The judge apparently covered all the arguments presented to him and I believe the security firm issue was not included by the plaintiff. That might have been a tactical decision.
Indiana Call to Action - Stop the Monopoly
- Thread starter Hoosier
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Not necessarily. That's an important arguement and may be plaintiff doesn't want the judge opining on that one until he hears evidence.
I'd like to say that was a bad decision except the plaintiff probably got exactly what he wanted- admittance into the cartel
Last edited:
I'm no lawyer. There might be one around here to refine my thoughts. Law makers can make any law they want about anything they want. No law stops that. If the law is unconstitutional or too severely inequitable the courts may strike it down. To me the real issue is conflict of interest. Governments aren't supposed to own businesses but their interest in tobacco sales amounts to that. The reason all these laws are so disigusting is because governments are reduced to desparate drug dealers defending their money and have it not appear that way. Everybody knows these laws are about money and nothing else and everybody knows everybody knows and that's scary.
We received our first message that an ATC agent entered a vape shop and checked for compliant liquid due to an anonymous tip. The shop was in compliance and the agent left.
Just in case anyone thought the letter about no enforcement for so many days had any bearing on vape shops, other than it being an attempt to trap shops, was true.
We have no idea who was the tipster or if that part of the agent's speech was true. There was an issue with the labels of some bottles not having the same name as a permit holder, but producing an invoice with the permit holder's name and the name on the juice bottles settled the matter.
HV has members camped out at the ATC to attend the June 6th rules meeting. (that's not a typo, yes, it's July, we know that, but the ATC has issues reading calendars or something)
Just in case anyone thought the letter about no enforcement for so many days had any bearing on vape shops, other than it being an attempt to trap shops, was true.
We have no idea who was the tipster or if that part of the agent's speech was true. There was an issue with the labels of some bottles not having the same name as a permit holder, but producing an invoice with the permit holder's name and the name on the juice bottles settled the matter.
HV has members camped out at the ATC to attend the June 6th rules meeting. (that's not a typo, yes, it's July, we know that, but the ATC has issues reading calendars or something)
I wouldn't doubt the tipster was a supporter, that knew the shop was compliant; just calling in to test their response time.
Don't know. The only other vape shop near the one that ATC entered is a permit holder. Folks have speculated that they tipped, but there is no way of me knowing.
Could be a disgruntled customer for all I know.
Could be a disgruntled customer for all I know.
Not yet. It was a topic of discussion with the whole board this evening. I've been assigned as the lead nag for the topic. So we made it that far...Any info on what we were talking about yesterday. You said "Maybe tomorrow".
Keep up the good work. 
The incredulousness of this picking of nits over doors, locks and architectural requirements regarding said doors and locks in context of vaping liquids stretches plausibility, even to a level that almost makes the FDA regulations look like common sense. Really?
So it isn't Big Tobacco derailing the vaping industry ..........in this case it's actually six of the Indiana E-liquid Manufacturing permit holders
I had said over a year ago that "Big Vaping" would monopolize the industry
Either with having big money, really good investment bankers (like Njoy), or such things as having a security firm who issues the contracts needed to stay in business being owned by a politician's relative, etc.
I had kinda pictured this, after witnessing so much infighting in the vaping industry, vendors canabalizing each other, the ones who can influence the lawmakers and get tony contracts, etc. Some of them are probably signing contracts with Big Tobacco, etc. as we speak. Or have a friend of a friend in the FDA blah blah blah
Last edited:
Well, kind of. BT with prefilled products gets a free pass. This is only regarding e-liquid for open systems.
So Who's Head should we put on a Post?
The Six who aspired to Control the Indiana e-Liquid Market? Or the Government who provided the Vehicle for the Six to do so?
I'd love to have 1/6 of an Entire State's e-Liquid Market. Can't think of too many Companies that Wouldn't. But part of the Purpose/Responsibility of a Government is to ensure Equal Protection when it enacts a Law.
It is a Sham (opps, I meant Shame) that e-Cigarettes have become such a Political and Money/Tax Grab. Because if Indiana Legislation had done this to any Other market, the Indiana State and US Attorney General's Office would have Launched an Investigation. And the Media would have Crucified those who Supported and Signed this Legislation into Law.
I'm pretty sure I read that pre-filled stuff got a pass on this, right? What about the national brands of e-liquid that are carried at c-stores like Njoy, Haus, Fin, etc.? Has anyone checked to see if Walgreens is still selling those?
Not 100% sure on Haus but NJoy and Fin do have a prefilled line.
right, but they also sell bottled e-liquid. That's the part I'm wondering about.
All bottled eliquid is supposed to be covered. We know out of reports of ATC agent visits that enforcement is not uniform between agents. We suspect that enforcement also varies on the type of shop too, but have not received any evidence of such a thing yet.
Make no mistake, ATC does NOT like Hoosier Vapers and it isn't a secret. We have done our best to keep throwing their own transcription records back at them when they waffle. I guess that is something that wafflers don't like? Now that IBJ is doing the same and filing FoA's at the ATC, I guess they think we're responsible? (Honestly if we could have any responsibility for what IBJ is doing, we would've had them doing it long before now.)
Make no mistake, ATC does NOT like Hoosier Vapers and it isn't a secret. We have done our best to keep throwing their own transcription records back at them when they waffle. I guess that is something that wafflers don't like? Now that IBJ is doing the same and filing FoA's at the ATC, I guess they think we're responsible? (Honestly if we could have any responsibility for what IBJ is doing, we would've had them doing it long before now.)
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
