[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6296243,"mediaKeyId","2516972-2b0657dad37387f0c2404d33bc96494b","parentId",2516972,"title","Committee hears bill to ban single‑use disposable vapes amid safety and market‑fairness debate","audioSeconds",1835,"startMs",2836615,"endMs",4672522,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2516972-2b0657dad37387f0c2404d33bc96494b&start=2836&end=4672","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2516972-2b0657dad37387f0c2404d33bc96494b/thumbnail_2836615.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6296243/Arkansas/Committee-hears-bill-to-ban-singleuse-disposable-vapes-amid-safety-and-marketfairness-debate","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6296243-f07178bcea91239d1075ca02d76daefe/orig.mp4?Expires=1771182386&Signature=m4EthVbkAkI9UzQXs5Sz6TuPP8puAOKq7MqYJmUvEOVPwjsx5ctSHiF8jhnsKfXC9eCTDonUmcfAxmdpuLbDFeGpKjtHx86aobCH0j~~u3qwC6mGPvhADBiN~rK7bNIsmF9W2cPYm8IP8GU9UIOoR10FhDmT3wg~xsfAnc~CzIqT8uYrLJMwkHU7UR~p4GaG0rIVTH5miSAQxtHXWT35-lEOB3DJL3yEJQ0AZeLUafP39j1IA2-rekrGe1~nMMad27TvcnbYQCHHvdQKr0TvE9-rNjMG4o7RhmCwZ7Gi-m9neYnp0XlObUBmcVdWs9t5MKN9JOXkcwieyehasP8PHw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Arkansas State Legislature","date","2025-03-05T00:00:00Z","article","Representative Matt Duffield (District 53) presented House Bill 16‑26, a proposal to ban single‑use disposable vaping products. The sponsor and a small‑business vape‑shop owner, Scout Stubbs, told the committee that many disposable vapes are manufactured abroad, carry deceptive labeling and in some tests contained heavy metals and solvents.

Stubbs, who identified herself as a small business owner and vape‑liquid manufacturer, said disposable vapes arrived on the U.S. market about three years ago and are overwhelmingly manufactured in China. She told the committee she had laboratory test results for a sample of products that showed nicotine levels discrepant with labeling and the presence of lead in at least one sample; in a broader set of samples Stubbs said several contained elevated ethanol and some showed lead or arsenic. She said that local school districts report disposables account for “100% of the vapor products they confiscate from students.”

Why it matters: The bill aims to remove small, flavored, single‑use devices that supporters say are most attractive to youth and are often sold without accurate ingredient labeling. Stubbs argued the bill is a narrow, targeted remedy that would reduce children’s access while leaving American refillable/open systems available.

Committee debate hit three recurring themes: enforcement effectiveness, market disruption and alternatives. Representative Wardlaw and others warned that manufacturers and distributors can modify product form factors (for example, produce rechargeable or multi‑use devices) to evade a single‑use ban. Representative McKenzie and Representative McClinton expressed concern that a ban on disposables could disadvantage U.S. businesses and restrict consumer choice; they suggested alternatives such as ingredient‑disclosure registries.

Duffield and Stubbs replied that most problematic products are Chinese‑made disposables, are often mis‑labeled and that a targeted ban is a practical enforcement approach. Duffield said the bill provides a 90‑day sell‑through period and directs the Alcohol and Tobacco Commission (ATC) to remove banned products from shelves. He said many independent vape shops prefer not to sell disposables but feel forced to do so for competitive reasons.

Authorities and precedent cited during testimony included FDA regulation of vapor products (noted as beginning in 2016), the 2020 federal ban on flavored prefilled pods, and guidance from the CDC on youth vaping prevalence. Representative Wardlaw also noted that the United Kingdom planned a single‑use ban effective 2025‑06‑01.

Action: The sponsor closed by arguing the bill is a simple and enforceable approach to the disposable‑vape problem and urged a favorable vote. The committee responded with a voice vote; the transcript records vocal “aye” responses after the sponsor’s closing remarks. The hearing record shows ayes were called; an exact roll call or numeric tally was not recorded in the transcript.

