FDA Vape shops sue to block U.S. regulation covering e-cigarettes

[Ralph_K]

Commercial speech - Wikipedia

"In the 1980 case Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission, the U.S. Supreme Court developed a four-part test to determine whether commercial speech regulation violates the First Amendment:

1. Whether the commercial speech concerns a lawful activity and is not misleading
2. Whether the government interest asserted to justify the regulation is "substantial"
3. Whether the regulation "directly advances" that government interest
4. Whether the regulation is no more extensive than necessary to serve that interest "

I would think that the FDA could successfully argue that the Deeming rule passes this Central Hudson test.

Of course it violates 1st amendment. have you read the 1st amendment? It say congress shall make no law infringing on free speech. That means all speech. Just because a few ....ty judges ruled against the 1st amendment doesn't nullify it

 

[Ralph_K]

That sounds right to me. For years, the FDA has been telling big companies what they can and can't say in advertisements and on packaging. If that was against the law, you would think somebody would have called them on it by now.

As for their other argument, that could be a technicality that nullifies this whole thing, but I doubt it.

Government does many things it has no authority to do. No matter how many time you read US constitution you will never find where it gives federal government any powers over health care. Hell constitution literally forbids government to make any laws over arms yet that hasn't stopped them one bit

 

[Rossum]

Nope. Under Bush he gave corporation rights same as people. I think it's crap because corporations have more rights than actual people now

The thing that many people claim gives corporations the same rights as people is the Citizens United decision, which was argued and decided by the SCOTUS early in Obama's first term.

 

[Bill Godshall]

Isn't there a Line Drawn between what is considered "Noncommercial Speech" and "Commercial Speech" ?

And "Commercial Speech" isn't afforded the same protections under the 1st Amendment as what would be afforded to an Individual.

Right?

Yes. Its called the Central Hudson test, named after a 1980 lawsuit.

Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission - Wikipedia

 

[Ralph_K]

Yes. Its called the Central Hudson test, named after a 1980 lawsuit.

Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission - Wikipedia

That is about the same years they began putting free speech zones at political rallies.

 

[Gottahaveitjen]

https://www.moosejooce.com/uploads/8/2/3/4/8234838/complaint.docx

 

[Gottahaveitjen]

Can’t post because I’m a noob but official docs at moosejooce.com under more

 

[WorksForMe]

Here's an opinion piece by two lawyers from the Pacific Legal Foundation.

Career Civil Servants Illegitimately Rule America

Also from PLF:

Vaping Litigation

 

[mcclintock]

Seems like they'd have the best case on 1st amendment if someone actually got arrested, making the case specific, also preferably for an ad crafted for this purpose, rather than in general.

Last ad with a "claim" I heard said vaping is less "gross" than smoking, I'd like to see the FDA say they can't say THAT.

 

[MacTechVpr]

I have read that, but don't remember where. They cannot stand on the free speech due to tobacco classification. They have to change the classification, if that happens the free speech suit would be null.

You're right, the POTUS and Congress need to rescind those provisions of tobacco law that equate e-liquid and all vaping products to tobacco. The inferred unfounded equivalency between a combustible leaf and a steamed liquid is a .......ization of law as it is the duty of Congress to define with specificity, not to convey an ambiguous and discretionary extension of its own authority to agency.

To further the offense Congress deferred from a lawful and necessary congressional review given the contentious context which would have exposed FDA's lack of compliance with the legislation. Why I have railed against this instrument loud and long. From CASAA, this update…

Multiple Vape Shops File Against FDA | CASAA

Nevertheless, "regulation" does not trump any constitutional right of the 1st or 10th, of free speech and proper beneficial commercial association which can be demonstrated…if we may be allowed to achieve it. Better to stifle the speech and commerce of a complacent populace with an impossible "rule". The "deeming" rules are totally bogus yet we have rushed in a variety of ways to validate their legitimacy rather than take on these fundamental issues. FDA has in turn abused of our cooperative instincts to butcher us as a thank you.

Yes, there is a valid commercial speech argument, and commerce is expression. Ask an artist, or any creator. Knowledge is integral to everything we produce and through commerce its conveyance.

But rather dazzle us with the brilliance of judicial analysis as to the rightfulness of bureaucratic process than to actually take on the law and the truth of these matters.

Extract vaping from tobacco legislation and we're done.

Good luck.

 

[Letitia]

You're right, the POTUS and Congress need to rescind those provisions of tobacco law that equate e-liquid and all vaping products to tobacco. The inferred unfounded equivalency between a combustible leaf and a steamed liquid is a .......ization of law as it is the duty of congress to define with specificity, not to convey an ambiguous and discretionary extension of its own authority to agency.

To further the offense they deferred from a lawful and necessary congressional review given the contentious context which would have exposed FDA's lack of compliance with the legislation. Why I have railed against this instrument loud and long. From CASAA, this update…

Multiple Vape Shops File Against FDA | CASAA

Nevertheless, "regulation" does not trump any constitutional right of the 1st or 10th, of free speech and proper beneficial commercial association which can be demonstrated…if we may be allowed to achieve it. Better to stifle the speech and commerce of a complacent populace with an impossible "rule". The "deeming" rules are totally bogus yet we have rushed in a variety of ways to validate their legitimacy rather than take on these fundamental issues. FDA has in turn abused of our cooperative instincts to butcher us as a thank you.

Yes, there is a valid commercial speech argument, and commerce is expression. Ask an artist, or any creator. Knowledge is integral to everything we produce and through commerce its conveyance.

But rather dazzle us with the brilliance of judicial analysis as to the rightfulness of bureaucratic process than to actually take on the law and the truth of these matters.

Extract vaping from tobacco legislation and we're done.

Good luck.

Finally! I actually understood one of your posts.

 

[MacTechVpr]

Finally! I actually understood one of your posts.

Obviously you require longer sentences!

Good luck.

 

[Letitia]

Finally! I actually understood one of your posts.

Well obviously.

 

[MacTechVpr]

Well obviously.

Oh dear Leti, we certainly live in interesting times.

Good luck all, nice weekend.

 

[WorksForMe]

PLF's lawsuits continue.

PLF continues fighting for small vape shops against regulatory overkill