"and any other product, regardless of form, that contains tobacco and is intended for human consumption or placement in the oral or nasal cavity or absorption into the human body by any other means"
How does this not include vape juice? I guess we are splitting hairs on "tobacco" and product extracted from tobacco (IE:nicotine).
I guess technically nothing vape related contains actual tobacco. It looks like the State of Washington is safe until vaping specific laws are enacted.
It Isn't Splitting Hairs. It is making a Fundamental Determination of whether or not a Law applies to something.
Nicotine is Not Tobacco. It can be Derived from Tobacco. Or you can say that Nicotine can be Found in Tobacco. But Nicotine is Not Tobacco.
So if a Law
only applies to a product that Contains tobacco, an e-Liquid that contain Nicotine would not be Subject to that Law.
But where it Gets Ugly is when a Law(s) reference a
"Tobacco Product". What Exactly is the Legal Definition of a Tobacco Product?
And the HUGE Question that has Lawyers/Legislators chomping at the bit is can a State use the Statutory Definition that the FDA has applied to include e-Cigarettes/e-Liquids as Tobacco Products, for the purpose of FDA Regulations, for the purpose of State Laws?
Many Argue that the FDA inclusion of e-Liquids that contain Nicotine derived from Tobacco Plants as Tobacco Products can be used by States. But also Argue that Nicotine that came from Other Sources or is Synthetic can Not. And the FDA's inclusion of Hardware or 0mg e-Liquids as Tobacco Products is Regulatory Overreach in the Purest Sense.
So it gets back to the HUGE Question. How far can a State apply the FDA's Definition of a Tobacco Product?
I believe that the Core of Tobacco Product Legal Challenges will be the wording from the FSTCA relating to "Derived From" tobacco.