Become a Patron!

Vermont AG demands records

Whiskeywarrior

Silver Contributor
Member For 3 Years
Member For 2 Years
Member For 1 Year
The story here scares and angers me. A Vermont vape shop closed its doors recently due to extortion from the Vermont AG. Here is a link http://www.wcax.com/story/34614626/castleton-vapor-shop-faces-fines-closure

What scares me is not the fine or attack on free speach or that if you tell the truth you will be fined and excoriated. It's the grab for people's info from the state that is really scary. What are the plans for this information. Here is a quote from the regional manager of Vermont vapor.

Linda Barker
Regional Manager at Vermont Vapor
well, there's the one that told us we could not put out our vaping skeleton and santa (they even demanded we not put out our vaping easter bunny....which we never would have because bunnies don't smoke so why would they use an e-cig?). Where in the statutes does it say that they have the power to tell a business what they can and can't put on their own property?

And then there's the one that states we have to remove any video from our website and social media pages that mentioned anyone getting off cigarettes by using these products (they even mentioned an episode of "The Doctors" where e-cigs were discussed)

We'd have to remove any reviews of our products where the reviewer states that they have quit smoking because of the products.

And then there's the thing abt wanting us to identify our customers and detail what every one of them bought and what they paid for it for the past 7 1/2 yrs....both online and in our retail store.

I'm sure there's more that I'm forgetting. Last but not least they wanted us to stop talking to the media about what was going on

What do you guys think?
 

Synphul

Gold Contributor
Member For 4 Years
Hard to say, sounds like the state's being a dick about it. On the other hand state law varies from state to state and there are states with restrictions on what sort of things can be put on properties. If they word it correctly in the arguments using legalese the AG could have plenty of say. I'm not a lawyer or familiar with VT law so can't really say.

I recall plenty of dumb laws in the past, things like complaints on an auto shop I worked for in a small suburb. A friend of the shop's owner couldn't sell their car at their property because it was forbidden by the city to put up a 'for sale' sign on a car window outside of a residence. They asked if they could park the car on our repair lot with the sale sign, next thing you know the city is sending us complaints that we're not an authorized car dealership and therefor cannot sell vehicles on our lot or advertise them for sale.

It's up to various cities, towns and state's laws. I don't agree with it and think it's shitty but they may be between a rock and a hard place legally.
 

Whiskeywarrior

Silver Contributor
Member For 3 Years
Member For 2 Years
Member For 1 Year
Yeah the restriction on stuff on the property is outrageous but not the scary part. The AG is demanding all the information on their customers. Who bought what when where how and how much and at what price. What are they planning to do with this info, why would it be needed? Why even ask for it when the whole stink is about people saying they quit smoking by vaping.
 

Synphul

Gold Contributor
Member For 4 Years
I imagine using testimonials to argue health claims is a bit of a stretch bordering on the gray area so they can push further. Much like places now wanting a photo of the purchaser along with their uncensored photo id (when photo id with dob was all that was needed prior), ssn, various other invasive data for collection.

No clue why or what they're planning. Info is the new gold rush and government can't wait to track more things. How many people realize that when they're driving around, using an interstate, driving through major metro areas etc that there's a good chance their license plate has been siphoned and stored via plate readers? It all goes into a database and if/when someone feels compelled to do so they can simply obtain your license number and plug it into the computer system and get feedback plotting points between readers to determine time and direction of travel.

Nothing is innocent anymore. There's no such thing as a 'simple' purchase of anything, half the time places ask for your ph number, zip code, any other various crud. Maybe they're looking to stop bootleggers? People who appear to be buying in bulk as a garage or underground business or to sell in areas that have high restrictions. The average joe or jane buying a random mod and atty along with a couple bottles of ejuice may not be very exciting. Someone buying 5-10 mods, multiple atty's and multiple bottles of juice might trip a red flag. Just speculation, much like the sale limits placed on otc meds like sudafed which have ulterior purposes.

I didn't see where it said they were demanding all info for all users, the part I read said obtaining info of some customers. There are lots of things asked of retailers from time to time by law enforcement or other agencies which are invasive. Did you sell this to this person, how much, when, how did they pay. Nothing is sacred these days it seems.
 

pulsevape

Diamond Contributor
Member For 4 Years
I think we have to admitt our political class has devolved into tyranny..they are no longer interested in the LAW or protecting the people's rights..they are insulated by a massive structure that makes them immune to the people, the goverment is so massively big so powerfull that they can operate outside of the law at their own whims, and the people or a small group of people facing their abuses is like David fighting Goliath.I think we have to admitt our political class does not hold the principles of the republic and the Consitution dear,but rather they are nothing more than the lowest strata of humanity looking to extort the people for their own personal gain...an organized crime racket.
 

CJ-3

Silver Contributor
Member For 5 Years
The problem with our political system falls in to the fact the we keep electing the same types of politicians.
And before anyone gets all buthurt and starts the "I didn't vote them in" routine..
"We" refers to the general public. As long as We keep up with record low voter turnouts We will keep screwing ourselves.
Ya don't like the system then help change it. You voted, that is great and I commend you. Did you get anyone else to vote as well? Write a politician to voice an opinion on a bill up for discussion?
Rant over.
 

Barbara E.

VU Donator
Bronze Contributor
Member For 4 Years
Unlisted Vendor
There's more to this story than what was reported in that brief article. It's my understanding that, about a year ago, one of Vermont's assistant attorney generals opened an online Vape website called Vermont Vapors. (Note the 's' at the end). Vermont Vapor filed some sort of legal action against them claiming the names were too similar ( which they obviously are). The online shop agreed to change their name but tried to get money from Vermont vapor to cover their costs for changing their name. Vermont vapor refused to pay. Now, all of a sudden, the Attorney General's office is after them.

It's all very suspicious-looking and comes across like a personal Vendetta type thing.
 

CJ-3

Silver Contributor
Member For 5 Years
There's more to this story than what was reported in that brief article. It's my understanding that, about a year ago, one of Vermont's assistant attorney generals opened an online Vape website called Vermont Vapors. (Note the 's' at the end). Vermont Vapor filed some sort of legal action against them claiming the names were too similar ( which they obviously are). The online shop agreed to change their name but tried to get money from Vermont vapor to cover their costs for changing their name. Vermont vapor refused to pay. Now, all of a sudden, the Attorney General's office is after them.

It's all very suspicious-looking and comes across like a personal Vendetta type thing.
Please note that I am not calling you a liar.

Do you have any info on this that can be shared? News article? Video link from the parties involved?

We've all seen how people can jump on the bandwagon once a posting includes "I heard...." and then find out it was a misunderstanding.
 

Barbara E.

VU Donator
Bronze Contributor
Member For 4 Years
Unlisted Vendor

Firstly, thanks for posting this. I was on my phone instead of my computer and didn't have a link handy.

For those not interested in reading the entire article, here are the pertinent paragraphs from the article above...

Tredwell said he learned sometime in 2015 that Assistant Attorney General Toni Hamburg-Clithero had started an online e-cigarette business under the name Vermont Vapors. Tredwell’s lawyer sent her a cease-and-desist letter, arguing the name was so similar to his company’s that it was a violation of trademark law.

Correspondence Tredwell supplied to VTDigger shows that Hamburg-Clithero disagreed and requested $1,000 to cover the costs of a new domain name and rebranding of her company. Tredwell threatened to sue and says he never heard back.

The Vermont Vapors website and Facebook page no longer exist. Reached by phone, Hamburg-Clithero said she wasn’t sure “if it’s appropriate to talk about it.”

And now Vermont's Attorney General's office is coming after him.

Coincidence?
 

CJ-3

Silver Contributor
Member For 5 Years
So now that I have read the article it looks like there is blame on both sides to share.
Certainly looks like he has been singled out and that's just wrong.
With that being said he is not 100% perfectly innocent. From the same article it States he feels he should be allowed to refer to himself as Dr. Because he has a doctorate in law.
That's pushing it and he knew it.
Is he being treated fairly? No he is not.
Was he 100% an angel? No he wasn't.
 

Barbara E.

VU Donator
Bronze Contributor
Member For 4 Years
Unlisted Vendor
I agree that calling yourself a 'Dr.' (which people assume means a medical doctor) when you have a law doctorate is a bit unusual but it is not illegal. In fact, it's perfectly legal (although I personally wouldn't do it).

But it still comes down to the fact that Vermont's Attorney Generals Office seems to be deliberately singling him out. Given the background, their actions seem extremely questionable.
 

CJ-3

Silver Contributor
Member For 5 Years
I agree that calling yourself a 'Dr.' (which people assume means a medical doctor) when you have a law doctorate is a bit unusual but it is not illegal. In fact, it's perfectly legal (although I personally wouldn't do it).

But it still comes down to the fact that Vermont's Attorney Generals Office seems to be deliberately singling him out. Given the background, their actions seem extremely questionable.
I think we agree on both of your statements. I hope I did not come across as argumentative.
 

VU Sponsors

Top