Montana committee hears hours of testimony on bill to classify e-cigarettes as tobacco and restore local control

Representative Frank Smith, R‑District 31, opened the hearing on House Bill 177 by describing why he filed the measure, saying, “I’m getting tired of walking into school districts and seeing about 5 or 6 young students standing out across the road, smoking these things.”

HB 177 would expand Montana’s definition of “tobacco” and related statutes to include alternative nicotine and vapor products, and repeal a current preemption provision (mentioned in testimony as “section 1, sub 25”) so local governments could adopt their own rules on sales and venues.

Why it matters: public‑health groups urged the committee to pass the bill to limit youth access and give local governments authority to adopt tailored policies. Kalli Wicks of the American Heart Association said the measure “updates tobacco laws to include alternative nicotine and vapor products in the definition of tobacco” and argued the change would better control sale and distribution and “keep them out of the hands of kids.” Amanda Cahill of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network added, “We would also like to see the rights restored of local communities to make decisions around how to deal with this youth vaping epidemic.”

Public‑health testimony cited state and national data and studies. Lisa Dworak of Confluence Public Health Alliance told the committee a 2022 study found that adults who use e‑cigarettes had average annual health care expenditures of about $2,024 more than non‑users (she characterized the figure as from a 2022 study). Carrie Nisen of the American Lung Association said e‑cigarettes “deliver the addictive compound nicotine” and emphasized that FDA regulates these devices under the Federal Tobacco Control Act.

Opponents included many Montana vapor‑retail owners and trade groups who told the committee the bill would harm small businesses and drive consumers to illicit sources. Tommy Dobbs, co‑owner of Liberty Vapor, said his stores sell “TFN, tobacco free nicotine, or synthetic nicotine products” and warned, “If my customers are not able to purchase certain flavors of e‑liquid that they prefer, they will in the end order it online,” leaving brick‑and‑mortar stores’ sales too small “to keep our doors open.”

Representatives of convenience stores and petroleum marketers opposed the change as well. Brad Longcake of the Montana Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Store Association said state‑level consistency matters for businesses with locations across Montana and argued local bans encourage cross‑jurisdiction purchases and illicit markets.

Legal and industry perspectives: Greg Troutman, an attorney representing vape industry interests, told the committee that policies should be carefully calibrated and warned that returning regulatory powers to local, unelected boards could conflict with recent legislative changes and risk takings claims. He also cited national studies on the impacts of flavor or vape bans and said some bans in other states were followed by increased cigarette sales.

Department and informational testimony: Cindy Backenberg of the Department of Revenue, who administers cigarette and tobacco licensing and taxes, appeared as an informational witness and said she was available for questions on licensing and tax matters. Nicole Ahne of the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services said the state’s tobacco‑prevention work includes efforts addressing youth e‑cigarette use, and she cautioned that long‑term health effects of newer products are not yet fully known.

Committee discussion and next steps: lawmakers asked for data and studies cited in testimony; several proponents and opponents said they would provide source material. Committee members raised questions about how a statutory change would affect licensing, enforcement, and the scope of local authority; DOR staff said licensing rules would not automatically change where products are sold. No committee vote on HB 177 was recorded in the transcript; the hearing concluded after extended testimony and questions.

Ending: The hearing drew broad turnout from public‑health organizations, tribal representatives, small‑business owners and industry attorneys. Supporters framed the bill as a public‑health measure to reduce youth vaping and restore municipal authority; opponents warned of business closures and illicit markets if local restrictions follow. The committee left the item without a recorded disposition while members requested additional studies and clarifications.