Committee pauses consideration of Alabama vaping bill after small-business objections

A state Judiciary committee paused consideration of proposed vaping-product legislation after multiple specialty vape shop owners and industry representatives told the panel the bill would disadvantage their businesses and amount to protection for combustible-tobacco companies.

The bill, as described during a public hearing, would tighten requirements for selling electronic nicotine delivery systems and create about $2,500,000 in enforcement funding for the state Alcoholic Beverage Control agency (ABC), proponents said. Committee leaders closed the public hearing and said they would not take a vote at this meeting.

The sponsor said the measure was “identical to what we had in session” and framed it as a means to regulate vaping and provide enforcement resources. “We have to do something about vaping,” the sponsor said, adding the bill aims to provide ABC with funds to enforce existing state requirements.

Business owners who testified said the bill’s definitions and exclusions would remove the bulk of products sold at specialty vape shops while leaving convenience stores’ inventories largely unaffected. Amy Alberts, a Birmingham business owner and vice president of the Alabama Hemp and Vape Association, said the bill “does not protect public health. It protects the tobacco.” She urged lawmakers to reject the bill in its current form and to work with small businesses on tailored regulation.

An industry representative told the committee that, during about 15 months of state tobacco compliance checks, 315 records showed youth-access violations but only six involved specialty vape shops; those violations were linked primarily to convenience stores and gas stations. That speaker and others argued the best way to reduce underage access is to limit sale of vaping products to 21-and-up licensed specialty establishments, rather than broadly excluding single-use and cartridge products that account for “over 95% of the market,” as one speaker characterized it.

Proponents also pointed to federal premarket requirements. The sponsor noted a federal premarket registry and said the state’s registry exists but is not being enforced, which helped motivate the legislation. Witnesses cautioned the committee that a pending federal court challenge over FDA authority could change how these products are regulated at the national level and might render parts of the proposed state law legally uncertain.

Committee chair closed the public hearing after four people spoke on the bill and said members may question presenters but would not vote at this session. The sponsor indicated willingness to continue discussion and noted prior discussions with stakeholders during drafting.

No motion or formal vote was recorded during the meeting.

Looking ahead, committee members may request amendments addressing fairness to specialty retailers, clarifying definitions for single-use and closed-system products, and specifying how state enforcement will interact with ongoing federal actions.