Vermont -- H. 747 would ban online sales to non-retailers -- $5,000 fine per violation

Status
Not open for further replies.

Placebo Effect

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Sep 19, 2008
1,444
1,562
The Vermont Legislative Bill Tracking System

In addition to banning the sale of 'tobacco substitutes' to minors, it would be illegal to sell 'tobacco substitutes' in non-face-to-face sales. Large cigars, chewing tobacco, pipe tobacco, and shisha / hookah tobacco, however, would remain legal to send to customers.

The definition of 'tobacco substitute' is also horribly unclear, as it would not ban the sale of e-liquid to kids. Moreover, under a literal reading of the definition, any e-cigarette could be sold to a minor so long as it does not contain nicotine.
 
Last edited:

Cyatis

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Mar 8, 2011
1,080
2,099
59
Stratford, Wisconsin
(8) “Tobacco substitute” means products including electronic cigarettes or other electronic or battery-powered devices that contain and are designed to deliver nicotine or other substances into the body through inhaling vapor and that have not been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration for tobacco cessation or other medical purpose.

After reading this a few times, it pretty much disqualifies anything capable of using liquid, and is pretty draconian. I hope this bill does not pass ever. People should be to shop where they want.

This bill is more about Vermont getting its cut of sales to me, unfortunately a lot of the products that we use, are not available at most stores, unlike other tobacco products. The effect of it at best will be people will get inferior products, at higher prices, and should be defeated soundly. More people will obviously be pushed right back into smoking cigarettes, this is sad legislation indeed.
 
Last edited:

Bill Godshall

Executive Director<br/> Smokefree Pennsylvania
ECF Veteran
Apr 2, 2009
5,171
13,288
67
This VT legislation not only would ban the purchase, sales and delivery of e-cigarettes via the Internet, phone and mail order, but the punishment is a 5 year jail term, a $5,000 criminal penalty, and a $5,000 civil penalty for each purchase, sale or delivery of e-cigarettes.

(b) No person shall cause cigarettes, roll-your-own tobacco, little cigars, snuff, or tobacco substitutes ordered or purchased by mail or through a computer network, telephonic network, or other electronic network, to be shipped to anyone other than a licensed wholesale dealer, distributor, or retail dealer in this state.

(c) No person shall, with knowledge or reason to know of the violation, provide substantial assistance to a person in violation of this section.

(d) A violation of this section shall be punishable as follows:

(1) A knowing or intentional violation of this section shall be punishable by imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine of not more than $5,000, or both.

(2) In addition to or in lieu of any other civil or criminal remedy provided by law, upon a determination that a person has violated this section, the attorney general may impose a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed $5,000.00 for each violation. For purposes of this subsection, each shipment or transport of cigarettes, roll-your-own tobacco, little cigars, or tobacco substitutes shall constitute a separate violation.


Don't know when VT enacted this law (that currently applies to cigarettes, RYO, little cigars and snuff), but I've been informed that Massachusetts, Maryland and Iowa have already enacted similar laws (and the bill in AZ that would ban e-cig sales to minors includes a similar provision for various tobacco products, but not e-cigarettes).

These bills/laws (to ban internet and mail order sales of cigarettes and certain other tobacco products) appear to be (and/or have been) drafted and lobbied for by State AGs in collaboration with large tobacco companies (which is also why they include RYO and little cigars, which large cigarette companies also consider their competition).

The three largest cigarette companies (Altria, Reynolds, Lorillard) in the US (that have more than 90% market share) have lobbied state laws/bills that are intended to reduce sales of untaxed cigarettes sold by native tribes and others via the internet, as well as cigarettes sold by Non Participating Manufacturers (who didn't participate in the 1998 MSA).

Unfortunately, while the overwhelming majority of cigarettes, snuff, RYO and little cigars are retailed via brick and mortar stores that have tobacco wholesale and/or retail licenses, a far greater percentage of e-cigarette products are marketed via the internet or mail order.

I strongly suspect that Vermont AG William Sorrell http://www.atg.state.vt.us/
is behind this legislation, as he's been the most active State AG working with the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG) in enforcing the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement (MSA), and in going after tobacco companies (e.g. Sorrell sued RJ Reynolds for selling several hundred dollars of Eclipse heated tobacco products in VT).

State AG's (with endorsement and sometimes active support of large cigarette companies) are almost always behind state legislation that includes provisions dealing with the MSA, and both the VT and AZ bills would amend their state statutes to further extort money from Non Participating Manufacturers.
 
Last edited:

Bill Godshall

Executive Director<br/> Smokefree Pennsylvania
ECF Veteran
Apr 2, 2009
5,171
13,288
67
Although several states (including VT, and probably MA, MD and Iowa) have enacted laws that prohibit internet sales of cigarettes and certain other tobacco products, I'm not aware that any State AG has taken any enforcement actions against any internet cigarette retailers.

It is very important to defeat this provision in H 747, as otherwise it may be introduced in many different states (as State AGs, working through NAAG, often coordinate and replicate MSA related tobacco legislation).
 

Cyatis

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Mar 8, 2011
1,080
2,099
59
Stratford, Wisconsin
After reading the bill over a few times I revised my post, sorry it was late and the wording is pretty strange at first. I changed my first post to reflect that.

