The FDA Loses Appeal!

[wv2win]

Thank You DC2!!!...this is the ONLY statement on this entire thread so far, other than the Yippees!, that is NOT pure speculation.

DC2's comment was accurate - this is just a decision in the appeal, but it's not really "simple." The opinions given by the DC court and Judge Leon are very telling of how the case will go in Judge Leon's court. njoy now has two opinions in their favor and that's nothing to sneeze at, lol!

CASAA's legal director, along with the other attorney on our board of directors, was extremely impressed and satisfied by the opinions issued - they both said it was "strongly worded" (something us laypeople probably wouldn't pick up on) and that it was very significant.

Thank you, kristin. This is truely the ONLY statement that makes sense and is supported by opinions from those in the legal profession.

 

[757girl]

Just made front page on yahoo
FDA cannot block e-cigarette imports: court - Yahoo! News

 

[Pav]

Wow, missed this yesterday. Christmas has come early this year imo.

 

[JTman]

Just made front page on yahoo
FDA cannot block e-cigarette imports: court - Yahoo! News

Thanks for the link! Good news for us for now at least. It bugs me they had to put this in that article:

"Matthew Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, said it would take time for the FDA to assert its jurisdiction over e-cigarettes as tobacco products.

"This decision will allow any manufacturer to put any level of nicotine in any product and sell it to anybody, including children, with no government regulation or oversight at the present time," Myers said in a statement.

"We urge the government to appeal this ruling."

Its my opinion that parents should be monitoring what their kids do and buy. I don't need government regulation and laws in place to parent my (hypothetical) kids for me! And besides that every vendor I have encountered has an 18+ policy on the purchase of thier products. So what is this guy's solution? BAN EVERYTHING UNTIL DADDY GOVERNMENT SAYS ITS OK!

 

[cozzicon]

Thanks for the link! Good news for us for now at least. It bugs me they had to put this in that article:

"Matthew Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, said it would take time for the FDA to assert its jurisdiction over e-cigarettes as tobacco products.

"This decision will allow any manufacturer to put any level of nicotine in any product and sell it to anybody, including children, with no government regulation or oversight at the present time," Myers said in a statement.

"We urge the government to appeal this ruling."

Its my opinion that parents should be monitoring what their kids do and buy. I don't need government regulation and laws in place to parent my (hypothetical) kids for me! And besides that every vendor I have encountered has an 18+ policy on the purchase of thier products. So what is this guy's solution? BAN EVERYTHING UNTIL DADDY GOVERNMENT SAYS ITS OK!

Well you have to assume that "Tobacco Free Kids" is going to spin and astroturf any unfavorable outcome since these scare tactics are how they gain funding. They pander to scared parents. Scared parents have wallets.

It's the same scam used for good and bad by many charities. Scare people, take their money, and continue in business.

I learned the hard way after working for a charity for 7 years, that they do indeed use profit and loss statements- they just call it "surplus".

Par for the course.

 

[tybin]

write your congress folks and voice your opinion before they take legislative action please!

 

[Pav]

Thanks for the link! Good news for us for now at least. It bugs me they had to put this in that article:

"Matthew Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, said it would take time for the FDA to assert its jurisdiction over e-cigarettes as tobacco products.

"This decision will allow any manufacturer to put any level of nicotine in any product and sell it to anybody, including children, with no government regulation or oversight at the present time," Myers said in a statement.

"We urge the government to appeal this ruling."

Well you have to assume that "Tobacco Free Kids" is going to spin and astroturf any unfavorable outcome since these scare tactics are how they gain funding. They pander to scared parents. Scared parents have wallets.

It's the same scam used for good and bad by many charities. Scare people, take their money, and continue in business.

I learned the hard way after working for a charity for 7 years, that they do indeed use profit and loss statements- they just call it "surplus".

Par for the course.

Good points. Here is the link to CFTFK. Not that it will do any good, but I'm writing to let them know how off base they are in their criticism.

Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids: Contact Information

 

[kristin]

Matt Myers is an egomanical prohibitionist who only cares about keeping BP funding and will ignore scientific evidence, outright lie about it and put millions of smokers at risk to fullfill his agenda. (Just my opinion, lol)

Campaign for Tobacco-free Kids have been trying to get e-cigarettes banned since the beginning.

Note his scare tactics - "This decision will allow any manufacturer to put any level of nicotine in any product and sell it to anybody, including children, with no government regulation or oversight at the present time."

REALLY? Anyone can now put gobs of nicotine into ANY product? Is that really what this decision means?

First of all, unless the product is used recreationally and/or advertisers don't make therapeutic or medical claims, the product will still fall under the FDCA and the FDA may terat it as an unapproved drug.

Second, he completely leaves out the fact that as a tobacco product, e-cigarettes fall under the FSPTCA (Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act) regultions and FDA oversight. Tobacco products are automatically prohibited for sale to minors, which would now include e-cigarettes!

For what Matt Myers says to be true, that would mean that all other tobacco products have no regulation or oversight either and can be sold to minors as well - which we all know is not true.

It's true that the FDA will need some time to get reoriented on e-cigarettes as tobacco products, but rather than wasting more time and keeping e-cigarettes completely unregulated during the appeal process, Mr. Myers should be calling for the FDA to expedite the process of regulation.

 

[markarich159]

markarich159: Civil lawsuits are not criminal. They don't work like an episode of Law & Order. If you were incorrectly informed to the contrary, apologies to hear it.

Thank for the unncessary and ridiculous condescendence. Uh, yes I'm quite aware of the difference between civil and criminal law(I caught that in my Law and Pharmacy law courses in College) and don't once recall erroneously mixing the two. We can't request anything of FDA.This CIVIL appelate case decision decised which regulatory scheme ecigs/eliquid will be placed under, nothing else. FDA now has authority(and quite broad authority) from the FSPTC Act(which gives FDA authority to assess civil or criminal penalties on violators) to classify and regulate ecigs/eliquid in anyway they see fit. For the final time, this appellate decision did not say "hands off FDA" it said "you MUST regulate Ecigs/eliquid as you see fit under the FSPTC Act rather than the F,D & C Act." The problem I see here is vapers and suppliers just keep thinking that they are just going to keep suing and suing the FDA(or whomever else) and eventually we will retain the current state of an absolute dearth of regulation. This is not going to happen(nor should it).

 

[kristin]

vapers and suppliers just keep thinking that they are just going to keep suing and suing the FDA(or whomever else) and eventually we will retain the current state of an absolute dearth of regulation. This is not going to happen(nor should it).

Very true. There WILL be regulation and reasonable manufacturing/advertising/distribution standards should be welcomed. But from my understanding, the burden of proof to justify any regulation/standards will be on the FDA now, instead of on the suppliers (unless the supplier wants approval as a treatment or medicinal product.)

 

[cozzicon]

Very true. There WILL be regulation and reasonable manufacturing/advertising/distribution standards should be welcomed. But from my understanding, the burden of proof to justify any regulation/standards will be on the FDA now, instead of on the suppliers (unless the supplier wants approval as a treatment or medicinal product.)

Yup- the burden of proof is on the FDA. And sometimes that proof is going to be tested in court.

The tobacco companies don't have any legal recourse to disprove the harm of inhaled tobacco. And they fought that fight for years in court through hundreds of cases. In this case, an argument can be made for harm reduction and perhaps more.

So there will be regulation, but that doesn't mean it will be unjust regulation.

 

[Raynen]

This all just upsets me that they can't just LEAVE US ALONE. I agree, it's HORRIBLE that minors can get access to these, but they WILL ALWAYS HAVE ACCESS TO CIGARETTES. It's not MY FAULT as a PV smoker. It'll never stop. It's JUST like alcohol, it'll always get in minor's hands, which is worse. Alcohol has flavoring, will they regulate that, too? It sounds like communism and a dictatorship.

They need to make a NICOTINE category with laws/regulations, and NOT place it in the tobacco regulation! Some soda has caffeine, and so does coffee, and energy drinks; caffeine can also be found in caffeine pills, chocolate, and other foods. They all have caffeine, but are, of course, different in taste, consumption, and means of getting caffeine. Nicotine has become the same way: cigarettes, cigars, chewing tobacco, nicotine gum, nicotine lozenges, nicotine pills, patches, and now e-cigs. Some are smoked, some are to kick the analog habit (though can make addiction worse), and some are vaped. If I can't make a decision of how I want my nicotine, it's an infringement on my rights, since nicotine isn't illegal. If I don't want to quit nicotine, but I don't want an analog, I should have the choice to have my nicotine in a different way. If I wanted caffeine, and didn't want coffee, wouldn't it be wrong if I couldn't have a choice between soda, pills, chocolate, and other means?

Flavoring seems to be an issue, but it shouldn't be. If it means DIY, it's fine by me, but nicotine should NOT be extremely difficult to obtain. Caffeine is readily accessible, so nicotine FOR THOSE WHO ARE OLD ENOUGH should be able to obtain it easily, too. But, the issue is with pre-flavored nicotine juice. Cigars and cigar wrapping papers are still flavored, and can still be purchased online. Tobacco, which has its own unique but NATURAL flavor, isn't just composed of nicotine, but unflavored nicotine doesn't have this. Tobacco plants just so happen to have nicotine in them, but unflavored nicotine is just plain nicotine. I wouldn't drink pure caffeine, so I think it's HORRIBLE that they think we'll want to vape plain nicotine. I understand that kids and underage teens are intrigued by e-cigs because of flavorings. But what about alcohol and energy drinks? Flavors, galore! As long as vendors keep their warnings up, the rest is up to the legal-to-purchase adults to NOT feed into what kids want. Please, don't blame it on ME and MY PV that your kid kicked and screamed until you bought them an e-cig. Oh, and a word about vendors online: As long as cigars can be purchased and shipped online, than e-liquid should be exactly the same.

Sorry I had to rant. I already feel so much better!

 

[son et lumiere]

Haha stupid FDA. Screw you FDA.

 

[ec!gg]

The FDA was definitely out of line. Glad we are headed in the right direction!

 

[SimpleSins]

I think if you read the FTPCA along with bill authorizing it, the opposite appears to be true. The ecig industry will not be able to declare itself a safer tobacco product unless they can provide the testing to prove otherwise.

I think it's still a matter of conjecture whether the FDA will even allow them under the tobacco provisions, which says they have to approve a new product, and since the ecig has been in limbo for a couple of years, they may be able to put an end to it that way (the grandfathering only applies to things on the market before 2007). Added to that fact that it would depend on how they define a product being on the market. Given that it only has been available recently in a few brick-and-mortar places, that may count as their "new product" date.

There are also a lot of provisions written in regarding inspection of facilities, required lab testing (and presumably by whom), disclosure of ingredients, etc. It also says that they can order the change of ingredients. I believe it's also within their power to require only face-to-face sales of at least the nicotine component (there are special exemptions given to the pipe and tobacco set because they inherently affect the people in power, alas, quite different than vapers).

None of these necessarily sound a death knell for the industry. The juice vendors can sell flavor packets so people can mix their own juice with face-to-face purchased nic juice unless, of course, the FDA orders they can only be sold in tamper-proof cartridges (although I give that only about a couple hours before the modders figure out a way around that). As everyone knows, I've long been an advocate for safe manufacturing and diclosure, so in particular those regulations that would affect that I think will be a great thing.

 

[BuzzKill]

Here comes Phillip Morris !!!!

I can see no reason why the big tobacco co's do not get into the ecig business

 

[shanagan]

Here comes Phillip Morris !!!!

I can see no reason why the big tobacco co's do not get into the ecig business

This has concerned and intrigued me for some time. They could easily make juice from the storeroom floor sweepings, slap their brand on it, and sell it for 20 times what we've become accustomed to paying. Those of us "in the know" will support our favorite vendors for however long they can withstand the new billion dollar ad campaign competition - but what then? How long can they hold out?

The one saving grace I see is that BT doesn't seem that interested in drawing the eye - and dollars - away from their primary money maker. But it makes me wonder if this was the opening they were waiting for.

If so, diacetyl in my e-juice could easily become the least of my concerns.

 

[SimpleSins]

If so, diacetyl in my e-juice could easily become the least of my concerns.

Maybe I've gotten too cynical since the whole diacetyl et al safety issues were raised back in mid October, but I don't really believe that Phillip Morris will be any more shady and secretive about what's in the juice than our current vendors. And on reading the FTPCA bill, it would seem that any hoops and limitations put on the current industry vendors will also apply to Phillip Morris and the rest. They will be at an advantage in that there are already familiar with the inspection procedures, have testing facilities in place, and have a source of appropriate tobacco from which to extract the nicotine. So it's not the perfect outcome, but I don't really view it as quite as bad as it could have been.

 

[mauzey]

Maybe I've gotten too cynical since the whole diacetyl et al safety issues were raised back in mid October, but I don't really believe that Phillip Morris will be any more shady and secretive about what's in the juice than our current vendors. And on reading the FTPCA bill, it would seem that any hoops and limitations put on the current industry vendors will also apply to Phillip Morris and the rest. They will be at an advantage in that there are already familiar with the inspection procedures, have testing facilities in place, and have a source of appropriate tobacco from which to extract the nicotine. So it's not the perfect outcome, but I don't really view it as quite as bad as it could have been.

Thats the ticket! Might even get a real tobacco flavor outta those guys.

 

[Raynen]

This has concerned and intrigued me for some time. They could easily make juice from the storeroom floor sweepings, slap their brand on it, and sell it for 20 times what we've become accustomed to paying. Those of us "in the know" will support our favorite vendors for however long they can withstand the new billion dollar ad campaign competition - but what then? How long can they hold out?

The one saving grace I see is that BT doesn't seem that interested in drawing the eye - and dollars - away from their primary money maker. But it makes me wonder if this was the opening they were waiting for.

If so, diacetyl in my e-juice could easily become the least of my concerns.

I completely agree. Phillip Morris sells cigarettes. Cigarettes are expensive and KILL. End of discussion.