Hawaii HB2079: Regulate vaping as tobacco, make it harder to access vaping products in the name of anti-smoking

[dr g]

Welp, we know these will be coming up in legislatures around the nation and paradise is no exception. I believe Hawaii has a relatively high penetration of vapers so it's possible we may have enough numbers to make an impact, but you can tell from the get-go the legislature is buying the hype rhetoric and not the facts.

HB2079 RELATING TO ELECTRONIC SMOKING devices.
Measure Status

Requires persons engaged as wholesalers and dealers of electronic smoking devices and retailers of electronic smoking devices to obtain a license from the department of health. Limits the retail sale of electronic smoking devices to those retailers who also hold a retail tobacco permit. Specifies that the revenue from electronic smoking device license fees shall be used to support smoking cessation programs in the State. Amends Hawaii's anti-smoking statute to prohibit the use of electronic smoking devices in places open to the public and places of employment. Clarifies that the sale, distribution, or display of electronic smoking devices is restricted in the same manner as cigarettes and other tobacco products.

This may not be the final bill that gets championed, but you can tell the direction this is going.

 

[dr g]

Here are the other bills being filed:
Advanced Reporting

Not looking good.

 

[cmknight]

I guess this would include the Nicotrol inhaler as well, would it not, since it "looks" like a cigarette as well.

 

[bzmotoninja83]

wow

I got your 10char right here

 

[LoveVanilla]

I guess this would include the Nicotrol inhaler as well, would it not, since it "looks" like a cigarette as well.

Would that mean MVP's should be exempt? grrrr...

These big pharm lobbyists and the ignorant are going to KILL PEOPLE.

 

[Placebo Effect]

There were a ton of Hawaii bills introduced in the past few days -- flavor bans, taxes, licensing, and usage.

Remember, just because a bill is introduced does not mean it becomes law.

I know that CASAA is working to figure everything out and get the Call to Action going. When you have multiple bills it gets very difficult.

 

[Nerone]

There were a ton of Hawaii bills introduced in the past few days -- flavor bans, taxes, licensing, and usage.

Remember, just because a bill is introduced does not mean it becomes law.

I know that CASAA is working to figure everything out and get the Call to Action going. When you have multiple bills it gets very difficult.

How many of these bills have been introduced by Democrats and how many by Republicans?

 

[Bill Godshall]

Some of the newly introduced bills in Hawaii.

Hawaii bills (SB 2079 and SB 2495) would ban e-cig use in all workplaces and require e-cig wholesalers, dealers and retailers to buy permits to sell e-cigs with revenue appropriated for further subsidization of ineffective NRT products
HI HB2079 | 2014 | Regular Session | LegiScan
HI SB2495 | 2014 | Regular Session | LegiScan

Hawaii bill (HB 2077) would ban e-cig use at government owned facilities
HI HB2077 | 2014 | Regular Session | LegiScan

Hawaii bills (SB 2498) would ban tobacco use and e-cig use on Univ of Hawaii property
HI SB2498 | 2014 | Regular Session | LegiScan

Hawaii bill (2499) would ban tobacco use and e-cig use at facilities operated by Hawaii health systems corporation
HI SB2499 | 2014 | Regular Session | LegiScan

 

[Bill Godshall]

Please note that all legislation in all 50 states, including the bills at
Advanced Reporting
that falsely define e-cigs as "electronic smoking devices" are sponsored by Big Pharma funded CTFK, ACS, AHA, ALA and by the Hawaii Dept of Health.

The strategy of Big Pharma front groups and intolerant abstinence-only public health officials is to legally define e-cigs as "electronic smoking devices" so they can deceive the public to believe e-cigs emit "smoke" instead of vapor and that e-cigs are just as (or nearly as) hazardous as cigarettes in order to ban the use of e-cigs, tax them at the same rate as cigarettes, and otherwise regulate them just like cigarettes.

 

[navigator2011]

How many of these bills have been introduced by Democrats and how many by Republicans?

On both sides, everyone already knows the truth. The biggest problem is that the voters that voted in the current politicians will continue electing the same politicians into office because those voters generally agree with the current politicians in office, aside from the vaping issue. Losing vaping and having to return to analogs may one day be the price they have to pay for their "political views."

 

[LoveVanilla]

Bill, have we uncovered any linkage/reporting on this spending by big Pharma? This is clearly a morally corrupt position that should be attacked widely, DIRECTLY and publicly. If you can any furnish links, please do so. Big tobacco would also seem to have potential motive though don't know anyone has pointed fingers.

Clearly there is big money now advancing the prohibitionist/ban position. This NEEDS to be made widely and publicly know (cause we probably can't match their dollars). If we can name specific companies, all the better. Let's "name and shame" these .......s.

Please note that all legislation in all 50 states, including the bills at
Advanced Reporting
that falsely define e-cigs as "electronic smoking devices" are sponsored by Big Pharma funded CTFK, ACS, AHA, ALA and by the Hawaii Dept of Health.

The strategy of Big Pharma front groups and intolerant abstinence-only public health officials is to legally define e-cigs as "electronic smoking devices" so they can deceive the public to believe e-cigs emit "smoke" instead of vapor and that e-cigs are just as (or nearly as) hazardous as cigarettes in order to ban the use of e-cigs, tax them at the same rate as cigarettes, and otherwise regulate them just like cigarettes.

 

[Bill Godshall]

Nerone inquired

How many of these bills have been introduced by Democrats and how many by Republicans?

Didn't do a count, but most (and probably all) of these bills were introduced by Democrats (as has occurred in every state except Utah).

Please note that both the HI House and Senate are controlled by Dems, and the governor is also a Democrat.

