He is living in a bubble if he doesn't know what's going on. I don't buy the "he is just doing his job". Here is what could be the greatest health advance against smoking and they are waiting for others to get the data? When it was a fad sure but not after all these years.
FDA Nicotine - "Derived From Tobacco" Implies Logical Absurdity
- Thread starter toddkuen
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Your right about a "bubble."
I've worked with government types in other industries - their perspective is vastly different than some who does not work for the government.
I do think there is hope if its all handled right...
I've worked with government types in other industries - their perspective is vastly different than some who does not work for the government.
I do think there is hope if its all handled right...
It helps by sending message that a product known to save lives is still worth buying regardless of over-reaching and unwarranted regulations. It lets whoever cares know that there is a very viable market, with high demand for this product and that the regulations that may be in place (or as you like to argue absolutely will be in place) are needing to be re-thought as they created this underground market where things are arguably more dangerous, less reasonable for buyers, and impacting the children. With enough people participating in this market, the collective impact on public policy will send a message (or two) that was likely included in a comment (or two) during FDA's open comment period, but not emphasized because people thought playing a politically correct game would serve their interests (i.e. of course it is good to ban it from kids).
If you've ever sped while driving a car, jaywalked or smoked underage, then the petty criminal thing really ought not be treated as {A BIG DEAL}.
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks for your digging Stosh, as always 
I think you may be right about the reluctance of a lower (DC district) court to question what was written by the ct. of appeals in Soterra.
However technically the part you quote is dictum: Dictum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In plain English, even if the FDA had no autority under the tobacco act, the result in Soterra would be the same. Only the "holding" of a case binds a lower court. That doesn't mean it will be brushed aside as irrelevant, I'm just making this little picky point.
On balance, however, I'm convinced that the "derived from" language is fairly clear, and likely trumps any detailed analysis that focuses on the drug nicotine - when viewed as a drug. The tobacco act is about tobacco, not nicotine, even though nicotine is clearly cited in the preamble as the culprit that makes tobacco products so injurious (according to the law, anyway).
Courts also tend to pay a lot of attention to the plain meaning of statutory language: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_meaning_rule
But then my opinion means nothing
(And the "laugh" smiley there was not intended to have a double meaning or imply sarcasm etc.)
I think you may be right about the reluctance of a lower (DC district) court to question what was written by the ct. of appeals in Soterra.
However technically the part you quote is dictum: Dictum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In plain English, even if the FDA had no autority under the tobacco act, the result in Soterra would be the same. Only the "holding" of a case binds a lower court. That doesn't mean it will be brushed aside as irrelevant, I'm just making this little picky point.
On balance, however, I'm convinced that the "derived from" language is fairly clear, and likely trumps any detailed analysis that focuses on the drug nicotine - when viewed as a drug. The tobacco act is about tobacco, not nicotine, even though nicotine is clearly cited in the preamble as the culprit that makes tobacco products so injurious (according to the law, anyway).
Courts also tend to pay a lot of attention to the plain meaning of statutory language: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_meaning_rule
But then my opinion means nothing
(And the "laugh" smiley there was not intended to have a double meaning or imply sarcasm etc.)
Hmmm, so "Dictum" makes it past the forums automatic censors....
I was just throwing it out there as another contradictory data point, we seem to have a lot of them lately. I'm not even sure which side the lawyers that bring it up might be on, or who it may benefit. There's going to many billable hours spent pouring over these and other points we don't even realize yet, it's going to be a long war.
At this point all we have is our opinions, yours has been well thought out.....
I was just throwing it out there as another contradictory data point, we seem to have a lot of them lately. I'm not even sure which side the lawyers that bring it up might be on, or who it may benefit. There's going to many billable hours spent pouring over these and other points we don't even realize yet, it's going to be a long war.
....I think you may be right about the reluctance of a lower (DC district) court to question what was written by the ct. of appeals in Soterra.
However technically the part you quote is dictum: Dictum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In plain English, even if the FDA had no autority under the tobacco act, the result in Soterra would be the same. Only the "holding" of a case binds a lower court. That doesn't mean it will be brushed aside as irrelevant, I'm just making this little picky point.
On balance, however, I'm convinced that the "derived from" language is fairly clear, and likely trumps any detailed analysis that focuses on the drug nicotine - when viewed as a drug. The tobacco act is about tobacco, not nicotine, even though nicotine is clearly cited in the preamble as the culprit that makes tobacco products so injurious (according to the law, anyway).
Courts also tend to pay a lot of attention to the plain meaning of statutory language: Plain meaning rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
But then my opinion means nothing
(And the "laugh" smiley there was not intended to have a double meaning or imply sarcasm etc.)
At this point all we have is our opinions, yours has been well thought out.....
I would also point what has been hapenning with other plant which shall not be named. Said plant which shall not be named has been legalized in Oregon despite it being illegal on the federal level.
Another important benefit of going to the black market is that you can keep on vaping.
Last edited by a moderator:
There are some pretty smart people on ECF -- Roger Lafayette included (or whoever he is) but all of you fail to see the point that I brought up in a couple of other threads. Nicotine is in cigarettes..cigarettes are and always have been legal, and no way congress will make a law deeming nicotine a schedule 5 narcotic. They would be cutting their own throats. BT has been funneling money into politicians pockets since congress enacted the Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act of 1969:
Tobacco Timeline--NOTES
Flavors, well that could be another story. B&M's that sell eliquid,another story. I'm sure they will have to pay for tobacco tax licensees.
I hope that makes some sense?
Tobacco Timeline--NOTES
Flavors, well that could be another story. B&M's that sell eliquid,another story. I'm sure they will have to pay for tobacco tax licensees.
I hope that makes some sense?
Hmmm, so "Dictum" makes it past the forums automatic censors....
<...>
There's no "k" in the word "Dictum".
There's no "k" in the word "Dictum".
Oddly it works if there were... not going to demonstrate it
This is pretty much the same way I see it but my understanding of the process isn't good enough to count on anything.
Another thing is that The FDA could stretch the limits of what is legal and it may take years of court battles to get those regulations overturned. Assuming there is someone with the money who wants to do it. Too sum it up I am not really sure about anything.
Another thing is that The FDA could stretch the limits of what is legal and it may take years of court battles to get those regulations overturned. Assuming there is someone with the money who wants to do it. Too sum it up I am not really sure about anything.
There are some pretty smart people on ECF -- Roger Lafayette included (or whoever he is) but all of you fail to see the point that I brought up in a couple of other threads. Nicotine is in cigarettes..cigarettes are and always have been legal, and no way congress will make a law deeming nicotine a schedule 5 narcotic. They would be cutting their own throats. BT has been funneling money into politicians pockets since congress enacted the Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act of 1969:
Tobacco Timeline--NOTES
Flavors, well that could be another story. B&M's that sell eliquid,another story. I'm sure they will have to pay for tobacco tax licensees.
I hope that makes some sense?
If the FDA limited the bottle size to 10 mL for safety (save the children) and the strength to 2-4 mg/mL (similar to gum and lozenges) some veteran vapers may survive at that level, to new vapers it would be nothing more than a fad, as ineffectual as the gum and lozenges.
The FDA would make a bunch lawyers rich, while devastating the vaping industry.
Well now there a fresh thought. Nice!
Oh you better believe the industry will change and not for the better. Because vaping ... looks like smoking!
Who is? With the progressives running everything. I wonder if when we go swimming with children it looks like we are drowning them?
I think we are going about this wrong as Zeller gives vaping a way out here starting at 21:14.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaWLRIjc2AU
He states that the nicotine must be derived from tobacco or the FDA has no control over it under the tobacco act and he doesn't sound real happy that the question was even asked.
If you do a search for nicotine containing plants -tobacco you get over a million hits, among them there must be at least one that is native to the US and could be grown commercially. This would do two things, stick a monkey wrench in what the FDA, BT, BP and there alphabet groups are trying to do and it opens another front in the war and moves nicotine away from being only associated with tobacco.
There has been no need to even think about another source as tobacco is ingrained in our society as the source for nicotine. With the way vaping is growing I think there is a large market for non-tobacco derived nicotine and it would require congress to write new laws and put the FDA back at ground zero in their rule writing.
If nothing else this would buy more time for vaping to overtake cumbustibles and vapors to become a large enough group that the politicians will have no choice but to listen to us.
One example of a plant that has enough nicotine in it to be considered poisonous is a common flower, the Foxglove, there has to be more.
Just food for thought.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaWLRIjc2AU
He states that the nicotine must be derived from tobacco or the FDA has no control over it under the tobacco act and he doesn't sound real happy that the question was even asked.
If you do a search for nicotine containing plants -tobacco you get over a million hits, among them there must be at least one that is native to the US and could be grown commercially. This would do two things, stick a monkey wrench in what the FDA, BT, BP and there alphabet groups are trying to do and it opens another front in the war and moves nicotine away from being only associated with tobacco.
There has been no need to even think about another source as tobacco is ingrained in our society as the source for nicotine. With the way vaping is growing I think there is a large market for non-tobacco derived nicotine and it would require congress to write new laws and put the FDA back at ground zero in their rule writing.
If nothing else this would buy more time for vaping to overtake cumbustibles and vapors to become a large enough group that the politicians will have no choice but to listen to us.
One example of a plant that has enough nicotine in it to be considered poisonous is a common flower, the Foxglove, there has to be more.
Just food for thought.
I thought the same thing when I heard that.
I think another "way out" is the notion of combustible/non-combustible (which should read "combustible or oral tar"/non-combustible) - a clear, new distinction about what's more and less important.
I took both comments are clear signals.
However, there must be a receiver willing to listen and respond.
That ship sailed a while ago, when it comes to smokeless tobacco (ST). You might consider reading some of C.V.'s or Roly's blogs on the subject. The FDA will not pay any attention to the science that demonstrates that products like Swedish snus have been very successfully used as harm redution.
The FDA's track record on ST is what makes most of us think that they are going to be just as unwilling to look at any particular vaping product, no matter what the evidence shows. The difference is that the vaping market seems to have much more potential, and there are now players such as NJOY and LOGIC who have the needed deep pockets and the financial incentive (which BT lacks) to fight.
That means they will have to develop the scientific evidence for specific products, and then do battle with the FDA in the courts. The ST market simply didn't seem to have the kind of potential needed to justify expenses that may eventually be measured in the tens or even hundreds of millions. Also, I think no playes in the ST market besides BT had the financial resources to fight.
Last edited:
Probably by the price you paid for it. If you're trying to imply that FDA would have to prove it came from tobacco, I would counter that they would make that assumption automatically and make you prove that it's not.
TSNA's, (Tobacco-specific N-nitrosamines) they are in tobacco derived USP nicotine in micro gram amounts that are for all practical purposes impossible to remove.
Basically nature labels it.
Basically nature labels it.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
