Vermont legislation (H 632) would ban the sale and possession of e-cigarettes by adults

[Bill Godshall]

Vermont legislation (H 632) would ban the sale and possession of e-cigarettes by adults (but not cigarettes).
http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/2014/Bills/Intro/H-632.pdf

The bill hasn't been assigned to a committee yet, but will let folks know when that occurs.


Please note that we've already defeated a dozen bills in 8 states since 2009 that would have banned e-cig sales to adults.

 

[MD_Boater]

Have the zombies stormed the state legislatures and eaten all of the brains? What is wrong with these people?

 

[rothenbj]

Another prime example of the bipartisan nature of this effort.

 

[Bill Godshall]

According to the VT legislative directory, two of the three sponsors of H 632 (including its prime sponsor Koch) are Democrats, and the third sponsor is listed as both a Democrat and a Republican (as are several other Reps in Vermont, which I've never seen before).

 

[MTFogger]

These sponsor don't have ties to BT do they?

 

[DoogieTony]

These sponsor don't have ties to BT do they?

I'd guess pharmaceutical companies as BT have lines of cig-a-likes and notice how tobacco substitute is crossed out.

They are definitely getting paid off by someone.

 

[Jenn Perry]

Actually if you read it...It says will have to have a license and no sales for those under age of 18

 

[sonicdsl]

Actually if you read it...It says will have to have a license and no sales for those under age of 18

Actually, if you read it... that applies to tobacco products.

For tobacco substitutes and electronic cigarettes:

9 An act relating to banning the sale or possession of electronic cigarettes

10 It is hereby enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Vermont:

11 Sec. 1. 7 V.S.A. § 1012 is added to read:
12 § 1012. TOBACCO SUBSTITUTES; ELECTRONIC CIGARETTES
13 (a) A person shall not sell or possess tobacco substitutes.
14 (b) A person who violates subsection (a) of this section shall be subject to a
15 civil penalty of not more than $100.00 for a first offense and not more than
16 $500.00 for a second or subsequent offense.

This is a different section, going by the verbiage and section numbers.

 

[CES]

That is just insane.

 

[NicoHolic]

I'm not going to bother looking it up, but I'll bet these sponsors are for a total firearms ban too. Control freaks.

 

[MD_Boater]

A complete ban? Are people getting too healthy for them? There is simply no good reason for that.

We are doing ourselves a huge disservice by eliminating discussion about which party is pushing these types of bills.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

 

[rothenbj]

A complete ban? Are people getting too healthy for them? There is simply no good reason for that.

We are doing ourselves a huge disservice by eliminating discussion about which party is pushing these types of bills.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

It's not political, it's just that one group of politicians feel they need to control every aspect of your lives and develop methods of marketing higher taxes on every aspect to insure you either abide or pay. Plus let's face it, keeping people alive longer has no advantage to society.

 

[Rickajho]

Actually, if you read it... that applies to tobacco products.

For tobacco substitutes and electronic cigarettes:

9 An act relating to banning the sale or possession of electronic cigarettes

10 It is hereby enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Vermont:

11 Sec. 1. 7 V.S.A. § 1012 is added to read:
12 § 1012. TOBACCO SUBSTITUTES; ELECTRONIC CIGARETTES
13 (a) A person shall not sell or possess tobacco substitutes.
14 (b) A person who violates subsection (a) of this section shall be subject to a
15 civil penalty of not more than $100.00 for a first offense and not more than
16 $500.00 for a second or subsequent offense.

This is a different section, going by the verbiage and section numbers. ​

​

So, if I have to resort to eating carrot sticks if I can't buy e-cigs, then it would seem that carrot sticks would fit the definition of "tobacco substitutes". Does chewing on your pen warrant a $500.00 fine? And wouldn't Chantix, Nicorette and patches also qualify as "tobacco substitutes"?

Am I missing something or is this piece of legislation on the surface at patently stupid as it... really is?

"Oh no - not those tobacco substitutes, those tobacco substitutes." Yeah... right.

