No, but it made the politicians of the town feel better. Maybe they think the young adults in their community would not consider driving to the next town over as it would require too much effort. Bet the next item on the agenda there is to ban dancing. It's the Devil's work.
Bad news for a B&M I go to
- Thread starter Outcast
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
No, but it made the politicians of the town feel better. Maybe they think the young adults in their community would not consider driving to the next town over as it would require too much effort. Bet the next item on the agenda there is to ban dancing. It's the Devil's work.
Even going by your link, sometime in December demands were made "which included substantial document requests." According to the owner, those demands included the names, purchases of each customer, and what was charged for 7+ years. A considerable task for any small business. Less then 2 months later, possibly just over a month later, the owner announced that he was giving up and closing his doors.
"The very next day, the Vermont Attorney General’s Office delivered a proposed settlement agreement", including the $50k fine, an admission of guilt, and to cease and desist.
Even your link does not dispute the contention that there was no way to avoid the substantial fine, a fine that came before any warning, before any request to remove the statements, and after closing the business was announced. I guess just running him out of business was not enough.
Yet you continue to argue in defense of these actions.......on a vaping message board, no less.
And here we've been admonished that blowing big clouds was the threat to vaping.
I know this. If you get Served Up with an Investigation from the State AG's Office and you just tell them that you Closing your Company and Moving Out of State, you are Asking them to File Against you.
I'm not Defending the Vermont Attorney General's Office. If Anything, I'm trying to Point Out what a Complete Rube Mr. Tredwell has been in running an e-Cigarette Company.
Because we don't Need Stories plastered across the Internet about e-Cigarette Companies being Charged with Deceptive Practices. That's Not the type of News that Helps Our Cause. Or makes people think that Less Regulations are Needed vs. More Regulations.
And for What? What did the Seller Gain by all the Bad Press that We have now received over this?
Nothing.
And given the fact
My initial impression was the Attorney General's office was basing its actions on information posted by users in reviews. That would stand a chance (a small one) for a defense regarding claims made. But if the guy did in fact make those claims, regardless of where it appeared in the website, does put him in a difficult position to pitch a defense to a court.
That, and the Dr. thing would be irritating to another attorney to witness without regarding it as a sleight of hand to somehow provide the blessing of a medical professional for the claims. As it was a harm reduction claim, it would be quite misleading for a reader to understand instead of a medical professional providing a testimonial, this was a lawyer in the vape business writing that copy.
Before going any further with this discussion, I have to ask what Mr. Tredwell has done other then the couple messages on his web site or FB that makes him a "Complete Rube?"
He placed on his Website that "e-cigarettes are better than smoking". Which was a Clear Violation of the FDA e-Cigarette Regulations.
You don't need to have a Doctorial Degree in Law from Temple to know that doing so was going to Attract the Attention of the Vermont Attorney General's Office. Someone that Mr. Tredwell has had Dealings with before.
Again, I believe FDA attention would be almost guaranteed. However, I'm still not clear how this is a matter for the state AG. (Though the FDA bit does make the discussion a bit moot).
I wonder if someone is going to go after Jamba juice for making the claim that "blended is better."
Super Blend™ Smoothies
I wonder if someone is going to go after Jamba juice for making the claim that "blended is better."
Super Blend™ Smoothies
There was another clarification in that link you provided:
"In an unusual twist, Vermont Vapor appears to have been involved in a separate trademark dispute in 2015 with an Assistant Attorney General for the State of Delaware after she started a competing online e-cigarette business (in her personal capacity) named “Vermont Vapors.” The Vermont Vapors website and social media pages have since been removed."
So it wasn't a Vermont Assistant Attorney General from the same office, but one from Delaware, who apparently didn't do a name check to assure she wasn't stepping on anyone's toes.
So far I'm not impressed with the critical thinking and careful business decisions made by lawyers going into the vape industry.
A couple more comments and I am out of here.
I am not about to think lowly of any individual starting and owning a vape shop or any other business based on their prior education and/or career choices. There are a lot of highly educated people in this country finding difficulties in gaining employment in their given field, the legal profession included. Should one feel they have a better option and are willing to take a chance, more power to them.
The only thing, I repeat, the ONLY THING Mr. Tredwell "did wrong" was make statements that did not fall in line with the FDA deeming regs. I guess we should all just give up and accept those regulations as the law of the land, no matter how restrictive and egregious they may be. Even if his statements were intended to push the envelope, does the punishment fit the "crime?"
If in this particular case, we vapers choose to make Mr. Tredwell "the bad guy" because he didn't "follow the rules", intentional or not, raise the white flag.....the war is truly lost.
I am not about to think lowly of any individual starting and owning a vape shop or any other business based on their prior education and/or career choices. There are a lot of highly educated people in this country finding difficulties in gaining employment in their given field, the legal profession included. Should one feel they have a better option and are willing to take a chance, more power to them.
The only thing, I repeat, the ONLY THING Mr. Tredwell "did wrong" was make statements that did not fall in line with the FDA deeming regs. I guess we should all just give up and accept those regulations as the law of the land, no matter how restrictive and egregious they may be. Even if his statements were intended to push the envelope, does the punishment fit the "crime?"
If in this particular case, we vapers choose to make Mr. Tredwell "the bad guy" because he didn't "follow the rules", intentional or not, raise the white flag.....the war is truly lost.
I don't blame them for not fighting. I would so love to see this go before a judge though and have someone try to prove that the claim "vaping is better than smoking" is false.
No. No we Shouldn't.
What we Should be Doing is Challenging Federal Regulations in Federal Court. ala Nicopure et al.
All this Vermont Vapor saga did was Give the Media One More Negative Story about e-Cigarettes.
Nobody has mentioned the other things the AG demanded. Like say ohh. All the info of all their customers for the last seven years. All of it. It's not all about the 50g he is protecting his customers rights and privacy. Here is a comment from the stores regional manager.
Linda Barker
Regional Manager at Vermont Vapor
well, there's the one that told us we could not put out our vaping skeleton and santa (they even demanded we not put out our vaping easter bunny....which we never would have because bunnies don't smoke so why would they use an e-cig?). Where in the statutes does it say that they have the power to tell a business what they can and can't put on their own property?
And then there's the one that states we have to remove any video from our website and social media pages that mentioned anyone getting off cigarettes by using these products (they even mentioned an episode of "The Doctors" where e-cigs were discussed)
We'd have to remove any reviews of our products where the reviewer states that they have quit smoking because of the products.
And then there's the thing abt wanting us to identify our customers and detail what every one of them bought and what they paid for it for the past 7 1/2 yrs....both online and in our retail store.
I'm sure there's more that I'm forgetting. Last but not least they wanted us to stop talking to the media about what was going on
Linda Barker
Regional Manager at Vermont Vapor
well, there's the one that told us we could not put out our vaping skeleton and santa (they even demanded we not put out our vaping easter bunny....which we never would have because bunnies don't smoke so why would they use an e-cig?). Where in the statutes does it say that they have the power to tell a business what they can and can't put on their own property?
And then there's the one that states we have to remove any video from our website and social media pages that mentioned anyone getting off cigarettes by using these products (they even mentioned an episode of "The Doctors" where e-cigs were discussed)
We'd have to remove any reviews of our products where the reviewer states that they have quit smoking because of the products.
And then there's the thing abt wanting us to identify our customers and detail what every one of them bought and what they paid for it for the past 7 1/2 yrs....both online and in our retail store.
I'm sure there's more that I'm forgetting. Last but not least they wanted us to stop talking to the media about what was going on
Seriously, why should any of us have to put up with this nonsense.? Like I said, it's a commercial decision. Not a legal one. We're running out of Dagny's.
Good luck.
Good luck.
Last edited:
Have you no compassion or morals in your quest for mindless, over thought debate?
Serious question.
Tapatyped
Seriously...
What is your real, current occupation?
And your employer?
And how am I the only one who's ever questioned this?
You posit that people are too stupid to assume that the prefix Dr. pertains to solely a level of education in he absence of a specific indicative suffix such as MD or DO.
I posit that while that may be true to certain subsets of people, it's their own fault if they choose to believe any claim simply by the addition of an affix to a name, especially in the information age.
Furthermore, I quit smoking thanks to e-cigs. So did YOU. They saved my life!
AG, FDA , BG... COME MAKE ME PAY FOR MY CLAIMS!!!
Sincerely;
Dr. F. U. D., MD
Tapatyped
I think its sad that another "seemingly" good vendor is biting the dust. He "may" have brought it on himself by pushing the line, but then again the lines that currently exist (and are being drawn ever tighter) are making it hard for many vendors to stay in business. Look at IA, PA, and others.
This industry is being picked off one Mom&Pop at a time. In a year or three only the big box stores (BT) will be left.
Its just sad.......
And to be honest, I cant blame any of these business owners for throwing in the towel. Fighting the good fight is downright expensive. The lawyers certainly make a bunch of money, but does a business owner want to see his life's earning go down the legal fee drain. Some of these guys have been fighting the good fight for years, and already spent a small fortune on it. Can you really blame them for wanting to take their marbles and go home?
That being said, I admire the ones who do stay and fight, I hope it pays off for them in the long haul.
Then there are silent ones, the guys working feverishly to try and get PMTAs submitted. The guys who are trying to navigate the new regs and survive in spite of them.
This industry is being picked off one Mom&Pop at a time. In a year or three only the big box stores (BT) will be left.
Its just sad.......
And to be honest, I cant blame any of these business owners for throwing in the towel. Fighting the good fight is downright expensive. The lawyers certainly make a bunch of money, but does a business owner want to see his life's earning go down the legal fee drain. Some of these guys have been fighting the good fight for years, and already spent a small fortune on it. Can you really blame them for wanting to take their marbles and go home?
That being said, I admire the ones who do stay and fight, I hope it pays off for them in the long haul.
Then there are silent ones, the guys working feverishly to try and get PMTAs submitted. The guys who are trying to navigate the new regs and survive in spite of them.
Seriously...
What is your real, current occupation?
And your employer?
And how am I the only one who's ever questioned this?
You posit that people are too stupid to assume that the prefix Dr. pertains to solely a level of education in he absence of a specific indicative suffix such as MD or DO.
I posit that while that may be true to certain subsets of people, it's their own fault if they choose to believe any claim simply by the addition of an affix to a name, especially in the information age.
Furthermore, I quit smoking thanks to e-cigs. So did YOU. They saved my life!
AG, FDA , BG... COME MAKE ME PAY FOR MY CLAIMS!!!
Sincerely;
Dr. F. U. D., MD
Tapatyped
Do I have Compassion for someone who Brought this all on Themselves?
Someone who is supposed to hold a Doctorial Degree in Law that is supposed to know Better?
And someone who gives the Media another Negative Story about e-Cigarettes?
No. I Don't.
I have Compassion for the two B&M Owners I know who are watching their business being Decimated by Federal Regulations. And Helped them raise a Lot of Money in an attempt to raise awareness about CA Prop. 56.
Because they are out their on the Front Lines trying to Do Something about their Situation.
That's bologna. Period.
Regardless of intimate knowledge of the inner workings of law, if laws are passed specifically with malice and purpose against you only with intent to harm you, you're a sitting duck fighting by the letter of the law in a court of law.
This delusion that this has anything to do with this shop owner is awe inspiring.
The fact that he ignored what he did surely made things worse for him.
But the onus falls deeply within the greed and injustice handed out by legislators in favor of deadly tobacco and the companies that make a killing (pun intended) profiting from it.
Let's not drown ourselves in the details of this case and ignore the root cause and the bigger picture.
P. S. If I were employed by BT or BG to find a way to screw the little guy, I'd simply print your post history and bring it to a board meeting for review.
You're brilliant at finding ways.
Tapatyped
Sometimes the answer is simple, you have to take a a stand. You take your toys and go home. You make a rightful statement. You walk away from the unconscionable.
If some of our best examples cannot win to hold their own against the perverted excesses of authority, what chance have you or I?
The Seven Social Sins:
Politics [lawlessness] without principle.
Wealth without work.
Commerce without morality.
Pleasure without conscience.
Education without character.
Science without humanity.
Worship without sacrifice.
Good luck.
- Status
Similar threads
