Smoking Everywhere V. FDA Daily Docket Sheet Update--APPEAL's COURT ISSUES STAY

Status
Not open for further replies.
No one said that being a tobacco product is a "win." It's simply a means to an end - ultimately to be in a category of reduced harm.

I believe that legally classifying electronic cigarettes under the recreational tobacco umbrella would actually be a very big "win"...but that doesn't mean it ends there. Even going from "tobacco" to full MRTP status doesn't mean our job is done because we will still be fighting in the courtroom of public opinion.

Sun, the FDA says that they are unsure how to go about regulating MRTPs because they haven't received any applications. As I've pointed out before, I think it is blaming the cart for standing in front of the horse, but I don't think it is a good idea to submit a product for approval into a sub-category of tobacco products that doesn't even exist yet.
 

Sun Vaporer

Moved On
ECF Veteran
Jan 2, 2009
10,146
27
Florida
Today there was no filings on the Docket sheet. I am still waiting to see if SE files a motion to expedite for want of financial survival. We will see what SE's next move is. I am not concerned about NJOY as they have markets all over the world. SE only does business here in the US.


In another note, I got word late last night from the largest Supplier on this forum that 3 of their last 5 shipments were seized this week and this has never happened before. They are almost totally out of product and if it keeps up they will be out of business by June. It is the 4th Supplier to report their product being seized this week so far so the reports do appear to point to the FDA indeed stepping up its embargo powers.

Sun
 

Sun Vaporer

Moved On
ECF Veteran
Jan 2, 2009
10,146
27
Florida
I believe that legally classifying electronic cigarettes under the recreational tobacco umbrella would actually be a very big "win"...but that doesn't mean it ends there. Even going from "tobacco" to full MRTP status doesn't mean our job is done because we will still be fighting in the courtroom of public opinion.

Sun, the FDA says that they are unsure how to go about regulating MRTPs because they haven't received any applications. As I've pointed out before, I think it is blaming the cart for standing in front of the horse, but I don't think it is a good idea to submit a product for approval into a sub-category of tobacco products that doesn't even exist yet.


Thulium, but there has indeed been four applications made by Suppliers on this Forum that include the requsite data----the fact that the FDA will not act on them is not any of the Suppliers fault and speaks volumes about the FDA.

If it takes judical intervention for the FDA to act, then so be it.


Sun
 

kristin

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Aug 16, 2009
10,448
21,120
CASAA - Wisconsin
casaa.org
Thulium, but there has indeed been four applications made by Suppliers on this Forum that include the requsite data----the fact that the FDA will not act on them is not any of the Suppliers fault and speaks volumes about the FDA.

If it takes judical intervention for the FDA to act, then so be it.


Sun
I certainly hope our secret saviors have the wherewithal to do as you claim, Sun. I certainly would be happy to support their efforts, so long as it doesn't put us further in the hole. Classification outside of tobacco and drugs would be the holy grail.
 

Sun Vaporer

Moved On
ECF Veteran
Jan 2, 2009
10,146
27
Florida
I certainly hope our secret saviors have the wherewithal to do as you claim, Sun. I certainly would be happy to support their efforts, so long as it doesn't put us further in the hole. Classification outside of tobacco and drugs would be the holy grail.


This is by no means any new news Kristin. It has been posted in this thread for going on a year now that Suppliers on this Forum were not going to sit back and wait for SE or NJOY. If you were selling e-cigs on a large scale volume, I do not think you would wait either. SE and NJOY are going to do what is best for them. Many of us are surprised that the Court has not kicked SE or NJOY right out of Court room for filing suit when they never sought any licensures of any kind.


Sun
 

JustMeAgain

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Apr 3, 2009
1,189
133
64
Springfield, MO
Besides the fact that the FDA hasn't attempted to regulate the nicotine in actual tobacco leaf products, either. If the FDA attempts to reduce the nicotine in ecigs (as a tobacco product) but not cigarettes, they'd look like fools and it'd be a pretty easy battle.

Not so long ago I would have said that if a replacement for cigarettes existed that eliminated over 3,900 of the ingredients that we already inhale in tobacco cigarettes, the FDA would look like fools to ban them.

I don't think the FDA is too concerned with looking foolish.
 
Thulium, but there has indeed been four applications made by Suppliers on this Forum that include the requsite data----the fact that the FDA will not act on them is not any of the Suppliers fault and speaks volumes about the FDA.

If it takes judical intervention for the FDA to act, then so be it.


Sun


The FDA published a draft guidance on MRTPs in January 2009 and stated they had not received any MRTP applications at that point. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/TobaccoProducts/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/UCM191915.pdf


The Agency has not yet received an MRTP application. It therefore does not have experience in reviewing such applications, and has no information based on prior experience regarding the length of time required for review of such applications. Moreover, the MRTP application review process and approval criteria are new, and the Agency is likely to encounter a number of questions of first impression involving science, law, policy, and procedure. Resolving questions of first impression may mean that the initial applications will require more time than later submitted ones.

...

Based on all these considerations, FDA has determined that, as a reasonable preliminary timetable, the Agency intends to issue a decision on a MRTP application within 360 days of its receipt by FDA. Because section 911 is designed to protect the public health, it is important to allow the Agency sufficient time to fully evaluate all data and information submitted in an application. Nevertheless, although the Agency believes that the 180-day time periods provided for review of drug and device applications in sections 505(c) and 515(d) will not be adequate for the Agency’s review of MRTP applications, it may be able to proceed more quickly than the 540-day timeframe sustained by the court in Nutritional Health Alliance v. Shalala. Further, the statute contemplates in section 911(l) that the Agency will issue a timetable for review of MRTP applications together with more comprehensive regulations or guidance regarding MRTP applications within two years and nine months of the enactment of the Tobacco Control Act. At that time, the Agency may have more information regarding MRTP applications that will allow it to assess the time requirements with more specificity, and more experience that could help expedite the application review process.

