She certainly did make herself look bad, it may not be apparent just yet because the vast majority of people dont really know what all is in tobacco cigarettes. What they DO know is that tobacco cigarettes are widely available and now we have our elected officials saying that there are unidentified chemicals in the e-cigarettes, some of which can be more harmful than the ones that are in tobacco. The general public believe what they hear and what they read (reference the millions of emails sent daily regarding hoax virus' and worms). People are gullible, and sometimes just plain stupid. Ms. Rosenthal is obviously the latter. She has been provided, spoon fed the FACTS from the conducted unbiased studies and yet still maintains her stance. She will be proven to be the liar she is, she will be outted as the puppet she is, and eventually EVERYONE will know that she cares not for public health and safety, she is the author of this bill for one or both of these reasons: stock in big tobacco and/or the tax money associated with tobacco cigarette sales.
What the media needs to do is a side by side comparison of tobacco cigarettes vs e-cigarettes, hell, even include that ONE messed up vial of juice that came from china that had the "antifreeze" in it. In a side by side comparison, tobacco will still be the evil red headed step child that nobody wants to acknowledge and legally cannot due to the Tobacco Act.
One thing about this news story, she reports about the Federal Court of Appeals and states that they ruled that e-cigarettes must be regulated as a tobacco product. This is not true from what I have read. In the OPINION, the judge states that the FDA CANNOT classify the e-cigarette as a drug-device. That being said, the FDA's only other alternative, IF the FDA wants to regulate it all, would be to regulate it as a tobacco product, under which the FDA's powers are severely limited due to the Tobacco Act. Again, and probably MOST IMPORTANTLY, this document was only an OPINION, not a ruling. The ruling was to Grant the petitioners (Smoking Everywhere and njoy) request for an injunction against the FDA seizing their shipments as the FDA has no power and jurisdiction to do so.
If you really read the OPINION document, you will discover that the FDA was greatly chastised by this judge..
"While FDA's interest in protecting public health and safety is, in the abstract, paramount to plaintiffs' purely economic interests, given the particular facts and circumstances of this case, I am not convinced that the threat to the public interest in general or to third parties in particular is as great as FDA suggests. Together, both Smoking Everywhere and NJOY have already sold hundreds of thousands of electronic cigarettes, yet FDA cites no evidence that those electronic cigarettes have endangered anyone. Nor has FDA cited any evidence that electronic cigarettes are any more an immediate threat to public health and safety than traditional cigarettes, which are readily available to the public."... "This case appears to be yet another example of FDA's aggressive efforts to
regulate recreational tobacco products as drugs or devices under the FDCA. Ironically, notwithstanding that Congress has now taken the unprecedented step of granting FDA jurisdiction over those products, FDA remains undeterred. Unfortunately, its tenacious drive to maximize its regulatory power has resulted in its advocacy of an interpretation of the relevant law that I find, at first blush, to be unreasonable and unacceptable."
And the final note from the OPINION on the Ruling...
"As we have already noted, the FDA has authority to regulate customarily marketed tobacco products—including ecigarettes— under the Tobacco Act. It has authority to regulate therapeutically marketed tobacco products under the FDCA’s drug/device provisions. And, as this decision is limited to tobacco products, it does not affect the FDA’s ability to regulate other products under the “structure or any
function” prong defining drugs and devices in 21 U.S.C.§ 321 (g) and (h), as to the scope of which—tobacco products aside—we express no opinion. Of course, in the event that Congress prefers that the FDA regulate e-cigarettes under the FDCA’s drug/device provisions, it can always so decree."
In short- It's going to take an act of Congress for the FDA to get e-cigarettes labeled as a drug-device, and that just wont happen because the liquid is a tobacco product and no manufacturer makes theraputic claims.
I find it appalling that the judge totally outs the FDA for making outrageous claims - unfounded and unsubstantiated, accused them of being unreasonable and unacceptable, and yet Ms. Rosenthal quotes word for word the BUNK spouted by the FDA press release like it's the gospel truth... and apparently all but 3 of the Assembly Health Committee goes right along with her.
Who the hell did we elect to represent us here?? People who care not to take the time to KNOW what the hell they are voting on? I find THIS highly offensive and totally unacceptable. What a bunch of tards...
I gotta go vomit now..
What the media needs to do is a side by side comparison of tobacco cigarettes vs e-cigarettes, hell, even include that ONE messed up vial of juice that came from china that had the "antifreeze" in it. In a side by side comparison, tobacco will still be the evil red headed step child that nobody wants to acknowledge and legally cannot due to the Tobacco Act.
One thing about this news story, she reports about the Federal Court of Appeals and states that they ruled that e-cigarettes must be regulated as a tobacco product. This is not true from what I have read. In the OPINION, the judge states that the FDA CANNOT classify the e-cigarette as a drug-device. That being said, the FDA's only other alternative, IF the FDA wants to regulate it all, would be to regulate it as a tobacco product, under which the FDA's powers are severely limited due to the Tobacco Act. Again, and probably MOST IMPORTANTLY, this document was only an OPINION, not a ruling. The ruling was to Grant the petitioners (Smoking Everywhere and njoy) request for an injunction against the FDA seizing their shipments as the FDA has no power and jurisdiction to do so.
If you really read the OPINION document, you will discover that the FDA was greatly chastised by this judge..
"While FDA's interest in protecting public health and safety is, in the abstract, paramount to plaintiffs' purely economic interests, given the particular facts and circumstances of this case, I am not convinced that the threat to the public interest in general or to third parties in particular is as great as FDA suggests. Together, both Smoking Everywhere and NJOY have already sold hundreds of thousands of electronic cigarettes, yet FDA cites no evidence that those electronic cigarettes have endangered anyone. Nor has FDA cited any evidence that electronic cigarettes are any more an immediate threat to public health and safety than traditional cigarettes, which are readily available to the public."... "This case appears to be yet another example of FDA's aggressive efforts to
regulate recreational tobacco products as drugs or devices under the FDCA. Ironically, notwithstanding that Congress has now taken the unprecedented step of granting FDA jurisdiction over those products, FDA remains undeterred. Unfortunately, its tenacious drive to maximize its regulatory power has resulted in its advocacy of an interpretation of the relevant law that I find, at first blush, to be unreasonable and unacceptable."
And the final note from the OPINION on the Ruling...
"As we have already noted, the FDA has authority to regulate customarily marketed tobacco products—including ecigarettes— under the Tobacco Act. It has authority to regulate therapeutically marketed tobacco products under the FDCA’s drug/device provisions. And, as this decision is limited to tobacco products, it does not affect the FDA’s ability to regulate other products under the “structure or any
function” prong defining drugs and devices in 21 U.S.C.§ 321 (g) and (h), as to the scope of which—tobacco products aside—we express no opinion. Of course, in the event that Congress prefers that the FDA regulate e-cigarettes under the FDCA’s drug/device provisions, it can always so decree."
In short- It's going to take an act of Congress for the FDA to get e-cigarettes labeled as a drug-device, and that just wont happen because the liquid is a tobacco product and no manufacturer makes theraputic claims.
I find it appalling that the judge totally outs the FDA for making outrageous claims - unfounded and unsubstantiated, accused them of being unreasonable and unacceptable, and yet Ms. Rosenthal quotes word for word the BUNK spouted by the FDA press release like it's the gospel truth... and apparently all but 3 of the Assembly Health Committee goes right along with her.
Who the hell did we elect to represent us here?? People who care not to take the time to KNOW what the hell they are voting on? I find THIS highly offensive and totally unacceptable. What a bunch of tards...
I gotta go vomit now..
