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

[Janetda]

Sun, that sounds great but it also sounds ground breaking. Which we all know is neither easy or cheap. I contend that snus should be considered in the same way.

 

[wader2k]

I agree with Sun here.......lots of bad things could stem from ecigs being regulated as a tobacco product. Interstate traffic, internet shops(mailorder), strength of nicotine allowed, even the various flavors we see now could be in jeopardy as a result from what I can see.

The only category that really works is reduced harm product.....and that seems the least likely.

 

[kristin]

The face of death?

Hmmm...awfully yellow teeth for a non-smoker. Closet smoker maybe? Prohibitionist out of guilt? LOL

That does not negate the filing of another lawsuit with a different theory of the case. Again, trying to bootstrap on the loopholes of tobacco legislation instead of the e-cig standing in its own catagory is not the way to go IMO.

The FDA needs to practice what it preaches and help to speed innovations as it states in its mission statement.

Sun

A lot of wishful thinking. We don't have the luxury of demanding a third option. Our choices are "drug device" or "tobacco product." Period. Wishful thinking, hemming and hawing, will only get us placed into the "drug device" and probably banned altogether. And who will fund this fantasy campaign to become a reduced harm product before the government dumps it into the drug category?

As a tobacco product now, it will give us time to lobby to move it into reduced harm tobacco, once the studies and research is completed, yet keep it on the market until that happens.

Trying to force that hand now is what would end up biting us in the .....

I agree with Sun here.......lots of bad things could stem from ecigs being regulated as a tobacco product. Interstate traffic, internet shops(mailorder), strength of nicotine allowed, even the various flavors we see now could be in jeopardy as a result from what I can see.

The only category that really works is reduced harm product.....and that seems the least likely.

To get into the reduced harm category will require PROOF, which is nearly impossible and as expensive and time-consuming as getting approval as a drug. It would have the same effect as having it declared a drug, as there is no concrete evidence at this time and studies are needed.

Do you folks not think that the FDA will be able to regulate the amount of nicotine allowed no matter WHAT category it is ultimately placed in? Do you really think that it will not be taxed no matter what and the government can vote for whatever rate they want to tax it? And if you think tobacco taxes are high, compare them to nicotine drug products. The cost of a highly taxed cigarette is just 35 cents each. The cost of a Nicotrol cartridge is $1.05 each. Being a tobacco product is CHEAPER even with the tax!

The only way to keep ecigs on the market NOW is as a tobacco product. Any other path will lead to indefinite removal from the market awaiting approvals.

Additonally, just because it is a tobacco product doesn't mean it will be affected by PACT and mail delivery. The law would have to be changed to add it, as it only applies to specific tobacco products at this time.

Finally, worrying about flavors is silly. Even if they ban flavors beyond tobacco & menthol, that will not include UNflavored. How and why would you ban NO flavor? Vendors can simply sell premixed flavor drops on the side, like Tasty Puff is sold for tobacco flavoring now. Easy fix.

 

[Vaporer]

"Hmmm...awfully yellow teeth for a non-smoker. Closet smoker maybe? Prohibitionist out of guilt? LOL"

Kristin, that is exactly what I thought when I saw his pic. I don't believe I've ever seen coffee stains that bad and "normal" dental hygiene seems to look odd and point towards a closet smoker. Maybe he like the cigars that seem to get a free pass on everything.

One thing that I think is so odd abt all this is that the ingredients used in eliquid are already used with many many more in cigarettes. Ecigs only heat, no combustion, which produces less harmful compounds than combusting the same ingredients. This is a known fact. I'm would think there are other studies to support this. Knowing this, if the FDA followed their mission statement, I would think they would want this fast tracked for public safety as opposed to people smoking cigarettes. So, what is their real purpose or agenda?
After Judge Leons decision, everything filed seems to have went way beyond the bounds of "normal" time from what I read here from the people who know the law much better than myself.
What I see happening again and again is every time these unusually long instances occur, its seems to be a stall tactic till they figure a way to go against the ecig.

I might be wrong here also, but hasn't there been many things that use already FDA approved ingredients and were allowed "pending FDA approval"?

Just some personal observations.

 

[curiousJan]

To get into the reduced harm category will require PROOF, which is nearly impossible and as expensive and time-consuming as getting approval as a drug. It would have the same effect as having it declared a drug, as there is no concrete evidence at this time and studies are needed.