So...that's after 360 days you can get a definite MAYBE... :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

JerryRM

Resting In Peace
ECF Veteran
Nov 10, 2009
18,018
69,879
Rhode Island

Sun Vaporer

Moved On
ECF Veteran
Jan 2, 2009
10,146
27
Florida
The FDA published a draft guidance on MRTPs in January 2009 and stated they had not received any MRTP applications at that point. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/TobaccoProducts/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/UCM191915.pdf




So...that's after 360 days you can get a definite MAYBE... :rolleyes:

Thulium, these Suppliers filed their applications under the guise of the E-cig being exactly what it is and not as a Tobacco or drug product. The FDA has no idea what to do.


Sun
 

kristin

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Aug 16, 2009
10,448
21,120
CASAA - Wisconsin
casaa.org
This is by no means any new news Kristin. It has been posted in this thread for going on a year now that Suppliers on this Forum were not going to sit back and wait for SE or NJOY. If you were selling e-cigs on a large scale volume, I do not think you would wait either. SE and NJOY are going to do what is best for them. Many of us are surprised that the Court has not kicked SE or NJOY right out of Court room for filing suit when they never sought any licensures of any kind.


Sun
Please Sun, there's been talk. I see a lot of talk on these forums that 99% of the time goes nowhere. I know one supplier was having a heck of a time even getting suppliers to respond to his call for alliance. I have NOT been informed of any actual organized group that has hired a legal team and is moving forward with litigation until this moment.

Actually, I still haven't. All I have is your cryptic posts that hint at that.
 

BigJimW

Moved On
ECF Veteran
May 17, 2009
2,058
7
62
Warwick, RI
www.moonport.org
In another note, I got word late last night from the largest Supplier on this forum that 3 of their last 5 shipments were seized this week and this has never happened before. They are almost totally out of product and if it keeps up they will be out of business by June. It is the 4th Supplier to report their product being seized this week so far so the reports do appear to point to the FDA indeed stepping up its embargo powers.

It's gonna be a long hot summer.
 

DC2

Tootie Puffer
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jun 21, 2009
24,161
40,974
San Diego
Please Sun, there's been talk. I see a lot of talk on these forums that 99% of the time goes nowhere. I know one supplier was having a heck of a time even getting suppliers to respond to his call for alliance. I have NOT been informed of any actual organized group that has hired a legal team and is moving forward with litigation until this moment.

Actually, I still haven't. All I have is your cryptic posts that hint at that.
This is full of truthiness.
 

JustJulie

CASAA
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jan 30, 2009
2,848
1,393
Des Moines, IA
This is by no means any new news Kristin. It has been posted in this thread for going on a year now that Suppliers on this Forum were not going to sit back and wait for SE or NJOY. If you were selling e-cigs on a large scale volume, I do not think you would wait either. SE and NJOY are going to do what is best for them. Many of us are surprised that the Court has not kicked SE or NJOY right out of Court room for filing suit when they never sought any licensures of any kind.


Sun

A year? And for a whole year they've done nothing? Sounds like many have indeed been sitting back and waiting for SE or NJOY. It'd be nice if they could organize to do something now.

Truth be told, though, I don't blame them for waiting so long to throw their hats into the ring . . . if they do . . . which I hope they do. These lawsuits cost a small fortune, and word on the street is that legal fees in the SE v. FDA lawsuit have topped $1 million, and the case in chief hasn't yet been heard.

As for "many of us" being surprised SE and NJOY weren't kicked out of court for not filing for licensures . . . huh? Who is "many of us" and what type of legal expertise do they have?
 

Sun Vaporer

Moved On
ECF Veteran
Jan 2, 2009
10,146
27
Florida
Please Sun, there's been talk. I see a lot of talk on these forums that 99% of the time goes nowhere. I know one supplier was having a heck of a time even getting suppliers to respond to his call for alliance. I have NOT been informed of any actual organized group that has hired a legal team and is moving forward with litigation until this moment.

Actually, I still haven't. All I have is your cryptic posts that hint at that.


Kristin----

When I cried out in this this thread for ECA or some other group to file a Amicus Brief with Judge Leon to no avail, I repeatedly asked for a group day after day, until Alliance came up. Alliance did not disclose itself on this Forum till the Brief was filed.

I knew we had a group under way as I was bombarded with PM's with questions from one Alliance member about if they were on the right track. Good for Alliance and glad I could answer any questions the Alliance member had.

So for the same reasons, good ones I might add, that Alliance did not disclose till they filed, such is the case here.

Also I do not think my posts are somehow "cryptic" in any way. If anything they clearly spell out the theory of the case.


Sun
 

aubergine

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Jan 22, 2010
2,467
1,994
MD
Kristin:
I've been following this thread for a while, and traveled way back into the earliest threads trying to bone up, and really have to say that to call SunV "cryptic" is somewhat... well...

He's been patiently and lucidly DEcrypting a raft of legalese in here for a long time, patiently responding to redundant questions, answering rude comments with straightforward and impersonal attempts to clarify confusion, and generally providing an invaluable service to those of us who are interested in trying to make sense of all this.

He's never claimed to be oracular, and when he opines he notes that he's opining.

I keep waiting for him to say, "Read the last damn 5000 posts, it's TFM.", but he doesn't.

And no, I don't know him from Adam, and for all I know he's wrong about everything, or a charlatan and a fraud, but I don't think so, and I don't sense that he's got any agenda besides doggedly trying to help fellow vapors stay informed about the damned federal debacle. Which IMHO is a good idea. And a hell of a lot of work.

So I'm sticking up for him here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread