Indiana Call to Action - Stop the Monopoly
- Thread starter Hoosier
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I don't see this lasting honestly. I wouldn't be surprised if the Feds got involved if this passes, or if the state courts even uphold it. Seems like it would be violating too many already on the books trade rights and the politicians were hoping that nobody would raise a big enough stink and bring them to court.
Hoosier Vapers has issued a new call to action on this.
Stop the Monopoly in Indiana!
We are getting mixed signals from the speaker, but he said it must be fixed publically so we are urging everyone to help push the speaker's current public comments.
We are also getting some mixed signals from the security company that this current bill could make a monopoly as to what their contract requires from producers.
Could mean we are getting some attention. Could mean it's just another game to them. Either way, emailing through the CtA will help!
Stop the Monopoly in Indiana!
We are getting mixed signals from the speaker, but he said it must be fixed publically so we are urging everyone to help push the speaker's current public comments.
We are also getting some mixed signals from the security company that this current bill could make a monopoly as to what their contract requires from producers.
Could mean we are getting some attention. Could mean it's just another game to them. Either way, emailing through the CtA will help!
@Hoosier I have been trying to follow along with what is going on.
I am a little confused. Why is the security company even an issue
as far as the vendors are concerned. You shouldn't be even negotiating
that point. The security aspect along with other things should be stricken
from the bill, period. Don't get caught in a position of bargaining which
brand of rope you'll be hung with. It might be better letting them get what
they want and fighting it in the courts. there is no such thing as a less
severe crocodile bite. Sooner or later the wound will fester and you will
have to amputate a limb next session.
Regards
Mike
I am a little confused. Why is the security company even an issue
as far as the vendors are concerned. You shouldn't be even negotiating
that point. The security aspect along with other things should be stricken
from the bill, period. Don't get caught in a position of bargaining which
brand of rope you'll be hung with. It might be better letting them get what
they want and fighting it in the courts. there is no such thing as a less
severe crocodile bite. Sooner or later the wound will fester and you will
have to amputate a limb next session.
Regards
Mike
Mike, I think it's to late for that kind of demand or negotiation but some of these senators may hopefully surprise us so who knows. I'll be keeping my fingers crossed.
CTA done Hoosier!
CTA done Hoosier!
The council of the Indiana ATC was recorded on judicial record that as the law is written, no security company was in compliance. Since a contract with a compliant security company is required to apply for a permit, that means the law was written without any means of compliance.
The bill we are trying to get amended now is currently written so only one company can comply by amending the current law. We are attempting to have amendments added so more than one company can comply.
The lawsuit and the ATC's council's statements made an amendment to the law a required thing on the session agenda this year. The security company that helped lobby for the original law is also pushing for this bill to go through without amendment.
Any citizen of Indiana who knowingly accepts a liquid for the purposes of vaping that was not produced by a permit holder from the ATC will be committing an infraction as of July 1st 2016. Selling or giving away such a liquid is another infraction. We are suing the state. Lawsuits take time and money. If it drags out long enough there will not be anyone left who has any money to fund the lawsuit because all instate vendors will be unable to stay in business.
How many producers will be willing to purchase a 5 year contract for security from a company who bought their own monopoly for said required security? Some will, certainly, but not many. All applications must be in the ATC's hands by June 30th of this year. After June 30th 2016 no more applications will be accepted, ever.
While some may see it as negotiating for a smaller alligator bite, it is an attempt to keep the bite small enough that some can stay in business long enough to fight. If we lived in a country where buying a monopoly through legislation was not a common business practice and so well accepted by the voters, then we wouldn't be in this crappy position. But it is common and the vast majority of voters don't give a flying fig.
We cannot strike the security requirements out of any bill because the security requirements are already law. Changing a law takes a metric goose ton of effort and money. Massive numbers at rallies. Huge numbers of businesses stating that unless the law is changed, they will stay away from the state. Viral social media campaigns that make the whole government feel the pressure. Vapers do not have that kind of pull. We are a fraction of the population and the vast majority of vapers are not politically active. We lobbied hard against the security requirements last session and they were increased to spite us. (So much so that the security firm lobbying for it was now unable to comply which surprised them for some odd reason.) The concessions we were able to get out of our lobbying efforts were very minor though the legislators sounded and acted like we were getting permission to rape their children. One of those was the deadline to get a permit was made July 1st 2016 instead of July 1st 2015, while ATC had until December of 2015 to publish the regulations for permit application.
So, yes, it can be kinda' hard to follow because this has been going on for 2 years and lots of things have happened.
The bill we are trying to get amended now is currently written so only one company can comply by amending the current law. We are attempting to have amendments added so more than one company can comply.
The lawsuit and the ATC's council's statements made an amendment to the law a required thing on the session agenda this year. The security company that helped lobby for the original law is also pushing for this bill to go through without amendment.