There are those that disagree:

The courts have repeatedly made clear that FDA enforcement activity is subject to the First Amendment rules regarding allocation of burden of proof in First Amendment cases. For example, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held recently that the First Amendment imposes strict limitations on FDA’s power to restrict health claims made by manufacturers of dietary supplements, even when the claims are made on the product label. Pearson v. Shalala, 164 F.3d 650 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (“Pearson I”). In overturning a district court decision that had upheld FDA’s outright ban on such claims when use of disclaimers might have responded fully to FDA’s concerns, the appeals court stated:

The government insists that it is never obliged to utilize the disclaimer approach, because the commercial speech doctrine does not embody a preference for disclosure over outright suppression. Our understanding of the doctrine is different. . . . In more recent cases, the [Supreme] Court has . . . repeatedly point[ed] to disclaimers as constitutionally preferable to outright suppression.

Id. at 657. The court added, “[W]hen government chooses a policy of suppression over disclosure – at least where there is no showing that disclosure would not suffice to cure misleadingness – government disregards a ‘far less restrictive’ means” of achieving its policy interests. Id. at 658 (quoting Bd. of Trustees of SUNY, 492 U.S. at 479).

On remand, FDA’s First Amendment arguments were again rejected. The district court granted a preliminary injunction against FDA’s continued violation of First Amendment rights; the court required FDA to approve a health claim (for inclusion on product labeling for folic acid) regarding the positive relationship between consumption of folic acid and prevention of birth defects. Pearson v. Shalala, 130 F. Supp. 2d 105 (D.D.C. 2001) (“Pearson II”). The district court was harshly critical of FDA’s continued resistance to court orders that it comply with the First Amendment; the court said:

t is clear that the FDA simply failed to comply with the constitutional guidelines outlined in Pearson . Indeed, the agency appears to have at best, misunderstood, and at worst, deliberately ignored, highly relevant portions of the Court of Appeals Opinion.

Pearson II, 130 F. Supp. 2d at 112. The court held that under the First Amendment, FDA “must shoulder a very heavy burden if it seeks to totally ban a particular health claim.” Id. at 118. The court held that FDA had failed to meet that burden; it held that “[t]he mere absence of significant affirmative evidence in support of a particular [health] claim . . . does not translate into negative evidence ‘against’ it.” Id. at 115. In other words, the court held, any FDA efforts to regulate manufacturer dissemination of unapproved health claims must take the form of disclaimer requirements rather than outright bans on the claims, unless FDA can demonstrate that the claims are “against” the great weight of the scientific literature.3 The district court later denied FDA’s motion for reconsideration of the preliminary injunction order. Noting that FDA’s “arguments contained in the motion for reconsideration further demonstrate Defendants’ reluctance to fully comply with Pearson I,” the court reiterated its conclusion:

[T]he philosophy underlying Pearson I is perfectly clear: that the First Amendment analysis in Central Hudson . . . applies in this case, and that if a health claim is not inherently misleading, the balance tilts in favor of disclaimers rather than suppression. In its motion for reconsideration, the FDA has again refused to accept the reality and finality of that conclusion by the Court of Appeals.

Pearson v. Thompson, 141 F. Supp. 2d 105, 112 (D.D.C. 2001).

Emphasis mine.

This is a quote from the Washington Legal Foundation's response to FDA's request for comments on implementation of the PACT Act.

Jan

 

[JerryRM]

When the law interferes with what the Government wants to do, the either find a way around the law, re-write the law or just plain ignore the law, with the attitude of "go ahead and take us to court, it's going to cost you plenty, in time and money".

 

[Sun Vaporer]

A lot of wishful thinking. We don't have the luxury of demanding a third option. Our choices are "drug device" or "tobacco product." Period. Wishful thinking, hemming and hawing, will only get us placed into the "drug device" and probably banned altogether. And who will fund this fantasy campaign to become a reduced harm product before the government dumps it into the drug category?

As a tobacco product now, it will give us time to lobby to move it into reduced harm tobacco, once the studies and research is completed, yet keep it on the market until that happens.

Trying to force that hand now is what would end up biting us in the .....
To get into the reduced harm category will require PROOF, The only way to keep ecigs on the market NOW is as a tobacco product.

Kristin---Other Suppliers filing suit is not wishful thinking, to the contrary it is coming. If you aligned yourself with some of these Suppliers, you would know that.
　
　
So no--it is not a fantasy, nor is it a fact that the only two categorizes open to the e-cig are "tobacco" or "drug". There is a good faith argument to be made for what was laid out.
　
　
Just because you read what Counsel for SE and NJOY wrote, do not think that is the "only option" because it is not.
　
　
Furthermore, who wants an FDA regulated e-cig? Who is going to use 4 mg. e-cigs? And what makes you think that the FDA will not require an approval process and show safety of e-cigs even if they are found to be a "tobacco" product?
　
　
No, the FDA can not ban a tobacco product, but there is nothing to say it can not demand an approval process which would create a de-facto ban until Suppliers complied.

　
　
Unfortunately, SE and NJOY's best case scenario here is to be deemed a tobacco product subject to FDA regulation. To think that is a "win" for the E-cig is fatal error. The FDA will lower the limit of nicotine down way below what most people need. You are not going to find 36mg or 24, let alone 18mg in a FDA regulated E-cig. Try to understand that. Try more like 4mg. and at that level, you might as well toss the e-cig out the window for most people.
　
　
So as the case would have it, it is shameful to sit here and agree that this should be the fate of e-cigs IMO.
　
Furthermore, this is not a campaign that needs to be "funded"---it is a lawsuit just like SE filed. Might it be consolidated with this case? Surely, but at least the theory is advanced.
　
　
To think that the only two options that can be plead in a Court of competent jurisdiction is "drug" or "tobacco" is where the real fantasy lies.
　
　
Staying the current course will not only bit us in the ...., but IMO is a path to disaster.
　
　
Sun

 

[Our House]

Sun,

While I agree that tobacco and drug are not the only options, it's doubtful that the FDA will be able to (unfairly) regulate an ecig down to 4mg without regulations to other tobacco products.

If ecigs do become tobacco products, the FDA will need to be consistent with its nicotine regulations if it wants to avoid product prejudice. In other words, if a cigarette is allowed up to 2mg of nicotine, then the FDA can't make the appropriate cigarette-equivalent of an ecig (or snus/orbs/etc.) contain a max of only 0.2mg of nicotine without legal repercussions.

EDIT: and of course the FDA will need to take quantities into consideration, otherwise ecig manufacturers will just start shortening the duration of their "4mg" cartridges.

 

[Mac]

4mg could work if in a cartomizer that can accomidate 40 continous puffs. To my knowledge no such device exists.

 

[kristin]

Kristin---Other Suppliers filing suit is not wishful thinking, to the contrary it is coming. If you aligned yourself with some of these Suppliers, you would know that.
　
　
So no--it is not a fantasy, nor is it a fact that the only two categorizes open to the e-cig are "tobacco" or "drug". There is a good faith argument to be made for what was laid out.
　
　
Just because you read what Counsel for SE and NJOY wrote, do not think that is the "only option" because it is not.
　
　
Furthermore, who wants an FDA regulated e-cig? Who is going to use 4 mg. e-cigs? And what makes you think that the FDA will not require an approval process and show safety of e-cigs even if they are found to be a "tobacco" product?
　
　
No, the FDA can not ban a tobacco product, but there is nothing to say it can not demand an approval process which would create a de-facto ban until Suppliers complied.

　
　
Unfortunately, SE and NJOY's best case scenario here is to be deemed a tobacco product subject to FDA regulation. To think that is a "win" for the E-cig is fatal error. The FDA will lower the limit of nicotine down way below what most people need. You are not going to find 36mg or 24, let alone 18mg in a FDA regulated E-cig. Try to understand that. Try more like 4mg. and at that level, you might as well toss the e-cig out the window for most people.
　
　
So as the case would have it, it is shameful to sit here and agree that this should be the fate of e-cigs IMO.
　
Furthermore, this is not a campaign that needs to be "funded"---it is a lawsuit just like SE filed. Might it be consolidated with this case? Surely, but at least the theory is advanced.
　
　
To think that the only two options that can be plead in a Court of competent jurisdiction is "drug" or "tobacco" is where the real fantasy lies.
　
　
Staying the current course will not only bit us in the ...., but IMO is a path to disaster.
　
　
Sun

Too little too late. Why are these suppliers hiding? Why have they not come forward to the consumer groups who are fighting for ecigs, at least? How does one align themselves with a group that has not presented themselves??

You also presume much about what the FDA will do to nicotine content. Pure conjecture that they will reduce the nicotine so drastically. They have never indicated that the amount of nicotine is where they take issue with ecigs, other than proper labeling.

Based on what I've read in the family tobacco act, there IS a burden of proof on the manufacturer to prove that they are actually harm reduction products in order to be allowed into that category. That requires testing and research.

Either way - tobacco, drug or reduced harm, they all come under FDA jurisdiction. It's a product consisting of a chemical inhaled into the body. Who else would regulate a product like that? The FDA will have their say no matter what.

And lawsuits take money. Just ask SE about how much they have spent. Someone has to "fund" it.

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.

 

[kristin]

There are those that disagree:

Emphasis mine.

This is a quote from the Washington Legal Foundation's response to FDA's request for comments on implementation of the PACT Act.

Jan

I believe the family tobacco act answers this, regarding reduced harm products. Before that passed, they maybe had a case.

 

[kristin]

Sun,

While I agree that tobacco and drug are not the only options, it's doubtful that the FDA will be able to (unfairly) regulate an ecig down to 4mg without regulations to other tobacco products.

If ecigs do become tobacco products, the FDA will need to be consistent with its nicotine regulations if it wants to avoid product prejudice. In other words, if a cigarette is allowed up to 2mg of nicotine, then the FDA can't make the appropriate cigarette-equivalent of an ecig (or snus/orbs/etc.) contain a max of only 0.2mg of nicotine without legal repercussions.

EDIT: and of course the FDA will need to take quantities into consideration, otherwise ecig manufacturers will just start shortening the duration of their "4mg" cartridges.

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.

It's even more complicated than that. A cigarette contains 10mg and are shown to have an absorption rate of 1mg. Ecigs absorption rates would have to be allowed to be the same. So, if 36mg eliquid has an actual absorption rate of 1mg, that would have to be the cap.

Studies claim that ecigs have a 10% absorption rate compared to cigarettes. So, if 10mg = 1mg absorption in cigarettes that means 10mg = 0.1mg absorption in ecigs. So, an equilivant mg in eliquid to a cigarette would be 100mg! (I doubt it's as low as 10% absorption as the studies claim, but we do know it's lower than with cigarettes. It's probably more like 36mg/ecig = 10mg/cigarette, based on anecdotal evidence from ecig users.)

It won't be as easy for the FDA to mess with the nicotine as people think.

 

[D103]

Kristin---Other Suppliers filing suit is not wishful thinking, to the contrary it is coming. If you aligned yourself with some of these Suppliers, you would know that.
　
　
So no--it is not a fantasy, nor is it a fact that the only two categorizes open to the e-cig are "tobacco" or "drug". There is a good faith argument to be made for what was laid out.
　
　
Just because you read what Counsel for SE and NJOY wrote, do not think that is the "only option" because it is not.
　
　
Furthermore, who wants an FDA regulated e-cig? Who is going to use 4 mg. e-cigs? And what makes you think that the FDA will not require an approval process and show safety of e-cigs even if they are found to be a "tobacco" product?
　
　
No, the FDA can not ban a tobacco product, but there is nothing to say it can not demand an approval process which would create a de-facto ban until Suppliers complied.

　
　
Unfortunately, SE and NJOY's best case scenario here is to be deemed a tobacco product subject to FDA regulation. To think that is a "win" for the E-cig is fatal error. The FDA will lower the limit of nicotine down way below what most people need. You are not going to find 36mg or 24, let alone 18mg in a FDA regulated E-cig. Try to understand that. Try more like 4mg. and at that level, you might as well toss the e-cig out the window for most people.
　
　
So as the case would have it, it is shameful to sit here and agree that this should be the fate of e-cigs IMO.
　
Furthermore, this is not a campaign that needs to be "funded"---it is a lawsuit just like SE filed. Might it be consolidated with this case? Surely, but at least the theory is advanced.
　
　
To think that the only two options that can be plead in a Court of competent jurisdiction is "drug" or "tobacco" is where the real fantasy lies.
　
　
Staying the current course will not only bit us in the ...., but IMO is a path to disaster.
　
　
Sun

Sun I Totally agree with you! The thinking "drug" or "tobacco" is not an accurate representation of the case in point and I take exception to the notion that a "harm-reduction" stance is "fantasy". Thank You CuriousJan for the Quote you submitted. In a Harm-reduction scenario the burden of proof falls on the FDA, in the event they seek to Ban and or suppress, they are required, by law to "prove" that harm-reduction is not valid and the Supreme Court has upheld "repeatedly that health disclaimers are legally preferable to outright Bans/suppression. I'll take the First Ammendmant and the Supreme Court anyday over the Family Tobacco Act. Some of our most fervent supporters - Dr. Michael Siegel, Dr. Joel Nitzkin and Dr. Brad Radu all encourage and promote the harm-reduction/tobacco product classification. Don't get me wrong Kristin, generally I am a fan of yours and I really do appreciate all the hard work and dedication you put into our plight, as it were, but I strongly encourage you to re-think your position on this.

