The state of Indiana will again try to ban flavored vaping products in its next legislative session. Senate Bill 45, authored by Sen. Ronald Grooms, will be on the the agenda when the 2021 session begins on January 4, at 1:30 pm.
Credit: Davis Mark
The bill defines “flavored e-liquid” as e-liquid that contains a constituent ingredient that is added for the purpose of imparting a characterizing flavor. The bill would also make it illegal for any manufacturer, distributor, or retailer to manufacture, distribute, or market flavored e-liquid in Indiana.
The bill would prohibit the sale of flavored e-liquid to a person of any age and authorizes the state’s alcohol and tobacco commission to investigate and enforce penalties for certain violations involving flavored e-liquid.
Indiana has previously tried to ban flavored vaping products without success. In early March, the Indiana House of Representatives approved a bill to ban flavored e-liquids 213-195, but it failed to gain approval in the senate.
The controversial California flavored e-cigarette ban will not take effect on Jan. 1, 2021. The Superior Court for the County of Sacramento approved an agreement between the parties in its case which will suspend the Jan. 1, 2021 date of enforcement until, at the very least, after the signatures are verified for a ballot measure proposal that seeks to repeal the law.
Credit: Viviana Rishe
The law was passed this August and was set to go into effect on Jan. 1, 2021. A campaign was started to create a ballot measure for California’s voters to repeal the law. In order to get on the ballot, those in support of the referendum needed to get 623,212 verified signatures from California voters. The group supporting the repeal said it has over 1 million signatures.
But now those signatures need to be verified at the county level, a process that is underway but might not be completed until Jan. 21, 2021, after the law was set to take effect. Now, the parties have agreed to delay the law until after the signature verification process is completed.
If the verified signature threshold is not met, the law would then take effect once the Secretary of State has verified the process is complete. There are also multiple legal challenges to the law that could produce additional delays.
However, if the signatures are verified the flavor ban would be suspended until at least December 2022. California voters would have a chance to either keep the law or roll it back on Nov. 8, 2022. Those results would need to be certified, meaning even if the law was approved by voters it wouldn’t be enforceable until Dec. 8, 2022.
How did the Loveland City Council go from discussing teen vaping to a ban on dozens of products legal for adult purchase? To get to the root of this controversy, I’ll refer to two positions regarding choice and responsibility.
The first position: As an adult, I can think for myself and make informed decisions. My body, my choice.
The second position: Adults are not capable of making good choices. We need to protect people from themselves.
We acknowledge alcohol and tobacco abuse lead to health issues. Yet society has decided to handle these products through health education and access restrictions, while respecting adults’ personal choices. Bans create black markets, and history has demonstrated suppliers will always find ways to provide what consumers want. Decreasing demands works better than decreasing supply.
Don Overcash / Credit: Loveland, Colorado
On Dec. 4, the House of Representatives voted for national marijuana legalization. The law doesn’t claim marijuana is free from health concerns, but that informed adults should be free to make a personal choice. Local governments will create access restrictions to protect kids, as they do with alcohol and tobacco.
Campaigns to ban or promote certain products often have catchy names and slick marketing strategies, and they are nationally organized and locally deployed for maximum effect. And there is nothing wrong with executing a well-developed plan.
However, the truth is often lost in the battle for public favor. The proven way to win is to use emotion, along with facts and logic selectively chosen to justify a position. Obfuscation is common. Campaign workers get paid to win. This is the nature of competition in the marketplace of ideas, each side using their power to shout their position. Citizens must sort out what is true and false.
Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and others have championed many “protect people from themselves” initiatives, including regulations on salt, firearms, vaping, tobacco, and even soft drink serving sizes. Bloomberg also supports the nonprofit “Tobacco-Free Kids.” Perhaps a margarita ban is on the horizon, given the drink’s combination of alcohol, sugar, and salt.
Most of these issues are handled by national or state bodies, such as the FDA, to avoid the unintended consequences and confusion that might result from a patchwork of local bans. Non-federal government bodies do have a role to play, however, in the distribution and sale of select products such as alcohol, tobacco, and — if nationally legalized — marijuana.
When the vaping topic first came before the Loveland City Council, the focus was on limiting access for kids without impeding adults’ freedoms, similar to restrictions on alcohol and tobacco.
I believe council members became wrapped up in anti-tobacco emotion without considering the very real impact a flavored tobacco ban will have locally. While the intent of the ban is to protect our kids, the task force and council have not considered its harsh impact on over 60 Loveland small businesses, their hundreds of employees, and our adult citizens’ freedom of choice. Any serious consideration would reveal these impacts, and council has fortunately delayed further discussion pending a more thorough investigation.
It is apparent this vaping debate has more to do with ideology than Loveland’s kids, given the recent false advertisements accusing three council members by name of being “for Big Tobacco” at the expense of our children. These advertisements were developed and paid for by Tobacco-Free Kids.
Yet every member of the council has clearly supported access restrictions for minors for tobacco, alcohol, and vaping products. The real challenge is how we can do so without impeding Loveland businesses, and without frustrating thousands of Loveland citizens who legally purchase these products. An outright ban is an issue for the FDA.
Councilor Wright bought us some time to consider all factors with a delay until February 2021. I believe an amendment to the proposed ordinance would be in the best interest of Loveland citizens. This amendment would include:
• License requirements for retail outlets.
• A minimum purchasing age of 21.
• An active enforcement policy, including penalties for violation.
• No restrictions on existing flavored tobacco products.
• Limiting sales to age-restricted stores and age-restricted partitions of large stores.
I believe in adults’ freedom of choice and protecting our kids.
Don Overcash is Loveland’s mayor pro-tem. He represents Ward IV on the City Council.
Quebec intends to ban the sale of flavored vaping cartridges and e-liquids. The Canadian city also wants to limit nicotine content after a public health report warned of a major increase in youth vaping in the province.
Credit: Aurore Duwez
“With the growing popularity of vaporization products, especially among young people, it becomes imperative to act to prevent a new generation from becoming addicted to nicotine because of these products,” Health Minister Christian Dubé said Wednesday in a statement.
In 2015, Quebec banned the sale of flavored tobacco products and saw a reduction in the number of high-schoolers smoking such products within 30 days. Similar action should be taken with regard to vaping, the public health researchers recommended.
Loveland City Council members will put off voting on a ban that may target sales of flavored vaping, smoking and tobacco products until Feb. 16, after a marathon six hours of debate and public comment during Tuesday’s meeting.
Credit: Haiberliu
Council members voted 6-2 to postpone the item, with Mayor Jacki Marsh and Ward II councilor Andrea Samson opposed, and Ward I councilor Richard Ball absent, despite joining for part of the discussion, according to an article in the Loveland Reporter-Reporter.
On Nov. 24, council members voted 6-3 to pass the ban on first reading, with Steve Olson of Ward III and Dave Clark and Don Overcash of Ward IV opposed. A second vote was pushed from Dec. 1 to Tuesday after that agenda item similarly ran late.
Marsh stressed the public health impact of smoking and said she planned to vote “yes” again on the ban. Samson pointed out the 10-plus hours of public comment heard by the council, including concerns shared by members of Loveland’s business community, and questioned the need for more outreach.
After a debate over flavored vaping products ran late during its last session, Loveland’s City Council will try to finish that agenda Tuesday. If a majority of the council votes in favor of the ban a second time, retailers of tobacco and vaping products will be able to apply for licenses starting Jan. 1, and they’ll have through July 1 to clear their remaining inventory of banned items.
Credit: Vaporesso
Council members voted 6-3 on Nov. 24 to introduce the ban, which was recommended by a panel of public health experts and anti-smoking advocates as a way of curbing underaged vaping, according to the Loveland Reporter-Herald.
The ordinance would ban sales of flavored e-juices, flavored smokeless tobacco, menthol cigarettes and any other non-tobacco-flavored vaping or smoking products.
Critics have attacked the ban as overbroad and unfair for law-abiding businesses and consumers, particularly the ban on flavored dip and menthols.
New York Attorney General Letitia James ordered dozens of retailers across the state to immediately stop selling flavored e-cigarette and vaping products and to end underage sales. New York banned flavored vaping products statewide as of May 2020.
New York Attorney General Letitia James
James’ office issued cease and desist letters to 47 retailers that were illegally selling tobacco products throughout New York. The shops were located in the cities and counties of Albany, Buffalo, Elmira, Hamilton, Nassau, Rochester, Saratoga County, Syracuse, Warren County, Watertown, and the New York City area, according to a press release.
“New York banned flavored vaping products and raised the age to buy tobacco products because teens were getting addicted to the dangerous habit of smoking,” said James. “These businesses skirted the law, jeopardizing the health of young New Yorkers. We will remain vigilant in holding anyone accountable who endanger our children by circumventing our laws.”
The release states that investigators discovered retailers selling nicotine products to underage customers and selling flavored nicotine vaping products. Some shops were also selling nicotine-free flavored liquid alongside vaping products for customers to create their own flavored vaping products.
The illicit products were sold both in the open and secretly from behind the counter, according to the release.
After a 6-3 vote from its city council on Tuesday, Loveland, Colorado is on track to ban flavored vaping and other more traditional tobacco products, including e-juices, dip and smoking tobacco. Flavored marijuana vapes will not be subject to the ordinance, if passed.
Credit: Elsa Donald
While councilors Steve Olson, Dave Clark and Don Overcash voted “no,” calling the ban arbitrary and unfair to law-abiding businesses, supporters said restricting flavors was necessary to keep more children from getting addicted to nicotine, according to a story in the Loveland Herald-Reporter.
“I wrestled with this so much because I care about the businesses that will be affected, but I feel like the tobacco industry played a mean game here, and they’re hurting our kids,” councilor Kathi Wright said.
Tuesday night’s vote ended more than a year of debate on how best to curb a local spike in youth vaping, which was reflected in the number of citations issued for underage tobacco possession until the Thompson School District switched to remote learning earlier this year.