The definition of 'tobacco substitute' is also horribly unclear, as it would not ban the sale of e-liquid to kids. Moreover, under a literal reading of the definition, any e-cigarette could be sold to a minor so long as it does not contain nicotine.

It is targeting the devices themselves ...

(8) “Tobacco substitute” means products including electronic cigarettes or other electronic or battery-powered devices that contain and are designed to deliver nicotine or other substances into the body through inhaling vapor

Its either an ecig - or falls under the second part of this which pretty much covers anything else you could use to do the job, though there is a loophole there in that if doesn't contain anything, you could argue that its not an ecig and doesn't contain anything that goes into to the body and be quite correct. I'd sure hate to have to rely on that however, considering the fines, jail time etc ....

and that have not been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration for tobacco cessation or other medical purpose.

Which lets big pharma off the hook.
 
Last edited:

Cyatis

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Mar 8, 2011
1,080
2,099
59
Stratford, Wisconsin
Would Article I, section 8 of the US constitution, and the Dormant Commerce Clause apply?

I could argue that this law facially discriminates against out-of-state actors and has the effect of favoring in-state economic interests over out-of-state interests, and that this places an unnecessary burden on online sales of these products.

It probably hasn't been tried because big tobacco can simply ship them to the retailers which they already do. In the electronic cigarette case, not many such storefronts exist of course. I have to agree that big tobacco isn't likely to worry about if this passes or not, however I'm not sure if it was prompted by them, or the fact the state just figured it isn't getting its cut and wants a piece of the action.

I don't see where restricting people from buying cigarettes online or otherwise from Indian Reservations for example would help big tobacco. They tend to be popular places to get them from, and most of the big tobacco brands are sold at many of those reservations. Just because they are tax free doesn't mean that big tobacco doesn't make a profit from these sales.

Law enforcement however, always likes new and interesting things to criminalize though, it gives them more reason to exist, and generates revenue for law enforcement. It also has the potential to raise income in the state by being able to collect taxes on all of these products if they are sold in a storefront. That seems like a much bigger reason to really push this kind of legislation at the state level.
 
Last edited:

Bill Godshall

Executive Director<br/> Smokefree Pennsylvania
ECF Veteran
Apr 2, 2009
5,171
13,288
67
CASAA has issued a Call To Action on the Vermont legislation
CASAA.org

It is critically important that we convince VT legislators to remove Section 9 from this legislation.

VT AG Sorrell has already sued RJ Reynolds (based in North Carolina) for marketing its eclipse heated cigarette product in VT even though nobody was harmed by the product.

If this bill is enacted with Section 9 intact, AG Sorrell may be embolded to not only prosecute e-cig consumers and/or vendors in Vermont for violations (whose penalties include up to 5 years imprisonment, a $5,000 civil fine and a $5,000 criminal fine for each violation), but also out-of-state vendors who sell to someone in VT.
 

Semiretired

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Sep 24, 2011
5,404
58,647
Middle Georgia
So what you are saying is I need to get my doctor to give me a prescription for my ecigs and then I can order them???

The government is always talking about the growth of small businesses. Do not they understand what this will do? Most in this business at this time are small businesses...

Is this talking about the buyer (orderer of the ecig) or the seller of the device? How will they go after out of state businesses?
 

North Shore

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Jan 5, 2010
250
8
Rockport, MA
The contact info for the Vermont Human Services Committee, as sent to me by Vermont Vapor:

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN SERVICES – (Room 46)

Ann Pugh (S. Burlington), (802) 863-6705, apugh@leg.state.vt.us, Committee
Chair
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=664858861

Sandy Haas (Rochester), shaas@leg.state.vt.us / shaas@sover.net, Committee
Vice Chair

Anne Donahue (Northfield), (802) 485-6431, adonahue@leg.state.vt.us /
counterp@tds.net, Ranking Member

Lynn Batchelor (Derby Line), (802) 873-3006, lbatchelor@leg.state.vt.us /
lynnbatch@yahoo.com

Tom Burditt (West Rutland), (802) 438-0031, tburditt@leg.state.vt.us
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1134068088

Bill Frank (Underhill), (802) 899-3136, bill@repbillfrank.com, Committee
Clerk (bill sponsor)

Patsy French (Randolph), (802) 728-9421, pfrench@leg.state.vt.us

Jill Krowinski (Burlington), (802) 363-3907, jkrowinski@leg.state.vt.us /
jill.krowinski@gmail.com
https://www.facebook.com/jill.krowinski

Francis "Topper" McFaun (Barre Town), (802) 479-9843,
fmcfaun@leg.state.vt.us / toppermcfaun@aol.com

Michael Mrowicki (Putney), (802) 387-8787, mmrowicki@leg.state.vt.us /
mmrowicki@gmail.com

Matthew Trieber (Rockingham), (802) 463-3338, matrieber@gmail.com
 
Last edited:

Beans

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jan 25, 2011
2,171
2,828
Missoula Montana
I am so MAD!!!!! I spent the morning e mailing The house committe on human services and this is the reply I recieved. Notice how caring and concerned he was.

"Thanks for writing.

FYI

I serve Vermonters and have not heard from one Vermonter opposed to this.

Mike Mrowicki
Vt. State Rep. .Windham 5 District:
Putney,Dummerston, Westminster
802.387.8787"

Short and sweet. I feel like crying.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread