Illinois bill (HB 5689) would mandate special packaging for all e-cig products sold in IL to "protect the children"

[Bill Godshall]

Illinois bill (HB 5689) purportedly for “Child Safe E-Cigarettes” would require special packaging for all e-cig products sold in IL, referred to House Rules Cmte
Illinois General Assembly - Bill Status for HB5689
Illinois General Assembly - Full Text of HB5689=


There's only one sponsor of this bill, so its not likely to become enacted. I suspect it will be referred to another committee.

But this is another reason (see comments I posted on Paul Ray's bill that would ban/mandate certain types of nicotine in e-cigs sold in Utah) why all e-cig manufacturers, vendors and vapers should vigorously oppose all state bills that would mandate manufacturing, packaging or labeling standards for e-cigs sold in that state.

Otherwise, in several years 20 different states will have totally different manufacturing, packaging and/or labeling standards for e-cigs sold in their respective states, and all of their standards will differ from each other. Can anyone imagine e-cig companies manufacturing, packaging and labeling 20 distinctly dfferent e-cig products to market in those 20 different states?

 

[Sundodger]

Excellent point.

 

[Placebo Effect]

Bill Status of HB5689 98th General Assembly
Full Text Votes View All Actions Printer-Friendly Version


Short Description: CHILD SAFE E-CIGARETTES

House Sponsors
Rep. Robyn Gabel

Hearings
Human Services Committee Hearing Mar 20 2014 8:30AM Stratton Building Room 413 Springfield, IL

 

[Bill Godshall]

IL House Human Services Cmte is at
Illinois General Assembly - House Committee Members

Please note that in 2010, this committee refused to approve a Senate passed bill that would have banned all e-cig sales in IL.

 

[pamdis]

Amendment to this bill passed on voice vote in the committee and has been placed on calendar for second reading in the house.

Illinois General Assembly - Bill Status for HB5689

 

[Bill Godshall]

The amended bill at
Illinois General Assembly - Full Text of HB5689
exempts all prefilled and disposable e-cig cartridges (which was lobbied for by cigalike companies),

But HB 5689 would still require (once the Gov. signs the bill) ALL e-liquid products that are "sold and marketed" in Illinois to "be sold only in special packaging" that comply with "standards" that comply with "rules" adopted by Health Dept (that has been hostile to all e-cigs and knows nothing about e-liquid), which might take several years to establish (and may not occur until after an e-liquid company sues the agency for not issuing "rules" and "standards").

In sum, it appears that the bill would ban ALL e-liquid sales (and marketing) in the Illinois until after the IL Health Dept gets around to establishing e-liquid packaging standards.


Sec. 10. Child-safe electronic cigarette liquids.
5 Electronic cigarette liquids sold and marketed for the
6 refilling of e-cigarettes may be sold only in special
7 packaging. The Department of Public Health shall adopt rules
8 establishing the standards for special packaging to be used for
9 e-cigarette liquids.
10 This Section does not apply to electronic cigarette
11 products sold in sealed, pre-filled, or disposable replacement
12 cartridges.
13 Section 99. Effective date. This Act takes effect upon
14 becoming law.".


This is yet another bill to ban the sale of e-cig products to adults that is being falsely touted as a "regulation to protect children".

And yet, childhood ingestion of hundreds of other common household products causes thousands of times more calls to poison control centers, and causes tens of thousands of times more harm to children than e-cigs ever have. But IL legislators aren't considering mandating special packaging for any of those products.

 

[VapieDan]

Illinois bill (HB 5689) purportedly for “Child Safe E-Cigarettes” would require special packaging for all e-cig products sold in IL, referred to House Rules Cmte
Illinois General Assembly - Bill Status for HB5689
Illinois General Assembly - Full Text of HB5689=


There's only one sponsor of this bill, so its not likely to become enacted. I suspect it will be referred to another committee.

But this is another reason (see comments I posted on Paul Ray's bill that would ban/mandate certain types of nicotine in e-cigs sold in Utah) why all e-cig manufacturers, vendors and vapers should vigorously oppose all state bills that would mandate manufacturing, packaging or labeling standards for e-cigs sold in that state.

Otherwise, in several years 20 different states will have totally different manufacturing, packaging and/or labeling standards for e-cigs sold in their respective states, and all of their standards will differ from each other. Can anyone imagine e-cig companies manufacturing, packaging and labeling 20 distinctly dfferent e-cig products to market in those 20 different states?

This would be an interesting tactic would it not? Require so many different labels only the huge companies could comply. Years ago bi-lingual packaging was required in Canada. The costs of this requirement, which was far easier to comply than 50 different labels, was highly debated and very costly. I suspect the ANTZ would find this aspect of proposed laws useful in hampering the industry in general.

 

[pamdis]

I have been emailing back and forth with the sponsor of this bill, telling her how vague it is and what the unintended consequences could be leaving everything up to the Health Dept by pointing her to the CT law that had all those ridiculous requirements about font size and colors.

She says the goal is only to make sure all bottles have childproof caps, and I told her that every bottle I have ever bought does have them, and that this bill seems unnecessary, but if that's all she is after, could she please amend the bill to state that instead of leaving it so open-ended.

Her reply: "The refills in Illinois do not have childproof tops. I will consider amending the bill in the Senate to be more specific."

I just sent her this "Thank you. I appreciate your responsiveness. One other thing, the bill says it takes effect immediately upon passage. If there are suppliers in Illinois selling non-child-proof caps, then they would be left with unsaleable inventory, and/or unable to sell anything at all until the Health Dept comes up with the specific rules? Could it take effect after a certain number of days after the bill is passed, or if the Health Dept is still involved, a certain number of days to comply after they issue their rules? "

 

[sonicdsl]

CASAA has updated the CTA on this one. CASAA: Call to Action! Illinois Bill Would Ban Sale of Liquid for E-Cigarettes Until Illinois Department of Public Health Establishes Packaging Standards

See that and Bill's latest post here for more info and how to help!

 

[Bill Godshall]

The Illinois House approved HB 5689 by a vote of 105 to 10
Illinois General Assembly - Bill Status for HB5689

 

[vikassi]

Question - If this bill passes, would it prevent you from buying e-liquid from a state that doesn't have this requirement as of yet?

 

[nomore stinkies]

The amended bill at
Illinois General Assembly - Full Text of HB5689
exempts all prefilled and disposable e-cig cartridges (which was lobbied for by cigalike companies),

But HB 5689 would still require (once the Gov. signs the bill) ALL e-liquid products that are "sold and marketed" in Illinois to "be sold only in special packaging" that comply with "standards" that comply with "rules" adopted by Health Dept (that has been hostile to all e-cigs and knows nothing about e-liquid), which might take several years to establish (and may not occur until after an e-liquid company sues the agency for not issuing "rules" and "standards").

In sum, it appears that the bill would ban ALL e-liquid sales (and marketing) in the Illinois until after the IL Health Dept gets around to establishing e-liquid packaging standards.


Sec. 10. Child-safe electronic cigarette liquids.
5 Electronic cigarette liquids sold and marketed for the
6 refilling of e-cigarettes may be sold only in special
7 packaging. The Department of Public Health shall adopt rules
8 establishing the standards for special packaging to be used for
9 e-cigarette liquids.
10 This Section does not apply to electronic cigarette
11 products sold in sealed, pre-filled, or disposable replacement
12 cartridges.
13 Section 99. Effective date. This Act takes effect upon
14 becoming law.".


This is yet another bill to ban the sale of e-cig products to adults that is being falsely touted as a "regulation to protect children".

And yet, childhood ingestion of hundreds of other common household products causes thousands of times more calls to poison control centers, and causes tens of thousands of times more harm to children than e-cigs ever have. But IL legislators aren't considering mandating special packaging for any of those products.

I read Dr. Amy Fairchilds article in the Huffington Post on April 4, 2014. She made some excellent points regarding other products that endanger children more than e-liquid. When I received the email from CASAA I immediately emailed every politician in Illinois to vote no and the reasoning. They scare me. I have seen them in action. We wouldn't leave our medicines where children could reach them. Why would we leave e-liquid where it could be accessible to them? I don't trust them.

 

[Delta4Zero]

Curious, a pack of cigarettes has no child proof packaging. Nor does a lighter. I'm guessing that there has been more child injuries in IL due the sudden introduction of Mentos to a 2 liter bottle of Coke. Two more things that should be child proofed obviously!!

 

[Prefight Donut]

Question - If this bill passes, would it prevent you from buying e-liquid from a state that doesn't have this requirement as of yet?

I have been emailing back and forth with senator Althoff (dist. 32) with some similar concerns. she actually has been very informative. She told me that the bill has a compliance date, and that all non-compliant products (the stuff that is in stores now) would still be sellable even after the bill passes and the health department sets a standard. this would give suppliers a chance to change their packaging without just dumping all of the product that they already have out to distributors. also, the bill does not contain any requirements for online orders from out of state. It would affect IL brick and mortar companies by making them only sell childproof packaging. So to sum up, even if the health department takes a long time to set a standard, they will still have a compliance window that will allow for sales to continue, and out of state vendors are not held to state standards if purchased online.

Our conversation has been quite reassuring but i still have a hard time believing that they are not trying to screw us over somehow.

 

[Zebra]

yep.......That is the rat hole state that I live in. We have a plethora of stuck on stupid politicians.

 

[pamdis]

The bill has been assigned to the Senate Public Health committee and a public hearing scheduled for Tuesday

May 6 2014 1:00PM Capitol 409 Springfield, IL

Illinois General Assembly - Bill Status for HB5689

 

[pamdis]

Passed in Senate committee with an amendment to become effective 1-1-2015 instead of immediately.

Second reading tomorrow in Senate.

 

[pamdis]

Third reading passed in Senate 53-2 with another amendment that changes the definition of "electronic cigarette" to provide that an electronic cigarette is a battery-operated device that contains a combination of nicotine, flavor, or chemicals or any combination thereof (instead of a combination of nicotine, flavor, and chemicals) that are turned into vapor which is inhaled by the user.

Assuming that since it was amended in the Senate, it needs to return to the House. If so, it passed the House originally 105-10, so it will probably sail through.

 

[Bill Godshall]

After the IL Senate amended/approved HB 5689, the bill was referred back to the House for concurrence, which could occur at any time the Speaker decides to run the bill.
Illinois General Assembly - Bill Status for HB5689

As noted by pamdis, the only substantitive change to the bill made by the Senate was to extend the bill's implementation date to January 1, 2015.

Although its doubtful the IL Public Health Dept will adopt rules to establish standards for the special packaging by next January (as it may take a year or more for that to occur), it appears likely that the IL House will concur with the Senate approved version of the bill.

 

[Kent C]

Third reading passed in Senate 53-2 with another amendment that changes the definition of "electronic cigarette" to provide that an electronic cigarette is a battery-operated device that contains a combination of nicotine, flavor, or chemicals or any combination thereof (instead of a combination of nicotine, flavor, and chemicals) that are turned into vapor which is inhaled by the user.

Assuming that since it was amended in the Senate, it needs to return to the House. If so, it passed the House originally 105-10, so it will probably sail through.

Thereby including 'no nic'