Any citizen of Indiana who knowingly accepts a liquid for the purposes of vaping that was not produced by a permit holder from the ATC will be committing an infraction as of July 1st 2016. Selling or giving away such a liquid is another infraction. We are suing the state. Lawsuits take time and money. If it drags out long enough there will not be anyone left who has any money to fund the lawsuit because all instate vendors will be unable to stay in business.
How many producers will be willing to purchase a 5 year contract for security from a company who bought their own monopoly for said required security? Some will, certainly, but not many. All applications must be in the ATC's hands by June 30th of this year. After June 30th 2016 no more applications will be accepted, ever.
While some may see it as negotiating for a smaller alligator bite, it is an attempt to keep the bite small enough that some can stay in business long enough to fight. If we lived in a country where buying a monopoly through legislation was not a common business practice and so well accepted by the voters, then we wouldn't be in this crappy position. But it is common and the vast majority of voters don't give a flying fig.
We cannot strike the security requirements out of any bill because the security requirements are already law. Changing a law takes a metric goose ton of effort and money. Massive numbers at rallies. Huge numbers of businesses stating that unless the law is changed, they will stay away from the state. Viral social media campaigns that make the whole government feel the pressure. Vapers do not have that kind of pull. We are a fraction of the population and the vast majority of vapers are not politically active. We lobbied hard against the security requirements last session and they were increased to spite us. (So much so that the security firm lobbying for it was now unable to comply which surprised them for some odd reason.) The concessions we were able to get out of our lobbying efforts were very minor though the legislators sounded and acted like we were getting permission to rape their children. One of those was the deadline to get a permit was made July 1st 2016 instead of July 1st 2015, while ATC had until December of 2015 to publish the regulations for permit application.
So, yes, it can be kinda' hard to follow because this has been going on for 2 years and lots of things have happened.
As someone who didn't even start looking into vaping until it was too late to get involved with the original law (and unfortunately paid no attention to what was going on with vaping legislation prior to that) what can I do now. I've responded to the CTA's that you've posted, but what else can I do? I've seen little indication that anyone in the South Bend vape community is doing much of anything to spread awareness or organize any kind of advocacy, which is a shame. So what concrete steps can I take?
@Hoosier It slipped my mind that the law was already passed.
You shouldn't be fighting for an amended bill to get more security
companies involved. You should be trying to get the security language
eliminated in its entirety as the state could never prove its necessity.
As a mater of fact as it is it proves the states intent to pick a winner
and eliminate the competition.
Regards
mike
You shouldn't be fighting for an amended bill to get more security
companies involved. You should be trying to get the security language
eliminated in its entirety as the state could never prove its necessity.
As a mater of fact as it is it proves the states intent to pick a winner
and eliminate the competition.
Regards
mike
That's what we did Mike. A rep was going to introduce a bill stripping out the 3rd party security out of the law. The chairman of the committee had other ideas. Could it be because the security company's base of operations is in his district?
So this bill was voted on to concurrence. Translation, out of committee and automatically making senate and house versions identical.
The state does not have to prove anything to pass a law. They only have to prove something if they are mandated to do so by a court. Hence the lawsuit.
To help, join hoosiervapers.org Every dime is going to pay attorney fees and lobbyists expenses. Nobody on the board makes anything. We are all volunteers and we've chipped in more than our membership dues.
So this bill was voted on to concurrence. Translation, out of committee and automatically making senate and house versions identical.
The state does not have to prove anything to pass a law. They only have to prove something if they are mandated to do so by a court. Hence the lawsuit.
To help, join hoosiervapers.org Every dime is going to pay attorney fees and lobbyists expenses. Nobody on the board makes anything. We are all volunteers and we've chipped in more than our membership dues.
FYI: Consumer membership is $100. Vendor membership is $1000 per location.
There should be a Donate tab so folks without the means for a membership can chip in something.
There should be a Donate tab so folks without the means for a membership can chip in something.
I just got done reading through a copy of the lawsuit that was filed in January. I didn't know that closed systems wouldn't be classified as tobacco products in Indiana, only open systems including zero nic. I don't remember ever seeing that come up in the conversations here. So apparently, closed system manufacturers get a free ride all the way around, with the security measures, the future tobacco taxes, everything. Madness.
I wish I knew how to share pdf's, I'd post it here. All I can say after reading it is that there is no judge on this planet that can deny the absolute bassackwardness of what's going on in Indiana with vaping. I really do think "we've got this" after reading this petition.
I wish I knew how to share pdf's, I'd post it here. All I can say after reading it is that there is no judge on this planet that can deny the absolute bassackwardness of what's going on in Indiana with vaping. I really do think "we've got this" after reading this petition.
Yep, seems that way.
Honestly, and I'm sure folks are tired of me saying this, our biggest issue with the lawsuits is money to pay the legal team to keep going forward.
An emergency injunction will be filled in state court late this week or early next week over the failure of the legislature to fix the core problems. Might get lucky and have a hearing on that motion in late April.
