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

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.