General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Do smoking bans apply to e-cigarettes? [View all]Tyhanna
(145 posts)This is a little old dont you think, alot has changed in the research and devlopement since then. They have improved and gotten better batteries, better juice, juice that is made here in the US. Your are linking very old news that all the ANTZ use to defend their stance.
The FDA used cartomizers from china at that time and they were faulty, and that problem was corrected.
There has been studies and links sent put here to show you what they are finding within the last year. Even with the problems nobody got sick or nobody died from using them.
"Tobacco specific nitrosamines that are human carcinogens were detected in 1?2 of
the samples"
the amounts were below excepted standards.
"Tobacco-specific impurities suspected of being harmful to humans anabasine,
myosmine, and B-nicotyrine were detected in a majority of the samples. "
again were below the excepted standards.
myosmine is also found in other foods
"In a follow-up study, myosmine was found to be present in staple foods like wheat, rice, and maize but also in fruits, vegetables, and milk (Tyroller et al., 2002). "
http://dmd.aspetjournals.org/content/33/11/1648.full
Sottera Inc or now NJoy was who sued. and the judge opinion was to make it a tobacco product.
"On December 7, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit struck down a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) effort to broaden its own jurisdiction by expansively interpreting what is meant by a medical device. The court ruled that Congress did not intend to permit FDA to regulate electronic cigarettes (or e-cigarettes) as medical devices. The decision was a victory for WLF, which filed a brief opposing FDAs regulatory efforts. The court agreed with WLF that FDAs authority to regulate medical devices is limited to products promoted for their therapeutic benefits, at least when the products are derived from tobacco. The court held that e-cigarettes are not medical devices because they are not promoted for any therapeutic use. If FDA wishes to regulate the sale of e-cigarettes, it may do so only in connection with its authority to regulate tobacco products, the court said."
http://www.wlf.org/litigating/case_detail.asp?id=629
"On Tuesday December 7th, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower courts ruling in Sottera, Inc. v. FDA, No. 10-5032, (D.C. Cir. Dec. 7, 2010) holding that that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) could not regulate as a medical device the electronic cigarettes (often referred to as e-cigarettes) at issue in that case. Instead, the court affirmed the district courts finding that FDAs authority over these e-cigarettes, as labeled, was limited to that over traditional tobacco products"
http://www.fdalawblog.com/2011/01/articles/legislation/ecigarettes-get-a-smoking-break-dc-circuit-clarifies-scope-of-fdas-authority-over-ecigarettes/
The smoke anywhere case was this when FDA tryed to ban e-cigarettes from being brought into the country, and they could not do that. It was not in their power to do at the time.
"A Florida company that imports and distributes so-called electronic cigarettes filed suit yesterday against the Food and Drug Administration, claiming the agency is illegally blocking imports of its product into the United States.
The suit, filed by Smoking Everywhere in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, argues that the FDA has overstepped its regulatory authority by banning shipments of the devices and insisting they need to go through the drug approval process."
http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2009/04/fda-sued-over-electronic-cigarette-embargo-.html
so you do have things a bit confused.
But I totally understand you dont know anything about what you are talking about so Im sure it could be confusing.