E-Cigarettes to be officially banned by FDA?

Rocketman · 01-18-2010, 01:27 PM

Something new? Nicotine gum and patch users (e-cig?) need not apply.

Chattanooga Hospital Ends Hiring of Tobacco Users - WHNT

Bet this gets some legal attention

sounds a little arbitrary and capricious to me.
I wonder if they are going to test for Chantix,
or fish oil, or even snake oil?
I hope a triple minority, using the patch gets refused employment, and sues for violation of his/her civil rights.

Rocket

Hachiroku · 01-18-2010, 09:55 PM

November 30, 2006
By Sacha Pfeiffer, Globe Staff
A Buzzards Bay man has sued The Scotts Co. , the lawn care giant, for firing him after a drug test showed nicotine in his urine, indicating that he had violated a company policy forbidding employees to smoke on or off the job.
The suit, filed yesterday in Suffolk Superior Court, is highly unusual because it involves an employee who was terminated for engaging in legal activities away from the workplace. The lawyer who filed the complaint said he believes it is the first of its kind in the state.
Scotts announced last year that it would no longer hire tobacco users, a policy company officials said was intended to improve employee wellness and drive down the company's healthcare costs. But civil libertarians say it violates personal privacy rights and could be used to mask age discrimination or other illegal behavior.

If you work for (or WANT to work for Scott's) you cannot use tobacco...AT ALL!

I don't know the outcome of that case, however I did see that in California you cannot refuse to hire someone because they smoke. In Mass, you can.

mayte · 01-19-2010, 06:48 AM

Forbidding to hire or firing someone for what they do while they are not on the clock is highly illegal. I smell a major lawsuit as in class-action lawsuit against a lot of companies.

I'm also wondering why it is that congressmen/congress-women, executives, and CEOs aren't demanding an alcohol test that would prevent or cause the firing of an executive officer of a company or firm for drinking alcohol? Could it be their 3-martini luncheons or the 35 to 40-year-old glasses of scotch they have with clients when trying to land accounts or to prevent those long dinners where the big-wigs knock back their drinks? What of judges, criminal attorneys, etc...? it's amazing how they don't want anyone messing with their way of life yet they have NO PROBLEM screwing with the average person's lifestyle choices. Talk about double-standards...

BTW, it was nice to hear that the district justice Judge Leon I believe his name was, put the screws to the FDA over the FDA's believed control of e-cigarettes under the claim that e-cigarettes are drug-delivery devices and yet they fall under the guidelines of cigarettes even though they don't contain combustible tobacco leaves or the 4000+ cancer-causing carcinogens yet the FDA is still claiming the e-cigarettes are the boogeyman incarnate.

The United Way people have become total morons. I received an email yesterday that the United Way wanted me to help them push for a bill to increase a cigarette tax in South Carolina in an addition of a $1 tax on each pack of cigarettes in order to curb teenage smoking. Well, correct me if I am wrong (being a bit rhetorical here) but isn't it already illegal for anyone under 18 years old to buy cigarettes in the first place? That being so, who is the United Way think they are fooling? Somebody needs to send the CEO of the United Way a copy of the law stating that it's illegal for teenagers to buy cigarettes until they are 18 years old but make certain to explain it in a way that a 3rd grader can understand it because obviously the CEO is a total and complete moron.

I wonder how the head of the CEO would feel if the taxpaying cigarette smokers got together and implemented an outrageously high tax on high-end alcoholic drinks and find out how the head of the United Way would like them apples. It's time we start taxing booze and leave cigarettes alone.

A person sitting in a car after having smoked a traditional cigarette is not a threat to society, themselves, or the public in general as well as public and private property; however, the same can't be said for someone who gets into their car after a 3-martini lunch or those 4 shots of Scotch in addition to that bottle or two of wine with supper then attempting to drive home afterward. Now that's true danger yet you don't hear jack about drunks on the highway or a tax on booze to go into a victim fund to help those involved in car accidents after a drunk wrecks their vehicle by plowing into other cars on the highway maiming and even killing other passengers in vehicles without a drunk at the wheel.

