The Many Legislative Paths of e-Vapor Products-Confusing Ain’t It

In a recent article from the Courthouse News Service, the state of Indiana is addressing the legislative over site of e-Vapor products per Enroll Act 1432 ( http://www.courthousenews.com/2015/05/14/vaping-companies-see-bias-in-indiana-law.htm ).

In the years since the e-Vapor market began (2007) state, local and national legislators and legislative bodies have mulled over how to regulate these products as when you hire regulators, they are paid to regulate-and boy do they.

Cities can impose use restrictions on where e-Vapor products are used but cannot ban our sales and states are also unable to ban this legal tobacco product but can impose, as is being shamelessly now done in Minnesota, massive tax burdens on e-Vapor products and require stifling licensing processes and business code practices that will lead to predatory regulations which naturally lead to free market constrictions by leveling layers of costs on start up businesses.

In trying to explain the overlapping roles local municipalities, states and the federal government have in regulating e-Vapor the simplest way to do this is to state that local municipalities cannot ban the sale of e-Vapor products as they were successfully litigated to be regulated by the FDA as a tobacco product and the FDA agreed and stated “The government has decided not to seek further review of this decision, and FDA will comply with the jurisdictional lines established by Sottera” . The FDA also stated the following, “The court held that e-cigarettes and other products made or derived from tobacco can be regulated as  “tobacco products” under the Act and are not drugs/devices unless they are marketed for therapeutic purposes.”

“The government has decided not to seek further review of this decision, and FDA will comply with the jurisdictional lines established by Sottera.”http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/PublicHealthFocus/ucm252360.htm )

There is one simple word in the latter text from the FDA on this court mandate to regulate e-Cigs as a tobacco product that is leading to the massive confusion and that is the little verb “can”. The federal appeals court mandated that the FDA regulate e-Cigs as a tobacco product and since this decision in December of 2010 the FDA has mulled over how best to properly and hopefully responsibly accomplish this. The problem that is occurring is that in the time it is taking for the FDA to come out with it final regs of the industry, states and local municipalities are moving forward with their own regulations-and this is causing massive confusion for the industry, investors and more importantly the American public who is greatly benefiting from our products.

There is no better example of how these delays in FDA action is leading to redundant, unnecessary and wholly confusing e-Vapor acts being discussed and actually enacted then to read the e-Vapor control act that the state of Indiana is considering. When you read through the act you come across this sentence. “The purpose of this article is, in the absence of federal regulations, to protect public health and safety by: (1) ensuring the safety and security of e-liquid manufactured for sale in Indiana”. https://iga.in.gov/static-documents/4/a/8/2/4a82456e/HB1432.07.ENRH.pdf )

“In the absence of federal regulations” are the words that are leading to legislative, market and public confusion. It is our hopes that as the FDA is slated to announce new regulations on the e-Vapor market this June, that the agency will see that in our eighth year on the domestic market we are providing a very important product for Americans to utilize as their most desired product option to the smoking of tobacco cigarettes and stifling market restrictions will only hurt our momentum.

Leave a Reply