Hoosier Vapers, Common Sense and Simple Science

I have to say that I like the Hoosier challenge to the Indiana anti-vaping law.  This is not just a "you didn't do your homework lawsuit."  It seems to reach further into the more substantive issues.

(The link above is to a drop box containing both the suit as well as the arguments of the defendants - in this case the State of Indiana.  So far I don't see the state refuting the basic science put forth.  There is, of course, argument about the application of the law which is harder to discern at this point.)

This suit contemplates a difference between tobacco and nicotine, a difference between e-liquid containing nicotine and one that does not, a difference between a "tobacco product" and things not made of tobacco.  Seems like common sense.

It also addresses an important notion of basic science: nicotine is not tobacco.  One which various advocacy people think cannot be won.

In Count III we here customer's won't be able to discern between "tobacco nicotine" and synthetic nicotine (98).  Similar to this post I wrote two years ago.  Of course, if it fails I accept my failure as well.  None-the-less its good to see there is a place for common sense and science.

Next we see this:

Here they argue that the new law creates standards that are stricter for e-liquid than for food or tobacco.  I think this applies in the case of the FDA "deeming regulations" as well.

Finally:

Here the argument is simple: nicotine is a "naturally occurring substance" to which the state magically applies special properties if its used in e-liquid and magically makes e-liquid without nicotine an item to be regulated.

Of course there are substantive legal elements here if you read the various back and forth between the parties in the drop box.

But these types of arguments are what's required to keep vaping free.

Arguments to delay the FDA, for example, don't really make vaping free.  These arguments do.