Just saw this posted over on Hoosier Vapers Face Book page....
SNHD issues advisory for e-cigs after lawsuit against shopping center
SNHD issues advisory for e-cigs after lawsuit against shopping center
Nevada court rules e-cigs are NOT tobacco products.
- Thread starter pennysmalls
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Well, maybe not the victory we all hope for. Essentially, they are simply enforcing the current official status quo (i.e, lack of regulation) for the purposes of a tenancy agreement, specifically market exclusivity. The court in question did not have the authority to deem vaping as tobacco.
I suspect this would be overturned in a heartbeat if/when the FDA locks in deeming.
I suspect this would be overturned in a heartbeat if/when the FDA locks in deeming.
I'd love to read the judges decision and the pleadings.
How about a CVS pharmacy opens next door and the 7/11 says they can't sell nic gum and patches because those are tobacco products? Is a court going to agree with that? Doubtful. How are e-cigs different from gum and patches? Hope springs eternal.
Those ear things were weird as h_ll. Does that mean I'm old?
P.S. I listened to the story again. I'm starting to think it might be a big deal after all. This is a fork iin the road that was coming sooner or later. Everybody protecting the interests of vapers, and the industry are going to cite this case in every sort of situation to help make the arguement that e-cigs are not tobacco products. I hope the judge wrote a well worded decision.
How about a CVS pharmacy opens next door and the 7/11 says they can't sell nic gum and patches because those are tobacco products? Is a court going to agree with that? Doubtful. How are e-cigs different from gum and patches? Hope springs eternal.
Those ear things were weird as h_ll. Does that mean I'm old?
P.S. I listened to the story again. I'm starting to think it might be a big deal after all. This is a fork iin the road that was coming sooner or later. Everybody protecting the interests of vapers, and the industry are going to cite this case in every sort of situation to help make the arguement that e-cigs are not tobacco products. I hope the judge wrote a well worded decision.
Last edited:
Fair enough...but considering the nonsensical drivel we're bombard with left right and center I appreciate the fact that some fellas out there do realize that vaping is NOT smoking. Cuz reading some of garbage that's being foisted on the public as 'science', even a sliver of common sense is like a beam of light
I wrote to the defending attorney and asked for a pdf of the judge's decision. There is NO news coverage of this. I'm amazed there is so little interest. The right wins in court could swing things our way if there is an opening.
I doubt there is gonna be much on the news about this, as FOR SOME STRANGE REASON hint hint
Nothing in favour of e-cigarettes gets very popular, people prefer to be sheep and go with the much large "e-cigarettes are bad mkay" group.
(Also yes I don't like gauges, I dated a girl with them and they smell bad )
Nothing in favour of e-cigarettes gets very popular, people prefer to be sheep and go with the much large "e-cigarettes are bad mkay" group.
(Also yes I don't like gauges, I dated a girl with them and they smell bad
)- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 67
I've been providing assistance and information to Jessica and April (attorneys for the vape shop) on their case.
We believe that one or more of the large cigarette companies was behind, financing and/or assisting with 7-Eleven's lawsuit.
Had 7-Eleven's litigation been successful, vapor products would be legally considered "tobacco products" in the State of Nevada, and similar lawsuits would likely be filed in other states.
Please note that just because e-cigs are considered "tobacco products" by the FSPTCA (per Judge Leon's 2010 ruling), no other federal law, and no state law legally considers e-cigs to be "tobacco products".
We believe that one or more of the large cigarette companies was behind, financing and/or assisting with 7-Eleven's lawsuit.
Had 7-Eleven's litigation been successful, vapor products would be legally considered "tobacco products" in the State of Nevada, and similar lawsuits would likely be filed in other states.
Please note that just because e-cigs are considered "tobacco products" by the FSPTCA (per Judge Leon's 2010 ruling), no other federal law, and no state law legally considers e-cigs to be "tobacco products".
Last edited:
I had a feeling too it would be BT behind this. 7-eleven has got to be a huge outlet for their e-cigs and what better way to knock out the competition everywhere? 7-elevens are literally on every street corner and if they had won this lawsuit vape shops would have toppled like dominos everywhere.
Could you possibly provide a link to the text of the judge's ruling and may be the pleadings. Those should be available as pdf from any of the parties to the case. At the end of the day they are public record but I have no idea how to get them from a nevada court.
It would also be interesting to hear about what arguements were used and what might have persuaded the judge. In Michigan a circuit court judge can set precedent for his county but beyond that to be bench law it needs to be decided by an appeals court. Even so if it is a good opinion it can be offered in any court. The courts may be the only protection in the end.
Last edited:
Here is a pdf of the judges decision in the Sky Vaper 7-Eleven case kindly sent to me by one of the attorneys. Some one please test and tell me if it's pubic.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bz0...UZ0dHo2Q3RNSXNXS2cwNnRz/edit?usp=docslist_api
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bz0...UZ0dHo2Q3RNSXNXS2cwNnRz/edit?usp=docslist_api
Last edited:
I see this as huge news and landmark decision.
But recognize that FDA will likely change some legal opinions with its deeming of eliquid as a tobacco product.
Always good to see vape businesses win in a court battle.
But recognize that FDA will likely change some legal opinions with its deeming of eliquid as a tobacco product.
Always good to see vape businesses win in a court battle.
I just dont see how this can be deemed a tobacco product a nicotine product yes but it contains no tobacco so.......
doctrinidad- that is the issue that I think will ultimately take this whole thing to court. I think it really all comes down to that one simple point.
I believe that paragraph 17 makes it very clear
Paragraph 18 - 20 also has some clear language which kind of protects possible deeming regulation in the future.
But now judges are defining tobacco, this might be very helpful down the road.
Paragraph 18 - 20 also has some clear language which kind of protects possible deeming regulation in the future.
But now judges are defining tobacco, this might be very helpful down the road.
Last edited:
If the nicotine is derived from tobacco, then it is challenging to understand how it is not a product of tobacco.
Other stuff (that can't be named on ECF) comes in many forms. At least one of those forms is not like how it appears in nature nor how it is commonly bought/sold on underground market. But contains the main component (drug). Would you say that ought to be classified in entirely different category, or because you don't use it and don't care about it (hypothetically speaking), that it is okay with you that it is lumped together in one category since the main element is identical?
I'll be glad if regulators are stymied by court decisions to do their voodoo, but do think 2009 has shown us that if they don't get us one way, they'll keep on trying another way. If vaping was deemed "not a tobacco product," I still think there would be many (or an overwhelming majority) that want to see it heavily regulated.
But as one who loathes tobacco regulations, more so now that I'm a vaper, I'd rather see the battle take on the whole kit and caboodle. I realize it probably won't go that way, but strongly believe the problem isn't how it is classified, but how there are those among us who seek to regulate and end supply based on their own livelihoods.
As is perfect example for the original topic of this thread.
A Nevada court makes a decision vapers should like and recently members of a committee of the Nevada legislature raised objections to a e-cig taxation bill they were asked to consider. Now if we could have a few thousand more news stories like those.
Here is the link to the Nevada judge's decision one more time.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bz0...UZ0dHo2Q3RNSXNXS2cwNnRz/edit?usp=docslist_api
Here is the link to the Nevada judge's decision one more time.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bz0...UZ0dHo2Q3RNSXNXS2cwNnRz/edit?usp=docslist_api
Last edited:
Hunters use deer urine to lure deer in for the kill. Deer urine is an extract of deer but is not an actual deer. People drink milk. Milk is an extract of cow but is not an actual cow. The examples we can come up with are many. It can be argued that these things aren't the same "thing" as the thing they are sourced from but it can also be argued that without the existence of the source these things would not exist. It's literally the chicken/egg paradox.
But deer urine is a deer product, no?
I drink milk daily. I am lactose intolerant. Drinking cow's milk makes my tummy ache, among other things. Therefore, if it is milk that is product from a cow, I will likely refrain from drinking / having it.
What I hear you arguing is that becomes nicotine in eCigs is not the actual tobacco plant in its entirety, it cannot be referred to as tobacco.
I get the other side of this debate, I really do. As I said, I'm okay with courts that favor the position of it not being a tobacco product, but mostly to only because everyone and their mother loves to hate on tobacco products. If that were not the case, I'd probably get more involved in this debate as it does strike me as a tobacco product. If the nicotine came from say eggplants instead, then I would see how one could emphatically state this has nothing to do with being a tobacco product.
I also strongly believe and will argue that vape gear of any kind, where nicotine is not sold directly inside the gear is not, nor can reasonably be considered a tobacco product. Therefore, it is only liquid containing nicotine where I see this making any sense. Liquid with no nicotine equals not a tobacco product.
It's the word "product" that creates the confusion. FDA wants it to also mean "extracted from". I predict it will eventually have to be debated in court.
From a layman's perpective, if a product is not substantially similar to tobacco, then it's not tobacco, regardless of where it came from.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
