Hopefully this Federal Commerce Clause will prevent Indiana from enacting the most dangerous and threatening parts of SB 539 and HB 1432:
"A person may not purchase, receive, manufacture, import, or transport, or cause to be imported or transported from another state, territory, or country into Indiana, or transport, ship, barter, give away,
exchange, furnish, or otherwise handle or dispose of e-liquid, or to
possess e-liquid for purpose of sale.
A person may not knowingly receive or acquire e-liquid
from a person who does not hold a valid permit under this article
to sell, deliver, furnish, or give the e-liquid."
This section of the proposed bills would mandate every out of state manufacturer of e-liquid to obtain a permit from the state of Indiana.
If Indiana's model would be used nationwide, then a permit would be required from each state in which the manufacturer desires to sell.
Using Indiana's model, this would cost the manufacturer a minimum of $250,000, thereby forcing almost all small makers of e-liquid out of business.
Vapor Shops in Indiana would be severely limited in brands of e-liquid they could offer their customers.
The largest sections of these bills pertain to "in state" manufacturing.
These requirements would over-regulate the e-liquid industry in Indiana to the point of forcing almost all vapor shops that make and market their own e-liquid to go out of business. These regulations are so draconian in their requirements that I am not sure even a pharmacy has to abide by such severe regulations.
While I understand and agree that protection of the consumer is necessary and prudent, these bills are an overt attempt to make it so difficult to own and operate a Vapor Shop in Indiana, that they are effectively a ban on the Industry. Consumers should note that the pre-filled cartomizers marketed by big tobacco are exempt of these proposed regulations. In my opinion, this is not a coincidence and further highlights the increasing "government by Corporation" trend in the United States.
------------
The "dormant" Commerce Clause, also known as the "negative" Commerce Clause, is a legal doctrine that courts in the United States have inferred from the Commerce Clause in Article I of the United States Constitution. The Commerce Clause expressly grants Congress the power to regulate commerce "among the several states." The idea behind the dormant Commerce Clause is that this grant of power implies a negative converse — a restriction prohibiting a state from passing legislation that improperly burdens or discriminates against interstate commerce. The restriction is self-executing and applies even in the absence of a conflict between state and federal statutes, but Congress may allow states to pass legislation that would otherwise be forbidden by the dormant Commerce Clause.[1]
The premise of the doctrine is that the U.S. Constitution reserves for the United States Congress at least some degree of exclusive power "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes" (Article I, § 8). Therefore, individual states are limited in their ability to legislate on such matters. The dormant Commerce Clause does not expressly exist in the text of the United States Constitution. It is, rather, a doctrine deduced by the U.S. Supreme Court and lower courts from the actual Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Justice Anthony Kennedy has written that: "The central rationale for the rule against discrimination is to prohibit state or municipal laws whose object is local economic protectionism, laws that would excite those jealousies and retaliatory measures the Constitution was designed to prevent."[2]
"A person may not purchase, receive, manufacture, import, or transport, or cause to be imported or transported from another state, territory, or country into Indiana, or transport, ship, barter, give away,
exchange, furnish, or otherwise handle or dispose of e-liquid, or to
possess e-liquid for purpose of sale.
A person may not knowingly receive or acquire e-liquid
from a person who does not hold a valid permit under this article
to sell, deliver, furnish, or give the e-liquid."
This section of the proposed bills would mandate every out of state manufacturer of e-liquid to obtain a permit from the state of Indiana.
If Indiana's model would be used nationwide, then a permit would be required from each state in which the manufacturer desires to sell.
Using Indiana's model, this would cost the manufacturer a minimum of $250,000, thereby forcing almost all small makers of e-liquid out of business.
Vapor Shops in Indiana would be severely limited in brands of e-liquid they could offer their customers.
The largest sections of these bills pertain to "in state" manufacturing.
These requirements would over-regulate the e-liquid industry in Indiana to the point of forcing almost all vapor shops that make and market their own e-liquid to go out of business. These regulations are so draconian in their requirements that I am not sure even a pharmacy has to abide by such severe regulations.
While I understand and agree that protection of the consumer is necessary and prudent, these bills are an overt attempt to make it so difficult to own and operate a Vapor Shop in Indiana, that they are effectively a ban on the Industry. Consumers should note that the pre-filled cartomizers marketed by big tobacco are exempt of these proposed regulations. In my opinion, this is not a coincidence and further highlights the increasing "government by Corporation" trend in the United States.
------------
The "dormant" Commerce Clause, also known as the "negative" Commerce Clause, is a legal doctrine that courts in the United States have inferred from the Commerce Clause in Article I of the United States Constitution. The Commerce Clause expressly grants Congress the power to regulate commerce "among the several states." The idea behind the dormant Commerce Clause is that this grant of power implies a negative converse — a restriction prohibiting a state from passing legislation that improperly burdens or discriminates against interstate commerce. The restriction is self-executing and applies even in the absence of a conflict between state and federal statutes, but Congress may allow states to pass legislation that would otherwise be forbidden by the dormant Commerce Clause.[1]
The premise of the doctrine is that the U.S. Constitution reserves for the United States Congress at least some degree of exclusive power "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes" (Article I, § 8). Therefore, individual states are limited in their ability to legislate on such matters. The dormant Commerce Clause does not expressly exist in the text of the United States Constitution. It is, rather, a doctrine deduced by the U.S. Supreme Court and lower courts from the actual Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Justice Anthony Kennedy has written that: "The central rationale for the rule against discrimination is to prohibit state or municipal laws whose object is local economic protectionism, laws that would excite those jealousies and retaliatory measures the Constitution was designed to prevent."[2]
Last edited:
