All of the smart vendors know they cannot make smoking cessation claims. You might see such claims on sites of foreign companies that don't understand U.S. law, but U.S. vendors know better.
However, even if the letters were to be published on a vendor site, that does not constitute a health claim on the part of the vendor, according to the 30-page opinion issued by Judge Richard J. Leon in the court case of Smoking Everywhere, Inc. & Sottera, Inc. d/b/a NJOY versus FDA.
http://www.casaa.org/uploads/SE-vs-FDA-Opinion.pdf
Do you know which part of the linked file (Leon ruling) that says it does not constitute a health claim? I think I may have seen it, but the part I found was vague and I believe lacking a solid backing to assert that consumer testimonials, on an eCig site, do not constitute a health claim. IMO, kind of a gray area.
My point is that by marrying vaping with traditional cigarettes, as many eCig companies do (most of the big ones I've seen do this), it puts a target on them. I may dislike that target, and think such a thing ought to stand. But I also just think it puts a target that is hard to overcome given the political playing field. I could think of analogies for this, but the ones that come to my mind are all hypothetical. eCigs are a rather unique animal and seem to fit the definition of disruptive technology, somewhat causing the regulators to play catch up with what is a gray market. But not so gray when that industry is saying, 'hey look at us, we're better than smoking. Remember tobacco? You do? Hey look at us. We are like that, but better.' Then the industry is just begging to come out of gray market and either go into protected market or underground market. And I think as long as there is this marriage (of sorts) between eCigs and BT, that underground market is possibly the reality. Right about now, we best hope for protected market if eCig sellers are going to keep stuff on their sites that even hint at this product is in some way connected to traditional smoking, but better.
So you see, our First Amendment Right as individuals, guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, cannot be abridged by the FDA as Stanton P. Glantz's would like to have done. The written law is upheld by the case law, in the form of Judge Leon's opinion (and other rulings and opinions, no doubt.)
Vendors (companies) are bound to restrictions not placed on private citizens. Therapeutic information is controlled to protect state-sponsored drug monopolies. This is probably unconstitutional, in view of the fact that the vendors are being forced to withhold vital, life-saving information; but it has never been challenged in court, nor has a law been passed to protect the rights of free speech for corporations.
See the book Global Censorship of Health Information by Jonathan W. Emord.
To me, it is common sense that it ought to be regulated and is a stretch to look at it as protected speech. I'm willing to go along for the ride of it ought to be free and protected speech, though prefer that to be consistent. As in, do we regulate any company that not only sells/distributes a drug, but puts forth any claims about its product that may or may not be true?
Like if I have a company based on a product (a drug) that claims to make people taller, and a whole bunch of testimonials that back that up, is this speech to be protected, or something to be looked into with full anticipation of regulating such claims? Not a great analogy to eCigs cause as I said before, it is a rather unique product that is arguably still in a gray market.
It's a drug that comes from tobacco, but has no tobacco in it (in this form). We use devices that mimic smoking, but there is no smoke. Most of us come from a background of smoking, but this product is clearly not smoking. It is vaping, which wasn't a word 10 years ago, but is now the most accurate word/verb I can think of for describing the activity.
So to marry it with smoking seems unfounded, and unnecessary. And yet many (ex)smokers still speak at that level about this product. I could just as well say vaping has lead me to eat less sweets. That's what eCigs are really good at. They will make you not crave sugary foods as much as before you tried them. I know of other vapers who have claimed this. And even while sugary foods have always been under the collective microscope and are generally seen as not something that is all that good for you, they are nowhere near under the scrutiny that tobacco products are, especially traditional smokes. Not even close, IMO. To me, this would be like saying vaping is really good if you want to get off of (insert illegal drug name here) and putting that on eCig sites. Then expecting no one who cares to have stuff regulated, to sit up and take notice at such claims. Ought not to look into this, and ought not to try to regulate that sort of claim being made on the website. And instead ought to just sit back down and realize free speech protects this claim and well, you'll just have to live with that.
For what it's worth, I'm one who thinks 1st Amendment protects the right to yell fire in a crowded theater. I realize that the vast majority would beg to differ on that point. Why? Because protecting any and every form of speech is deemed simply not practical and potentially harmful.
[That's the name I gave him...
