PUFFDADDY

Well I got the link but it looks like the judge hasn't come up with anything yet.


The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times : Lawyers Ask Judge to Lift Ban on Electronic Cigarettes

dux4lux

I've mirrored the complaint here:

http://funlabs.net/misc/ecigz/court/.../complaint.pdf

I have more of the court documents if anyone is interested.

MasterVapor

My E-cig has already started saving my life! I was on Advair which has a "black label death warning" from the FDA! My Dr. switched me to Flovent at my request. Now, because I have switched from regular cigarettes to E-cigs, I know longer need the $300 per month COPD medication! I once tried the nicotine gum, but still had to smoke a cigarette at the same time. The addiction is 2 part. The nicotine, and the oral fixation. Although the gum had nicotine, I was missing the stage of placing the tobacco product to my mouth and generating smoke. With the E-cig I get both. I believe the E-cigarette is one of the best inventions since the transistor of the late 1950's!! The potential number of smoker's lives that could be saved by this device is unmeasurable. Not only here in the US, but worldwide and not from just cancer, but from fires caused by a lit cigarette in bed. If e-cigs are banned, it means someone if not many were bought (bribed).

VapingVictoria

I agree, my smokers cough is totally gone.

MasterVapor

Mine too! I'm just trying to find a good "juice". The juice that came in my kit is a bottle (M36mg) that is quite harsh. I was thinking about the Johnson Creek reduced PG, but so many flavors to chose from. I want to settle with one or two flavors.

damunster

I no longer cough or wheeze and can lay on my back and breath again. Oh, and I can go up and down stairs now without huffing and puffing. I would go to bed and listen to myself "wheeze" and that really bothered me. I knew I was in bad shape and would one day be like my mother, draging around my oxygen and I didn't want that. I used the prescription , chantix to quit and it worked. I did quit but was miserable for 9 months until I started smoking again. I am so glad to have found these "Personal Pleasure Vaporizer's". I am getting off nic using this and I love it. I just got my order of flavors from Bickford and sure hope they are good. 40+ years of smoking and I sure don't want to go back to it.

MasterVapor

Good deal! I just ordered the JC reduced PG Tennessee Cured juice 30ml size and 24mg strength. (their highest) and am patting my foot waiting. I'm hoping that will have some "taste" as opposed to the OEM stuff I got with the kit. The reduced PG (30% VG) should be less harsh on me and will produce a tad more vapor. If that works out I'll be upgrading to the JANTY STICK V2 for the "steam locomotive" effect!!

dux4lux

If you guys want me to pull the rest of the court documents, let me know. Costs me about 8 cents a page (which is no biggie), but the US Court system website is a PITA to use when pulling "all the docs." If anyone has any requests from this page, please let me know and I'll grab them ASAP:

http://funlabs.net/misc/ecigz/court/SE_vs_FDA/index.pdf - index of all the docs in the system currently

The media also doesn't seem to understand the eCigarettes as well, so I recommend that people read primary sources.

Rocketman

When did the FDA say this?

FDA Statement:
The Electronic Cigarette is a nicotine delivery device, and it does not fall under the jurisdiction of the FDA or any other US Regulatory Organization at this time. Our products do not call for the oversight of either the FDA or the Alcohol and Tobacco Trade Bureau as they do not contain tobacco. Our products and it's benefits do not fit the classification of products that these organizations govern.

Found on more than one e-cig site.

Rocket

renderwerks

I have a couple updates from the SE/nJoy vs FDA case.

This occured Aug 25:

Today, Prof. John P. Banzhaf III, head of ASH, filed leave of the Court, Pro Se (by himself for his orginization) to submit an Amicus Curiae brief (friend of the Court).

ASH argues to the effect:

to adopt appropriate requirements to protect the public interest (e.g., age restrictions [/size]on sales); and/or to require any appropriate even ofthe type now required on other nicotine products.
　
Banzhaf respectfully suggests that the known and potential harms these products cause is also directly relevant to at least two of the factors a court should find beibre it grants injunctive relief, especially on an interim basis when all the risks cannot be known because the FDA has not yet
been presented with evidence and asked to evaluate it:
(3) other interested parties will not be substantially injured if the requested relief is granted; and granting such relief would serve the public interest.
　
E-cigarettes are now being advertised for use hi administering Cialis (a prescription-only [/size]drug) to users. This indicates a new potential for abuse if unregulated. .............


Banzhaf respectfully suggests that this represents a significant new danger which would very likely spread should the Court rule that c-cigarettes are not subject to FDA jurisdiction, and this is true regardless of whether either the Plaintiff and/or the Intervener sells Cialis-laden e-cigarettes, since the holding could arguably apply across to board to all brands and to those with different claims. ......................................
The danger that a youngster might — e.g., by using an e-cigarette as intended, by handling the capsules, or even by attempting to drink the liquid — ingest a very dangerous (and possibly even lethal) dose of the drug nicotine is a very real risk because of the potential fbr these
devices to attract teens and younger children. As the FDA recently warned in news conference.

Today, counsel for SE/nJoy filed this in response to the ASH filing:

Today, Counsel for SE filed a Brief in Opposition of ASH's Leave to file an Amicius Curiae Brief and stated in relevent part:


Plaintiff Smoking Everywhere, Inc. ("SE"), by and through its undersigned counsel, respectfully submits this short memorandum in opposition to the Motion for Leave to Submit a Brief Amicus Curiae filed by Action on Smoking and Health ("ASH"). As described in further detail below, because ASH fails to present any legal arguments germane to the issue presently before the Court and because the motion is untimely, ASH's motion for leave should be denied.
"District Courts have inherent authority to appoint or deny amici which is derived from Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure." Jin v. Ministry of State Security, 557 F. Supp. 2d 131, 136 (D.D.C. 2008) (citations omitted). It is solely within the Court's discretion to determine the "fact, extent, and manner" of the participation. Id. (quoting Cobell v. Norton, 246 F. Supp. 2d 59, 62 (D.D.C. 2003)). The Seventh Circuit has described the circumstances in which an amicus should be permitted to participate as follows:
1 An amicus brief should normally be allowed when a party is not represented competently or is not represented at all, when the amicus has an interest in some other case that maybe affected by the decision in the present case (though not enough affected to entitle the amicus to intervene and become a party in the present case), or when the amicus has unique information or perspective that can help the Court beyond the help that the lawyers for the parties are able to provide. Otherwise, leave to file an amicus curiae brief should be denied.
Ryan v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n, 125 F.3d 1062, 1064 (7th Cir. 1997) (single circuit judge opinion by Posner, C.J.) (quoted in Jin, 557 F. Supp. 2d at 137 n.2, and Cobell, 246 F. Supp. 2d at 62). When a party objects to filing by a private amicus and leave of court is sought, Rule 29(b)(2) provides that the motion for leave must state, inter alia, "why the matters asserted are relevant to the disposition of the case." Jin, 557 F. Supp. 2d at 137 (citing Neonatology Assocs., P.A. v. Comm'r, 293 F.3d 128, 130-31 (3d Cir. 2002)).
Here, ASH's motion for leave claims that ASH seeks leave to participate to bring to the Court's attention "new information," including allegations that "E-cigarettes are now being advertised for us in administering Cialis (a prescription-only drug)" and claims that E-cigarettes "have been found to be 'potentially lethal to children.'" (ASH Mtn. at 1.)
Applying the standards described above, the FDA and the other defendants in this case are clearly represented by competent counsel. Additionally, ASH has not demonstrated that it has a concrete interest in some other case that may be affected by the outcome of this action. ASH also presents no unique information or perspective that will further assist the Court in rendering a decision on the crucial issue of whether the FDA has statutory authority to regulate Smoking Everywhere's E-cigarettes and thus ban imports of E-cigarettes because they constitute a "drug," "device," or "combination product" under Chapter V of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act ("FDCA").
[/font][/size][/font]Indeed, none of the information set forth in ASH's motion for leave or proposed amicus brief presents any cognizable legal argument on the central issue in this case. Rather, ASH's brief sets forth a series of unsubstantiated claims that: (i) are not in evidence; (ii) constitute hearsay; and (iii) are wholly irrelevant to the relief sought by the two plaintiffs in this action. ASH claims that one manufacturer of E-cigarettes is marketing E-cigarettes for use in administering a prescription-only drug, Cialis. This claim, if true, is wholly irrelevant, as nowhere does ASH claim that either SE or the other plaintiff in this action, NJOY, is marketing the product or any similar product which includes a substance that is clearly a "drug" under Chapter V of the FDCA.
Similarly, ASH cites to claims made by the FDA in a recent press conference that E-cigarettes may be "potentially lethal to children." If such alleged concerns were in fact legally relevant to the issue pending before this Court, one would expect that the FDA itself would have raised them at some point in the voluminous briefing and the two oral arguments that have already occurred. ASH's proposed "new information" that it wishes to bring before the Court thus constitutes nothing more than unsubstantiated hearsay and citations to a public relations offensive launched by the FDA itself in response to SE's filing of the instant action; the assertions ASH forwards are of absolutely no relevance to the legal issue awaiting the Court's decision.
Finally, the untimely nature of ASH's motion also militates against granting ASH leave to participate as an amicus. Cf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 24 (requiring a "timely motion" to intervene, whether permissively or as of right); Van Valin v. Locke, ___ F. Supp. 2d ___, 2009 WL 1796773, at **8-9 (D.D.C. 2009) (describing order in previous case between same parties
[/font][/size][/font]denying motion for leave to intervene to participate in preliminary injunction briefing and hearing where motion for leave filed only two days prior to hearing).
SE filed this action, including the pending motion for preliminary injunction, on April 28, 2009, and the first hearing on SE's motion for preliminary injunction was held on May 15, 2009. Supplemental briefing by the parties was commenced on June 23, 2009, by SE's filing of a motion for leave to file a brief of supplemental authority, and full supplemental briefing was completed on July 20, 2009. It was not until the afternoon of August 14, 2009, one business day before oral argument on the supplemental authority provided by the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, that ASH attempted to file its motion for leave and served copies of the motion on SE's counsel. Granting ASH leave at this late date would potentially require yet another round of supplemental briefing when SE's motion has already been pending for almost four months, further prejudicing SE by extending the amount of time during which it has been unlawfully deprived of the ability to import its product by the FDA's import ban.
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff Smoking Everywhere, Inc. respectfully requests that the Court deny ASH's Motion for Leave to Submit a Brief Amicus Curiae.

Looks like a very clean and direct Motion by SE. The timing of ASH's filing goes right against the grain of the Rules and it should not be allowed on that basis alone.

The above are cut and pasted from the "Daily Docket Update" thread on the other forum.

MasterVapor

Good grief! Cialis in an e-cig? Sounds like desperation time on the part the Nazi types that are trying to stop the e-cigs! What will they think next....it's bad cause you could accidentally vape DrainO? ....and potentially dangerous to children? So are friggin matches and cigarette lighters! Oh, I forgot, E-cigs DON'T need lighters So the 300 unit apartment complex will not burn down due to a child playing with matches or me with a lit cigarette in bed. Go figure....

renderwerks

Not to mention that if a child were to ingest a single analog - it could kill them.

A cig has about 1 gm (1000mg) of tobacco; conservatively, tobacco has 2% nicotine~

1000mg x .02= 20mg nicotine - lethal dose for a child under 10: 10mg

I don't hear ASS complaining about that

Rocketman

Let me practice turning your words around backwards (FDA style).

A typical high e-cig cartridge has 1/2 ml of 24mg/ml Bubblegum flavored e-juice in it. That's 12mg of Nicotine which would be a Lethal dose for a child.
Aren't number just great?

Kids swallow keys, quarters, I think a cartridge wold go down alot easier than an anolog cigarette.
Hope no one ever swallows one of those Cartomizers, you know the ones worth 70 cigarettes.


Rocket,
Does anyone know how much Cialis you put in a cartridge? And is the absorption higher or lower than Nicotine?

PUFFDADDY

THE ONE PUTTING CIALIS IN CARTRIDGES IS Electronic Cigarette | E Cigarette | E Liquid -, the guy who runs this site and manufacturers all this stuff is named SAM! I dug up some info here and apparently he has screwed over many people by taking the $$$ and not delivering the product. We need to BOYCOTT this idiot and get him the hell out of here!!!

VapingVictoria

Yeah, I finally got rid of my smokers cough the last thing I need is an erection. (ha ha?)

Rocketman

I agree Puff. A VapeAtron Admin should be able to block suppliers, , when requested by a member, and verified, from advertising and offering for trade obviously illegal products. I'm not referring to nic juice or the dreaded e-cig kid killer. But the chemical C22H19N3O4 is a prescription product in the U.S.
I wonder what certifications it takes to put Cialis in your e-juice?


V: don't knock on someone's door until you have walked a mile in their shoes, or something like that.

Rocket

Lazarus

I exposed this supplier back in early July on the other forum, noting his assinine contribution to e-juice formulations. Some members thought is was funny and even purchased some of this crap. One thoughtful member reported them to the FDA, hoping the willing exposure would indicate to the FDA that "We" were not interested in companies that abused their demographic customer base by offering stimulating or even weight loss formula e-juice.

Apparently this has back fired. Oh well, you live and learn.

dux4lux

Re Cialis in an eCig. Where the hell are they getting their information?

According to: InChI=1/C22H19N3O4/c1-24-10-19(26)25-16(22(24)27)9-14-13-4-2-3-5-15(13)23-20(14)21(25)12-6-7-17-18(8-12)29-11-28-17/h2-8,16,21,23H,9-11H2,1H3/t16-,21-/m1/s1

Boiling Pt, Melting Pt, Vapor Pressure Estimations (MPBPWIN v1.42):
Boiling Pt (deg C): 625.81 (Adapted Stein & Brown method)
Melting Pt (deg C): 271.37 (Mean or Weighted MP)
VP(mm Hg,25 deg C): 3.03E-014 (Modified Grain method)
Subcooled liquid VP: 1.56E-011 mm Hg (25 deg C, Mod-Grain method)

Since the eCigs run at about 50-60C, wouldn't that just more or less be a big ole waste of time? Where is this guy getting his information? What kind of professor is he? I mean, I may only have a doctorate in Metaphysics from an unaccredited church organization, but I think that he might be a little off mark here.