Indiana HB 1432 signed into law and takes effect July 1st, 2015

[zoiDman]

correct me if l am wrong.
any state may license and or regulate anything they want
if they believe it's in the best interest of its citizens.
regards
mike

Sure. If a State can get it Passed, and if the Governor will sign it, then it will become a State Law. Of course, the Law can be Challenged in the Courts. But that is another Issue.

But here is the Question.

Can Indiana's Licensing Requirements apply to People/Companies in Minnesota?

 

[sd3614]

I read thru the bill and that was my take as well. Manufacture for sale is the issue I think or importing for sale.

Kitchen juice makers for sale and vape shop house blends are dead.

I hope in all states that do this stuff that vape shops can unite and lease a top end facility to produce and pack their products. It would help them all reduce cost and meet regulation. All of them standing alone will get their tails handed to them, but there could be a way to outsmart the regulation.

I also believe you will see a more public thing happen called "co-packers" where they can meet all standards and do orders to recipe and ship to the states that have cronyism run a muck. Yes, it will increase cost. Taxation will be next in Indiana after they see how many are left.

 

[sd3614]

Sure. If a State can get it Passed, and if the Governor will sign it, then it will become a State Law. Of course, the Law can be Challenged in the Courts. But that is another Issue.

But here is the Question.

Can Indiana's Licensing Requirements apply to People/Companies in Minnesota?

Our Governor will sign and pass piece of toilet paper if a hundred dollar bill is under neath.

 

[mcol]

Next year is a big voting year, make sure you Hoosiers get out and vote.
Here is who voted for this bill:

 

[KattMamma]

Found this while googling... 4 companies suing Indiana over new vape law :

LEGATO VAPORS LLC et al, v. COOK, et al. :: Justia Dockets & Filings

 

[skoony]

Sure. If a State can get it Passed, and if the Governor will sign it, then it will become a State Law. Of course, the Law can be Challenged in the Courts. But that is another Issue.

But here is the Question.

Can Indiana's Licensing Requirements apply to People/Companies in Minnesota?

yes.
i will give you an example from Minnesota.
many years back it came to the attention of the
politicians out of state contractors were low balling
estimates in order to win contracts with the state.
primarily in road construction and or repair.
these company's primarily from down south would
bring in their own crews. the problem lied in the
fact that their wages and benefits were substantially
lower than the prevailing wages and benefits being
paid to in state workers. they could low ball any
in state contractor and actually make more profit.
the state stepped in and required licensing for
for any contractor. their rationale was the out of state
workers pay was cheating the state out of tax revenue
and undermining the employment prospects of workers
who lived in the state and worked for in state companies.
they are now required to pay their workers at a rate
the state determines is equitable.

as another example which applies to out of state
companies who's product is purchased out of state
is the office supply industry. back before the computer
revolution in business and home took place prior to
the early 80's or so a lot of the paper work was done
manually. out of state suppliers were low balling
the contracts for the states purchase of office supplies.
for the same reasons the state required licensing even
though the companies were completely out of state
and had no physical presence in the state.
in the terms of e-supplies the state is simply saying
their tax base is being eroded undermining the financial
well being of the states citizens and also to protect the
health and safety of its residents.
what does this mean as far as the inter state commerce
clause. nothing. the state is not restricting inter state
commerce because every one in state and out of state
are playing by the same rules. the level playing field.
please note that e-cigarettes are considered tobacco
products and as such it gives the state even more
power in terms of licensing and regulation.

regards
mike

 

[jseah]

yes.
i will give you an example from Minnesota.
many years back it came to the attention of the
politicians out of state contractors were low balling
estimates in order to win contracts with the state.
primarily in road construction and or repair.
these company's primarily from down south would
bring in their own crews. the problem lied in the
fact that their wages and benefits were substantially
lower than the prevailing wages and benefits being
paid to in state workers. they could low ball any
in state contractor and actually make more profit.
the state stepped in and required licensing for
for any contractor. their rationale was the out of state
workers pay was cheating the state out of tax revenue
and undermining the employment prospects of workers
who lived in the state and worked for in state companies.
they are now required to pay their workers at a rate
the state determines is equitable.

as another example which applies to out of state
companies who's product is purchased out of state
is the office supply industry. back before the computer
revolution in business and home took place prior to
the early 80's or so a lot of the paper work was done
manually. out of state suppliers were low balling
the contracts for the states purchase of office supplies.
for the same reasons the state required licensing even
though the companies were completely out of state
and had no physical presence in the state.
in the terms of e-supplies the state is simply saying
their tax base is being eroded undermining the financial
well being of the states citizens and also to protect the
health and safety of its residents.
what does this mean as far as the inter state commerce
clause. nothing. the state is not restricting inter state
commerce because every one in state and out of state
are playing by the same rules. the level playing field.
please note that e-cigarettes are considered tobacco
products and as such it gives the state even more
power in terms of licensing and regulation.

regards
mike

Regarding your example of the out of state contractors, the state of Minnesota can't dictate how much the out of state contractor pays their employees. That would be essentially trying to enact a labor law on a company outside of their jurisdiction. What they can do, however, is to put a requirement into their contracting process that states that in order for a company to be awarded a contract, they must pay prevailing wage. So if the company wants the government contract, the employees working on that project would have to be paid prevailing wage. Big difference. The Minnesota government can say that any construction company working on a Minnesota government contract has to pay at least X. They can't say that any construction company working on a contract for a private concern in Minnesota has to pay at least X. That would be like them saying that if GM wants to sell cars in the state of Minnesota, then the employees building the cars in Detroit has to be paid at least X.

When I was going through college, I worked in the purchasing department of a major municipality in California and they had a prevailing wage requirement in their government contracts. They also had WBE/MBE (woman owned and minority owned business) requirements which gave preference in their bidding towards those businesses (a woman/minority owned business may still be awarded a contract even though their bid is higher), or if the project had a certain percentage goal and the general contractor had WBE/MBE subcontractors. This, of course, meant that you had many closely held construction companies being put into the wife's name (while the husband did all the work) solely because this meant the company was now a woman-owned company. Quite a racket.

 

[Robert Cromwell]

Sure. If a State can get it Passed, and if the Governor will sign it, then it will become a State Law. Of course, the Law can be Challenged in the Courts. But that is another Issue.

But here is the Question.

Can Indiana's Licensing Requirements apply to People/Companies in Minnesota?

Maybe so. You have to have a CA certified lawnmower or small gas engine to sell it over the internet to a CA resident.

If they put requirements like in the above post where certain levels of diketones levels require disclosure or no sale if to high in state then they can kill all over the net sales if the product does not meet that requirement.

It will become a bit clearer by enforcement time one year from now and I expect the law to be tweaked a bit by then too.

 

[Rossum]

Maybe so. You have to have a CA certified lawnmower or small gas engine to sell it over the internet to a CA resident

Or California will do what, exactly?

 

[zoiDman]

Maybe so. You have to have a CA certified lawnmower or small gas engine to sell it over the internet to a CA resident.

...

That is a Good Point.

 

[zoiDman]

Or California will do what, exactly?

That is a Very Good Question.

 

[Verb]

The law says things like "manufacture" could mean "person". It mentions 10ML is manufacturing. It mentions "felony". It tells a vape shop that if they make you a custom 30ML bottle of juice they must keep something like 3 10ML samples put back for 3 years? It's insane.

10ML or 10mL? 1ML=1,000,000,000mL

 

[jseah]

Maybe so. You have to have a CA certified lawnmower or small gas engine to sell it over the internet to a CA resident.

But doesn't that fall under the jurisdiction of the state because the engine has to meet state emissions requirements? California isn't requiring the seller to be licensed by the state to sell lawn mowers to a CA resident.

And of course that doesn't come close to the nightmare scenario of the California Highway Patrol stationed at the state border to issue tickets to cars entering the state that doesn't meet state emissions requirements. I mention this because other posters asked if they travel to Indiana with their non-state approved juice whether they would get into trouble.

 

[jseah]

Someone earlier also joked about the state checking packages coming through USPS searching for illegal juice. First off, unless they actually had a court order/warrant, they would be committing a federal offense by searching your mail, not to mention violating the Fourth Amendment.

 

[sd3614]

10ML or 10mL? 1ML=1,000,000,000mL

I do need to clarify previous statement. It is actually a gray area if the batch is small. That is a good thing.

 

[Robert Cromwell]

I do need to clarify previous statement. It is actually a gray area if the batch is small. That is a good thing.


View attachment 468300

So they make juice in 1.99 litre batches? I assume the rest of the precautions and rules apply except for keeping 3 10 ML samples?

 

[sd3614]

It says if a batch is more than a 2 liters THEN they have to have the samples. So yes if someone made 1.99 liters then it would appear they need not keep the samples. Like I said that seems vague, almost leaving an intentional door open for the custom batch.

There is more gray, a production batch is not defined and it is implied that 0 nicotine is subject to all the rules as a "liquid that can be vaporized". Previous page has the link to the bill.

25% of the law makes sense, the rest is a mess.

 

[DaveP]

Most of the states are in a pinch for money and have sold their rights to the tobacco settlement money for a reduced payment. It's no wonder they are looking at regulating ecigs to tax their way back into solvency. The article below is from 2003 and talks about how Wisconsin sold their tobacco settlement agreement the first year to finance that year's budget.

USATODAY.com - States squander chance to fight smoking

States squander chance to fight smoking
By Rick Hampson, USA TODAY

After Wisconsin's $5.9 billion settlement in the national tobacco lawsuit four years ago, Attorney General James Doyle said his state could afford $100 million a year to fight smoking — $99 million more than it was spending.

His colleagues around the nation agreed: The $246 billion cigarette makers would pay the 50 states over 25 years could finance a sustained war on America's deadliest habit.

Although some state officials favored other uses for the money — school construction, medical research, tax cuts — few disagreed when Doyle called the tobacco litigation funds "the chance of a lifetime."

But in January when Doyle was sworn in as governor, Wisconsin's billions were already gone.

That's because the state, facing the worst fiscal crisis in its history, had sold 25 years of tobacco payments for $1.3 billion upfront to balance a single year's budget.

 

[skoony]

Regarding your example of the out of state contractors, the state of Minnesota can't dictate how much the out of state contractor pays their employees. That would be essentially trying to enact a labor law on a company outside of their jurisdiction. What they can do, however, is to put a requirement into their contracting process that states that in order for a company to be awarded a contract, they must pay prevailing wage. So if the company wants the government contract, the employees working on that project would have to be paid prevailing wage. Big difference

that's what i meant by the state determining whats equitable.
why is it not the same thing as dictating what they must pay
their employees? you see we have this law. it dictates what you must pay.
(the prevailing wage.)
just semantics.means the same thing.
regards
mike

 

[Racehorse]

Mount Baker Vaper (who recently sent an email pretty much stating if the law passed they wouldn't be selling juice here) or half if not more of the local vape shops

Was going to bring this up in the recent arkansas bill topic, but I'll say it here, too.

It's really nice to know that vendors in the industry, esp. when so many of them harp on right to vape and all that activism, that it is only lip service.

When the pedal hits the metal, now its "we won't ship to you" or "we don't want to pay $50 a year for a permit to ship to IN or AR" blah blah blah when everyone is making such a good living off vapers.


By the way, while everyone was saying FDA every other word every other day, it's local, municipal, regional laws that are affecting vaping. It's like focusing people on the wrong sniper, rather than the one who has a bullet aimed at your head......causing people to look the other way.

Just seem to me that vapers in IN and AR are pretty much being told "yer on yer own". Boy it sure feels good for vapers in these states to be deserted ............the *cough* activism that so many vendors talk about doesn't really exist then, right?

Also, where are the "underground railroad" types who are offering to ship ejuice to vapers in AR or IN?

The AR topic was up for 24 hours then died and went past page 10 after DAY ONE.

So much real activism I can hardly take it


BTW, states do need the money. I know AR does, esp. since there are also other things in play such as so many "dry counties" here so they are not getting tax $$ for beer or liquor that people drive to OK to get. I really never thought we wouldn't eentually be taxed...I am used to paying sales taxes, even on food (which I think is way more unfortunate....it hurts poor people). So I would fight to kill taxes on groceries here before taxes on vaping since the food thing affects about 99% more human beings. That said, states do have to get $ from somewhere and most of us understand that. I would rather a tax than any kind of bans though.

Waht some people didn't realize in the AR case is that the gov is on some kind of homeland security panel, and has been for quite some time. The bans here are directly related to not being able to validate the AGE REQIIREMENT to buy nicotine products. I didn't look up the particulars on the 2 Republicans who are responsible for writing the Bill that banned online sales to AR, but I do understand why the gov signed it after they did, since he is affiliated with homeland security

But thank you to the vendors who have made no effort to figure out a way to spend $50 to send us ejuice purchases. I think I will start a Hall of Shame on them....I wonder how many of us here in AR sent our precious $$$ out of state all these years to online vendors outside our borders instead of buying from local B&Ms?