Outlook: The bill drew bipartisan support in the committee and pushback on market and regulatory alternatives. Sponsors said they will press forward; opponents recommended registries or ingredient‑disclosure approaches to avoid unintended negative impacts on U.S. producers and consumer choice.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Rules Committee Meeting - Mar 5, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Representative Matt Duffield introduced House Bill 16‑26 to ban single‑use disposable vaping devices, citing test results and school reports that show disposables are the primary products confiscated from students.","taxTitle","HOUSE RULES, House of Representatives, Committees, Legislative, Arkansas","taxId",25430,"location","Arkansas","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6296247,"Sponsor withdraws campus vaping fines bill after questions on criminal classification and enforcement",1112,1716495,2828670,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2516972-2b0657dad37387f0c2404d33bc96494b&start=1716&end=2828","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2516972-2b0657dad37387f0c2404d33bc96494b/thumbnail_1716495.jpg","/articles/6296247/Arkansas/Sponsor-withdraws-campus-vaping-fines-bill-after-questions-on-criminal-classification-and-enforcement","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6296247-3d3208d9a7d98f756873b406178575b9/orig.mp4?Expires=1771182386&Signature=BEsrZQqKNnlbU8OFtVAS9u73B4NVMDKNmizkBodkwKn5FDfZDwNHVVsbezCRLyJmtOnVvEGcuirVpVUSajhP9H92LocEjlg234OpLfa-PwdjSOOZZAeWCAPFRcJDfd8MfqN18-AsgTFleoEZgK9lt3HBtPxkcwBIU3vXTKbaAbz6ipceye4AZIbl0UpzyF7~aTXpw2zCvrCxgY5qVOvTE48p9UlSY5gJNoivaszhfNoYTWnFUBw4nuTqabsQy58VvgRxo4RMFNPLsB5G4ki-gTBn0W-YQ9Pehly--xXjFmlFWEN3CcTLCWS1hpk7UXhNPEnCjgD3GA3bGexZwzjO9g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative Pilkington (District 45) brought House Bill 11‑92 to the committee seeking to prohibit possession and use of tobacco and e‑cigarette products on school grounds and to impose escalating fines on parents of students who violate the rule.

Pilkington said the proposal responds to repeated complaints from school administrators and described the bill’s core elements: banning possession as well as use on school property and authorizing fines that increase on repeated offenses. He read a written statement from his district superintendent that urged “stronger penalties for possession and distribution on school grounds, including fines and legal accountability for parents and guardians.”

Why it mattered: Sponsors framed the bill as a response to rising vaping and marijuana use among juveniles in schools and as a tool to force more parental engagement. Pilkington said current enforcement — in‑school suspension and similar disciplinary actions — is “weak” and not deterring the behavior.

Committee members raised several substantive concerns during the hearing. Representative Clowney asked whether the sponsor had evidence that fining parents is effective and whether the fines would disproportionately affect lower‑income families. Representative Mueller and others asked what current state penalties were for possession or use and whether adding possession as an offense would change criminal classification. Representative Tausch (spelled in transcript several ways) warned that fines of up to $1,000 may implicate the criminal code and could carry jail exposure depending on how the offense is classified.

Representative Lord Law asked how the fines would be collected and whether local police departments would administratively receive and manage those funds; the sponsor did not have a ready accounting for where monies would be deposited. Representative Hawk and other members discussed whether private schools that receive public funds should be covered by similar rules.

Action taken: After discussion and repeated questions about statutory classification and collection of fines, Representative Pilkington told the committee he would “take it down” to clarify language, including the criminal classification and how fines would be handled. The chair granted permission and the bill was pulled from the calendar for revision. No committee vote on final passage occurred.

Next steps: Pilkington said he will redraft language to define the offense and fine classification and return the bill when those issues are clarified. Several committee members indicated they support the bill’s goals but want clearer statutory language about penalty classification and administrative handling before a vote.

","Representative Pilkington introduced House Bill 11‑92 to ban possession and use of tobacco and e‑cigarettes on school property and to fine parents. Committee members questioned fine amounts, legal classification and where collected fines would go; the sponsor withdrew the bill to refine the language.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":80,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6296252,"Committee approves bill allowing university raffles under Amendment 84 with caveats on oversight",1716,80,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2516972-2b0657dad37387f0c2404d33bc96494b&start=0&end=1716","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2516972-2b0657dad37387f0c2404d33bc96494b/thumbnail_80.jpg","/articles/6296252/Arkansas/Committee-approves-bill-allowing-university-raffles-under-Amendment-84-with-caveats-on-oversight","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6296252-5b2b9c50165de2faafed7433bde808c5/orig.mp4?Expires=1771182386&Signature=mW7YCMe4MJqlgFYtHkr8oga6SvPIvnEEnppi-5Ay-Or-O20VWfHkcHeBPf-BKn-Ku8xOQ4o3Y0kiYjc8Q49Cn90OujabraDUZmPbGIFrUuvsgg3EvpYXtLeBTnOu3g~b2RDcNoZmew6RFB0GFA2VklrLTHdqKKPM0EmFIJJoUexNW6i-peZlH5kYybP-jJ1nbNsnkKvaw8Hftj6rHMSos5S5sfy0joJ3O7qYi2Rg6b8eB8Fu275qDTFUsBwE4DnYKO5AmtAHi20dT5SPz6cnxS32lJcD7kPKRcMSu3mXds5Y3fdKCLlQ9LEWIBzfsulZvYSI3-A453ySSg-3YodKXQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","House lawmakers advanced House Bill 16‑34 on a voice vote after supporters argued the measure will let Arkansas public universities hold fundraising raffles under the constraints of Amendment 84 of the state constitution.

The bill, presented by Representative R. J. Hogg (District 81), would authorize universities to conduct raffles at sporting events and use proceeds for NIL scholarships, general athletic revenue, or facility construction and maintenance. Representative Matthew Shepard (District 97) and a representative of Saracen Casino Resort, Carlton Saffa, spoke in favor during the committee hearing.

Supporters said the new draft replaces earlier language and aims to be a clearer, single-text vehicle for in‑house raffles. Representative Hogg told the committee the bill “is going to allow for our universities in the state of Arkansas to have raffles, to use them at their sporting events, for NIL scholarships, general athletic revenue, or even for construction of facilities or maintenance.”

Why it matters: The bill moves quickly because sponsors included an emergency effective date; that means, as several speakers warned, the statute’s text will control until state rulemaking is completed. Carlton Saffa, speaking for Saracen Casino Resort, listed several technical and enforcement concerns that are not spelled out in the bill, including identity verification, the mechanics of a certified random-number generator, geolocation and intrastate limits, and audit authority for the state agency.

Saffa urged caution, saying the bill contains only a requirement that a university “shall conduct reasonable age verification” and ‘‘notably does not require identity verification.’’ He told the committee: “There is no identity verification and nothing more than reasonable efforts for age verification.” He also recommended involving Gaming Laboratories International (GLI) in rule development to certify random‑number generators and other technical controls.

Representative Shepard, who closed for the bill, said sponsors consulted with the attorney general’s office and the governor’s office and concluded Amendment 84 is the constitutional provision most likely to apply. Shepard said the bill includes rulemaking authority for DFNA and that “we included the age verification because the committee brought that up.” He added that more detailed technical and compliance standards could be established through rulemaking.

Committee members pressed sponsors on specifics. Concerns raised during discussion included: whether “reasonable” age verification is sufficient without identity checks; how winners will be selected in digital raffles; whether geolocation will be required to prevent interstate sales; and whether the state’s agency should have audit access to raffle accounts. Saffa warned a lack of auditing language would create “a can of worms” and cited litigation risk if university-related foundations resist disclosure.

Formal action: The committee called for the question, and a voice vote followed. The chair announced the result in the hearing that the bill had passed out of the committee. The transcript records vocal “aye” responses and the chair’s statement: “Congratulations. Your bill is passed.” Exact roll-call counts were not recorded in the transcript.

What remains: Sponsors and supporters repeatedly said more technical detail — identity verification, certified RNGs, geolocation, auditing and segregation of raffle funds — should be clarified in rules issued by DFNA. Several speakers said they expect the attorney general’s opinion and DFNA rulemaking to guide implementation.

Outlook: With committee approval, the bill moves to the next House stage. Supporters said the measure is intended to provide a legal option for university fundraising while staying inside the limits of Amendment 84; they cautioned it is not a comprehensive solution for NIL-related compensation problems.

","Lawmakers advanced House Bill 16‑34 to let Arkansas public universities run raffles under Amendment 84; sponsors and supporters said the bill provides a quicker path for fundraising but warned it lacks specific identity- and auditing-standards that rulemaking must address.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee hears bill to ban single‑use disposable vapes amid safety and market‑fairness debate

Sponsor withdraws campus vaping fines bill after questions on criminal classification and enforcement

Committee approves bill allowing university raffles under Amendment 84 with caveats on oversight