On the Unconstitutional Nature of Flavor Bans

So what, exactly, is the legal method of e-liquid “flavor banning?”

If there is “substantial equivalence” between cup cake frosting flavoring an 0mg e-liquid (identical ingredients) how can one be “banned” and not the other?

See: https://lwgat.blogspot.com/2015/01/ejuice-in-indiana-criminalized-frosting.html and https://lwgat.blogspot.com/2018/06/kingdom-vapor-wins-against-state-of.html

At least in Pennsylvania from a tax perspective USB chargers, for example, have to be treated uniformly with regard to sales tax, i.e., no 40% on vape shop USB chargers and 6% at Walmart.

All e-liquid is taxed by state sales tax mechanisms.

I have argued the same is true for 0mg e-liquid as it’s identical to cupcake flavoring and differs only by “intent” of use - which fails the Pennsylvania constitution test of uniformity.

[ Crickets... ]

But on and on the Vaperatti fight “flavor bans.”  

Stepping back one sees the larger picture:  The Uniformity cause of the US Constitution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxing_and_Spending_Clause) says “…but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States [my underline];”.  So can I have one tax rate on cup cake frosting and another on the same ingredients labeled for another purpose?

Kingdom has proven the answer is no.

Proven it.

[ Crickets... ]

Many other states, e.g., Wisconsin, Illinois, Nebraska, all seem to have a similar clause.

Yet all we see is dancing around…

No focus on the real problem: much "anti-vaping" legislation is simply unconstitutional.

EDIT: And just so you know, I believe Kingdom funded the challenge themselves....

Note too that 0mg "frosting flavor" + a "nic shot" => e-liquid that is not subject to a "ban." (Banning nicotine would stop tobacco, tomatoes, egg plant, and so on...)