 

[kristin]

Please read carefully what I'm saying. I never said that the STANCE was fantasy. What I said was that trying to get that RIGHT NOW is a fantasy. We need to do something to keep ecigs on the market until we can prove that ecigs fit in the harm reduction/tobacco product classification. I'm right in there with the rest of them - I WANT reduced harm classification!

However, right now we are on the top floor of a burning building. The fire is already singeing our backs (drug device), the fall is 20 stories and a fireman is on a rickety ladder, reaching out to us and telling us to jump to him (tobacco product). Do we insist on waiting for a helicopter rescue 45 minutes away (reduced harm classification) and hope the fire doesn't get us first??

Again, Jan's post is no longer relevant since the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act was passed.

The Tobacco Act authorizes the FDA to develop specific standards for evaluating products that companies intend to promote as reduced exposure or reduced-risk products. Such products would be those, as indicated by the manufacturer explicitly or implicitly, that present a lower risk of tobacco-related diseases or that are less harmful than other commercially-marketed tobacco products; tobacco products or their smoke that contain a reduced level of a substance or whose use results in a reduced exposure to a substance; or tobacco products that, when smoked, do not contain or are free of a particular substance. The FDA is granted the authority to regulate reduced-exposure and reduced-risk health claims and to ensure that there is a scientific basis for the claims that are permitted.

NO WHERE does it say the burden of proof is on the FDA when it comes to tobacco harm reduction. Companies still must apply to the FDA for their approval.

And Jan's post applies to making ecigs health claims, not classification as a type of product. Let us not forget that these contain nicotine and propylene glycol the FDA has clear control over those chemicals. They still get to decide if it's a drug or not - barring a court order. And a federal judge has said they most likely fit as a reduced harm tobacco product. So, we get them classified as a tobacco product FOR NOW and continue to work on getting them accepted as a reduced harm product.

SE and Njoy may be happy to keep them as tobacco products, but I assure you, I (and CASAA) do NOT. We want to see them as reduced harm products. Ideally, in their own classification and not as tobacco nor a drug.

We just feel the best course of action is to trust the fireman and not wait on the helicopter.

 

[Thulium]

Ladyraj, by that I mean that if SE and NJOY do win, the FDA is going to gain regulation over the e-cig as a "tobacco" product and will have the ability to greatly reduce the nicotine content. An e-cig yielding 4mg. of e-liquid is not going to do anything but "cut the legs out" from under the high effective ratio the e-cig currently enjoys thus rendering it an "approved failure". The tobacco legislation does not allow regulation to zero, but it leaves open the "amount" to be deemed reasonable to the FDA---and that will "bit us in the ...." when it comes to aligning the e-cig with tobacco—IMO, it is a fatal mistake.

Why does everyone panic and assume the limit will be 4mg??

...3 drops of "Very High" strength e-liquid is less than 4mg and would easily satisfy the craving for a single cigarette so a 4mg e-cig doesn't scare me. Personally, I've been using Octane liquid with a driptip and LR atty, so "my e-cigarette" usually has less than 2mg of nicotine and it satisfies like an analog.

I'm being facetious, of course. The tricky thing is most cartridges hold enough e-liquid to replace more than one cigarette, but it is premature and counterproductive to assume that dosage limits will not take that into account.

 

[Mister]

I think that Kristen is right, that classification as a tobacco product is the important first step in the United States.

Regulation in some form is inevitable simply because of the widespread understanding that nicotine is highly addictive. (Perhaps not correctly understood but that's not important here.)

Since e-cigs are primarily intended as an alternative to smoking and since they deliver this same addictive substance, it seems logical that they should be regulated by the group which regulates cigarettes. Just as that same group should regulate snus. The covering principle that binds these products is nicotine delivery and nicotine addiction. The laws which govern them happen to use the word "tobacco" but that word should be treated just as a convenient word with historical significance, not as the category's definition.

