How to Get Around Future E Cig Taxes

[CMD-Ky]

Not Disagreeing with someone like the ACLU desire to fight on a State or Local Level. So no, the ACLU does not need to wait for the Anything.

My thoughts were more Aligned with the ACLU fighting against Federal Regulations.

If the only contest were federal, I would agree. It is not, the local litigation could well be the most effective. However, I, quietly, despair that the ACLU will have an interest in the prohibitionists at the local or national level.

 

[zoiDman]

The question is why would the ACLU "need" to wait for federal regulation. There are many local and state prohibitions and restrictions that are being enacted now. The ACLU could certainly wait for the feds but they could now easily address local prohibitions that that are completely unrelated to to federal regulations. Therefore. why the "need" to await the feds.?

The ACLU frequently acts locally, see manger scenes in town squares, Ten Commandments in local buildings and Christmas trees for instance. No federal regs there, right? Rolygate's "need" for the ACLU to await federal regulation is, well ...[self-regulation] not necessary.

BTW - Do you see the Dynamics of Lawsuit against say a State Ban on e-Cigarette use where Smoking is Prohibited changing once e-liquids that contain Nicotine are deemed to be a "tobacco Product" on the Federal Level?

 

[zoiDman]

If the only contest were federal, I would agree. It is not, the local litigation could well be the most effective. However, I, quietly, despair that the ACLU will have an interest in the prohibitionists at the local or national level.

I agree.

------------------

 

[CMD-Ky]

BTW - Do you see the Dynamics of Lawsuit against say a State Ban on e-Cigarette use where Smoking is Prohibited changing once e-liquids that contain Nicotine are deemed to be a "Tobacco Product" on the Federal Level?

Yes, I do. Hence local and state litigation is desirable. Look at state versus national legislation, such as Colorado law and federal law on unmentionable substances. Also, I think confronting a problem when small and local to be preferable to confrontation with the federal government. If we all await the feds to take action before we act, we are at a severe disadvantage. And so, I commend Anrdia's thinking.

That is why I ask Rolygate, "Why".

 

[zoiDman]

Yes, I do. Hence local and state litigation is desirable. Look at state versus national legislation, such as Colorado law and federal law on unmentionable substances. Also, I think confronting a problem when small and local to be preferable to confrontation with the federal government. If we all await the feds to take action before we act, we are at a severe disadvantage.

That is why I ask Rolygate, "Why".

Yeah... That is Something I do Not Understand?

Unless Article Six, Clause Two of the United States Constitution doesn't apply in Colorado.

Or in Washington DC either?

 

[CMD-Ky]

Yeah... That is Something I do Not Understand?


Unless Article Six, Clause Two of the United States Constitution doesn't apply in Colorado.

Or in Washington DC either?

I understand your frustration. The sad fact is that we are witnessing the dissolution of the constitutional republic. We are transitioning into a regulatory and litigation oligarchy. This will devolve into a dictatorship, some - such as myself - see the signs now. "I have a pen and I have a phone."

 

[zoiDman]

I understand your frustration. The sad fact is that we are witnessing the dissolution of the constitutional republic. We are transitioning into a regulatory and litigation oligarchy. This will devolve into a dictatorship, some - such as myself - see the signs now. "I have a pen and I have a phone."

I see your of "What we Can Not Talk about" Example as just a way to Capture (or maintain Votes). Just a Big Give away.

But is also Ties into a Larger Level to things like this Thread...

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...g-allowed-but-vaping-isnt-college-campus.html

And the Association with "What we Can Not Talk about" is about the LAST thing the e-Cigarette Community needs right Now. Or Ever.

 

[Rossum]

Yeah... That is Something I do Not Understand?

Unless Article Six, Clause Two of the United States Constitution doesn't apply in Colorado.

Or in Washington DC either?

On might argue that the Constitution didn't grant the federal government the power to ban any particular substance to begin with. If it did, why was it was necessary to amend the Constitution in order to ban ethanol? Also the particular substance in question wasn't really banned until 1970; before then it was simply subject to confiscatory taxes, i.e. it was technically legal (on the federal level) if you paid those taxes and had the appropriate tax stamp(s) to prove it. At this point, I do not think the federal government wants a challenge to such powers brought by one or more states, because if such a challenge were to succeed, a lot more challenges of other powers would follow.

 

[Rossum]

If the only contest were federal, I would agree. It is not, the local litigation could well be the most effective. However, I, quietly, despair that the ACLU will have an interest in the prohibitionists at the local or national level.

My guess is the ACLU has about as much interest in defending the rights of nicotine users than they do in defending the rights of gun owners. Neither cause really fits their ideology.

 

[zoiDman]

On might argue that the Constitution didn't grant the federal government the power to ban any particular substance to begin with. If it did, why was it was necessary to amend the Constitution in order to ban ethanol? Also the particular substance in question wasn't really banned until 1970; before then it was simply subject to confiscatory taxes, i.e. it was technically legal (on the federal level) if you paid those taxes and had the appropriate tax stamp(s) to prove it. At this point, I do not think the federal government wants a challenge to such powers brought by one or more states, because if such a challenge were to succeed, a lot more challenges of other powers would follow.

One could argue many Things.

And when you say the Federal Government, are you Referring to the Current Administration? And how they Interrupt what the Supremacy Clause means?

BTW - If the FDA Deems an e-Liquid that contains Nicotine to be a "Tobacco Product", does that mean a State does not have to Abide by such a Legal Definition? Kinda like how some states Ignore "The things we Can Not Mention" Federal Standing?

 

[SissySpike]

Guns are up there also Some of the states ignore the gooberments illeagal intrusion on those rights. but hay we can smoke get sick not be able to work and let those who do pay our doctor bills right ?so all is good whats everyone complaining about?

 

[AndriaD]

How would Anyone bring forth a Legal Action when they Don't even know what they are Fighting Against?

Yeah, that was my thought too, when Roly pointed it out; it';s really unfortunate, because it's harder to repeal bad laws than simply not make them in the first place, but what can ya do. We've already been over the vote better argument, but until someone can come up with something to replace our party system -- maybe a revolution? -- we're stuck with the voting options we're given by the political parties -- they are the first line in the election process, and they're the ones who decide who to put on the primary ticket -- I'm sure it's a very back-room affair.

Andria

 

[rolygate]

Yes, I do. Hence local and state litigation is desirable. Look at state versus national legislation, such as Colorado law and federal law on unmentionable substances. Also, I think confronting a problem when small and local to be preferable to confrontation with the federal government. If we all await the feds to take action before we act, we are at a severe disadvantage. And so, I commend Anrdia's thinking.

That is why I ask Rolygate, "Why".

It was just a suggestion. If a national civil liberties organisation would consider acting at State level, perhaps they might wait to see the full implications of Federal regulation first. Federal action creates a climate of legality or oppression or other factors that may influence local legal action.

Or perhaps that doesn't matter to them. The main problem could well be that smoking and anything remotely connected with it is a free-fire zone, where anyone can do anything they like and not be challenged. Smokers are lepers, after all, and due to the climate created by propaganda they can even be killed for profit.

If the ACLU or anyone like that became involved, it might be on the principle of ex-smokers' rights. That is definitely an area where people deserve to have their rights protected. The problem is, though, that anything connected in any way with tobacco is toxic.

 

[Woofer]

I understand your frustration. The sad fact is that we are witnessing the dissolution of the constitutional republic. We are transitioning into a regulatory and litigation oligarchy. This will devolve into a dictatorship, some - such as myself - see the signs now. "I have a pen and I have a phone."

I would like to like this statement several times.

 

[V8porism]

Quote Originally Posted by Wow1420 View Post
Is there any reason to think that they(bans) are not legal? Any reason to think vapers could win in a lawsuit?

My reply:
Most of the "bans" in Kentucky are related to the public health, the proverbial "greater good". I think challenges to these are not likely to be successful due to the amount of money it would take to show that there is no rational nexus between the ban and the public health. We have so slipped over the edge that a concept that a private business may have an right to make its own rules for its customers is nearly anathema, incomprehensible, to the public.

These public health bans have a wealth of emotional, if not intellectual appeal. They are "for the children" or for those downtrodden victims who have no choice but to endure the rampaging harm done to them. Emotionally engendered laws or ordinances are so easy for pandering politicians simply because they require, perhaps even have as a prerequisite, no thought.

Consequently, I think "ban" challenges are more costly than beneficial. [All obligatory disclaimers are included by reference in to this post.]


Begin new reply to V8's post:
The above is an earlier reply post of mine. To assess any regulation, first, I would need to see the actual law, ordinance or regulation, any comment that I would make without my reading the actual text wouldn't be worth your reading.

Second, money money money is required, unbelievable amounts of money is a prerequisite to litigation. That is why people apply to the ACLU for assistance - them ACLU has the money. It is also why cities cave to the ACLU upon the writing of a letter, cities don't care to fund a law suite against the ACLU (Christmas trees on the public square, Ten Commandments in public buildings).

Lastly, any lawyer worth his or her salt, will tell you as well I that it is very difficult to practice in a state with which one is unfamiliar. I am well versed for Kentucky but send me across the river to Ohio, I have no license; I have only a general as opposed to a specific knowledge of what to do and how to do it. Essentially without local Ohio counsel to assist, I would be in violation of the law as well as nearly an ignorant fool. Every state has a different substantive and procedural scheme. That is another advantage the ACLU has, they have many members in every state so local counsel and knowledge is always available.

You are absolutely correct in your idea that attacking the smaller municipalities may yield greater results. The smaller the municipality, the slimmer the financial resources. But again, the problem will be funding your challenge.

I wish that I had a definitive answer for you but on a forum, it simply is not possible to give reliable legal advice.

Thanks for your contribution to this conjecture!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[V8porism]

Check out this thread...
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...ction-statement-anti-antz-ca-plan-action.html

Don't just read the first link provided, but keep on going.

It's nice to see someone fighting back!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[V8porism]

I can't tell you all how much I appreciate the contributions to this conjecture from folks like AdriaD and CMD-Ky.

I humbly pose another question to my fellow vapors out there...

I'd really like to get behind a group who mounts a legal challenge to Vaping bans and taxes.

Do you think it's plausible to get financial backing for legal challenges from "Big Vapor?"

I see videos from folks like PBusardo touring vape product manufacturing facilities in China. It appears as though they want to keep our Vaping community happy.

I'd love to see these companies back up a Vapor Consumer Advocacy group of some sort to fight taxes & bans on a small municipality level to defeat this campaign of fear and extortion being waged against us.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Electric Fog]

The politicians that are currently in listen to who cuts the checks sadly. If the government can make money off it, they want there hands in it. So sad they have ruined so many good things

 

[NordicStag]

I'd say if you want to be prepared for a worst-case-scenario vapocalypse? Learn to work with electronics. Study how these things are made, and DEFINITELY learn Ohm's Law. That way, if it like I said gets to a ridiculously worst-case and vaping becomes the new 'prohibition era' deal, then you can build your own mod, and disassemble it later into base components that aren't illegal to have unless put together a certain way... And that works, by the way. During the prohibition era, stores would sell certain things and put a warning on them 'Warning, do not combine with the following ingredients in the following ways', as that was a recipe for wine.

But besides that, learning that stuff is also good to repair e-cigs too.

 

[jkress]

That's why I vape High PG. A brain is a horrible thing to waste, besides I havent been sick in three years.

I wanted to add that this is my first winter not smoking cig's and only my second winter in a colder climate (I am from Florida and now live in Oklahoma)...last winter I had more colds than thought was humanly possible...but this winter...ha got a 24 hour stomach bug and NOT 1 cold so far!!
Makes me want to tell the government to put that in their healthcare and smoke it!!! LOL