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

[Sebastian]

These greedy scoundrels are going to take away your right to vape (My G rated version of what I think of these scumbags). THEY ARE GOING TO SUCCEED!

You have to be proactive, if you are a consumer of this product and have enjoyed the life changing benefits of this product, you HAVE to write to these judges presiding over this case, if you don't I can promise the industry is doomed.

Here is the address to write to:

The Honorable Justices Ginsburg, Henderson and Rogers
U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. District
Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington DC, 20001

If you are a supplier who doesn't include this address with a letter urging correspondence, TO EVERY ORDER YOU SEND FROM YOUR FACILITY, you are doing a disservice to your business, your employees, and the entire industry. If you have emails and/or as many letters as I have compiled over the last two years, you should scan them, print them and deliver them to the aforementioned address as well.

If you are a supplier that wants any help with a letter that I have compiled, which is both thorough and professionally written, I will gladly forward it via email.

It's no longer speculation, it's no longer something to thumb your nose at.

 

[thorn]

Devil--According to the FDA the answer is no---they argue that the e-cig is a new "drug" and delivery device (medical device) and needs to go though the whole application and approval process and all e-cigs should be banned until/if they are approved.

Sun

Aside from nicotine being involved, how is the 0mg juice considered a new drug?

 

[curiousJan]

DC2--after 60 days, you must file leave of the Court and show there is no prejudice to the opposing parties. As it stands now, there is no prejudice--but any closer to the FDA filing its brief---forget it.


Sun

What, if any, legal effect does SE's opposition to the Big Guns filing the amicus brief mean?

Jan

 

[Sun Vaporer]

Aside from nicotine being involved, how is the 0mg juice considered a new drug?

Thorn---this has always been a good question. Does it mean that vaping PG and flavoring is also a "Drug"? Only the FDA could come up with this logic.

What, if any, legal effect does SE's opposition to the Big Guns filing the amicus brief mean?

Jan

Jan--SE would, as a matter of course oppose this filing. IMO it will be to no avail as they simply are not prejudiced at this point in time.


Sun

 

[kristin]

IMPORTANT!! http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...-sign-petition-raise-awareness-ecig-bans.html


.

 

[BigJimW]

These dirty rotten money hungry greedy scoundrels are going to take away your right to vape (My G rated version of what I think of these scumbags - my employees have heard worse). THEY ARE GOING TO SUCCEED!

I've been preaching this since last MAY (a year ago) via YouTube videos and yet very few lifted as much as a toe to help. On the contrary, I earned a lot of trolls following me around to bust my beans.

My only hope is that more people ACT before it's too late, if it is not already too late.

 

[D103]

The issue of the 60 day period aside, what you need to understand is that an appellate brief, filed by anyone whether it be a party to the case or amici, may not introduce or attempt to rely on any new evidence whatsoever. The Court is bound to review only matters that are already on the record from below, and the briefs are merely legal arguments based on the matters of record from the proceedings below.

So no one can introduce or talk about things like the surveys that have been done or any scientific studies or reports that were not part of the existing record of the case.

Thank you for this information, it is what I thought was the case - that 'no new' evidence - in the way of studies, statistics, medical opinions, or otherwise can be introduced, only what is already on record.
My question then remains, don't you think the judges will find it odd if not inappropriate that the American Cancer Society has signed on, since the FDA's case appears to be in the direction of classifying this as a medical device, thus the ACS's involvement would not be germane since water, propylene gycol , nicotine and flavorings have nothing to do with cancer.
Not to mention the other specific anti-tobacco organizations who signed on. What is your expert opinion?

 

[Drozd]

5. WLF at this time is unaware of any other individual or organization that plans to file an amicus curiae brief in support of Plaintiffs/Appellees. Should it become aware of any other potential amicus filers, it will consult with them and, to the extent practicable, will endeavor to join in a single brief.
Respectfully submitted,[/QUOTE]

Boy #5 looks particularly interesting as we were talking about the posibility of a group like CASSA filing their own brief.....looks like an opening and invitation right there

 

[Sun Vaporer]

Today, there was no futher entries on the Docket Sheet as we head into the weekend. I do hope that another entity advances a Amicus Brief.


Sun

 

[Sun Vaporer]

Aside from nicotine being involved, how is the 0mg juice considered a new drug?

Thorn--good question. Again it goes to the real intended use of an e-cig. Just you can put blanks in a gun, the intended use of the gun is to fire bullets. That is how they would argue it.
　
Sun

 

[JerryRM]

5. WLF at this time is unaware of any other individual or organization that plans to file an amicus curiae brief in support of Plaintiffs/Appellees. Should it become aware of any other potential amicus filers, it will consult with them and, to the extent practicable, will endeavor to join in a single brief.
Respectfully submitted,

Boy #5 looks particularly interesting as we were talking about the posibility of a group like CASSA filing their own brief.....looks like an opening and invitation right there[/QUOTE]

Yes it does look like an open invitation, or even a plea, "c'mon vaper groups, join us"!!!

 

[Sun Vaporer]

Boy #5 looks particularly interesting as we were talking about the posibility of a group like CASSA filing their own brief.....looks like an opening and invitation right there

Yes it does look like an open invitation, or even a plea, "c'mon vaper groups, join us"!!![/QUOTE]


Jerry--that paragraph is in there to refute the FDA claiming compound and repetitive pleading by multiple parties. It is what is called "boilerplate" language when filing.
　
　
　
　
Sun

 

[kristin]

I've been preaching this since last MAY (a year ago) via YouTube videos and yet very few lifted as much as a toe to help. On the contrary, I earned a lot of trolls following me around to bust my beans.

My only hope is that more people ACT before it's too late, if it is not already too late.

Jim, can you make a video to get your fans to sign the petition?

 

[trs-80]

on the petition...

...Campaign for Tobacco‐Free Kids to change their policy and support the sale and use of electronic cigarettes as a reduced harm option for committed adult smokers.

this guy posted

20 TimPoynton Please treat electronic cigarettes with the same level of scrutiny as other nicotine replacement therapies

Pure Genuis ...not

 

[kristin]

on the petition...

...Campaign for Tobacco‐Free Kids to change their policy and support the sale and use of electronic cigarettes as a reduced harm option for committed adult smokers.

this guy posted

20 TimPoynton Please treat electronic cigarettes with the same level of scrutiny as other nicotine replacement therapies

Pure Genuis ...not

Yeah, I saw that. I can only guess he meant "they are just as safe as NRTs so don't hold them to a higher standard" but didn't think about the testing needed for approval as an NRT aspect of what he was saying.

 

[StormFinch]

Yeah, I saw that. I can only guess he meant "they are just as safe as NRTs so don't hold them to a higher standard" but didn't think about the testing needed for approval as an NRT aspect of what he was saying.

Meh, or maybe he knows that they know there are carcinogens in the NRTs, but they choose to ignore that fact.

 

[Thulium]

Thorn--good question. Again it goes to the real intended use of an e-cig. Just you can put blanks in a gun, the intended use of the gun is to fire bullets. That is how they would argue it.
　
Sun

But that argument does not hold water. In the case of a gun, "delivering bullets" is the unquestioned intended purposes of a gun so mentioning its ability to perform "off label" functions is not relevant unless we make the same presumption about electronic cigarettes. The argument is circular as it assumes the purpose of e-cigs is to deliver nicotine, therefore dismisses 0-nic cartridges as if they don't fulfill the intended use of e-cigarettes, and this is supposed to be evidence that the intended use is to deliver nicotine?

 

[trs-80]

the petition says reduced harm but he is calling the ecig an NRT
"other nicotine replacement therapies"
"other" implies the ecig is an nrt .
So he is in support of the FDA, but signing the petition is support for not an nrt. This was not a comment on a news article. Signing no matter what you say is in support of reduced harm alternative.
Am I wrong?

 

[trs-80]

Thorn--good question. Again it goes to the real intended use of an e-cig. Just you can put blanks in a gun, the intended use of the gun is to fire bullets. That is how they would argue it.
　
Sun

Unless it is a Starter Gun.

 

[TokenVapor]

Maybe we need to set up a petition, signed by hundreds of thousands of vapers, to tell these groups that we will go right back to smoking if they cause ecigs to become unavailable to us and then send it to them.

That's what they want Kristin. These organizations financially depend on an american public addicted to cigarettes.