(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: