are psychosomatically reacting to all the "smoke is bad" crap that is being shoved down your throats.}

Fog is not smoke!
 
Last edited:

Hudsonkm

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Jan 7, 2010
161
14
49
Illinois, US
The problem for NY is that Rosenthal caused the elimination of 'modified risk' and wants them banned I guess under an assumption that they will somehow no longer be electronic cigarettes, but rather some kind of strange drug devices, correct? Or was that Illinois?

Yeah in our original bill here in Illinois Senator Link was moving to change the definition of modified risk products.

The bill was eventually set aside after the chair of the health and human services committee removed her name as a sponsor.

This was due to the fact that Illinois held an open door hearing for citizens to come speak directly to them about E-Cigarettes. The following day she removed her name. Likewise, It can be assumed that her change of opinion was directly related to what was said on part of the Illinois E-Cigarette users who attended.

It would be nice if New York would hold an open hearing as well. In fact it is fairly agitating that they are refusing to do so.
 
Last edited:

yvilla

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Nov 18, 2008
2,063
575
Rochester, NY
The Tobacco Act I had not read either, apparently that is when the FDA sandbox was created to dump anything with nicotine except cigarettes for the wicked FDA to mess with?

Nope. Under the new Chapter of the FDCA created by the tobacco legislation of last summer, the FDA now regulates ALL tobacco products. That's including cigarettes. For exapmle, the FDA is now enforcing the ban on "characterizing" flavors in cigarettes, as part of its new authority under that legislation. More is to come.

Perhaps your misunderstanding on this stems from certain provisions of the new law itself - that protect cigarettes from being outright banned by the FDA, in the course of its regulation, and that prevent the FDA from reducing the nicotine in cigarettes to zero. But short of those two limits, the FDA has a pretty free reign in its regulatory power - over cigarettes, and every other tobacco product on the market.

Here is the legislation itself (warning, it's long, and dense):

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h1256enr.txt.pdf
 

Hudsonkm

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Jan 7, 2010
161
14
49
Illinois, US
Nope. Under the new Chapter of the FDCA created by the tobacco legislation of last summer, the FDA now regulates ALL tobacco products. That's including cigarettes. For exapmle, the FDA is now enforcing the ban on "characterizing" flavors in cigarettes, as part of its new authority under that legislation. More is to come.

Perhaps your misunderstanding on this stems from certain provisions of the new law itself - that protect cigarettes from being outright banned by the FDA, in the course of its regulation, and that prevent the FDA from reducing the nicotine in cigarettes to zero. But short of those two limits, the FDA has a pretty free reign in its regulatory power - over cigarettes, and every other tobacco product on the market.

Here is the legislation itself (warning, it's long, and dense):

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h1256enr.txt.pdf

Ahh thats right...

I remember when suddenly cigarettes were no longer "Lights" or any other name that would make one sound less toxic than the other.
 

kristin

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Aug 16, 2009
10,448
21,120
CASAA - Wisconsin
casaa.org
That same FDA ruling regulating cigarettes is why my favorite chocolate, vanilla and clove (Djarum) cigarettes can't be sold anymore. Luckily for now I'm vaping and can get those flavors once again. But if this silly legislation passes I'll be without again :(
Not to downplay the urgency in New York in any way (if one state falls, they all may well follow), but you will still be able to order ecig supplies from out of state/online for now.

But if the other states follow suit or the FDA wins in court, that will be easier said than done.

That's why ALL vapers - in EVERY state - has a vested interest in what happens in New York.
 
That's why ALL vapers - in EVERY state - has a vested interest in what happens in New York.

I read this thread and the FDA thread daily. Is there anything that an out of stater can effectively do to really help the situation in NY? I'm feeling helpless about NY and want to help if I can be a part of making a difference!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread