Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tobacco Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cascade City-County Board of Health approves resolution asking to treat e-cigarettes like other tobacco products
Summary
At a special online meeting, the Cascade City-County Board of Health approved Resolution 25-04 asking state lawmakers to treat e-cigarettes and vaping products the same as other tobacco products for purposes of restrictions and the Clean Indoor Air Act.
The Cascade City-County Board of Health on the record approved Resolution 25-04, a measure asking that e-cigarettes and vaping products be defined and regulated the same as other tobacco products under Montana law.
Abigail, a health department staff member, told the board the resolution responds to recent legislation and tax proposals that treat some nicotine products differently and could weaken public-health protections. "The Cascade City County Board of Health supports a change in law that would subject ecigarettes and vaping products to the same limitations and restrictions as those imposed upon other tobacco," Abigail said.
The resolution text, as read at the meeting, says the board "opposes any laws or changes in laws that might potentially weaken Montana's health protections regarding tobacco products, including by modifying statutory definitions to differentiate certain tobacco or nicotine products from others in Montana law." The board discussed aligning definitions so the Clean Indoor Air Act could be applied consistently across product types.
Dr. Amthor moved approval of Resolution 25-04; Commissioner Wilson seconded. No members of the public registered comment on the motion. The chair called the voice vote and said, "Motion carries."
The board did not record a roll-call vote in the meeting transcript. The resolution will serve as an expression of the board's position to state lawmakers and stakeholders as legislation that affects statutory definitions proceeds through committee hearings.
The action follows similar statewide debates about whether tax and indoor-air rules should single out vaping or e-cigarettes rather than apply uniform definitions to tobacco and nicotine products.
