US District Court decision may have implications concerning e-cigs.

[skoony]

i just came across this sounds like ti could be important.
The Rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary: U.S. District Court Decision May Cast Doubt on Constitutionality of FDA's Upcoming E-Cigarette Regulations
regards
mike

 

[AndriaD]

That's right up there with that 95% safer from the UK as far as good news goes.

Andria

 

[nicnik]

i just came across this sounds like ti could be important.
The Rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary: U.S. District Court Decision May Cast Doubt on Constitutionality of FDA's Upcoming E-Cigarette Regulations
regards
mike

Could a court strike down just that section 911 that is at issue? Even that would be big news, though.

 

[Sgt.Rock]

Nice. Let's see where this goes.

 

[EBates]

Hummmm. Wonder if this could be having an impact on the deeming reg being released?

 

[AndriaD]

The first time I saw this meme I *literally* LOL'ed... but this is EXACTLY how I picture the FDA drones when something like this comes out...

Andria

 

[SpaceApe]

Good info, thanks for sharing!

 

[TyPie]

One thing is certain here. If manufacturers cannot state simple facts about a given product (e.g., does not produce smoke, does not contain burning tobacco, does not produce tar, etc.), something does, in fact, STINK, and it ain't the e-cigs. (It's probably the LAW, in this case.)

 

[Bootiewootsy]

Thanks for keeping us updated.. Love your photo Andria....

 

[stevegmu]

Arguing e-nic isn't a tobacco product is worthless. Of course it doesn't contain tobacco; the nicotine is derived from it, thus a tobacco product...

 

[nicnik]

(It's probably the LAW, in this case.)

eeewww!!!!!

 

[Lemwise]

Arguing e-nic isn't a tobacco product is worthless. Of course it doesn't contain tobacco; the nicotine is derived from it, thus a tobacco product...

In an ideal world it would be categorised by volume of ingredients which would make it a VG or PG product.

 

[BuGlen]

Arguing e-nic isn't a tobacco product is worthless. Of course it doesn't contain tobacco; the nicotine is derived from it, thus a tobacco product...

This is yet another lie that the we have allowed the ANTZ to inject into our arguments, without even realizing it. I've fallen into this trap myself more than a few times and it's difficult to crawl out of this line of thinking (at least for me). You don't necessarily categorize a consumer product by it's lesser component(s), even if those components are the "active" ingredient.

In an ideal world it would be categorised by volume of ingredients which would make it a VG or PG product.

Exactly. We don't label vitamin water as a vitamin product when in fact it's just another consumer beverage choice that is regulated just like standard bottled water. The only restriction is that of all consumer goods that you cannot make health claims without substantial proof, or the FDA will be sending you a cease and desist letter.

 

[stevegmu]

In an ideal world it would be categorised by volume of ingredients which would make it a VG or PG product.

Or not regulated at all, but in the end, it will legally be a tobacco product, and no one will challenge that in court...

 

[Jman8]

Or not regulated at all, but in the end, it will legally be a tobacco product, and no one will challenge that in court...

Depends on what you mean by "it." If it doesn't contain nicotine and is attempted to be regulated as a tobacco product, it will face a court challenge and FDA will lose.

 

[stevegmu]

Depends on what you mean by "it." If it doesn't contain nicotine and is attempted to be regulated as a tobacco product, it will face a court challenge and FDA will lose.

E-liquid with nicotine. If someone actually challenges the regulations in court, 0-nic will be exempt..

 

[Jman8]

E-liquid with nicotine.

Agree that this challenged in court would not have (much of) a chance of being overcome.

But do see opposition (in this case FDA) trying to suggest that products that do not contain nicotine, but plausibly could, are the type that they may seek to regulate under the tobacco act. Thus, they are overplaying their hand, and I believe court cases will challenge that, and possibly lead to motion that the whole act (or at least that which pertains to vaping) is without merit.

I think we all agree that those type of regulations are without merit, even while we can understand how the claims are being made.

But that zero-nic vapers exist does toss a rather huge wrench into the regulation machine that opposition seeks, to maintain full control over vaping.

Going after flavors is another prime example of over playing your hand. Flavors are not a tobacco product.

 

[Lemwise]

Or not regulated at all, but in the end, it will legally be a tobacco product, and no one will challenge that in court...

Until someone finds a way to economically synthesize nicotine in large quantities. There's also a bush in Australia that contains the same amount of nicotine as tobacco. Suppose we start cultivating that bush on a large scale to produce nicotine, there's no way in hell it could ever be classified as a tobacco product.

 

[AndriaD]

Until someone finds a way to economically synthesize nicotine in large quantities. There's also a bush in Australia that contains the same amount of nicotine as tobacco. Suppose we start cultivating that bush on a large scale to produce nicotine, there's no way in hell it could ever be classified as a tobacco product.

This has already been covered. The gov't would find it very easy to simply ban that plant, as they've tried to ban that other plant so many people love. It wouldn't necessarily get rid of that plant, but it would mean that commercial use of it to get the nicotine would die before it ever even hit the planning stages.

Andria

 

[caramel]

Or not regulated at all, but in the end, it will legally be a tobacco product, and no one will challenge that in court...

Also "fresh air" becomes a "tobacco product" (since it contains oxygen produced by tobacco plants), and FDA's failure to regulate it (as mandated by FSPTCA) would open them to a "criminal negligence" lawsuit.