Shut Down all suppliers that are not part of E-cig Association

[mindtwist69]

The guy who suggested this is not part of the new association. I've seen no member of the association agree with any of the ridiculous suggestions.

You guys are basically shadow boxing and undermining a group of people who are trying to accomplish goals that are in all our best interests. It doesn't matter if you think they will succeed, it has a hell of a lot better chance than manufacturing drama on a forum thread.


We could just wait for the association to publish a mission statement.

I agree, as much as there is flame here starting to fan, even as a supplier that is not part of the ECA, (and one that was a bit quick on the gun in an earlier post here) I think it would be great to see some type of mission statement so before being drawn into an argumentative thread that will get us no where, I think we should just sit back and see what is coming out.

 

[scintar]

We could just wait for the association to publish a mission statement.

I think I can speak for many, This is all we ask. The comment "you just have to trust us on this one" That won't cut it for most. Want support for the association? Show us what is up. If it is good, My PayPal button is one click away.

 

[V-V]

Good grief.

 

[yvilla]

The comment "you just have to trust us on this one" That won't cut it for most. Want support for the association? Show us what is up. If it is good, My PayPal button is one click away.

But Scintar, I don't get it. Trust them on what, that it would be helpful to write letters to the members of congress that sit on the health committee? What's so controversial about that? That's all they asked for in the other thread. And as already stated, Willpower who started this thread has nothing do do with the association of suppliers.

 

[WillPower]

Wow, that seems way over the top to me, willpower.

Plus, it is only arguable that ecigs fall within the Food and Drug Act definition of a drug or drug device. Just because someone at the FDA has declared it so does not make it so. Federal agencies have been shot down on their interpretation of federal statutes time and time again by the courts, just as sometimes they are upheld in their interpretations.

Thus, whether or not ecigs or the liquids alone are actually "illegal" ultimately remains to be seen, and this issue probably has to be decided in a court of law if not resolved to everyone's satisfaction short of litigation.

Oh, by the way you cited the wrong section of the law. As you can see from the FDA letter posted here,

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...-important-email-fda-supplier.html#post173081,

the relevant sections of the Food and Drug Act are:

"503(g)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act) (21 U.S.C. 353(g)(1)) with their "drug" uses, as defined by section 201(g) of the Act (21 U.S.C. § 321(g))".

For the crucial definition of a drug and drug device (201(g)), you can see the actual text of the statute here:

Yes. I understand. That's why I said "section 505 and other provisions therein (of FDCA)". 505 defines the New Drug Application (NDA) requirements along prohibition of introduction of new drug without NDA requirements. Technically, I see it as more of violation of 505, the prohibition, not a violation of drug definition. But, I do see you point.

Litigation is interesting. Granted, some vendors sanitized their website a lot like PS, making it different for FDA. Here is the thing:

FDA is going case-by-case. Most of them don't have enough capital to do protracted litigation with FDA. They will fold. How about class action? Judge won't certify your class, because FDA is claiming that each case is different and that's why they investigated case-by-case.

Let's for some wild luck, you got your class certified by the court. Great? Yeah now, it's a winner-take-all or all-in situation (win or lose all together). Since you claimed that you are a single class, FDA will go after the worst offender to make their case.

Let's say everything worked by some miracle. What's the defense here? We have nicotine, but it's not nicotine replacement; it is a nicotine supplement, just in case people did get enough nic from cigarettes? Or should we claim that it is for hooking non-smokers to nicotine? Neither sounds good. Our dilemma.

In addition, here is a real Perry Mason moment for you:
"Mr. Supplier, you claim that your product is not NRT, hence not subject to DNA provision of FDCA. To your best knowledge, have you or any of your co-respondents gone onto a public forum known as ECF and ask your customers send to letters to senators telling them how they wonderfully transform their lives by quitting smoking with help of you product?"

"YES"

Just in case not clear, our Plan B is vitiating the validity of argument in Plan A. We can't ask senators to keep e-cigs on the market because of the drug benefits, then go to the court and claim that e-cigs should not be under FDA jurisdiction because they are not drug. Probably first-year law student would tear us into bits.

Besides, to my knowledge there is NO product with nicotine (for human consumption) that had any decent level of acceptance among public were not classifed as drug in court or FDA.

My 2 cents on the "it is not a drug" approach.

 

[scintar]

But Scintar, I don't get it. Trust them on what, that it would be helpful to write letters to the members of congress that sit on the health committee? What's so controversial about that? That's all they asked for in the other thread. And as already stated, Willpower who started this thread has nothing do do with the association of suppliers.

Yvilla, The title of the thread is "Shut down all suppliers that are not part of e-cig association" Thats whats controversial.That don't sound like they are asking a simple letter to congress./ i have done my part with letters and emails. Threats and strong arming wont cut it here.

 

[D_Struct]

No need to worry. If we wait, Skex and his "associates" will make sure everyone's "going along".

Either that, or he'll burn their websites to the ground.

 

[scintar]

My 2 cents on the "it is not a drug" approach.

Simple as have all PV's shipped with nothing in the cartridge and the end user is on their own.

 

[V-V]

This is all fascinating.

In one thread we have "Big talks with big people, and let's just say...it's important", in this one we have "We must self regulate so let's form a group and threaten to shut people down 'cause we don't like regulation".

No substantial information, lots of drama, several petty tyrants.

I think I'll pass.

 

[yvilla]

Willpower, I did edit my reply to you before your recent post, but I guess you quoted the original. I had realized I made a mistake, in not seeing that you were referring to the NDA requirements, so it was unfair of me to say you cited the "wrong" section of the law, so I edited my post accordingly.

Nonetheless, I stick to my point that whether ecigs fit within the definitons of a "drug" or "new drug" or "drug device" is critical.

I also agree with you that most of "our" forum suppliers are unlikely to have the resources to fight a legal battle should the FDA come down on them, unfortunately. However, a company like NJOY is not likely to go down without a fight, and I believe they do have the resources (and it sure appears from their marketing from the beginning that they have been following the advice of counsel all along).

So no, I don't think it's all over, and I refuse to concede that ecigs must necessarily be determined a new drug. They contain nothing cigarettes haven't always contained, after all. Tobacco alternative is the byword.

 

[strayling]

So no, I don't think it's all over, and I refuse to concede that ecigs must necessarily be determined a new drug.

As ever, you are the voice of reason.

 

[scintar]

As ever, you are the voice of reason.

Yes I like the positive attitude!

 

[lordmage]

Good grief.

speaking of GG LOL

 

[Letzin Hale]

........................................................................
ECA....from the country that brought you the KKK
It's enough that we will have to comply with Gov regulations without having to pacify the witchunters and lynch mobs.
Alan.

 

[Oliver]

OK - this is a silly thread. It's not going to happen.

I'm closing this as it's a distraction from the real issues that need to be dealt with.

SJ