Senator David Leyonhjelm is acting like an errand boy in Parliament for "big tobacco", writes Simon Chapman in The Drum.

Clearly, this requested action brings up significant issues under the Compact Clause, issues which certainly do not qualify for an exception from this clause under the Supreme Court's decision in United States Steel. (For a detailed discussion of how enforcing the MSA on electronic cigarette companies would violate the Compact Clause, see the excellent submitted by the Competitive Enterprise Institute in S&M Brands.)

While there is still a lot we do not know about the exact magnitude of any long-term risks associated with electronic cigarette use, vapers should be quite reassured that after at least five years of research into the health effects of vaping, the worst that electronic cigarette opponents can say is: "Well ... they're not harmless."

1. Altria Client Services (on behalf of Nu Mark): "Nothing in the FSPTCA [Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act] requires FDA to engage in all-or-nothing deeming for all purposes. Rather than deem an entire class of tobacco products categorically subject to the FSPTCA for all purposes, FDA has multiple options for proceeding in a reasoned, scientifically sound, and incremental manner. For example, FDA should exercise its statutory authority to deem e-vapor products commercially marketed before the Final Rule for certain purposes under the FSPTCA. Such products would be subject to age restrictions, warning labels, and disclosure requirements, without subjecting them to premarket authorization. Only those e-vapor products commercially marketed after issuance of the Final Rule would be subject to ... premarket authorization."

LAST：K102 Ecigar MOD vaporizer k102 e cig 2014 new ecig k102 kamry |NEXT：Green Smoke Disposable Pure Vapor E Smoking From S-Bodytech