Didn't mean to get off on a tangent. This just ticks me off.

LeCig · 01-19-2010, 10:30 AM

What mayte said!

Amen!

Dhileas · 01-19-2010, 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mayte

Forbidding to hire or firing someone for what they do while they are not on the clock is highly illegal. I smell a major lawsuit as in class-action lawsuit against a lot of companies.

I'm also wondering why it is that congressmen/congress-women, executives, and CEOs aren't demanding an alcohol test that would prevent or cause the firing of an executive officer of a company or firm for drinking alcohol? Could it be their 3-martini luncheons or the 35 to 40-year-old glasses of scotch they have with clients when trying to land accounts or to prevent those long dinners where the big-wigs knock back their drinks? What of judges, criminal attorneys, etc...? it's amazing how they don't want anyone messing with their way of life yet they have NO PROBLEM screwing with the average person's lifestyle choices. Talk about double-standards...

BTW, it was nice to hear that the district justice Judge Leon I believe his name was, put the screws to the FDA over the FDA's believed control of e-cigarettes under the claim that e-cigarettes are drug-delivery devices and yet they fall under the guidelines of cigarettes even though they don't contain combustible tobacco leaves or the 4000+ cancer-causing carcinogens yet the FDA is still claiming the e-cigarettes are the boogeyman incarnate.

The United Way people have become total morons. I received an email yesterday that the United Way wanted me to help them push for a bill to increase a cigarette tax in South Carolina in an addition of a $1 tax on each pack of cigarettes in order to curb teenage smoking. Well, correct me if I am wrong (being a bit rhetorical here) but isn't it already illegal for anyone under 18 years old to buy cigarettes in the first place? That being so, who is the United Way think they are fooling? Somebody needs to send the CEO of the United Way a copy of the law stating that it's illegal for teenagers to buy cigarettes until they are 18 years old but make certain to explain it in a way that a 3rd grader can understand it because obviously the CEO is a total and complete moron.

I wonder how the head of the CEO would feel if the taxpaying cigarette smokers got together and implemented an outrageously high tax on high-end alcoholic drinks and find out how the head of the United Way would like them apples. It's time we start taxing booze and leave cigarettes alone.

A person sitting in a car after having smoked a traditional cigarette is not a threat to society, themselves, or the public in general as well as public and private property; however, the same can't be said for someone who gets into their car after a 3-martini lunch or those 4 shots of Scotch in addition to that bottle or two of wine with supper then attempting to drive home afterward. Now that's true danger yet you don't hear jack about drunks on the highway or a tax on booze to go into a victim fund to help those involved in car accidents after a drunk wrecks their vehicle by plowing into other cars on the highway maiming and even killing other passengers in vehicles without a drunk at the wheel.

Didn't mean to get off on a tangent. This just ticks me off.

I understand your premise, and I agree in certain aspects, but I don't agree that a hike in taxes on alcohol or tobacco. Human beings (particularly adults) have an innate fondness for self-destruction. Granted, all things in moderation are fine and dandy, but it's not moderate and responsible people that give these things bad names. I'm a gun enthusiast. Guns kill people and reckless/ignorant/unstable people give guns a bad name. No need to hike taxes on guns though.

There are many dangerous substances that are legal that require respect. Just as a rattlesnake requires respect. If you aren't respectful, you or other people could be harmed. I feel the answer doesn't simply lie in awareness and education as most would suggest though. I feel the answer is one that California and New Jersey have already figured out (to an extent). California has a bill on the slate that is steaming along quite nicely to push for the legalization of marijuana for not just medicinal use (as they and NJ currently have) but for recreational use. Imagine a cash crop that no longer will feed the actions of dangerous people (such as the Colombian Cartel). It'll be taxed, and as a product that has never been taxed due to wrongful illegalization, it's a huge governmental return! On top of that, due to it's popularity, it will be a fierce return as it'll likely fly off the shelves.

