SE, NJoy vs FDA -- Discussion

[ScottB]

...FYI, I've never contributed to an online forum in the past...

Then you haven't yet been banned from an online forum. If you can positively contribute, it would be good for this not to be a first for you.

ScottB, you need a Utah lawyer for that.

Not true at all, but I don't mind being dismissed out of hand...

...Incidentally, I do think the FDA, should they ultimately not get the court results they seek, will form a regulatory regimen under the FSPTCA, with a host of C.F.R.'s to match.

It's in the shaping & influencing of these regs where you & yours could perhaps steer & provide guidance.

...I side with the medical profession on questions of what is good, and not good, for the body... ...(not to mention occasional slight conjunctivitis from getting vapor in the eye once in a while)...

Which parts of the medical profession? If you believe the anti's, then why do you vape? Rhetorical questions, so nevermind. But, how long, in your opinion, and how large does a study need to be to sway you? And what evidence plateau needs to be achieved? Did you know that you can use your eyelids to prevent vapor from getting into your eyes? I haven't read any empirical studies that bear that out, but I'm pretty sure it works...

Maybe I haven't seen enough...

Please "fish about" some more. There is a lot to learn - right here on ECF - and in the many places linked to from ECF.

 

[Big Sheepherder]

I'm ramping up. I see you folks know what to cite: Zachary Cahn and Michael Siegel, "Electronic cigarettes as a harm reduction strategy for tobacco control: A step forward or a repeat of past mistakes?" Hand that out to as many M.D.'s as possible, sign 'em up under an appropriate anti-ban preface, and submit together with the Journal article wherever locally needed to avoid bans, but you folks probably already know that. ScottB, a Utah lawyer is required to opine in the manner of counsel on Utah law. It's a Bar banned thing to do otherwise ... As for the "shaping & influencing of regs," lawyers and lobbyists are in business, and this is not an appropriate area for pro bono publico, long-term sickness and death-avoidance notwithstanding. As and for pro bono, large law firms do hand out to young associates matters of much more immediate concern, like seniors getting swindled out of their homes by unscrupulous relatives, political asylum cases, the disabled, etc. Bear in mind that there are many more of those types of matters of very immediate concern than can possibly be handled on a pro bono basis. E-cig stuff consequently does not rank. Moreover, the firms' attitudes would be much like mine in any event; i.e., the industry should spend some money. Hence, my "small suggestion" how-to on involving perhaps a young-ish transactional lawyer from a large law firm to get at least small foot-prints in the firm's door from consumer interest groups/small business operators. Both that lawyer and the "XYZ" group could grow together.

 

[Poeia]

Being honest, I have to say that I began ecigs with the absolute, 100% intention of quitting analogs. It wasn't worried about cost of cigs, taxes, or anything other than seeing my youngest (2 years old at the time) graduate from college.

Mine too. But it was never my intention to quit nicotine.

 

[JerryRM]

No movement on either docket.

As soon as I get filing information on TW, it will get added to the docket watch here.

Thanks Julie, I look forward to reading the TW filing.

 

[Big Sheepherder]

I was addressing myself to outright total bans. Public vaping bans are, of course, another story. If those pass, you're out of luck because those bans, if not totally incorrectly framed, will pass a rational basis test wherever there is a public smoking ban or if public vaping is otherwise perceived as too prevalent or too attractive (hey, maybe those hideous box mods are a good thing after all). What "rational basis" mean? A quick and dirty primer: Rational basis review - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. In the vaping context, it would mean decreasing the probability of new nicotine addicts. It isn't good to be a nicotine addict. Yes, there are many other things that people like to do with frequency that are worse (like raising and slaughtering enormous numbers of sentient creatures for less than optimal food even when no longer necessary), but now there is a strong focus on anti-smoking, there is a close association between vaping and smoking, and there is a valid point regarding nicotine, abstinence to be counseled in the absence of a doctor's recommendation. That is why public vaping bans do not really bother me, except at the Adult Vapor Church. Now there I would have a big problem ...

 

[kristin]

You lost me at, "I'm willing to give up a legal activity which has extremely low health risks because it looks like smoking."

It's no worse being a SMOKE-FREE nicotine addict than it is being dependent upon caffeine to get through your day or any one of the million pharmaceutical drugs. There is no scientific justification for banning indoor use of e-cigarettes any more than there is for snus or tobacco lozenges - yet 2 states are going after those, as well.

You are looking at a very small picture, my friend.

Many of us are not just e-cigarette advocates, but tobacco harm reduction advocates. In that battle, it goes beyond acceptance for just e-cigs and seeks to change attitudes about smokeless nicotine use and personal choices.

What was it you said? "See the forest through the grass."

Fighting nicotine prohibitionism is the goal - not hiding in corners hoping they don't notice our e-cigarette. The whole attitude about nicotine use must be changed or we will always have a target on our backs.

I was addressing myself to outright total bans. Public vaping bans are, of course, another story. If those pass, you're out of luck because those bans, if not totally incorrectly framed, will pass a rational basis test wherever there is a public smoking ban or if public vaping is otherwise perceived as too prevalent or too attractive (hey, maybe those hideous box mods are a good thing after all). What does "rational basis" mean? A quit and dirty primer: Rational basis review - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. In the vaping context, it would mean decreasing the probability of new nicotine addicts. It isn't good to be a nicotine addict. Yes, there are many other things that people like to do with frequency that are worse (like raising and slaughtering enormous numbers of sentient creatures for less than optimal food even when no longer necessary), but now there is a strong focus on anti-smoking, there is a close association between vaping and smoking, and there is a valid point regarding nicotine, abstinence to be counseled in the absence of a doctor's recommendation. That is why public vaping bans do not really bother me, except at the Adult Vapor Church. Now there I would have a big problem ...

