http://www.v4p3r.com/defeat-of-indiana-senate-bills-384-and-539/
Looks like Indiana can breathe a sigh of relief. For now.
Become a Patron!
Defeat of Indiana Senate Bills 384 and 539
- Thread starter Browncoat
- Start date
http://www.v4p3r.com/defeat-of-indiana-senate-bills-384-and-539/
Looks like Indiana can breathe a sigh of relief. For now.
Article updated with a copy of the letter sent from Senator Randolph's office.
The CASAA Facebook page is having some debate over this also. Some are saying it's passed, others saying it didn't. I've checked online resources, and there haven't been any recent updates posted on the status of SB 539. Considering that Randolph was a sponsor of the bill, I'm sticking with his source of information as being the most credible, unless something else comes to light.
The CASAA Facebook page is having some debate over this also. Some are saying it's passed, others saying it didn't. I've checked online resources, and there haven't been any recent updates posted on the status of SB 539. Considering that Randolph was a sponsor of the bill, I'm sticking with his source of information as being the most credible, unless something else comes to light.
InMyImage
Gold Contributor
Member For 4 Years
Member For 3 Years
Member For 2 Years
Member For 1 Year
Member For 5 Years
Funny, it's kind of a silly argument when you can get the status of a bill at any time from in.gov:
https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/bills/senate/539#
https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/bills/senate/539#
Well, that's kind of my point. I read that also, and to me, it looks like it passed 11-0 per the vote sheet and committee report. Those reports were dated 2/17/15.
So why would this Senator, two days later, issue a statement saying that it did not receive a hearing and would not pass?
So why would this Senator, two days later, issue a statement saying that it did not receive a hearing and would not pass?
InMyImage
Gold Contributor
Member For 4 Years
Member For 3 Years
Member For 2 Years
Member For 1 Year
Member For 5 Years
It passed the Commerce committee and then got reassigned to the Tax committe. If it had passed there and not been reassigned it would have gone to the floor for debate, possible further amendments from the floor and then back through the cycle again until it finally got a vote from the floor.
Committee is just a small group to basically brainstorm issues and work on behalf of the parties to hash out a version to present to the floor that hopefully has most if not all required amendments to be voted into law or quashed.
Right, I get how it works. What I'm not getting is the conflicting info.
Commerce Committee: Passed 6-4. Forwarded to Tax Committee.
Tax Committee: Passed 11-0...from what I can tell.
But according to this guy, there was never even a vote on it and it got squashed.
Commerce Committee: Passed 6-4. Forwarded to Tax Committee.
Tax Committee: Passed 11-0...from what I can tell.
But according to this guy, there was never even a vote on it and it got squashed.
InMyImage
Gold Contributor
Member For 4 Years
Member For 3 Years
Member For 2 Years
Member For 1 Year
Member For 5 Years
Interesting. I missed that second vote because of it doesn't appear in the actions list but shows under the committee reports.
I have no idea what the next step would be to determine if it goes back to a committee or the floor though. But it never made it to the floor for a vote, so it has not been passed into law.
What happens next session will be interesting...
I have no idea what the next step would be to determine if it goes back to a committee or the floor though. But it never made it to the floor for a vote, so it has not been passed into law.
What happens next session will be interesting...
That always reminds me of this from when I was a kid. It was one of those after school things on tv:
Interesting that yet another series of anti ecig regulations effectively blocked by yet another republican legislator. I wish I had been keeping score somewhere, but just going by memory it seems like the r's are closer to being on our side. There are some who vote the other way, but they generally do appear to be standing up for us.
Yes, it seems like the Republicans are more e-cig friendly, but not by a very wide margin. Both parties look at this as tax money in the coffers for them to spend as they see fit. Both parties receive contributions from non-vaping friendly donors like Big Tobacco and Big Pharma.
InMyImage
Gold Contributor
Member For 4 Years
Member For 3 Years
Member For 2 Years
Member For 1 Year
Member For 5 Years
I personally am ok with a reasonable tax and prohibitions on vaping in areas where smoking is prohibited.
The biggest issue with these bills are the unreasonable restrictions they put on the manufacture, distribution and sale of eliquids.
Basically it would be illegal for an out of state juice manufacture to sell in IN and anybody in state would have a pretty big financial and oversight burden to begin making juice. Granted they would have a monopoly...
The biggest issue with these bills are the unreasonable restrictions they put on the manufacture, distribution and sale of eliquids.
Basically it would be illegal for an out of state juice manufacture to sell in IN and anybody in state would have a pretty big financial and oversight burden to begin making juice. Granted they would have a monopoly...
I'm not okay with taxing something for the hell of it. Its simply not necessary to separate the citizens from their money just because they choose to do an activity. I'm also not okay banning things that ate safe. Yes, until proven otherwise, vaping is safe. The proof to justify bans simply does not exist.
InMyImage
Gold Contributor
Member For 4 Years
Member For 3 Years
Member For 2 Years
Member For 1 Year
Member For 5 Years
I'm not saying that I want it to happen, just that in picking battles, these are the two concessions I think would be reasonable to make. The tax rate in the bills in IN equate to a couple of cents for 30ml bottle, but I fully understand that it becomes a slippery slope on the taxation end, I just don't see us getting around a sin tax of some sort.
And in no way did I say ban. I said that I'm okay with prohibiting vaping in places where smoking is prohibited. I personally do not want people next to me in a restaurant blowing clouds. It's a distraction while I'm trying to enjoy a nice meal with my family and I don't want to see it, or smell it depending on what is being vaped.
I agree.
Besides, they are ALREADY getting sales TAX, so there is money they otherwise would NOT have received. I guess 7% just isn't enough.....
I have to disagree with this. They're attempting to lump e-cigs in with tobacco products when there isn't tobacco in them. They might as well attempt to tax tomatoes and cauliflower because they also contain nicotine. It's government overreach.
The thing that bothers me most is that all of this is that it's nothing more than gaming the system for profit.
Big Pharma lobbying against e-cigs so they can sell their patches and pills. Big Tobacco lobbying against open vaping so they can corner the market with their convenience store products that suck. Politicians and "health organizations" trying to make a name for themselves by using bogus studies to fuel regulations. It's all a big cluster fuck because not a single one of them gives a damn about the simple fact that vaping gives smokers a real opportunity to quit.
InMyImage
Gold Contributor
Member For 4 Years
Member For 3 Years
Member For 2 Years
Member For 1 Year
Member For 5 Years
Yes, I agree with everything. My statements were made from a worst case scenario concessions standpoint.
I firmly believe that on the taxation side we should be treated equally with any non-tobacco nicotine product. The challenge there is that there are FDA regulations on those products, so it's potentially an issue of who we want to get in bed with.
I don't agree with anything in either of these bills, although it is good that 539 was amended to provide for co-ops which will help a lot, but still have a big impact on interstate commerce, so it's going to get appealed if it gets passed.
I firmly believe that on the taxation side we should be treated equally with any non-tobacco nicotine product. The challenge there is that there are FDA regulations on those products, so it's potentially an issue of who we want to get in bed with.
I don't agree with anything in either of these bills, although it is good that 539 was amended to provide for co-ops which will help a lot, but still have a big impact on interstate commerce, so it's going to get appealed if it gets passed.