Indiana Call to Action - Stop the Monopoly

[pennysmalls]

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.

Something that keeps coming into mind for me is if we do win this case there's nothing to stop the legislators from simply amending the law to include closed systems. I'm afraid that may be what we end up with.

 

[Hoosier]

Call to action is up at hoosiervapers.org and the HV facebook page.

Penny, they will avoid the closed systems. They don't want to put BT on our side of the lobbying table. As long as they don't touch closed systems, BT stays out of the fight.

Please take a few minutes and do the CtA. Monday we will have a new one for phone calls to add to it. We need some good numbers for this push. Anyway you can spread the word to people who will take the few minutes will be very helpful!

 

[Hoosier]

VETO HB 1386

Just in case anyone has issues finding the link.

 

[pennysmalls]

Penny, they will avoid the closed systems. They don't want to put BT on our side of the lobbying table. As long as they don't touch closed systems, BT stays out of the fight.

I do recall Yoder making a statement about a bloodbath or something to that effect if BT got involved. Well if they are that intent on sticking to their guns and not getting BT involved all the better for us, I hope. Hypocrites.

 

[englishmick]

I just received this email. It was a little odd. It just contained the message below, no text regarding who sent it or anything else. The only clue was the return address which pointed to Sen Greg Taylor, Indiana District 33. Normally stuff from politicians includes all their contact information. But it's the bill mentioned in this thread.

I'm not sure what it means.

"Thank you for contacting my office regarding HB 1386. In regards to the e-liquids portion of the bill and the effective date, HB 1386 was amended and no longer contains language pertaining to e-liquids.The bill did pass and is headed to the governor's desk, but only contains language regarding breweries.

I appreciate your feedback on this matter and hope that you will continue to provide me with your input on future legislation."

 

[Hoosier]

Well, since it's a lie, it's probably a good thing it didn't have his contract info...?

 

[englishmick]

If we could have pulled just 25% of vapers in the state to the statehouse for a rally, we would have scares them straight long before it came to this. We calculate our best turnout was 0.002%.

That, you wonderful ECF"ers, is the real problem we have. Apathy.

I had AT&T out last week to replace my modem. The tech walked in and said, something smells good in here, what is it? Then he noticed my mods sitting on the kitchen table. I said that's banana nut bread flavor. He pulled a cigalike out of his pocket and we talked about vaping a bit. He said he was thinking of getting something better himself and I said he would have to do it before July. Turned out he had never heard about regulations, either the FDA side or the Indiana side. There must be a lot of folks in his situation.

 

[pennysmalls]

I just received this email. It was a little odd. It just contained the message below, no text regarding who sent it or anything else. The only clue was the return address which pointed to Sen Greg Taylor, Indiana District 33. Normally stuff from politicians includes all their contact information. But it's the bill mentioned in this thread.

I'm not sure what it means.

"Thank you for contacting my office regarding HB 1386. In regards to the e-liquids portion of the bill and the effective date, HB 1386 was amended and no longer contains language pertaining to e-liquids.The bill did pass and is headed to the governor's desk, but only contains language regarding breweries.

I appreciate your feedback on this matter and hope that you will continue to provide me with your input on future legislation."

Geez, somebody really messed up there. I received a letter in the mail Saturday from Rep. Pelath stating he voted against HB 1386 but that it passed and that he supports it's veto.

 

[englishmick]

Well, since it's a lie, it's probably a good thing it didn't have his contract info...?

What the hell. My best guess is it was a screw-up in Sen Taylor's office. Or something I can't even think of. I'll reply to the email and ask for clarification and see what happens.

 

[englishmick]

Just got this from an assistant at the senator's office who I won't name. We all make mistakes.

"I apologize for the misinformed email regarding HB 1386. This was my fault and not reflective of Senator Taylor. The bill did indeed go to the Governor intact. This was a human error and will not happen again."

 

[Mrs C]

Made the call. Female I spoke with took notes on my points and said the message would be relayed.

 

[Hoosier]

http://mulhaupts.com/assets/pdf/Vape-Security.pdf

Something to help make the calling into the governor's office more enjoyable. Or something to read to get psyched up if your a shy person.

 

[zoiDman]

This entire "Security" issue just Reeks of Cronyism.

 

[pennysmalls]

If it weren't so sad it would be funny. "Hi, we're Mulhaupt's. We'll be your all in one source for all your security needs...at least we think we will. Actually we're not sure, we're waiting to find out if we qualify. But go ahead and apply for services with us, you have exactly....let's see....2 days and 4 hours. Thanks for your business!"

 

[Hoosier]

Excellent synopsis penny!

Just left out the required NDA, but that would make it wordy.

 

[vapinglo]

Do we even have a chance left at beating this?

 

[Hoosier]

Still hasn't hit the governor's desk. If enough people use the CtA and follow up with a phone call during office hours, yes.

If not enough do, no.

Same as any bill.

 

[Mrs C]

good grief...

 

[Hoosier]

Rally at the statehouse this Saturday!

South lawn

3/19/16 from 1pm to 4pm.

Invite all your friends and family! Good clean, family friendly, protesting fun!

 

[DC2]

Rally at the statehouse this Saturday!

South lawn

3/19/16 from 1pm to 4pm.

Invite all your friends and family! Good clean, family friendly, protesting fun!

Now that's how you do it.

Wishing you guys the best of luck.
Looking forward to seeing the local news coverage on YouTube!