 

[Big Sheepherder]

Do folks ingest as much caffeine as we do nicotine, and as often? We vape morning, day and night. But let's assume, for the sake of discussion, it's all roughly equivalent. It's still better not to be an addict, period, of any sort. Now I do agree a total ban is a death sentence for lots of folks and is not justifiable by anyone having even minimal humanity. And there is something to be said for being allowed to do that which you choose, even if unhealthy. Unfortunately for your perspective, in reference to public vaping, and as disheartening as this may sound, soccer moms (a standard character stereotype I employ, perhaps unfairly), given the choice, would choose decreasing nicotine addiction risks to their children over your desire to feel free to vape in public. It's not an unreasonable position, and those soccer moms have lots of sympathizers. They are people who not unreasonably believe it is wiser to protect the totally innocent over advancing the rights and privileges of folks who have knowingly placed themselves in unhealthy compromises. I understand that the hope is to ride a wave of congratulations surrounding people who have quit smoking analogs and improved their life's prospects due to vaping. I suspect, however, such a wave will not be enough to carry the long-term defense of prescriptionless nicotine in the amounts and at the strengths presently available or public vaping. (Wow, I'm even scaring myself!) Consequently, in contrast with total vaping bans, it's hard for me to get excited over the prospects for public vaping bans. I think we lose robust public vaping rights and privileges in the long term.

 

[kristin]

Again - you lost me at "Willing to give up personal rights that aren't hurting myself or anyone else."

Next it WILL be caffeine. And salt. And fat. And video games. And sky diving. And skiing.

Slippery slope.

There was a justification for vilifying nicotine addiction when the only option was a high-risk delivery system. There is simply no justification for it when it leads to smokeless nicotine use - it's just an excuse to remove something other people enjoy.

The soccer mom can kiss my aaa...tomizer.

BIG picture. BIG picture.

 

[Big Sheepherder]

There are lots of practices ongoing now that will be banned or evolved away from. Slippery slope? That's what some people said when beating wives was outlawed. Less rhetorically, in the era of actual or hoped for universal healthcare, there is no victimless unhealthy practice.

 

[JerryRM]

Ok, now you are taking this to ridiculous extremes. This is the nation of individual rights, it turns my stomach, when I hear talk about what's good for society. They can save that talk for socialist countries, not here !!!

As far as being "addicted", this is rapidly becoming a nation of junkies, hooked on FDA approved BP drugs. They even put young children on them, now.

Am I disgusted as to what is going on in the USA, now. You bet your azz, I am.

 

[kristin]

Apparently, we're supposed to roll over and take it like we did as smokers, Jerry.

No thank you.

I choose to fight.

 

[JerryRM]

Apparently, we're supposed to roll over and take it like we did as smokers, Jerry.

No thank you.

I choose to fight.

Yup, Kristin, no more rolling over. Otherwise, we will eventually lose all of our rights and freedoms. Which reminds me, I am a member of CASAA, I need to send a donation, to help with the fight.

 

[Vocalek]

There are lots of practices ongoing now that will be banned or evolved away from. Slippery slope? That's what some people said when beating wives was outlawed. Less rhetorically, in the era of actual or hoped for universal healthcare, there is no victimless unhealthy practice.

The point is that inhaling vaporized nicotine, or using low-nitrosamine Swedish snus, or using NRTs long-term to prevent relapse to smoking is NOT an unhealthy practice. Therefore, no victim.

Continued smoking is an unhealthy practice. Taking away safer options that allow smokers to refrain from smoking is an unhealthy practice, and the victims are the smokers and those who care about them.

Is it a psychological "tell" that you used outlawing wife-beating as your example of a slippery slope? Well, perhaps you're right. Next thing you know they'll be outlawing rape, and allowing women to vote and hold office.

 

[dee5]

Elaine, did you notice he still hasn't answered any of your questions? hmmm....

 

[JerryRM]

He disappeared. I think he is adding Kristin and me to Homeland Security's terrorist list. LOL.

 

[Big Sheepherder]

Among the rights people have is the right to outlaw or circumscribe certain practices. Being a person who vapes is not a "suspect classification" entitled to stricter levels of judicial scrutiny. Me, I'm no quitter, although it will be the death of me to be sure. Nevertheless, it is exceedingly reckless policy to allow (for an example possible under that which you advocate) groups of attractive and hip young adults to vape away in the public presence of children, all while emphasizing their vaping gestures and emitting clouds of vapor, perhaps even doing tricks with their clouds. And it won't be left merely to our better judgment. It's an argument we lose fairly soon if we are not circumspect in our practices, and somewhat later even if we are.

 

[JerryRM]

Well, since you are so concerned about the children, consider this, that we are taking a stand to also protect their rights and freedom. I have a frightening picture of the future in my mind, of American children, wearing uniforms and singing the praise of our glorious leaders.

It's been many years, since I have been called a hip young adult.

 

[Big Sheepherder]

Some would argue your right to vape in public ends where my kid's eyes begin. Forewarned is forearmed. Be circumspect about your vaping practices.

 

[kristin]

I guess we should close Applebee's, because we can't have kids seeing young adults happily chugging their beer, either.

Oh and 31 Flavors, because we can't have kids seeing adults irresponsibly eating fatty, sugary foods that are bad for them.

 

[Poeia]

I fail to see how it is for society's good to protect people from scare-mongers by giving in to them. When prohibitions against smoking began, it was to protect others from second-hand smoke. Somehow this has been extended so that they are now looking to protect people from things that look like second-hand smoke.

Government should protect members of the public from actual threats to their welfare rather than foster mass hysteria followed by heroic measures to save them from something that will not harm them. Nicotine, when seriously abused, can harm the user but not the bystander.