Pardon my rant as well, but I've been searching for an idea to kick to our governor and this makes the most sense. I know there's a cause for concern, but it's typically those that have never partaken that have been scared out of their wits by greedy 'Mr. Moneybags' and his clowns.

Dwellsouth · 01-21-2010, 02:04 PM

Ditto Ditto and I do neither!

Dwellsouth · 01-21-2010, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dhileas

I feel the answer is one that California and New Jersey have already figured out (to an extent). California has a bill on the slate that is steaming along quite nicely to push for the legalization of marijuana for not just medicinal use (as they and NJ currently have) but for recreational use. Imagine a cash crop that no longer will feed the actions of dangerous people (such as the Colombian Cartel). It'll be taxed, and as a product that has never been taxed due to wrongful illegalization, it's a huge governmental return! On top of that, due to it's popularity, it will be a fierce return as it'll likely fly off the shelves.

I saw some documentary about an entire CA town...it's their cash crop!
I can't wait till they legalize it, take the excitement out and put the taxes on!

Dhileas · 01-21-2010, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dwellsouth

I saw some documentary about an entire CA town...it's their cash crop!
I can't wait till they legalize it, take the excitement out and put the taxes on!

Precisely! The funny thing is, and I'm not certain if this is indeed the town, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was Weed, CA.

javanx3d · 02-13-2010, 01:10 PM

Have any of you seen anything on new actions by the FDA to seize shipments of the suppliers not explicitly named in the lawsuit coming in from outside of the U.S.? There was some discussion on it on the GreenSmoke forum, but didn't see a published or substantial report regarding.
Cheers,
James

eliquid8 · 02-14-2010, 10:12 AM

A federal judge on Thursday ordered the Food and Drug Administration to stop blocking the importation of electronic cigarettes from China and indicated that the devices should be regulated as tobacco products rather than drug or medical devices.

Judge Richard J. Leon of Federal District Court in Washington issued a preliminary injunction in a lawsuit brought by two distributors of the so-called e-cigarettes, which are battery-powered tubes that heat liquid nicotine into an inhalable vapor and are meant to simulate the taste of tobacco.

Full article here F.D.A. Ordered to Stop Blocking Imports of E-Cigarettes - NYTimes.com

javanx3d · 02-14-2010, 11:56 AM

Yeah, the "rumor" that I saw was the FDA's interpretation of the ruling was that the injunction by Judge Leon only applied to the 2 companies mentioned in the suit. Didn't know if that was fact, fiction, or rumor at this point?

VtVapor · 02-14-2010, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by javanx3d

Yeah, the "rumor" that I saw was the FDA's interpretation of the ruling was that the injunction by Judge Leon only applied to the 2 companies mentioned in the suit. Didn't know if that was fact, fiction, or rumor at this point?

That would be the way a preliminary injunction works (only intended to prevent immediate harm to the plaintiffs - in this case, SE/NJoy).

Also, the FDA has filed an interlocutory appeal (see E-Cigarette Ruling Appealed) and, since the injunction stands or falls on Leon's interpretation of the law, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals is basically unrestrained in finding that Judge Leon got the law wrong and lifting the injunction.

javanx3d · 02-14-2010, 02:47 PM

Thanks for the info! Makes sense to me now.

Steve1975 · 04-09-2010, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VtVapor

That would be the way a preliminary injunction works (only intended to prevent immediate harm to the plaintiffs - in this case, SE/NJoy).

Also, the FDA has filed an interlocutory appeal (see E-Cigarette Ruling Appealed) and, since the injunction stands or falls on Leon's interpretation of the law, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals is basically unrestrained in finding that Judge Leon got the law wrong and lifting the injunction.

Exactly what has now happened!!!

roybenjamin86 · 04-12-2010, 05:28 AM

The e-cigarette is a nicotine delivery device and doesn't fall under the jurisdiction of the FDA right now. This might even change in future.

smokingmonkey · 05-10-2010, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VapingVictoria

Why is that the government feels we are too stupid to care for our own health and bodies? Yes, I agree we should know exactly what is in the juice, where it came from and all that jazz. I work within the medical community and I have seen many cases of people going without a medication or a treatment that they need because they can not afford a Dr. And this is for simple things like antibiotic ointments, birth control, asthma inhalers and such. Are we too stupid to know we have an infection ?

Why do we have to pay a Dr a $150, plus take the day off work so someone can say "Hey your right you need a $15 tube of Tobradex." In many other countries I can go right into the pharmacy and purchase what I know I need and that government respect the fact that I can make an intelligent decision all by myself.

*stepping down from my soapbox*

i can't tell you how frustraded i get when i have to explain to a doctor that my diabeties medication is all "OVER THE COUNTER"...even the syringes.

edit-- good god, i didn't see the page #, sorry for bringing up yesterdays conversation.

smokingmonkey · 05-10-2010, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dhileas

Precisely! The funny thing is, and I'm not certain if this is indeed the town, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was Weed, CA.

they have it on nmnbc, i wanna say the town is mendicino but i'm not sure. i know its northern cali; around sacremento.

Leslie · 07-04-2010, 08:20 AM

Hey, we might be able to kill two birds with one stone here. Recently the govt. passed the PACT act, which makes it illegal for private individuals (but not companies) to buy cigarettes via phone, mail or the Internet. This, of course, is putting a lot of the Indian tobacco dealers out of business. At the same time, the govt. is trying to ban imported e-cig liquid.

Okay, suppose Vapeatron gets in touch with BuyDiscountCigarettes, or somebody like them, and suggests that the Indian tribes start turning their tobacco into liquid nicotine? That will give us vapers a home-grown source, and will give the Indians a new market for their tobacco business.

Does anybody know how to go about this?

--Leslie <

))><

sattec · 07-08-2010, 12:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leslie

Hey, we might be able to kill two birds with one stone here. Recently the govt. passed the PACT act, which makes it illegal for private individuals (but not companies) to buy cigarettes via phone, mail or the Internet. This, of course, is putting a lot of the Indian tobacco dealers out of business. At the same time, the govt. is trying to ban imported e-cig liquid.

Okay, suppose Vapeatron gets in touch with BuyDiscountCigarettes, or somebody like them, and suggests that the Indian tribes start turning their tobacco into liquid nicotine? That will give us vapers a home-grown source, and will give the Indians a new market for their tobacco business.

Does anybody know how to go about this?

--Leslie <

))><

hell of an idea, go for it!

Leslie · 07-13-2010, 09:17 AM

Update: I phoned BuyDiscountCigarettes and found that, yes, the Indians are *already* turning their tobacco into liquid nicotine to sell to the e-cigarette suppliers. Halleluah!

Now we have another problem: the govt. is sniffing around, trying to ban the vaporizers themselves -- primarily by forbidding anyone from importing them. I know that there are some independent techs with machine-shops, here in the USA, who are playing around with designing e-cigs/vaporizers of their own, but at present they still use a lot of components from China. Can anybody put me in touch with those local techs? I have a proposition for them.

It's like this; if anyone can design a vaporizer that runs on a common AAA battery, complete with atomizer and cartridge, and can make *all the components* right here in the USA, then the fed-govt. can't stop them from manufacturing and selling them. For that matter, if there's a manufacturer in every state, that produces and sells vaporizers only in that state, the fed-govt. can't stop them *at all* because their sales would not be *interstate commerce*, so the feds couldn't regulate or ban them. This is what a lot of gun-manufacturers are doing; if it can work for them, it can work for us.

So, can anybody give me the contact information for these techs and machine-shops who are designing/making their own vaporizers?

--Leslie <

))><