Logically the regulations which apply to different types of nicotine delivery should differ according to their harmful effects. Of course we'd all like to see a reduced harm category (vs. smoking) as a first step. But that doesn't change that this is all about nicotine. It isn't about reduced harm for any product as a general principle, it is about reduced harm with respect to smoking. Reduced harm products should be regulated along with the things they are being compared to, not as a whole new set of regulations.

I think that the current debate here is to some degree a chicken and egg question. Whether to argue first for treatment as a reduced harm product or first for treatment as a tobacco product. Either way I think the end result will and should be regulation along with cigarettes. Given that as an inevitable end result with either approach (in my opinion) I think it would be better to start with the argument for classification as tobacco, then subsequently argue for reduced harm classification when e-cig specific regulations are being established. And this is even more the case because there are two existing iniatives for this first step underway already, i.e. this court case and the AAPHP petition.

 

[kristin]

Good point, Mister.

Ecigs can only be considered "reduced harm" in direct relation to tobacco cigarettes. What else makes them "reduced harm?"

To stand in a classification completely on their own, they'd have to prove "no harm" as any new product would.

Ecigs will be accepted only as a "reduced-harm-compared-to-tobacco" product, because no legislation is going to approve a "new" product that causes people to become addicted to nicotine for no reason.

Either it's directly related to tobacco and reduced harm or it is a drug meant to treat smoking addiction.

There is just no way to remove ecigs from it's relationship to tobacco without turning it into a drug.

Get it classified as a tobacco product now and then work to get it into the reduced harm classification - something which NO product has been able to do at this point, so it's not going to be easy.

 

[Sun Vaporer]

Why does everyone panic and assume the limit will be 4mg??

...3 drops of "Very High" strength e-liquid is less than 4mg and would easily satisfy the craving for a single cigarette so a 4mg e-cig doesn't scare me. Personally, I've been using Octane liquid with a driptip and LR atty, so "my e-cigarette" usually has less than 2mg of nicotine and it satisfies like an analog.

I'm being facetious, of course. The tricky thing is most cartridges hold enough e-liquid to replace more than one cigarette, but it is premature and counterproductive to assume that dosage limits will not take that into account.

Again Thulium, a little research and making contacts with people that are actually in the middle of these issues goes a long way.

First there is no panic, rather a call to action as this thread has so often done (every wonder who, where or how CASAA ever came to be, among a whole host of other advents?). So lets not go there, rather lets look to the future with a proactive stance

The 4mg mark is what the FDA is comfortable with when it comes to nicotine. It was the benchmark agreed and used in Nicowater as well as the new product that the FDA is set to approve, Somkebreak, again at 4mg. That is where the FDA's mindset is and that is what their stance is for any particular nicotine product.

Nor is the FDA going to allow "consumer" dosing, rather the e-liquid will only be available legally in pre-dosed, tamper proof cartridges. No more bottles of e-liquid legally sold---those days will be long gone.

So the idea that the e-cig be deemed a tobacco product subject to FDA regulation is as much a failure as banning it.

That is why a new tact as going to be advanced in the Courts. The alignment of e-cigs and tobacco is something that I, as well as many can not live with. Just because SE and NJOY plead it, does not make it the "gospel".


SE and NJOY have a right to advance their agenda and so do we. Ever wonder why no one here on this board is regular user of SE and NJOY products??? The question really answers itself.

Sun

 

[Sun Vaporer]

Please read carefully what I'm saying. I never said that the STANCE was fantasy. What I said was that trying to get that RIGHT NOW is a fantasy. We need to do something to keep ecigs on the market until we can prove that ecigs fit in the harm reduction/tobacco product classification. I'm right in there with the rest of them - I WANT reduced harm classification!.

That is your opinion Kristin and you are entitled to it. But that is not the direction that this new advancment is going to take.

You must not read posts. My post clearly stated that there is going to be another case coming on board by a different set of Suppliers with a different theory of the case. There is no fantasy, as it is coming right down the pike.


Sun

 

[kristin]

That is your opinion Kristin and you are entitled to it. But that is not the direction that this new advancment is going to take.

You must not read posts. My post clearly stated that there is going to be another case coming on board by a different set of Suppliers with a different theory of the case. There is no fantasy, as it is coming right down the pike.


Sun

I did read it and even commented on it.

You are an advisor to CASAA, Sun. It'd be nice if we were in the loop.