Washington State - House & Senate Bills - Help w/interpretation?

[Bill Godshall]

Basically, these bills would ban the sale of flavored cigars, flavored smokeless tobacco, flavored pipe tobacco, flavored RYO tobacco, flavored e-cigarette products (that contain nicotine).

The legislation also would ban the sale of "Capsular smokeless tobacco", whose definition includes all dissolvable smokeless tobacco products (e.g. Star's Ariva and Stonewall, RJ Reynolds Orbs, Strips, Sticks) and all smokeless products that are packaged in individual use pouches (e.g. Skoal Bandits, Camel Snus, Marlboro Snus, and perhaps a dozen other brands of snuff and snus that are packaged in individual use pouches).

Most tobacco companies are opposing this legislation.

There were public hearings on both the House and Senate bill in the past two weeks.

 

[Bill Godshall]

Elaine wrote

I wonder what percentage of Cigars sold are flavored.

I suspect that flavored cigars account for 40%-50% of the cigar market (but they tend to be lower priced cigars).
I suspect that flavored smokeless products account for 15%-25% of the smokeless tobacco market.
And I suspect that the bills' definition of "Capsular smokeless tobacco" accounts for a rapidly growing 15%-25% of the smokeless tobacco market.

Thus, this legislation would ban the sale of almost half of all cigars and smokeless tobacco products.

 

[Turnkeys]

As the bill is currently worded, it could (and likely would) be applied to any product containing nicotine excepting cigarettes, unflavored cigars, loose pipe tobacco and loose chewing tobacco. (paraprasing a bit from memory)

Current wording could easily be applied to e-liquid of any kind, flavored or not.

Bill, nice find on the articles.

 

[Bill Godshall]

Upon rereading this legislation, it appears that it could be interpreted as banning the sale of ALL e-cigarette products that contain nicotine (since they have or produce a "distinguishable" "taste" "other than tobacco").

18 No person shall sell, distribute, offer for sale, or allow to
19 be sold or distributed any tobacco product or any component part
20 thereof that:
21 (a) Has or produces a distinguishable flavor, taste, or aroma other
22 than tobacco that can be readily perceived by a consumer or other
23 person through their sense of taste or smell either prior to or during
24 consumption;

 

[Placebo Effect]

The Seattle Times ran an article about this legislation on Sunday at:
Local News | Proposed ban on flavored tobacco creates sparks | Seattle Times Newspaper

Wow. This Tobacco exec does himself no favors

Stephen Martin of Altadis USA, a tobacco manufacturer, accused lawmakers of an "irresponsible effort to promote your own personal crusade against tobacco." He urged them to focus instead on underage drinking. "I challenge you to please cite one instance where a teenager was directly responsible for killing someone after consuming a flavored cigar or pipe tobacco."

 

[tybin]

Bump: letters sent to my reps

 

[tybin]

bump for fellow WA vaper action

 

[Stubby]

Mike Siegel wrote about this WA legislation on Tuesday at
The Rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary: More Hypocrisy: Washington Anti-Smoking Groups Supporting Bill that Would Ban Menthol Cigarillos, But Allow Menthol Cigarettes

Mike Siegel hardly even mentioned that fact that this bill would ban all flavored and portioned smokeless and that it would be a disaster for THR. He just rambles on about Menthol Cigarillos. I never considered Siegel to be a friend of THR though he does have an obsession with electronic cigarettes.

 

[Placebo Effect]

Mike Siegel hardly even mentioned that fact that this bill would ban all flavored and portioned smokeless and that it would be a disaster for THR. He just rambles on about Menthol Cigarillos. I never considered Siegel to be a friend of THR though he does have an obsession with electronic cigarettes.

I was disappointed to see Dr. Siegel fail to report on the recent, thorough epidemiological study on Swedish snus that debunked claims that it causes mouth cancer.

He's anti-tobacco, but thankfully not "Anti-Derived-From-Tobacco," which is more than you can say for the vast majority of public health professionals.

 

[Petrodus]

I'm sure the big question on many of our minds is if Seattle, WA
will be hosting Hempfest again this year.

A quick search found that Hempfest filed a suit against Seattle for denying
a permit to hold the festival at the Seattle Center this year. However,
Mayor Mike McGinn, said he "supports Hempfest and is open to working
with the festival organizerson making Myrtle Edwards Park available for
Hempfest's 20th anniversary."

Pardon the OT

 

[Stubby]

I was disappointed to see Dr. Siegel fail to report on the recent, thorough epidemiological study on Swedish snus that debunked claims that it causes mouth cancer.

He's anti-tobacco, but thankfully not "Anti-Derived-From-Tobacco," which is more than you can say for the vast majority of public health professionals.

Siegel has been silent on smokeless in recent years. This is from 2006. You have to scroll down to the piece on Oncologist Switches Careers

The Rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary: April 2006

Notice the comments by Bill Godshall

And an analysis by Carl Phillips

Re: Cancer - TobaccoHarmReduction.org Forums

Siegel partially retracts his statement, but just barely. He stands by his main analysis. As I said he has been silent on smokeless for a long time. Silence is not what is needed. I would advise the CASAA to disassociate themselves from Siegel for the good of all.

 

[JustJulie]

Siegel has been silent on smokeless in recent years. This is from 2006. You have to scroll down to the piece on Oncologist Switches Careers

The Rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary: April 2006

Notice the comments by Bill Godshall

And an analysis by Carl Phillips

Re: Cancer - TobaccoHarmReduction.org Forums

Siegel partially retracts his statement, but just barely. He stands by his main analysis. As I said he has been silent on smokeless for a long time. Silence is not what is needed. I would advise the CASAA to disassociate themselves from Siegel for the good of all.

Dr. Siegel has never been a smokeless tobacco cheerleader, which is disappointing since it is certainly part of any serious harm reduction campaign.

That said, imho, we have few enough friends out there that we can't afford to disassociate from those who are strongly supportive of e-cigarettes . . . especially if they are more or less silent about smokeless as opposed to publicly trashing it.

On the topic of the proposed legislation in Washington, it is a messy bill, fraught with all sorts of pitfalls and problems for electronic cigarettes, the main one being the elimination of flavors . . . and the subsequent subjective determinations that are sure to follow in connection with "distinguishable flavor, taste, or aroma."

 

[Bill Godshall]

HB 1246 was referred to the WA House Committee on Health Care & Wellness
House Health Care & Wellness Committee
Committee Members and Staff

Unfortunately, the Committee Chair Eileen Cody is the primary sponsor of HB 1246, and six of the bill sponsors (Cody, Harris, Green, Van De Wege, Clibborn, Jenkins) are on the committee. Thus, 6 of the 11 committee members are sponsors of the bill, so our work is cut out for us. But just because someone is a sponsor of a bill doesn't mean that they cannot be convinced to vote against it (as I've seen it occur many times in the past).

SB 5380 was referred to the WA Senate Committee on Labor, Commerce & Consumer Protection
Senate Labor, Commerce & Consumer Protection Committee
Committee Members & Staff

Committee Chair Jeanne Kohl-Welles is a cosponsor of SB 5380, as is Cmte member Adam Kline.
But SB 5380 cosponsors account for just 2 of the 7 Cmte members.

Since both the House and Senate Committee Chairs are sponsors of these bills, these bills are likely to be considered by the Committees, and it could occur sooner rather than later.

 

[tybin]

bump for some action

 

[tybin]

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...d-sales-e-cigs-flavored-tobacco-products.html

 

[tybin]

bump for status update. anyone?

 

[Placebo Effect]

It appears that the bill hasn't moved since mid-February.

Bill Godshall addressed this in a post on ...........

Yesterday, the WA House Cmte on Health Care & Wellness approved a Substitute HB 1246 (see attachment of bottom of this posting), which basically amended HB 1246 by deleting Section 4, which would have banned the sale of e-cigarettes, flavored OTP, and individual portioned smokeless products (pouches and dissolvables).

The original HB 1246 is at HB 1246 - 2011-12

The Substitute HB 1246 has now been referred to the House Rules Cmte
House Rules Committee
Committee Members and Staff
which is comprised of caucus leaders from both parties, and which is chaired by WA Speaker of the House Frank Chopp.

Although the worst (for vendors and users of e-cigarettes and smokeless tobacco) clause of HB 1246 (i.e. Section 4) has been removed, Section 1 of the bill (which was slightly amended) still contains false and misleading claims about the health risks of smokeless tobacco (and cigars), and misleadingly implies that flavored tobacco products and dissolvables (which it claims "closely resemble candy" are being ) are target marketed to youth.

Also, it appears that Section 3 of the bill would authorize (by repealing the existing local preemption clause) local governments in WA to ban the sale of e-cigarettes, flavored tobacco products, dissolvable smokeless products, etc.

Please note that King County/Seattle just banned e-cig usage indoors because some council members didn't want to reminded of smoking, so I wouldn't be surprised if the same King County/Seattle council members proposed banning e-cig sales if HB 1246 is enacted.

Therefore, it would be wise to encourage the House Rules Cmte to amend HB 1246 to:
- delete the inaccurate, misleading and inflamatory statements in Section 1,
- add a sentence to Section 3 to preempt local governments from banning the sale of any tobacco product(s), and
- add a new Section to the bill to ban the sale of e-cigarettes to minors.

We need some troops on the ground for this tybin. Is your state representatives on the Rules Committee? Committee Members and Staff

 

[tybin]

no. i did write them all tho before this last edit of the bill. One agreed that it was just silly as it was originally written.

I wrote a bunch of the committee members

 

[Placebo Effect]

no. i did write them all tho before this last edit of the bill. One agreed that it was just silly as it was originally written.

I wrote a bunch of the committee members

Definitely try and make some phone calls to if you can, especially to those legislators who are around you area. I'd recommend using the idea of the need for uniformity in laws as the reason for not allowing local bans, and the importance of a ban on sales to minors goes without saying.

 

[technovapir]

The last letters I sent to my reps came back with responses that indicated no one had even READ what I wrote. The last one actually said "thank you for your letter of support", when my letter was NOT one of support.
Another one just said thank you, but then went on to tell me about how wonderful the Family Smoking Prevention act was.
Cheesh. Can't wait until it's time to vote again. I remain hopeful that changes will eventually come...