Connecticut bill (HB 5286) would require labels covering 60% of e-cig packages listing contents & nicotine yield, hearing Feb 28

[graffiti]

Sure is good CT is on the forefront of this fight on the federal level too.

US Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, & Pensions: Newsroom - Press Releases

 

[Roger_Lafayette]

Sure is good CT is on the forefront of this fight on the federal level too.

US Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, & Pensions: Newsroom - Press Releases

Oh ... can't say I'm surprised. This deserves its own thread. Watch for an ammendment that imposes a Federal tax.

 

[frosting]

Good news, after snooping on the legislative house's page it appears on Friday there are not a ton of Bills that day to be heard, and so the wait shouldn't be excruciatingly long if you can attend. If you can, please speak! We need more people aware of this bill! Spread the word!!

 

[graffiti]

Anybody able to go tomorrow might want to take a copy of this report that just came out:

BMC Public Health | Full text | Peering through the mist: systematic review of what the chemistry of contaminants in electronic cigarettes tells us about health risks

 

[George.B]

The hearings went well - The minor ban hearing took a long time before testimonies were heard, but when they were everyone gave great statements. Not as large of a turnout as I expected for the Label hearing, but those that showed up were terrific in their statements, Greg Conley arrived for the label hearing and gave solid arguments against the bill, and quickly did away with any misconceptions that the committee presented. Those that showed in favor of the bill were ill informed and ill prepared. One individual obviously didn't even read the contents of the bill, as she was asked questions about it and replied "I don't know" to nearly every question.

 

[Bill Godshall]

Aaron Frazier wrote

The tobacco Control Act states:
“No State or political subdivision of a State may establish or continue in effect with respect to a tobacco product any requirement which is different from, or in addition to, any requirement under the provisions of this subchapter relating to tobacco product standards, premarket review, adulteration, misbranding, labeling, registration, good manufacturing standards, or modified risk tobacco products ”

21 U.S.C § 387p(a)(2)(A) (2013)
see also 21 U.S.C § 387g(a)(4)(B)(i) (2013) .

I know we don't like to refer to ourselves as a tobacco product but we are governed under the Tobacco Control Act despite the fact the FDA hasn't taken any measurable steps at this time. Maybe you can quote this in your responses and educate them that any attempt to regulate the labeling will be a violation of federal laws thus illegal and unenforceable.

Although Aaron correctly cites the relevant preemption clause in the Tobacco Control Act, he misinterprets its legal impact on state e-cig laws.

Since the Tobacco Control Act doesn't impose any tobacco product standards, premarket review, adulteration, misbranding, labeling, registration, or good manufacturing standards on e-cigs, the TCA would NOT preempt any of these bills in UT, CT or IL unless and until the FDA approves the "deeming" regulation (which would also ban all e-cig products).


A better argument against the CT labeling law is to cite Judge Richard Leon's ruling striking down FDA's Congressionally mandated warning labels (that I convinced Sen. Mike Enzi to amend the TCA with) that requires color graphic picture warnings on all cigarette packs. Leon ruled that the cigarette labeling regulations approved/imposed by Obama's FDA (not the TCA's mandate for labeling regulations) were unconstitutional because they were intended to shock and scare people instead of provide useful and educational information. The same could be argued about the CT bill's requirements, as those labels don't need to cover 60% of e-cig packaging, and nearly all e-cig packaging already contains labels that cite nicotine yields and product contents.


My biggest concern about state manufacturing, packaging and labeling standards for e-cigs is that it might prompted more e-cig companies (who have done little or nothing to oppose state or local e-cig bans or restrictions) to endorse FDA e-cig regs in an attempt to prevent/stop states from passing laws.

The following two articles indicate that problem is now occurring.

Who needs legislation? Dems want to extend cigarette settlement to e-cigarettes
Who Needs Legislation? Dems Want To Extend Tobacco Settlement To E-Cigarettes - Forbes

Martin of LOGIC Technology said the industry is hoping it can avoid piecemeal state-level regulation and taxation. The leading manufacturers are hoping the Food and Drug Administration soon announces regulations that apply to all companies.

Lobbyist amp up efforts to sell Washington on e-cigarettes
Lobbyists Amp Up Efforts To Sell Washington On E-Cigarettes : It's All Politics : NPR

Criss, ECIG's spokesman, says that most e-cigarette producers, big and small, agree the product needs to be regulated to prevent its sale to minors, to control its ingredients, and to provide proper and accurate labeling.

 

[Placebo Effect]

My 35 minutes of testimony and Q&A opposing the labeling bill can be found here starting at the 1 hour, 55 minute mark -- CT-N: Public Health Committee February 28th Public Hearing

It's undoubtedly the strongest testimony I've ever given, mostly because it's so rare to get asked so many questions. It felt like 15, maybe 20 minutes, and I was shocked when I saw the true length on the video.

 

[NorthOfAtlanta]

Just watched yours and Karen's testimony, great!

Why did I get the impression that Madam Chairman was reading off an ANTZ check list with her questions?

Very nice job of stopping the antifreeze crap before she got wound up, she seemed like she was bound and determined to get you to admit that it was in e-liquid.

 

[AegisPrime]

Great testimonies! Thank you for speaking up for all of us!

 

[DPLongo22]

Phenomenally well done. Thank you.

 

[frosting]

I've only just been able to stop by ECF now since the hearing and I wanted to say a big thank you of everyone who joined us in Hartford this past Friday. Greg's testimony was substantial as it was almost surreal just how interested the committee was. The big shocker was that The American Cancer Society was there in opposition of the bill. We were lucky to be in and out by about 1:30pm.

 

[graffiti]

Why did I get the impression that Madam Chairman was reading off an ANTZ check list with her questions?

To be fair, that's kind of her job.

 

[Roger_Lafayette]

The big shocker was that The American Cancer Society was there in opposition of the bill.

ALA, AHA, ACS, CFTFK and so forth have taken this position in a number of states before. It's actually helped us, because they've apparently swung protest votes:

Natalie Cullen, who represents the American Cancer Society, said she opposes the legislative effort but not because the society supports e-cigs.

"The bill contains only vague references to enforcement and the state has no ability to analyze the products. We only support laws that treat e-cigs as any other tobacco product," Cullen said.

From: http://www.ctpost
.com/local/article/E-cig-sellers-say-no-to-warning-labels-5278882.php

 

[rothenbj]

Greg, the Q&A was excellent. It still amazes me how, after 50 years of trying to get people to quit smoking cigarettes, a health department would be so concerned about the contents of nicquid. I still haven't see 60% of a cigarette pack listing all the ingredients or even the nicotine delivered for that matter.

 

[Katdarling]

Greg..... your efforts on behalf of all vapers are nothing short of heroic.

Thank you so very much.


<---- admitted fangirl.

 

[Bramble]

Having watched this and also the ones happening here in Utah (good job to all btw ) I have to say the recurring theme is complete ignorance of these people passing laws for the rest of us.

You would think before people try to make a law about something they would avail themselves to learn as much as possible about it. Instead of looking like complete idiots trying to tell people to label "nicotine yield" on all "devices and accessories."

We are seeing the same thing here in UT, don't worry, it isn't just CT.

 

[shinimouri25]

So as I'm just learning about this now, are there any updates?

Was it denied? Approved? Sidelined?

 

[Placebo Effect]

So as I'm just learning about this now, are there any updates?

Was it denied? Approved? Sidelined?

It's just sitting in committee. Send e-mails and make phone calls in opposition and be sure to note where in Connecticut you live.

 

[Roger_Lafayette]

http://articles.
courant.com/2014-03-12/health/hc-malloy-e-cigarette-ban-0413-20140312_1_electronic-cigarettes-e-cigarettes-minors

lead me to this (it's not yet on legiscan, perhaps too new?)

http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=sb24&which_year=2014&SUBMIT1.x=5&SUBMIT1.y=3#

I don't have time to crawl through this, but it looks like a simple minor sales/possession ban, not an interstate sales ban (F2F sales req).

Here's the PDF:
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2014/TOB/s/pdf/2014SB-00024-R00-SB.pdf

I can't believe that a state like CT doesn't already have a minor sales ban in place. But apparently not.

 

[Bill Godshall]

Good news from Connecticut.

On Friday (March 28) HB 5286 died a well deserved death after failing to be approved by the Joint Cmte on Public Health by Friday's deadline.

Thanks to everyone who testified at the hearing, everyone who contacted CT legislators opposing the bill, and especially to Greg Conley for mobilizing everyone to oppose and defeat the bill.