Panel backs requiring product‑specific licenses for electronic smoking devices
Loading...
Summary
Supporters told the House Economic Matters Committee that SB 249 would close a regulatory gap by requiring product‑specific licenses for electronic smoking devices, improve tax compliance and let health departments identify where vape products are sold without adding fees for retailers already licensed for cigarettes or other tobacco products.
Sydney Hamilton, a legislative fellow for the Senate Finance Committee, told the House Economic Matters Committee that SB 249 would require manufacturers, retailers, wholesalers and importers of electronic smoking devices (ESDs) to obtain product‑specific licenses already authorized under Maryland law and would not impose new fees on retailers who already hold cigarette or other tobacco product (OTP) licenses.
"While the bill requires retailers to obtain a license endorsement for each product type sold, it does not create new fees or increase existing fees," Hamilton said, asking the committee for a favorable report.
Jeff Kelly, executive director of the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Cannabis Commission, said an ATCC inventory identified only 125 ESD‑specific licenses as of Dec. 31, 2024, despite thousands of retailers in the market. "We found that there were 125 of them. I know there are more than a 125. There are thousands of them," Kelly said, describing outreach that suggested many sellers were not charging the correct tax rate.
Small business owners and industry representatives also testified in favor. Candace Gott, a licensed vape‑shop owner and board member of the Maryland Vapor Alliance, called the bill "intentionally narrow" and said universal licensure would let regulators identify sellers and enforce existing laws. Tyler Bennett, also representing the Maryland Vapor Alliance, urged the committee to view the measure as a common‑sense tool to aid enforcement.
Kathy Hoch, director of the Legal Resource Center for Public Health Policy and a University of Maryland Carey School of Law professor, testified virtually on behalf of local health departments, saying the licensure would let health officials locate sellers and better ensure youth‑access and product‑placement rules are enforced.
Supporters said the change would improve regulatory transparency, strengthen enforcement and provide reliable data for policymakers without imposing new costs on already‑licensed retailers. The chair closed the panel after hearing no committee questions.
The hearing record notes that SB 249 passed the Senate 43–0 before arriving in the House committee; the committee did not take a final vote during this hearing.
