Call to Action - Virginia: Oppose HB 2036

[Robino1]

Virginia House Bill 2036 is scheduled for a hearing on Monday, February 2nd at 4:00 p.m., 7th Floor West Conference Room in the House Agriculture Sub-Committee. HB 2036 would require all “liquid nicotine” sold in Virginia to be contained in Child-Resistant Packaging (CRP) as well as require specific warning labels. These regulations are to be developed by the Board of Agriculture.


Although CASAA is generally supportive of CRP, they strongly recommend that this regulation be implemented at the national level or, at the very least, be developed in a manner that is consistent with existing federal law (e.g. the Poison Prevention Packaging Act). Labeling requirements, like CRP, are best implemented at the national level in order to prevent a patchwork of state regulation that creates barriers to interstate trade and limits adult access to the variety of vapor products.

• Take Action: - Send an Email

Call to Action: CASAA: Virginia Call to Action: Oppose HB 2036 - A Labeling and Packaging law that would impact consumer choice

 

[VBdev]

Any word on what happened at the subcommittee level?

I'm a little confused why CASAA considers this bad. Sure it would be a bad thing if every state does their own little derivation for trade and consistency and interstate sales... However, what's happening at the national level isn't looking too good. The last thing I wanna do is wait to see how that turns out. We'd be getting an ecig law on the books for child proof caps and a warning label. As CASAA agrees I don't have a problem with that (assuming the label is based on sound science). What I like more about it is what is NOT in the law like flavor bans or limitations, use in certain place bans, taxes, outright bans, grandfathered dates, etc... We will have had the states legislative body take a look at e-cigs and this law is the result, I think that speaks volumes. And this is Phillip Morris's home state, literally being passed in their home city so I'm feeling a home run here. What the law doesn't say is what I'm all about the message being.

If subsequently the federal level says the label needs to be 2x3 inches instead of 3x2 inches it will be up to the VA legislature to get in line.

I'm not a lawyer, nor a politician, so maybe I'm missing the angle here. I'd rather sort out interstate req consistency than have the deeming regulations. Being able to point to various statess passed laws which aren't a de facto ban is yet more supporting evidence that their proposal is absurd and infringing on my fundamental rights. In the end I'll likely follow CASAA's recommendation, supporting ecigs is what they do, but I'd like to hear more on why and find out what I am missing with the line of thinking I outlined above.

 

[Bill Godshall]

VBdev wrote

I'm a little confused why CASAA considers this bad. Sure it would be a bad thing if every state does their own little derivation for trade and consistency and interstate sales... However, what's happening at the national level isn't looking too good.

Because the bill (HB 2036) would ban the sale of ALL vapor products in the state of Virginia unless they comply with yet-to-be-drafted packaging requirements and yet-to-be-drafted warnings by the VA Board of Agriculture and Consumer Services, which knows nothing about vapor products.

AVA has endorsed several different child-resistant packaging bills introduced in different states that would require the child-resistant packaging to bre consistent with already developed federal guidelines.

I suggest VA vapers urge the bill sponsor (and/or other legislators) to amend the bill so that the child-resistant packaging is consistent with federal guidelines, and to remove the requirement for state specific warnings (since the proposed FDA warning label about nicotine would preempt and supercede any warnings mandated by VA (or any other state).

 

[WorksForMe]

VBdev wrote



Because the bill (HB 2036) would ban the sale of ALL vapor products in the state of Virginia unless they comply with yet-to-be-drafted packaging requirements and yet-to-be-drafted warnings by the VA Board of Agriculture and Consumer Services, which knows nothing about vapor products.

AVA has endorsed several different child-resistant packaging bills introduced in different states that would require the child-resistant packaging to bre consistent with already developed federal guidelines.

I suggest VA vapers urge the bill sponsor (and/or other legislators) to amend the bill so that the child-resistant packaging is consistent with federal guidelines, and to remove the requirement for state specific warnings (since the proposed FDA warning label about nicotine would preempt and supercede any warnings mandated by VA (or any other state).

The worst part is the the Board will have until November 1st to adopt these new regulations that will be effective December 1st. That only gives in-state vendors 30 days to comply.

It looks like this bill is going to pass. It's already passed the House unanimously and is now in the Senate. There will be a 30-day public comment period on Virginia Regulatory Town Hall after the regs are published.

 

[Bill Godshall]

Good news.

HB 2036 was amended to require child-resistant packaging and labeling requirements that are "consistent with federal standards" (i.e. packaging is consistent with CPSC guidelines, labeling is consistent with FDA proposed deeming reg/ban)
Bill Tracking - 2015 session > Legislation

"B. The Board shall adopt regulations, consistent with federal standards, establishing:

1. Standards for child-resistant packaging for a liquid nicotine container; and

2. Labeling requirements for warning labels for a liquid nicotine container, including prescribing the size and location of such warning labels.

 

[WorksForMe]

Thanks Bill. I didn't notice that change. Hopefully some B&Ms will be able to get ahead of the game by ordering new labels and CRP before the regulations actually come out.

They also amended the date that the regulations have to be adopted and the date retailers have to comply. This gives the Board an extra month to get the regs ready.

Of course, we don't know what the FDA is going to do between now and December. This bill may be the least of our concerns.

 

[Bill Godshall]

Since the bill now says the VA warning label must be consistent with federal regs., there won't be any VA warning label for vapor products unless/until FDA issues a Final Rule for the "deeming regulation", which would ban >99.9% of vapor products anyhow.

 

[WorksForMe]

House bill 2036 was passed by the General Assembly and sent to the Governor on 2/25/15. On 3/27/15 the House received a recommendation and substitute bill from the Governor.

The labeling requirements in the House bill are not in the substitute bill. It would just require child-resistant packaging as set forth in federal standard 16 C.F.R. § 1700.15(b)(1).

IMO, if the substitute is passed, this will be a law that most of us can support.

J.R.