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

[JustJulie]

Guys,
We've got to stop and ask ourselves, "Does it really matter (to us) if e-cigs get banned?" We can still use what we have, there are internet sites full of instructions on getting nicotine out of tobacco. You can buy vaporizers that you just put ground up tobacco in (legally might I add) that do exactly the same thing an e-cig does to e-liquid.
There are still ways to vape! FDA be damned!

Well, because I'm not financially strapped and I've been at this for awhile, I've managed to stockpile quite a decent little stash that should carry me for at least a couple of years. And, yes, I'm savvy enough to be able to figure out how to get more stuff from China should that become necessary.

But I think you're missing a very important point. YOU found e-cigarettes because they were available and advertised . . . there is support available to you as a new vaper. If the devices and/or liquids are banned, exactly how many smokers do you think will be able to switch to e-cigs? It's one thing to pick up a device that's not approved . . . it's quite another to start off with a new product by going onto the black market.

How many people are going to die while the government is busy insisting that we all need to go through every single government approved NRT available . . . and when all of them have failed (like they did for me), we are basically denied the ONLY thing that has worked for some of us.

 

[LoneRanger]

Lacey- best case.......(and I believe even this will be a split decision).


Lacey,Yes for one company?

 

[Bryn]

Well, because I'm not financially strapped and I've been at this for awhile, I've managed to stockpile quite a decent little stash that should carry me for at least a couple of years. And, yes, I'm savvy enough to be able to figure out how to get more stuff from China should that become necessary.

But I think you're missing a very important point. YOU found e-cigarettes because they were available and advertised . . . there is support available to you as a new vaper. If the devices and/or liquids are banned, exactly how many smokers do you think will be able to switch to e-cigs? It's one thing to pick up a device that's not approved . . . it's quite another to start off with a new product by going onto the black market.

How many people are going to die while the government is busy insisting that we all need to go through every single government approved NRT available ... and when all of them have failed (like they did for me), we are basically denied the ONLY thing that has worked for some of us.

Agreed, Julie. We got lucky to discover e-cigarettes and learned much more with help of e-cig forums. We're so much better for it. But what about thousands and thousands ... millions ... even of smokers out there who haven't heard of e-cigarette that will imporve their health and save their lives. Smoking Cessation that Big Pharma is selling with blessing and approval of FDA is bad news and dangerous. We have moral responsiblity to keep on fighting for our rights, not just for us, but for millions of people who will be helped. We will keep on putting out informations via forums, blogs, news, TV news, etc. spreading around with our knowledge. We know this as "The Fact" that FDA isn't for US The People.

If FDA was for us, The People, looking out for our health, I would have supported them, have them tested e-cigarettes honestly for our safety, get them approved ... not because the motivation is money ... for Big Pharma, For Government to keep us on traditional cigarettes for tax revenues plus anti-smoking organizations being paid by Big Pharma just to keep us from getting our e-cigarettes..we found that out. Big Pharma wins both way by paying anti-smoking organizations to go after us so that they can keep on selling their dangerous, worthless smoking cessation that is making them money and for FDA to regulate e-cigarette as a medical device so that it can get turned over to Big Pharma thus making them much more money.

We will not back down. We will keep on exposing the truth for good for all people.

 

[Oliver]

While I disagree with her statement, yours is way out in left field, too. Freedom of speech doesn't stop ANYWHERE that isn't putting someone in immediate danger. Should he so choose, the Judge would have every right to sue her, but she has the right to say whatever she wants to say. Its herself she puts in possible legal jeopardy if she decides to leave the comment up. You, however, need to go re-take Constitution class.

In most jurisdictions the onus is on the publisher and the author. So ECF would be the publisher - catswoman would be pretty much untraceable, so you can guess who'd get sued.

 

[quetzacoatl]

We all need to cool our jets. This is a wide open public forum.

As far as the constitution goes you have to take into account the thousands of changes made by the supreme court in their findings that actually made changes to the bill instead of interpretation. I know I don't current definition of all the bills. I imagine only a few lawyers know for sure the current interpretation of the bill of rights.

Kevin

You can argue "current interpretation" all you want to, but the Constitution is written in very clear language. It's "interpretations" and illegal bills like the Patriot Act that have gotten our country into the mess it's in to start with. If we had stuck with the Constitution and strictly to the Constitution, we wouldn't be having these issues, not with e-cigarettes and not with anything else. We would be a free nation. (Hint: we aren't.)

 

[quetzacoatl]

In most jurisdictions the onus is on the publisher and the author. So ECF would be the publisher - catswoman would be pretty much untraceable, so you can guess who'd get sued.

This is true. But, she has a right to say whatever she wants when she's only putting herself on the chopping block. The owner of the forum can remove such comments if it puts them at risk or is in some way offensive because that is in the terms of service of using the forum.

What I was more talking about was TB's blanket statement that Freedom of Speech "stops" at such statements, implying that the government can stop you from making such accusations even if the person who is the subject of such statements does not press charges on or sue you. The government (federal, state, or local) cannot press charges on someone for libel or slander that involves a private party. It is not their job to do so and the issue stays between the private parties involved until one party gets the government involved through criminal or civil charges.

 

[Sun Vaporer]

This is true. But, she has a right to say whatever she wants when she's only putting herself on the chopping block. The owner of the forum can remove such comments if it puts them at risk or is in some way offensive because that is in the terms of service of using the forum.

What I was more talking about was TB's blanket statement that Freedom of Speech "stops" at such statements, implying that the government can stop you from making such accusations even if the person who is the subject of such statements does not press charges on or sue you. The government (federal, state, or local) cannot press charges on someone for libel or slander that involves a private party. It is not their job to do so and the issue stays between the private parties involved until one party gets the government involved through criminal or civil charges.

quetzacoatl-----Please move off this topic. Thanks,-----

Sun

 

[Treece]

But I think you're missing a very important point. YOU found e-cigarettes because they were available and advertised . . . there is support available to you as a new vaper. If the devices and/or liquids are banned, exactly how many smokers do you think will be able to switch to e-cigs? It's one thing to pick up a device that's not approved . . . it's quite another to start off with a new product by going onto the black market.

How many people are going to die while the government is busy insisting that we all need to go through every single government approved NRT available . . . and when all of them have failed (like they did for me), we are basically denied the ONLY thing that has worked for some of us.

Thank you for this, JJ. I couldn't agree more.

The ECA has the following quote on its home page (Matt Salmon quoting David Baron):

"A board certified physician named Dr. David Baron, who has been chief of staff at UCLA Medical Center, says that he has never seen a product … ever … that stands to save as many lives as electronic cigarettes."

If this is true--and I'm absolutely convinced that it is--how can we live with ourselves if we don't do everything possible to ensure that others have the opportunity we've had?

 

[Bryn]

Sun Vaporer posts:

The problem is that the e-cig has no freind, save for us. I could be wrong Josh, and I really hope I am, but this is the feedback I am getting and also the way I am seeing it.

psssssst yes, we do have friends

The Doctors!

 

[catwoman19]

To everyone on the forum. I would like to take a moment and apologize to anyone whom I may have offended. I did not come here to make people mad, sometimes my mouth engages before my brain does. Please accept my sincerest apologies.

 

[Sun Vaporer]

To everyone on the forum. I would like to take a moment and apologize to anyone whom I may have offended. I did not come here to make people mad, sometimes my mouth engages before my brain does. Please accept my sincerest apologies.

No Problem Cat---things can be said that are not meant quite often.


Sun

 

[AngusATAT]

No Problem Cat---things can be said that are not meant quite often.


Sun

I am the perfect example of this.

Sun, thanks for keeping us posted. I appreciate your effort.

 

[a2dcovert]

We really are on the same side of this issue. We have even more frustrating times ahead I fear. Somehow we will all need to pull together and get into a problem solving mode.

Kevin

 

[HaploVoss]

With all of the other lawsuits being filed against the FDA right now... if the judge files in favour of the FDA then I agree it will be time for a collective brainstorming session on what to do next.

No matter the outcome of this, there is a good possibility for the future of e-cigs if there is enough support. The FDA is beginning to lose credibility over some of its recent statements in regards to the tobacco industry - even if it ends up that e-cigs get classified otherwise, that gives us a fighting chance.

 

[Sun Vaporer]

With all of the other lawsuits being filed against the FDA right now... if the judge files in favour of the FDA then I agree it will be time for a collective brainstorming session on what to do next.

No matter the outcome of this, there is a good possibility for the future of e-cigs if there is enough support. The FDA is beginning to lose credibility over some of its recent statements in regards to the tobacco industry - even if it ends up that e-cigs get classified otherwise, that gives us a fighting chance.

Well put Hap--Everyone is doing what what they can and we shall see how it plays out.


Sun

 

[a2dcovert]

What's bad about our situation is we have no representation at all. The FDA has a very large number constitutional lawyers, all paid for with our taxes.

Kevin

 

[Thulium]

Sun, if Judge Leon rules for the FDA, who makes the decision on the scope of the FDA's jurisdiction? If another company brings to market a device that does not make medical claims and is not a drug and delivery device combo, does the whole process just start over or does the FDA get carte blanche to call any product that they want to ban an "e-cigarette"?

 

[LoneRanger]

Off topic-How come some names are now in red?

 

[Sun Vaporer]

Sun, if Judge Leon rules for the FDA, who makes the decision on the scope of the FDA's jurisdiction? If another company brings to market a device that does not make medical claims and is not a drug and delivery device combo, does the whole process just start over or does the FDA get carte blanche to call any product that they want to ban an "e-cigarette"?

Thulium--we would expect Judge Leon to determine if jurisdiction exists or not. If it does, then the FDA will use their Code to regulate. It will make no difference who makes it, so long as they follow the FDA regulatory scheme. The Juridistiction question posed to Judge Leon is a yes or no answer. He is not going to craft a "settlement" like the parties could. That is why I really would like to see this case settle.

Sun

 

[HaploVoss]

Actually, if enough people get together... the lawyers will come. Simply to make headlines, etc. It has happened many many times in the past and it can happen with any item on the table. However, it will take a LOT of people and a LOT of pressure. Honestly though, once this particular case is over, assuming we still have a fight on our hands, I do believe we have a good chance to win it in the long term if we can group together our voices.

Our current state of affairs in this country may be a bit disshelved, but this *is* still America, and if you want to change something and can convince enough other people that it is the right thing to do... it will be changed. People hate being dogged and they want to be re-elected, etc. etc.

Keep those chins up, it is far from over even if we lose this one. I am just anxious for this judgement to come down regardless of the outcome so we can move forward!!

Take care,
- Hap