Last week, the council heard multiple hours of public comment on the issue. Speakers agreed on the need for more regulation to keep tobacco products out of the hands of children though some disagreed on implementation.
Council members were presented on Tuesday with five versions of an ordinance introducing various restrictions on the sale of tobacco and vaping products. Alternatives would have excluded menthol-flavored products from the flavor ban, introduced other age restrictions while leaving flavors alone or limited the sale of tobacco or vaping products to age-restricted stores.
Overcash said he would not support the flavor ban, and suggested supporters were only voting in favor only because they personally disliked vaping and smoking.
“What other products are we going to decide for whatever reasons are going to be allowed in our community or not?,” he said. “I have a problem when we mandate things because we don’t like something.”
Molloy and Overcash sparred briefly when Molloy started laughing during Overcash’s statements.
“No, councilor Molloy, I’m serious,” Overcash said. “You let me know what product you’d like to take off the market next, and I’ll champion that for you.”
“Medical marijuana,” Molloy replied.
Other parts of the ordinance introducing the ban would:
Reaffirm that the legal minimum age to purchase tobacco products is 21.
Introduce a licensing structure.
Set licensees back from schools and other “youth-populated areas.”
Prohibit self-service.
The ban will return for a second vote on Dec. 1. If it is approved, the ordinance will go into effect on Jan. 1, 2021.
The vote was 5 to 4. The city council for the Montana city of Missoula voted Monday to ban the sale of flavored e-cigarettes and vapes within five miles of city limits. The ban does not include flavors for other tobacco products, such as cigarettes or cigars.
Credit: Timothy S. Donahue
Not only does this new ordinance ban the sale of flavored products it also restricts the display of all tobacco. Retailers in Missoula will have to move any tobacco product behind their counter, according to an article on khq.com.
The ordinance will go into effect on Jan 25, 2021, allowing stores to sell off the remainder of their flavored products and to move all tobacco products behind their counter. These new changes will be enforced through both the Missoula City County Health Department and the police.
The intent of this ban is to make it more difficult for minors to get a hold of tobacco products, according to council members. Multiple city council members also said the ban will counteract the predatory marketing of big tobacco companies, at least on the local level.
The ordinance is made up of three main components. First, it requires retailers to keep all tobacco products behind the counter. Next, it prohibits the sale of flavored tobacco when used with an e-cigarette. Finally, it makes it unlawful to sell or give tobacco to any minor.
The councilmembers who voted against the ban all gave different reasons for their opposition to the ordinance. Those included not wanting local business to lose revenue and jobs, not wanting to get involved with lawsuits with tobacco retailers and freedom of choice.
“I am very pro-choice about what happens to my body and what goes into it and I don’t feel that I am in a position to dictate how one should cope in this world. So I will not be supporting this ordinance,” Councilmember Heather Harp said.
Three e-cigarette advocacy groups are asking California State General Assembly to repeal the state’s ban on flavored vaping products. The group’s leaders say an estimated 900,000 former smokers in California could be forced to switch back to smoking if the bill (CA SB793) is not overturned by referendum or repealed.
Greg Conley, AVA
“Unless California lawmakers want to force hundreds of thousands of vapers back to smoking, they need to reconsider this flavor ban,” said Gregory Conley, president of the American Vaping Association (AVA). “While voting for bans may make legislators feel righteous, the reality is that prohibition is failed public policy and never works for adult consumer products.”
The World Vapers’ Alliance (WVA), Consumer Choice Center (CCC) and the AVA, which combined represent hundreds of thousands of consumers, sent a letter today to members of the California State Assembly members urging them to repeal the flavored tobacco ban bill in California to avoid pushing vapers back to combustible cigarettes.
“Instead of improving public health by reducing the number of smokers, this law will have the opposite effect: more people smoking again,” said Yaël Ossowski, deputy director at the Consumer Choice Center. “Moreover, these measures will push people into the illegal market and will also have a disproportionate impact on people of color, who overwhelmingly prefer flavored products and would suffer the most from criminalization and over-policing in our local communities.”
California joins Massachusetts as the two states having flavored vaping bans, though each have unique exemptions to the laws. In Massachusetts, businesses defined as “smoking bars” are still able to sell flavored vaping and tobacco products.The ban goes into effect on Jan. 1, 2021.
“Gavin Newsom’s plan will have disastrous consequences and he is celebrating a victory for public health,” said Michael Landl, director of the World Vapers’ Alliance. “More than 900,000 vapers in California could switch back to smoking due to the ban. Either Governor Newsom is poorly informed about the unintended consequences prohibition always generates or he is just an anti-vaping crusader.”
The bill prohibits a vape shop owner or tobacco retailer, or any of those entities retailer’s agents or employees, from selling, offering for sale, or possessing with the intent to sell or offer for sale, a flavored tobacco product or a tobacco product flavor enhancer, subjecting them to a fine of $250 for each violation. It also allows local governments to impose greater restrictions on the access to tobacco products than the bill imposes.
