Is The Constitution Going Up In Vapor?
According to the Pacific Legal Foundation, it most certainly is, literally.
PLF has filed a lawsuit against the unconstitutional Food and Drug Administration over what is being promoted as a healthy alternative to smoking.
It’s a product that has been sweeping the nation for a couple of years now, and it called vaping.
Part of the claim is that the FDA devised a rule against vaping that appears to clearly attack the First Amendment by regulating what can be said about a product, even if those claims are true. Take a look at this short video.
According to PLF:
Electronic nicotine delivery systems—vaping devices and e-cigarettes—first hit U.S. stores in 2007. It didn’t take long for vaping to jump from zero to a $5 billion domestic industry, as entrepreneurs quickly recognized a market hungry for an alternative to traditional cigarettes.
In 2016, just as the burgeoning vaping industry was getting off the ground, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) stepped in with a rule that deems e-cigarettes as tobacco products, and brand new, severe regulations that will only harm the industry and perhaps overall public health—contrary to the agency’s very mission.
Using a unique legal theory, Pacific Legal Foundation is suing the FDA in three separate federal courtrooms—at the same time—on behalf of vape store owners and a harm reduction organization in several states who want to promote a more healthy alternative to smoking.
The unconstitutional rule burdens these individuals and organizations in unique ways, but all are united in opposition to its continued enforcement.
The FDA’s regulations are not only expensive and onerous, and prevent vaping entrepreneurs from fulfilling what they believe is a humanitarian mission of helping people, but the rule was illegal the second it hit the Federal Register.
How in the world is a product that produces water vapor a tobacco product? On what planet does that fly? The same one that the same Communists tell us we are in the midst of global warming, over population and need a nanny state to tell us what to eat and drink.
It’s unconstitutional because only Congress has legislative authority under our Constitution. Our Constitution doesn’t even mention an FDA, which has actually been the promoter of numerous drugs that have killed hundreds of thousands of people, according to its own website.
Here’s where the cases are taking place.
- In the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, PLF represents Joosie Vapes, owned by Denissa Moore and her husband, Larry Moore, Jr. Denissa used to smoke two packs a day, and tried to quit by using Chantix, nicotine patches, and even hypnosis. None of these were successful. She then turned to vaping and quit smoking after just a year. She founded Joosie Vapes with her husband in 2013 as a way to help others quit smoking.
- In the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, PLF represents five clients: Jen Hoban (pictured above), owner of Masterpiece Vapors, the Plume Room, J.H.T. Vape, Lakes Vape Supply, and Tobacco Harm Reduction 4 Life (THR4Life), a nonprofit organization.
- In the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, PLF represents four businesses in three states:
- Steve Green, owner of Mountain Vapors (California), was a 2+ pack a day smoker for 30 years who doctors warned was developing emphysema. A few years ago, his wife was given a vaping pen from a friend, which he tried and quit smoking that same day.
- Kimberly Manor founded Moose Jooce in Michigan, after her late husband passed away from lung cancer.
- PLF also represents Rustic Vapor in Michigan and Dutchman Vapors in North Dakota.
So, what is at stake in the case?
- Rule-makers need to follow the rules: Under the Constitution, issuing regulations is the job of appointed officials who answer to the democratic process, not unelected career bureaucrats. This vaping rule was issued by such a bureaucrat in violation of the Constitution.
- The vaping edict flouts the First Amendment by forcing businesses to run a daunting regulatory gauntlet in order to advertise truthful information. The government can’t require pre-approval for truthful speech, and it especially can’t shift the burden of proof to the speaker to prove the benefits of his speech will outweigh any harms the government perceives may result.
- Beyond violating the Constitution, the vaping rule is horrible public policy: it threatens to shut down thousands of small businesses that provide potentially life-saving products and creates a public safety hazard by making it very difficult to improve and repair products.
Continued infringements of the rights of the people by those who take an oath to uphold the Constitution and at every turn violate that oath cannot continue to be tolerated in this country. We have tolerated it too long. It’s way past time to abolish the unconstitutional FDA as strong arm of the DC government.