Utah Call to Action: HB 415 would overregulate vapor products and limit access

Status
Not open for further replies.

noevilstar

Senior Member<br>CASAA Board Member
ECF Veteran
Feb 10, 2013
324
650
Union City, NJ
casaa.org
CASAA: Utah Call to Action: Oppose HB 415 - Over-regulation that would limit access to low-risk, smoke-free vapor products

Having successfully staved off a massive tax threat, Utah vapers are now facing a new threat. HB 415, the Electronic Cigarette Regulation Act, imposes various requirements on retailers and manufacturers that could potentially make Utah a regulatory island and cut consumers off from a variety of products.

Please take action now and send an email expressing opposition to HB 415, which would dangerously overregulate the sale and manufacturing of vapor products in Utah.






Among other things, HB 415:



  • Defines e-cigarettes as a tobacco product and requires retailers selling e-cigarettes to obtain a tobacco permit. This is problematic for a number of reasons since classification as a tobacco product under Utah law subjects e-cigarettes to various other restrictions. Moreover, e-cigarette is broadly defined to include the device, and any accessories or components. “Electronic cigarette substance” is defined to include e-liquid as well as the raw ingredients used to create the e-liquid.




  • Contains labeling and child-resistant packaging requirements that are not tied to a federal standard, which would make it more difficult for out-of-state products to be sold in Utah.




  • The bill does not preempt local legislation on these issues, meaning that retailers and manufacturers may be subject to a host of confusing and potentially conflicting requirements at the state versus local level, further reducing consumer access to a variety of products.




  • Requires e-liquids use pharmaceutical nicotine produced to USP pharmaceutical standards. This section is poorly written and the bill proposes no way for the Utah Health Department to pay for testing of these nicotine products.


The bill has been assigned to the House Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Standing Committee, and is scheduled to be heard at that committee’s meeting on Friday, March 6th at 8:00 A.M. (450 State Capitol). It is imperative that vapers in Utah respond immediately to help defeat or force amendments to this bill. We will update this call to action as details arise. You can also follow developments via Utah Smoke-Free Association here.



(Writing Tip #1)If you have a lot to say, please craft your email in a separate word doc and then copy/paste it into the field provided. If you take too long, they system will time out and you will lose your work.

(Writing Tip #2) Although we've provided a prewritten email with compelling talking points, we would strongly encourage you to edit the email because personalized communications to legislators are far more persuasive than form letters. At a minimum, PLEASE INSERT YOUR PERSONAL STORY (just a few sentences) in the text of your email.
 

Bill Godshall

Executive Director<br/> Smokefree Pennsylvania
ECF Veteran
Apr 2, 2009
5,171
13,288
66

squee

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Nov 12, 2013
478
815
Central CT
Am I reading this correctly? The amended bill HB0415, starting on line 272 mandating face-to-face sales - by the definitions and provisions stated, makes all online sales illegal (unless you are licensed aka a retail store or distributor).

So this would make it illegal for Utah stores to sell online to anyone, except another licensed store?
 

Bill Godshall

Executive Director<br/> Smokefree Pennsylvania
ECF Veteran
Apr 2, 2009
5,171
13,288
66
Squee's analysis is correct.

Details for "mail order sales" (which is what Internet sales are) cited on line 300 of the bill (and at the link below)
http://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title59/Chapter14/59-14-S509.html?v=C59-14-S509_1800010118000101
specify that licensed retailers in Utah cannot sell via "mail order" to anyone other than another licensee.

Although Utah could prosecute violators who are located in Utah (although I think successful lawsuits can be filed challenging this provision in federal court), Utah law enforcement and prosecutors are unlikely to try enforcing this law against or prosecuting out-of-state Internet vendors (who sell to Utah consumers).

There are many similarities between this Utah bill and the legislation being railroaded through the Indiana legislature.

This is why vapers and vendors should oppose all state or local e-cig and e-liquid manufacturing/labeling/packaging laws at the state and local level (unless the are consistent with a federal standards), and why I repeatedly urged Utah vapers and vendors to oppose similar regulations that were previously enacted at the county level in Utah (which prompted HB 415 at the state level).
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread