I hope that's the argument the activists use. I am sure it will work well...
US District Court decision may have implications concerning e-cigs.
- Thread starter skoony
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I hope that's the argument the activists use. I am sure it will work well...
That's exactly the point of reductio of absurdum. To make an argument NOT hold.
In this case the argument that a single substance, even in trace levels, qualifies a product to be regulated under FSPTCA.
You should forward the argument to the FDA. I am sure they will be convinced and decide not to regulate e-liquid with nicotine as a tobacco product. Problem solved...
Lovely logic. 
Sadly everyone is missing the end game... what the FDA wants is The Vegetable Tax.
Rez potatoes anyone.
I didn't realize how much this is missing the boat with regards to OP (and court decision) until I reread the thread, and really read the Siegel article instead of just glimpsing at it.
I think the basis of the article (the court decision) would concede it is plausibly a tobacco product, but would stipulate what that product includes / doesn't include and which the current FDA deeming, as proposed, would say is not possible to do, legally. This court ruling says it is possible and that the FDA would be engaging in illegal government action if it concluded otherwise.
Great advice. You should have shared it with nJoy too, would have saved them a lot of time and money.
I actually think a good attorney could argue regulations can only pertain to disposables...
It's still a weak argument for grouping vaping devices and liquid nicotine with cigarettes.
I hope they could create a new category if it absolutely has to be FDA regulated. Aerosol nicotine or aerosol delivery devices or something.
The devices can't legally be regulated as tobacco products; just one piece cigalikes and e-liquid with nicotine...
The decision is about not being able to restrict true statements. Ideally this would apply to tobacco products as well, however the FSPTCA has that annoying bit about "modified risk tobacco products" you can't make claims like "safer than cigarettes" unless the product qualifies as MRTP. Unfortunately, the ones who decide if a products is MRTP are the FDA themselves, and the application process for MRTP is not well defined, just ask Swedish Match. Now, if Swedish Match sues using this line of reasoning for their snus products to be labeled safer than cigarettes, then I might be more encouraged by this.
The FDA sets the classifications, doesn't have to actually tell anyone what the distinctions are, and gets to determine what is "true."
The FDA sets the classifications, doesn't have to actually tell anyone what the distinctions are, and gets to determine what is "true."
i agree with you 100%
the problem is when they start saying we must treat
this new generation of tobacco products as tobacco
products,you can pretty much guess were they are
headed.
regards
mike
It could be said that you are into a form of activism...
Which would mainly consist of actively attempting to discourage others from doing so.
Would be funny if my 18mg grape flavoured eliquid was deemed a tobacco product but my 0mg Cuban cigar, or Halo Longhorn were not.
I like this bit:
No government interest is advanced by forcing companies to essentially lie about the two most important features of their products: (1) the absence of tobacco; and (2) the absence of smoke (i.e., combustion). Prohibiting such truthful and non-misleading speech does nothing to advance the government's interest in ensuring that consumers receive accurate and non-misleading information about the safety or relative safety of different tobacco products.
The FDA isn't concerned with the truth..Neither is the government the last time I listened to anyone associated with them.
I hope this goes somewhere Mike and thanks for posting.
No government interest is advanced by forcing companies to essentially lie about the two most important features of their products: (1) the absence of tobacco; and (2) the absence of smoke (i.e., combustion). Prohibiting such truthful and non-misleading speech does nothing to advance the government's interest in ensuring that consumers receive accurate and non-misleading information about the safety or relative safety of different tobacco products.
The FDA isn't concerned with the truth..Neither is the government the last time I listened to anyone associated with them.
I hope this goes somewhere Mike and thanks for posting.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
