Clay County amends tobacco ordinance to ban electronic delivery devices starting June 1

The Clay County Board of Commissioners voted 4-1 to amend Section 7C of the county tobacco ordinance so that “no person shall sell or offer for sale in person or by delivery any electronic delivery devices,” with the change to take effect June 1.

The board opened discussion after a March public hearing and a subsequent additional hearing on a proposed ordinance passed in December 2024. County staff told commissioners that any formal action taken after the public hearing could take effect immediately unless another date was specified.

Commissioners and members of the public framed the debate largely around flavored vaping products and nicotine pouches. Commissioner Kravanoff said much of the testimony focused on vaping and nicotine pouches and cited medical and education professionals who warned about adolescent addiction risks. “We had 26 verbal testimonies, medical professionals, public health. We had college students talking about… nicotine addiction,” Kravanoff said during debate.

Commissioner Ebinger said vaping liquids often deliver very high nicotine doses and described school reports of nicotine pouches found in middle schools. “We are programming adolescent children to addiction with these products,” Ebinger said, citing local school superintendents’ testimony that pouches are commonly hidden under lunch tables.

Other commissioners raised concerns about a county-level ban on products legal under state and federal law. Commissioner Campbell said county boards risk setting precedents for prohibiting otherwise legal items and asked whether local action was appropriate without state or federal change. “If they can’t get something done at the federal and state level, they’ll try to do it at a local level,” Campbell said.

Board members discussed numerous drafting options intended to target flavored vaping products while avoiding conflicts with separate cannabis retail rules. County staff advised using the ordinance’s existing definitions for “electronic delivery device” and related terms so enforcement would not be vulnerable to legal challenge. Staff also noted a separate cannabis retail ordinance would be drafted to address flavored THC products, which the county does not intend to cover under the tobacco ordinance.

After amendments and several failed motions earlier in the discussion (including motions to uphold the existing ordinance and to abolish the ordinance entirely), the board approved the final motion to read Section 7C as drafted above, with the ordinance change effective June 1. Roll call: Commissioner Kravanoff — yes; Commissioner Mojo — yes; Commissioner Campbell — yes; Commissioner Bair — no; Commissioner Ebinger — yes.

The board’s action leaves other sections of the county’s tobacco ordinance in place; staff said the county will continue work on a separate cannabis retail ordinance to avoid conflicts over THC vaping products.