Given that the deadline is June 30th to apply and the lead council for the ATC has not amended her statement in the federal lawsuit that no security company complies with the law, it's cutting it a bit close.
Panic and bus-chucking will probably commence soon as fear takes over. That's my prediction anyway, but I hope I'm wrong.
Honestly, and I'm sure folks are tired of me saying this, our biggest issue with the lawsuits is money to pay the legal team to keep going forward.
An emergency injunction will be filled in state court late this week or early next week over the failure of the legislature to fix the core problems. Might get lucky and have a hearing on that motion in late April.
Given that the deadline is June 30th to apply and the lead council for the ATC has not amended her statement in the federal lawsuit that no security company complies with the law, it's cutting it a bit close.
Panic and bus-chucking will probably commence soon as fear takes over. That's my prediction anyway, but I hope I'm wrong.
One would hope so, but some judges have been known to be idiots before...
Well, you just got an out-of-state consumer membership. I know won't pay for more than a few minutes worth of legal team, but hey...
Heads up:
HV will be issuing another call to action this afternoon. This session of the General Assembly is over, so we will be focusing on the governor now.
It will be on the hoosiervapers.org site and also ask folks to spread it around whatever social media they use. It will take an outpouring of people acting to sway the governor. We have to try though.
ETA: There is a delay with the CTA. Behind the scenes stuff is in full Tasmanian devil mode. Will update after dust settles.
HV will be issuing another call to action this afternoon. This session of the General Assembly is over, so we will be focusing on the governor now.
It will be on the hoosiervapers.org site and also ask folks to spread it around whatever social media they use. It will take an outpouring of people acting to sway the governor. We have to try though.
ETA: There is a delay with the CTA. Behind the scenes stuff is in full Tasmanian devil mode. Will update after dust settles.
Last edited:
One would sure think so, but the problem with most challenges to statutes like this is that the legislature can enact just about anything so long as there is some "rational relationship" to a legitimate public purpose. The burden is on the plaintiffs in this case to show there is no such relationship. That's a difficult burden to sustain. So a judge may disagree with the law and sincerely believe that the legislature could have accomplished the same purpose by employing more effective or less draconian measures, but unfortunately that doesn't necessarily mean that the law won't be upheld. State courts have been traditionally reluctant to invalidate state statutes.
Nevertheless, I think the plaintiffs in this case have a good chance. One main point made in the Complaint is that there is no rational basis for imposing harsh restrictions on the manufacture of e-liquids intended for use in open systems while leaving e-liquids used in closed systems unregulated. For example, there is no evidence that the process of making open system e-liquids is any more likely to produce contaminated products that making liquids for closed systems. I suppose an argument can be made that once the liquid is sealed in a closed system it's less likely to become contaminated, but the statute doesn't really address that issue.
By the same token, why does a facility making open system e-liquids require extensive security measures, whereas one making closed system e-liquids doesn't? I can't see any reasonable basis for this distinction. Imposing these restrictions on open system products gives closed system products a huge competitive advantage.
The Complaint points out that the statute makes any open system e-liquid which isn't made under super high security and "clean room" standards illegal to sell in Indiana. This would effectively ban the sale of all open system e-liquids not made in Indiana. This would harm Indiana e-liquid retailers and distributors. I understand that there has been a companion case filed in federal district court. This may well be an unlawful restraint of trade among the states which a federal court could find to be invalid.
The Complaint also points out that there are several ill-defined or undefined terms in the statute, including "tobacco" and "ingredient." When key terms used in statutes aren't defined, or the definitions are ambiguous or nonsensical, the courts can declare the statute void for vagueness.
It will be interesting to see how this case progresses.
@bigdancehawk Good points you brought up.
I am sitting here wondering how they can justify the security measures at all
considering other more dangerous products are not required to be monitored
in such a way. For instance I have been googling and can find nothing indicating
authorized firearm dealers are under any legal obligation to maintain similar
security measures by Indiana law. I am sure they have security measures,
maybe even stricter than for what is going to be required for the e-juice
companies, but their security are for obvious reasons one can understand and
not dictated by legislative decree. There are tons of regulations concerning
who can sell and who can be sold too for every situation imaginable.
nothing about if Walmart must have 24 hour live surveillance of its sporting
goods section.
Regards
Mike
I am sitting here wondering how they can justify the security measures at all
considering other more dangerous products are not required to be monitored
in such a way. For instance I have been googling and can find nothing indicating
authorized firearm dealers are under any legal obligation to maintain similar
security measures by Indiana law. I am sure they have security measures,
maybe even stricter than for what is going to be required for the e-juice
companies, but their security are for obvious reasons one can understand and
not dictated by legislative decree. There are tons of regulations concerning
who can sell and who can be sold too for every situation imaginable.
nothing about if Walmart must have 24 hour live surveillance of its sporting
goods section.
Regards
Mike
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
