You are correct in that one doesn't have to sign up for 'membership' and there is a check box which I signed up for the site - also not necessary for donation. Thanks for clearing that up.
Indiana files suit
- Thread starter pennysmalls
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
You are correct in that one doesn't have to sign up for 'membership' and there is a check box which I signed up for the site - also not necessary for donation. Thanks for clearing that up.
Both the Proposed Rule and the Emergency Rule [what a farcical name!] are attached as Exhibits 1 and 2, respectively, to the Complaint.
See my post above. Both are attached to the Complaint.
Grossly violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution for Indiana residents and every American. Per Art. 162 mere possession of unsanctioned e-liquid product by anyone is illegal, as I read it. But they can sure as hell tell us we must vaccinate our children and with what. Power is a double-edged sword. The minute we concede to let them tell us what we can't put in our bodies they'll be sure and tell us what we must. It's gone beyond rational imagination. Time we had an amendment requiring legislatures to cite the constitutional authority (with grand jury enforcement recourse) so as to constrain executive, judiciary and legislative immunity. We need to put a collar on these authoritarian rogues. The only contamination I see in Indiana is the infectious urge towards over-the-top centralist imperatives now commonplace in Washington.
Please every vaper support Hoosier's effort. This is of the type of probing of the boundaries like the first anti-smoking Florida lawsuit in the 90's which started it all precipitating the marginalization of smokers. This is our opportunity to take a stand judicially by supporting this legal stakeholder. Help spread the word.
Good luck all.
Please every vaper support Hoosier's effort. This is of the type of probing of the boundaries like the first anti-smoking Florida lawsuit in the 90's which started it all precipitating the marginalization of smokers. This is our opportunity to take a stand judicially by supporting this legal stakeholder. Help spread the word.
Good luck all.
One reason to support this case is that it could set a precedent that other courts may follow. That's risky. This is a must win.
That's the point. This is no longer a mental excersize about philosophy, principles, theories as that's all secondary now. This is real and it's a risky move, yet vaping could not survive Indiana's law either. I don't see much other choice. Loose this and you know that zealots in other states will attempt the same.
I do wonder if any organizations have been approached for assistance.
And if so, what were the results of those efforts.
I'm thinking Small Business Administration, SFATA, or any others.
And if so, what were the results of those efforts.
I'm thinking Small Business Administration, SFATA, or any others.
SBA has a mission of assisting small business with gov't regulations and IMO have the most experience. I hope they've been enlisted. However, they are not "an enforcement agency". They can only point out were the violations are.
I don't think any lawyer can claim experience with vaping laws yet. Everything has been theory only.
I assume the nat'l orgs are aware of this, but I doubt if they are thrilled or prepared since the focus has been on the FDA. IMO this is a "like it or not" situation and a reason support is critical. We probably are NOT ready for this. More than likely, I'm guessing Indiana's laws were a strategic win for ANTZ, not vapers.
I AM NOT A LAWYER, but I can see that if a lower court accepts a specific definition of "what is a ecig" or "what is a component", for example, it could be used by a higher court or another court. Win or loose and ANTZ could still "win" just with accepted definitions. That's not good. This is high risk.
I'd love to be wrong.
Last edited:
Indiana E-Cig Overregulation Prompts Rally at State House
AVA Sponsors - The American Vaping Association
Perhaps Hoosier can enlighten us as to the extent of the IVA/AVA's participation. They certainly do serve as a nexus of organization to subscribe participation of other vaping businesses. I would think this judicial challenge very well could with time make the jump to the federal courts and will benefit from a coherent resistance.
Good luck all.
Last edited:
When it comes to legal challeges, it all comes down to strategy. Sometimes loosing can result in winning. I'm not seeing many positives for vapers. We are depending on pulling a rabbit out of a hat. Like I said, I'd like to be wrong.Indiana E-Cig Overregulation Prompts Rally at State House
AVA Sponsors - The American Vaping Association
Perhaps Hoosier can enlighten us as to the extent of the IVA/AVA's participation. They certainly do serve as a Nexus of organization to subscribe participation of other vaping businesses. I would think this judicial challenge very well could with time make the jump to the federal courts and will benefit from a coherent resistance.
Good luck all.
We need the best libertarian, administrative lawyers and they don't come cheap. This isn't grassroots moxie, or justice, or fairness. It's strategy.
Last edited:
Yep we hear ya. Still we stand a better chance in the courts than with an unseen committee working behind closed doors and guided by external private interests. Chin up. It's a new (election) year and game on.
Good luck.
p.s. Downside, the costs. True that. Why we as vapers need to get in the fight.
No we don't because it's those back doors that define what the court is interpeting. Deeming means extending regulatory authority, if I'm understanding it correctly. This is not like following established regulations because they are creating them from zero. All we have right now is established guides and procedures that the FDA should follow, but I don't think there's anyone/anything in place if they don't except congress. There isn't always a remedy or "due process" when it's regulatory, which puts it under administrative law. It's a specialized area. Much of the constitution is about individual rights and may not apply. I could be way off base here, but I know there isn't "a private right of action" when it comes to regulations and that's one of the first hurdles in whether or not a case is allowed to go forward against the gov't.Yep we hear ya. Still we stand a better chance in the courts than with an unseen committee working behind closed doors and guided by external private interests. Chin up. It's a new (election) year and game on.
Good luck.
p.s. Downside, the costs. True that. Why we as vapers need to get in the fight.
That's not what this case is about anyway, so it's a mute point.
It's possible that it might have been better to be the defense. I believe as plaintive, we need to provide all the proof and that can be hard to do. It comes down to strategy.
We really need a lawyer or someone more familar with the situation to continue down this rabbit hole. My point was the high risk this appears to have, IMO.
Last edited:
AVA and CASAA were helpful from the beginning and continue to be.
We reached out to everyone we could think of. CASAA helped in getting the message out and with info. AVA showed up and spoke to committee sessions and spread the message. Vaping Militia helped as well in spreading the message.
"The Message" is shorthand for information from the frontlines as to what was happening.
I did not leave anyone out of my comments, but left unsaid where there were issues. Those issues may now be resolved, but until the rubber meets the road again, I honestly don't know.
I'm just one of the Hoosier Vapers' board members. I used to be president when we were just a club. We had to expand, evolve, and become something greater to combat this. I stepped aside as leader to let others that had greater access to politicos and experience lead.
The law that passed is bad, but it was much worse when the battle started. If we were not already an organization, if we had not already been a presence in the Hoosier vaping culture, if we had not evolved to meet the threat, vaping would be wholly controlled by one juice maker, one hardware distributor, and cig-alikes months ago in Indiana. The small percentage of vapers willing to get involved did an amazing job and would not have been able to with the B&M shop owners stepping up and joining us. (it was truly a group effort and I am just glad I could do my part.)
We reached out to everyone we could think of. CASAA helped in getting the message out and with info. AVA showed up and spoke to committee sessions and spread the message. Vaping Militia helped as well in spreading the message.
"The Message" is shorthand for information from the frontlines as to what was happening.
I did not leave anyone out of my comments, but left unsaid where there were issues. Those issues may now be resolved, but until the rubber meets the road again, I honestly don't know.
I'm just one of the Hoosier Vapers' board members. I used to be president when we were just a club. We had to expand, evolve, and become something greater to combat this. I stepped aside as leader to let others that had greater access to politicos and experience lead.
The law that passed is bad, but it was much worse when the battle started. If we were not already an organization, if we had not already been a presence in the Hoosier vaping culture, if we had not evolved to meet the threat, vaping would be wholly controlled by one juice maker, one hardware distributor, and cig-alikes months ago in Indiana. The small percentage of vapers willing to get involved did an amazing job and would not have been able to with the B&M shop owners stepping up and joining us. (it was truly a group effort and I am just glad I could do my part.)
It depends on the basis of the challenge. However, a court works in the public view through most of its evidentiary process permitting both media and public the opportunity of access generally. I think this is one important part most of us find objectionable, the omission of transparency. Personally I feel Congress cleverly exceeded its authority effectively delegating a window of discretionary opportunity for defining tobacco (deeming) to the FDA, i.e. tobacco vs. derivative of. So at the end of the day this may be all about that Constitutional issue. And if you look at the filing you may note that many of the defenses cite state and other constitutional premises. But your point is well taken that onus of evidence is on the challengers. We can thank our Congress for that. Inadequate due process is a premise for challenge and also a constitutional one. I don't see that the extent of the FDA's involvement is regulation but dissection and expropriation. Left legally unchallenged all we'll have left is the corpse.
Good luck all.
Thanks much for the info. Just as law enforcement's job would be easier if no one had a gun; the ideal for the regulator is the limited monopoly.
Good luck all.
- Status
Similar threads