 

[tommy2bad]

It seems in their desire to rid the world of tobacco they think of e-cigarettes as a way for tobacco companies to remain in business and it a line they want to stop before it becomes a means of avoiding complete ruin. Two things wrong with their thinking; 1; preventing the harm from smoking should be their goal, not the destruction of the tobacco industry, 2; they have a snowball in hells chance of achieving their desired goal.

Requiring a licence and sales restriction to minors is reasonable, refusing a licence to e-cigarettes while giving one for cigarettes is so stupid it beggars belief.

 

[Harlen]

Money money money they are going to get it one way or another

 

[WhiteHighlights]

Bill, thanks for this. How can I track this bill? I usually spend most of Aug. in VT at a family house on a lake and have relatives who live in VT. I alerted VT Vapors, a B&M I hoped to visit this summer, so they can spread the word too. For those of us who visit VT regularly - from skiers, to leaf peepers and summer residents - making possession subject to a $100 fine (and $500 for subsequent) is crazy.

 

[Bill Godshall]

Rickajho inquired:

then it would seem that carrot sticks would fit the definition of "tobacco substitutes". Does chewing on your pen warrant a $500.00 fine? And wouldn't Chantix, Nicorette and patches also qualify as "tobacco substitutes"?

Please note the Vermont Statute's current definition of "tobacco substitute" applies to all e-cigs that contain nicotine, but doesn't appear to apply to e-liquid or vaporizers that don't contain nicotine.

The Vermont Statutes Online

(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 purposes. (Added 1991, No. 70, § 2, eff. May 1, 1992; amended 1999, No. 89 (Adj. Sess.), § 1; 2007, No. 114 (Adj. Sess.), § 3; 2011, No. 166 (Adj. Sess.), § 2; 2013, No. 14, § 1.)


So while H 632 would ban the sale and possession of most "cigalikes" (and all nicotine containing e-cigs), it wouldn't ban the sale or possession of e-liquid or vaporizers (that don't contain nicotine) if sold and stored separately.

Although I cannot fathom an adult being cited for possessing an e-cig containing nicotine (especially since the only way a nonuser could tell if an e-cig contained nicotine is by getting a judge to sign a search warrant, seize the product and test it (which I also cannot envision), we need to kill this bill as it would set a terrible precedent.

Please note that we've defeated all 12 bills introduced in 8 different states since 2009 that would have banned the sale of e-cigs to adults. Let's keep our record perfect.

 

[WhiteHighlights]

I haven't figured out how to get updates automatically, but I found tracking information on the VT website:
The Vermont Legislative Bill Tracking System

It was just referred to the House Committee on Human Services who will review it, hold hearings and decide on the merits of the bill. The members of the committee are:

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN SERVICES (Room 46)
Pugh of South Burlington, Chair
Haas of Rochester, Vice Chair
Donahue of Northfield, Ranking Member
Batchelor of Derby
Burditt of West Rutland
Frank of Underhill
French of Randolph
Krowinski of Burlington, Clerk
McFaun of Barre Town
Mrowicki of Putney
Trieber of Rockingham

I'm going to watch this link to see when it comes up on their meeting agenda: Vermont Legislature

If anyone can make to Montpelier to speak when it's posted, be prepared - the agenda from another date has this at the top:

ATTENTION WITNESSES- Please email handouts to the committee assistant before your scheduled meeting date and bring 5 hard copies. Please write your name, organization, date and title each document. With few exceptions, any documents you hand out to a committee, or send to a committee assistant, are open to the public and may be posted to the committee’s webpage.

Now if I could only find the committee's webpage. I've seached and searched!

 

[AgentAnia]

....Now if I could only find the committee's webpage. I've seached and searched!

Is this what you're looking for? House Committee on Human Services

(That's all I can find, so far...)

 

[sonicdsl]

A complete ban? Are people getting too healthy for them? There is simply no good reason for that.

We are doing ourselves a huge disservice by eliminating discussion about which party is pushing these types of bills.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

You can discuss the person/s responsible for starting/sponsoring these bills. Just don't let it dissolve into a partisan free-for-all of this party vs that party hate posts. That does no one any good, and is against TOS.

Thanks

Sent while Moderating ECF via Tapatalk 4