8 replies to this topic

[jeffb]

By DAVID KESMODEL

The fledgling electronic-cigarette industry scored another victory against the Food and Drug Administration in federal court Monday, potentially setting the stage for the battery-powered devices to be regulated like conventional tobacco products.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected the FDA's request to have the entire court review a December decision by a three-judge panel that went against the agency.

The FDA, which contends that the products should be regulated as drug devices, now has the option of asking the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the case. An FDA spokesman said Monday that the agency is evaluating the latest court ruling "and considering its legal and regulatory options."

E-cigarettes are battery-powered tubes that turn nicotine-laced liquid into a vapor mist. The devices have caught on with thousands of smokers who want an alternative to their daily habit, leading to annual industry revenue of at least $100 million.

On Dec. 7, a three-judge D.C. appeals panel ruled that e-cigarettes, which are sold online and in malls, should be regulated as tobacco products by the FDA unless marketers make claims that the devices help smokers quit or provide other remedies.

The agency has argued that e-cigarettes are drug or medical devices that require pre-approval from the FDA, much like nicotine gums, patches or sprays. The agency began intercepting shipments of e-cigarettes from China in 2008, prompting a lawsuit from the industry.

Sottera Inc., an Arizona e-cigarette distributor that joined the suit as a plaintiff, and some other e-cigarette purveyors say their products are simply recreational alternatives to cigarettes and should not be subject to the onerous pre-approval process required of quit-smoking aids.

The agency has regulated nicotine-replacement products for years and gained authority to regulate the production and marketing of cigarettes and other tobacco prodcuts for the first time in 2009. If the government decided to regulate e-cigarettes as tobacco products, manufacturers would still face significant regulations, but it would be easier to bring the devices into the market.

"We are very pleased with the court's decision not to rehear the case," Gregory Garre, an attorney who represents Sottera, said in an email Monday. "The fact that the full court unanimously declined the government's rehearing request underscores the force of the panel's original decision."

The appeals court Monday also refused to reinstate a stay of a preliminary injunction that was granted to the e-cigarette distributors by a U.S. district-court judge in January 2010. The injunction blocked the agency from intercepting their product shipments from China.

Write to David Kesmodel at david.kesmodel@wsj.com

[Uma]

SWEEEEEET!!!!!!

[PsychoMaster]

Sigh..FDA will you never learn? Of course not...wallowing in greed and ignorance, they merely want control of everything they can. Sounds a lot like the FDA needs stuff like this to happen a lot more, to let them know their place. They are supposed to "regulate" things and protect the general public...but too often are they doing the EXACT opposite.
Still, AWESOME that this happened! Makes me feel all warm inside.

[juliery]

Let's hope there will be similar results in NY.  As usual it is all about greed.  Has nothing to do with safety or health....IF it did they would be banning cigarettes, not e cigarettes.  JUST by eliminating the burning and smoke you already are better off, with all the respiratory problems just smoke causes.  So even if the rest of it was the same, that alone would make them safer.  The entire discussion is idiotic.  I could at least respect this stuff IF they were honest about their motivation.  Hey the tobacco and pharmaceutical lobbyists and giants are pushing for this...plus we don't need hundreds of thousands, and an ever increasing amount of people living longer....we can't afford it.  But this nonsensical saying it about safety, give me a break, IF that is a concern it is WAY down on the list.

[snubber]

Glad to hear that they got knocked on their ***.  
The worst part about it is that a lot of vendors lost a lot of money because of their controlling ways.  If I were a judge I'd make the FDA reimburse every one they took shipments from.

[easilyamused]

snubber, on 25 January 2011 - 07:05 AM, said:

Glad to hear that they got knocked on their ***.  
The worst part about it is that a lot of vendors lost a lot of money because of their controlling ways.  If I were a judge I'd make the FDA reimburse every one they took shipments from.

that is exactly what Totally Wicked is planing on doing, they just sent an email saying they are going to court to get their confiscated shipments back! I believe this court ruling will be of great help in their case  

[SmokeSkins]

Awesome to hear!

[flowersbl]

I hope wickeds turmoil has no effect on my order i just placed!!

[Sharon]

flowersbl, on 16 February 2011 - 09:32 PM, said:

I hope wickeds turmoil has no effect on my order i just placed!!

It doesn't.  I called them yesterday to ask that question because I am waiting on my order.