SE, NJoy vs FDA -- Discussion

[Big Sheepherder]

Local regimens likely would involve something like getting a ticket, being fined, a hit to your credit score when you didn't pay, then being hounded by a collection agency. And that would be FOR THE FIRST OFFENSE. There likely would be ratcheted up sanctions for additional offenses. If you persisted, your face would be plastered on local TV channels as the lovely but irresponsible soccer mom who cares neither about nicotine addiction nor her role model status for children.

 

[DC2]

Big Sheepherder, I wonder if you would mind commenting on this...
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/law-e-cigarette/162351-answer.html

I'm mainly interested in whether or not the idea has merit from a legal standpoint.
A discussion of whether or not it would be helpful to our cause is a whole different issue.

 

[DC2]

You likely would get a ticket, be fined, then hounded by a collection agency FOR THE FIRST OFFENSE, with ratcheted up sanctions for additional offenses, later with your face plastered on local TV channels as the lovely irresponsible soccer mom who cares neither about nicotine addiction nor her role model status for children. If that's what you want to do, go for it, but I wouldn't advise it.

If they interview her, and decide it would be newsworthy to present her side of the story, she might just make a big difference.
I know one thing, if anyone is prepared enough to make it work, it is Kristin.

 

[Big Sheepherder]

DC2, no comment.

 

[ScottB]

...The public already knows, or at least strongly believes, that nicotine addiction is one of the hardest addictions to break, harder than smack, and that such addictions are not a good thing. The best suggestion therefore is to tone down vaping in public and especially around children. Now please don't be silly enough to think that robust vaping rights and privileges for adults in schools, nurseries, public parks, libraries, and place of the nature, are genuinely part of a realistic vaping agenda. They're not.

Sounds like these are your convictions rather than observations. You have much, much more reading to do...

Kristin, even if you had a million dollar war chest, the firm would tell you not to waste your money or their time on litigating the issue. Public vaping bans not totally incompetently written pass "rational basis" review hands down without any doubt. "Rational basis" is the standard of review that courts apply in the absence of "suspect classifications" or "fundamental rights." For the quick and dirty on rational basis review, see Rational basis review - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Back to legal arguments rather than practical arguments...

You likely would get a ticket, be fined, then hounded by a collection agency FOR THE FIRST OFFENSE, with ratcheted up sanctions for additional offenses, later with your face plastered on local TV channels as the lovely irresponsible soccer mom who cares neither about nicotine addiction nor her role model status for children. If that's what you want to do, go for it, but I wouldn't advise it.

I think Kristin would love the opportunity to counter - and they would have a tiger by the tail...

DC2, no comment.

What I find interesting is that you won't provide help or answer direct questions where your *opinion* is sought. Are you currently engaged or retained & therefore conflicted professionally? Your previous ducking under the guise of professional limitations doesn't wash. Uninvolved lawyers are publicly interviewed all the time regarding cases that could/would/might fall into their areas of expertise. They're generally forthcoming and answer such that laypersons can understand. Why not you?

 

[Big Sheepherder]

ScottB, I've already told you what should be done in reference to proposed public vaping bans. For mere individuals, it is being circumspect about one's vaping practices. For interest groups, it is mostly about PR and, if necessary, alternative legislative suggestions. If you want legal advice, which is what you now quite clearly are indirectly seeking, you must go find a lawyer of your choice. I don't exist on ECF for that purpose, or your general legal convenience, and I am not seeking anyone's business here. If you want to drone on about it, don't expect me to entertain it further. JerryRM, I am amused by your indirect demand for free legal work on pain of taking a hike.

 

[JerryRM]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are an e-cig user, you do vape? You are also a member of this forum, therefore you are not a neutral party. Why do you continue to distance yourself from us and our cause? If you are an e-cig user, then you are welcome to join the cause, otherwise, please take it somewhere else. Thank you.

 

[ScottB]

Are you currently engaged or retained & therefore conflicted professionally?

Remains asked but not answered.

Best of luck with your herding agenda...

So as not to drone
I'll leave it alone

 

[curiousJan]

Yes, god forbid parents should actually parent. Didn't you know it's all up to government regulation????

Frankly, I AM a soccer mom. And I still disagree with you.........as do many mothers I know who are truly sick of the government telling them how to raise their children. And you know what? They don't even smoke, much less vape.

While I am not a soccer mom, I am a Mom ... and how I parent is my business not the government's.

Oh yes, I forgot ... it's all about the children. I'm starting to think this guy is an FDA/BP lacky.

Jan

 

[JerryRM]

I'm not looking for free legal work. Since you claim to be a vaper also, it would benefit you to help the cause.

 

[Big Sheepherder]

I work for the FDA. You'll all be receiving adminstrative subpoenas in short order. Just kidding. Hey, at the least curiousJan is "starting to think." Gotta start somewhere ... she asked for that. Look ECF folks, I am not your slave. This is not a kibbutz. JerryRM, you're not Stalin and therefore not in a position to demand work, let alone expensive work, from me. ECF is not a homogeneous group. The member's public policy perspectives are not born equally. Some of you I can agree with; others, I don't. I've given you a few unmistakable takes of mine for you to confirm with counsel of your choice in your state. Now if you want the regular involvement of a lawyer in an interest group, I've given you a how-to manual on how you might accomplish that. If you want something more for free, go down to the welfare office. End of story.

 

[JerryRM]

I work for the FDA. You'll all be receiving adminstrative subpoenas in short order.

Is that all ?? I thought for sure that we were going to be put on Homeland Security's terrorist watch list.

 

[DC2]

As a side note, I wasn't looking for legal advice.
Or at least I didn't think I was.


I was hoping for a simple, off-the-top-of-the-head "No freaking way" or "Well, that isn't completely stupid" type of response.
But I guess nothing is simple enough to answer off-the-top-of-the-head when it comes to legal questions.

 

[Big Sheepherder]

DC2, acknowledged.

 

[MoonRose]

Is that all ?? I thought for sure that we were going to be put on Homeland Security's terrorist watch list.

I thought we already were.

 

[Thulium]

Kristin, even if you had a million dollar war chest, the firm would tell you not to waste your money or their time on litigating the issue. Public vaping bans not totally incompetently written pass "rational basis" review hands down without any doubt. "Rational basis" is the standard of review that courts apply in the absence of "suspect classifications" or "fundamental rights." For the quick and dirty on rational basis review, see Rational basis review - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Then please explain for the court the "rational basis" for disallowing owners or proprietors of private establishments from allowing their customers and employees from inhaling the vapor from smoke-free products containing nicotine such as e-cigarettes, dissolvable tobacco, or nicotine gum?

Please explain to me how a ban on vaping is any less arbitrary or capricious than a ban on gum chewing? Please keep in mind that the amounts, chemicals, and physiology of the processes are nearly identical. Do you have any evidence that anything is consumed or inhaled in the process of vaping less than a teaspoon of e-liquid that would not be consumed or inhaled in the process of chewing a similar amount of gum?

 

[JustJulie]

Nothing new to report on either docket. I promise that if something gets filed, I'll post IN REALLY BIG FONT so that you can't miss it.

 

[ScottB]

Thank you Julie...!

 

[JerryRM]

THANKS, JULIE !!!!!

Last Post !!!!! Oops, sorry wrong thread.

 

[Luisa]

DC2, acknowledged.

What is your legal specialty? Are you a criminal or civil attorney?

If a civil attorney,are you a plaintiffs or defense attorney?