Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Vaping Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House rejects substitute to expand state regulation of flavored vaping products
Summary
A substitute to HB 432 that would have created a state registry, new licensing fees and other measures aimed at reducing youth access to flavored vaping products failed on a 22–47 vote after an extended floor debate.
Representative McPherson presented a broad substitute to HB 432 that would have created a Utah product registry for flavored vaping devices, raised licensing fees for retailers, required product tracking and imposed enhanced enforcement tools aimed at limiting youth access.
“This bill only has one goal. One goal. And that goal is to prevent youth access to flavored vaping products in the state of Utah,” Representative McPherson told the chamber during the presentation.
McPherson described multiple regulatory elements in the substitute as proposed: a state-managed registry of products that could be sold in Utah, requirements for RFID or other traceability on devices, an increase in licensing fees for retail tobacco specialty businesses from their current fee to a much higher annual fee, elevated penalties including temporary and permanent store suspensions for illegal sales to minors, and a three-year automatic repeal of the registry provision to allow future review. He also described measures intended to address online and out-of-state sales and a restricted-persons mechanism to block purchases by individuals charged with facilitating underage distribution.
Opponents said the package risked unintended consequences. Representative Ward and others warned a strict flavored-products ban or heavy-handed controls can push users to other nicotine products; Representative Ward cited out-of-state federal processes (PMTA) and data on unintended shifts from flavored vaping to cigarette use. “For every five individuals... for every five that stopped vaping, three started cigarettes,” Representative McPherson later acknowledged was from a cited study and used in debate to argue the alternate approach of stronger regulation rather than an outright statewide ban.
Supporters argued the substitute targeted known enforcement gaps, including retailers operating illegally under current rules and online sales. Representative McPherson emphasized new enforcement resources and a plan to dedicate revenue from a proposed retail product sales tax to support enforcement and research.
After extended debate and multiple amendments and clarifying exchanges, the House voted to reject the fourth substitute for HB 432. The substitute failed, 22 yes, 47 no, and the bill as amended on that substitute was not adopted by the House.
