Utah bill (HB 112) by Paul Ray would ban the manufacture and sale of all e-cigs that don’t contain pharmaceutical grade nicotine, require license to m

[Bill Godshall]

At least the Utah Senate Business and Labor Committee had the sense to see through and reject Paul Ray's lies and dirty tricks in his 5 year campaign to ban e-cig sales to adults (disguised as regulations to protect children).

Don't know why Aaron Frazier and Utah Vapers urged the Senate Cmte to support the fourth version of Ray's bill (that passed the House), nor why Aaron publicly endorsed Paul Ray's previous promise to amend his bill (that Ray reneged on less than a week later when the Utah House Health Cmte approved Ray's e-cig prohibition bill), nor why Aaron is still advocating even more unwarranted e-cig restrictions in Utah.

But if Aaron and the Utah Vapers continue advocating for more e-cig regulations, nobody should be surprised if the Utah legislature bans the sale of all or nearly all e-cig products next year (that Paul Ray will once again deceitfully portray as regulations to protect children).

Senate committee snuffs out e-cigarettes bill, leaving sponsor 'perplexed' | Deseret News

The Utah Vapors Association, which strongly opposed prior versions of HB112, showed its support for the fourth version of the bill, which no longer called for the state health department to regulate e-cigarette manufacturing.

"We do believe it is the right direction for the industry for regulation," said Aaron Frazier, the association's volunteer director.

Frazier said there are about 30 specialty vapor shops in Utah, and those he represents have already imposed standards.

Throughout the legislative process, HB112 has been modified and stripped as to what it would require and prohibit.

At first, the bill banned Internet sales, but both the fourth and eighth versions allowed for Internet, phone and mail sales as long as there was an age-verification mechanism.

The eighth version of the bill added back a requirement that the nicotine be pharmaceutical grade. It would also replaced the prohibition of marketing e-cigarettes as tobacco product cessation devices. Both provisions were not in the fourth version that passed the House.

Both the fourth and eighth versions of the bill called for e-cigarettes to be treated as tobacco and clarified that people under age 19 aren't allowed to possess, buy or attempt to buy them or related products.

 

[Bill Godshall]

If Utah minors are using e-cigs at a higher rate than minors in other states, which nobody really knows because "ever use" and "past 30 day use" survey questions don't differentiate between daily use and experimental use, the only logical reason (which I predicted would occur four years ago) is because the State and County Health Depts and ANTZ have been conducting e-cigarette awareness programs and classes for many/most/all Utah high school students (and probably in middle and elementary schools as well) that encourage youth to experiment with e-cigs.

Although the ANTZ, Health Depts and School teachers/administrators naively believe that their e-cig awareness programs and classes for youth are discouraging youth use from using e-cigs, these "just say no", "e-cigs are addictive, deadly and evil" and "don't use e-cigs' lectures to teenagers and adolescents only encourage youth to try using the products.

The most effective way to encourage youth to do something is for adults to tell youth to NOT do it.


We learned this (which is really common sense) after decades of cigarette companies developing "youth anti tobacco education programs" and giving them to K-13 schools, which told youth that tobacco is an age restricted product for adults only, and to wait until they were 18 before using tobacco. That's one of the many reasons why cigarette smoking was rampant among teens during the latter half of the 20th century.

 

[afrazier5]

Bill - we supported the 4th version because it only included licensing of the retail shops and associated enforcement checks, penalties for selling to minors and allowed for online sales using age restricted delivery methods. This was not just supported by myself but every retail and manufacturing member of our statewide organization. If you think the public comments I make are mine and mine alone, you are quite mistaken I'm afraid.

Until the FDA gets off their collective butts, there will be state level regulations that we will all have to abide by at some point. We can either participate in the process and fight for the best possible worse case scenario or we can sit on our hands by taking a singular approach of opposition while we get angry that we are being slaughtered by unfair regulations.

Which would you prefer that the consumers, retailers and manufactures do may I ask? Simply oppose everything but age restriction?

 

[Bramble]

If Utah minors are using e-cigs at a higher rate than minors in other states, which nobody really knows because "ever use" and "past 30 day use" survey questions don't differentiate between daily use and experimental use, the only logical reason (which I predicted would occur four years ago) is because the State and County Health Depts and ANTZ have been conducting e-cigarette awareness programs and classes for many/most/all Utah high school students (and probably in middle and elementary schools as well) that encourage youth to experiment with e-cigs.

Although the ANTZ, Health Depts and School teachers/administrators naively believe that their e-cig awareness programs and classes for youth are discouraging youth use from using e-cigs, these "just say no", "e-cigs are addictive, deadly and evil" and "don't use e-cigs' lectures to teenagers and adolescents only encourage youth to try using the products.

The most effective way to encourage youth to do something is for adults to tell youth to NOT do it.


We learned this (which is really common sense) after decades of cigarette companies developing "youth anti tobacco education programs" and giving them to K-13 schools, which told youth that tobacco is an age restricted product for adults only, and to wait until they were 18 before using tobacco. That's one of the many reasons why cigarette smoking was rampant among teens during the latter half of the 20th century.

I don't believe for a moment that Utah kids are using eCigs more than anywhere else. Our smoking rate is incredibly low because of the culture. AND because of the culture things like "appearance of evil" is scriptural and moral. So eCigs will not be tolerated any better than smoking itself.

Rep. Ray actually brought up in the committee meeting that people (I'm assuming he meant kids but I don't think he was only referring to kids)... were using eCigs and telling their "Clergy" that they don't smoke. Seriously this was one of his arguments. To which we would all say yeah... if you are not inhaling burning tobacco, you are not smoking.

As for anti-tobacco education and I'll go ahead and include D.A.R.E in with it -- what they do is demonize things that the kids see their parents do, creating conflicts with the kids' loyalties. My girls once came home and said the DARE officer told them that drinking a beer will ruin their lives. But they said they knew he was lying because they have seen me drink a beer and it didn't ruin my life. We had a great conversation about things that are ok for adults to do in moderation at appropriate times and places. So apart from dividing a loyalty to parents the kids see that they are lying and exaggerating, and therefore why would they believe anything else the officer says?

Noteworthy neither of my girls grew up to become abusers of alcohol (as I am not, and never got drunk in front of them) with this simple "Wine or a beer with dinner is ok, but you're not old enough yet" approach... and despite being raised with smoking, they don't both smoke, and the one who does smoke, doesn't have the habit that I did. She is now switching to eCigs to quit. DARE and Truth Kids or whatever it was have nothing to do with the decisions they made.

 

[klaus_engel]

If I hear the "what about the children" argument one more time I'm going to punch a bill right in the face!! Seriously, we have a war to worry about, major financial issues, homeless, police brutality, but oh no, little Timmy must be protected from the Devil's Steam!!!


Okay I'm good now.

 

[soba1]

If I hear the "what about the children" argument one more time I'm going to punch a bill right in the face!! Seriously, we have a war to worry about, major financial issues, homeless, police brutality, but oh no, little Timmy must be protected from the Devil's Steam!!!


Okay I'm good now.

Lol we all know they don't give two hoots about little Timmy.....lamo nice rant brutha

 

[Bill Godshall]

Aaron wrote:

Until the FDA gets off their collective butts, there will be state level regulations that we will all have to abide by at some point. We can either participate in the process and fight for the best possible worse case scenario or we can sit on our hands by taking a singular approach of opposition while we get angry that we are being slaughtered by unfair regulations.

Which would you prefer that the consumers, retailers and manufactures do may I ask? Simply oppose everything but age restriction?

The answer is YES, as age restrictions are the only justified or warranted legislation/regulation for vaporizers (including banning vaping at K-12 schools).

If Aaron believes that other regulations are necessary for e-cigs, it would be helpful to discuss the merits of those desired regulations with the rest of the e-cigarette industry and vaping community BEFORE telling legislators and the news media that the e-cig industry and vapers support additional regulations.

Seems like in addition to urging Utah legislators to enact more regulations for e-cigs, Aaron is also now advocating FDA regulation of e-cigs (even though the FDA's "deeming" regulation would once again BAN the sale of ALL e-cigs).

When it comes to e-cig legislation and regulation, the devil is in the details.

I've repeatedly asked Aaron to explain the many different local, state and federal e-cig regulations he wants to impose (or is willing to concede) on all e-cig companies, and am still waiting for Aaron to respond (either privately, on ECF or another e-cig forum).

In 30 years of advocating reasonable and responsible tobacco/nicotine legislation and regulation at the local, state and ederal levels, I've seen a lot of naive (but self confident) individuals deceive themselves (and others) to believe that they (and they alone) can negotiate legislative or regulatory deals with legislators and regulators, only to fail miserably and make things much worse (while creating divisiveness and dissension among colleagues). Those folks usually just walk away from the messes they created, while the rest of us are left to try fixing (which can take decades).

 

[Sikko]

It appears that HB112 is alive again, and in the form of substitute 9. I don't know what chance this has of getting to the floor as there are only 2 days left (I believe) in the general session.

It appears that the only thing going into it is the department of health enforcement, however I'm not sure as to how that would affect the existing online sales ban, as it was never enforced.

Just like ol' Rep Ray to try these last minute shenanigans.

 

[Bramble]

It appears that HB112 is alive again, and in the form of substitute 9. I don't know what chance this has of getting to the floor as there are only 2 days left (I believe) in the general session.

It appears that the only thing going into it is the department of health enforcement, however I'm not sure as to how that would affect the existing online sales ban, as it was never enforced.

Just like ol' Rep Ray to try these last minute shenanigans.

He has thrown in the ban on internet sales again.

Section 13. Section 76-10-105.1 is amended to read:
421 76-10-105.1. Requirement of direct, face-to-face sale of tobacco products and
422 electronic cigarettes -- Supremacy clause -- Penalties.

He's like that creature where if you cut off its head, 3 more grow in its place.

 

[Sikko]

Bad part is everyone relaxed thinking it was over so people aren't watching as closely as usual.

Since they subbed again I'm assuming that if it gets through the senate, it would have to go back to the house. Odds on it getting that far in 2 days?

 

[Roger_Lafayette]

Can't find on Legiscan or Google. Is it in the Trib?

 

[Bramble]

Can't find on Legiscan or Google. Is it in the Trib?

Senate - Day 43 2014 - Mar 11th, 2014

 

[Bramble]

Bad part is everyone relaxed thinking it was over so people aren't watching as closely as usual.

Since they subbed again I'm assuming that if it gets through the senate, it would have to go back to the house. Odds on it getting that far in 2 days?

Well if it does, I guess I will have to question what compelling new argument he will have to convince the House of an internet sales ban that they already rejected.

Not to mention he has told the press that the Senate Committee "voted against Utah's children" which is just incredibly insulting to the committee.

 

[Sikko]

Looks like the media hasn't picked this up at all yet.

Umm, bramble, you might have to change your name lol, you share it with the substitute sponsor .

I sent Mr. Bramble a strongly worded e-mail as soon as I heard that he had pulled this back out.

Now to send e-mails to the rest of the senate again.

 

[Sikko]

He has thrown in the ban on internet sales again.

Section 13. Section 76-10-105.1 is amended to read:
421 76-10-105.1. Requirement of direct, face-to-face sale of tobacco products and
422 electronic cigarettes -- Supremacy clause -- Penalties.

He's like that creature where if you cut off its head, 3 more grow in its place.

If you look at the code, its already in there. http://le.utah.gov/code/TITLE76/htm/76_10_010501.htm

I think it was just unenforceable before. But if he gets his way and the licenses get added, they will be able to enforce it.

At least that's what I'm thinking. Hard to read this legalese lol.

 

[Bramble]

If you look at the code, its already in there. http://le.utah.gov/code/TITLE76/htm/76_10_010501.htm

I think it was just unenforceable before. But if he gets his way and the licenses get added, they will be able to enforce it.

At least that's what I'm thinking. Hard to read this legalese lol.

Well I'm glad that the Utah legislature in their little fantasy world, believes that this is enforceable... but some places in the REAL world already don't care about our tobacco ban and they won't care about the eCig ban. 'Nuff said

 

[Sikko]

Not enforceable to your average consumer. But would stop any shops with a presence in Utah from selling online.

 

[Roger_Lafayette]

Still nothing in the media or at legiscan as we speak, but I was finally able to find this:

HB0112

Nothing on UT Vapers site.

I will report this in my news summary today and refer people to this thread. Has anyone FB'd or texted Aaron?

 

[Sikko]

Utah vapers is on it. Twitter campaign is running.

I know Aaron was under the weather yesterday but was doing what he could.

It's on the Senate 2nd reading calendar as of right now its #35. With the delay due to one of the Senators having an apparent heart attack, I don't know if it will see the light of day today.

Link to the sub 09: http://le.utah.gov/DynaBill/dbill.jsp?bill=HB0112&trackadd=true

 

[Sikko]

Aaannnddd there's now a sub 10. This is getting to be quite a joke.

Here's sub 10. It hasn't been introduced yet. http://le.utah.gov/~2014/bills/hbillint/HB0112S10.pdf