ILNews

Aromatherapy distributors challenge new 'look-alike' synthetic drug law

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Four companies that sell novelty items, aromatherapy products and other items have filed a lawsuit against Indiana’s prosecutors, alleging a newly enacted law that makes it illegal to possess or deal “look-alike” synthetic drugs is unconstitutional.

The companies, located around the state, claim the new law – Senate Enrolled Act 536, which took effect May 7 – could lead a reasonable person to include cigarettes, potpourri or catnip under the synthetic drug look-alike substance definition.

Sen. Jim Merritt (R-Indianapolis) authored the bill that tightened the state’s ban on synthetic drugs and closed a loophole in the previous drug ban by making it illegal to make, distribute or possess synthetic drug look-alike substances.

Even before this law took effect, the plaintiffs say they were subjected to search and seizures by law enforcement, according to the lawsuit filed Wednesday in the Indianapolis Division of the Southern District of Indiana. After the statute was enacted, plaintiff Little Arm Inc. had products taken by the Indiana State Excise Police claiming that they were a look-alike substance.

“Plaintiffs have suffered a significant loss of revenue and goodwill in their respective communities as a result of Defendants’ actions and will continue to suffer those losses as long as Defendants persist in targeting Plaintiffs’ lawful business activities with baseless accusations, threats and/or intimidation through media statements and harassment of Plaintiffs’ customers and/or vendors,” the suit says.

The plaintiffs deny that their aromatherapy products contain synthetic drugs. They allege the new law is unconstitutional because it violates due process under the 14th Amendment, the equal protection clause in Article 1, Sections 23, and constitutes a regulatory taking of property in violation of the Fifth Amendment and Article 1, Section 21 of the state Constitution.

The companies seek a preliminary and permanent injunction preventing enforcement of the new law.

Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller said Wednesday his office will defend the legislators’ public policy decision that “the Indiana Code ought not be circumvented by peddlers of synthetic drugs who try to exploit loopholes in order to profit from the sale of potentially dangerous substances.”

The case is Little Arm Inc., et al. v. Prosecutors, et al., 1:13-CV-862.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The ADA acts as a tax upon all for the benefit of a few. And, most importantly, the many have no individual say in whether they pay the tax. Those with handicaps suffered in military service should get a pass, but those who are handicapped by accident or birth do NOT deserve that pass. The drivel about "equal access" is spurious because the handicapped HAVE equal access, they just can't effectively use it. That is their problem, not society's. The burden to remediate should be that of those who seek the benefit of some social, constructional, or dimensional change, NOT society generally. Everybody wants to socialize the costs and concentrate the benefits of government intrusion so that they benefit and largely avoid the costs. This simply maintains the constant push to the slop trough, and explains, in part, why the nation is 20 trillion dollars in the hole.

  2. Hey 2 psychs is never enough, since it is statistically unlikely that three will ever agree on anything! New study admits this pseudo science is about as scientifically valid as astrology ... done by via fortune cookie ....John Ioannidis, professor of health research and policy at Stanford University, said the study was impressive and that its results had been eagerly awaited by the scientific community. “Sadly, the picture it paints - a 64% failure rate even among papers published in the best journals in the field - is not very nice about the current status of psychological science in general, and for fields like social psychology it is just devastating,” he said. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/27/study-delivers-bleak-verdict-on-validity-of-psychology-experiment-results

  3. Indianapolis Bar Association President John Trimble and I are on the same page, but it is a very large page with plenty of room for others to join us. As my final Res Gestae article will express in more detail in a few days, the Great Recession hastened a fundamental and permanent sea change for the global legal service profession. Every state bar is facing the same existential questions that thrust the medical profession into national healthcare reform debates. The bench, bar, and law schools must comprehensively reconsider how we define the practice of law and what it means to access justice. If the three principals of the legal service profession do not recast the vision of their roles and responsibilities soon, the marketplace will dictate those roles and responsibilities without regard for the public interests that the legal profession professes to serve.

  4. I have met some highly placed bureaucrats who vehemently disagree, Mr. Smith. This is not your father's time in America. Some ideas are just too politically incorrect too allow spoken, says those who watch over us for the good of their concept of order.

  5. Lets talk about this without forgetting that Lawyers, too, have FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSOCIATION

ADVERTISEMENT