Thus, bills introduced by Dems have a far greater chance of being considered and of being enacted (than bills introduced by Republicans).

The same applies in states where Republicans control both House and Senate (and where the governor is Republican), where bills introduced by Dems are very rarely considered or enacted.

That also why anti e-cig bills are least likely to pass in Republican controlled states (and local governments), and most likely to pass in Democrat controlled states (and local governments).

I'm not posting this for partisan purposes, but rather to explain the legislative challenges we face, and where we will face the toughest challenges.

 

[HawaiiVPR]

Hawaii has the highest Democrat control in the nation, there are only a few republican representatives within all branches of government here. I don't believe having more republicans would deter any of these bills though, its simply a question of money. Hawaii is realizing the diminishing tax revenues from cigarette sales, so its only a matter of time until they figure a way to tax it like tobacco.

Some do-gooder representative here was talking about taxing any e-cig vendor by GROSS sales, meaning if you also sell t-shirts, magazines, batteries , etc... doesn't matter, your gross sale amount regardless of what you sell will be subject to the same tax rate that is levied on a pack of cigarettes. The reason for the tax? Protect the kids from vaping... yeah, and the scary thing is not the bill itself, but people who actually agree with this kind of logic.

BTW, for all you folks in Hawaii, don't forget the name Karl Rhoads, this is the same idiot that wants to ban the sale of ammunition in Hawaii in order to prevent gun violence. He is now talking about banning the sale of any nicotine added products without FDA approval in order to protect "those most susceptible" to nicotine addiction...

 

[2coils]

Some do-gooder representative here was talking about taxing any e-cig vendor by GROSS sales, meaning if you also sell t-shirts, magazines, batteries , etc... doesn't matter, your gross sale amount regardless of what you sell will be subject to the same tax rate that is levied on a pack of cigarettes. The reason for the tax? Protect the kids from vaping... yeah, and the scary thing is not the bill itself, but people who actually agree with this kind of logic.

I am not doubting what you are saying, Though I can't see this to hold up in court as it makes absolutely ZERO sense to me, as the taxation is supposed to be based on the premise of harm. A magazine can not harm you (neither can vaping for that matter). Though I am not a lawyer.

 

[HawaiiVPR]

I am not doubting what you are saying, Though I can't see this to hold up in court as it makes absolutely ZERO sense to me, as the taxation is supposed to be based on the premise of harm. A magazine can not harm you (neither can vaping for that matter). Though I am not a lawyer.

Absolutely, lawmakers in Hawaii have a great track record for passing unenforceable, senseless laws that seem to always have a negative effect against the law abiding. Behave and conduct yourself like a degenerate, and you'll probably do fine as long as you keep re-electing the same parasites back into office.

 

[Jman8]

Please note that all legislation in all 50 states, including the bills at
Advanced Reporting
that falsely define e-cigs as "electronic smoking devices" are sponsored by Big Pharma funded CTFK, ACS, AHA, ALA and by the Hawaii Dept of Health.

The strategy of Big Pharma front groups and intolerant abstinence-only public health officials is to legally define e-cigs as "electronic smoking devices" so they can deceive the public to believe e-cigs emit "smoke" instead of vapor and that e-cigs are just as (or nearly as) hazardous as cigarettes in order to ban the use of e-cigs, tax them at the same rate as cigarettes, and otherwise regulate them just like cigarettes.

I think I get the strategy, but seems like a serious faux pas. As in, would seem like user (or even seller) could get around restrictions or ban on such devices, by noting it is not a 'smoking' device. Would be like calling a fire extinguisher a 'smoking device' - as in almost exactly like that, but more absurdly, it would be like calling a bottle of alcohol a 'smoking device' with idea that no one can question the legal definition and from now on, that's how we shall refer to these items (alcohol), plus enforce the law around them based on that classification.

All these proposed bills suck, but HB1788 sucks the most, IMHO.

 

[Bill Godshall]

Jman8 wrote

All these proposed bills suck, but HB1788 sucks the most, IMHO

Found another one even worse, as HB 2110 would ban the sale and purchase of ALL tobacco products and e-cigs
Measure Status
HB2110.DOC

(1) It shall be unlawful to sell or furnish tobacco in any shape or form, including chewing tobacco and snuff, or an electronic smoking device.

The good news is that HB 2110 is not going to pass.

 

[Bill Godshall]

Another bill in Hawaii (SB 2029) would ban sales of all tobacco products and e-cigs to anyone under the age of 21.
Measure Status
SB2029.DOC

Meanwhile, HB 2133 would ban the sale of all tobacco products (but not e-cigs) to anyone under the age of 21
Measure Status
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2014/Bills/HB2133_.HTM

Since the largest island of Hawaii (also called Hawaii) raised its legal minimum age for tobacco sales (and e-cig sales) to 21 last year, either or both of these bills has a decent chance of being enacted. But it would be really helpful to exempt e-cigs from SB 2029.

 

[patkin]

What disturbs me most, if I'm reading correctly, is the double whammy on ecigs... ie: Dept of Health license AND a tobacco sales permit. How many ecig B&Ms want to sell tobacco? But they have to get a permit to? They aren't selling tobacco! I would think Dept of Health, being more stringent, would be enough already. Its just a money making scheme and to keep ecigs products away from public view.

 

[Bill Godshall]

A greater legislative threat (because it has a better chance of passing) than HB 1788 is HB 1791 (introduced by the same legislator Mizuno) that would would ban sale of 99% of e-cig flavorings, but wouldn't ban menthol cigarettes, or wintergreen or mint smokeless tobacco products (and wouldn't ban menthol, wintergreen or mint flavored e-cigs).
Measure Status
HB1791.DOC