Legislature(2017 - 2018)ADAMS ROOM 519
04/12/2018 01:30 PM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB158 | |
| SB37 | |
| SB15 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 37 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 15 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 155 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 158 | TELECONFERENCED | |
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 15(FIN)
"An Act relating to possession of an electronic
smoking product or a product containing nicotine by a
minor and to selling or giving a product containing
nicotine or an electronic smoking product to a minor;
relating to business license endorsements to sell
cigarettes, cigars, tobacco, products containing
tobacco, electronic smoking products, or products
containing nicotine; and relating to citations for
certain offenses concerning tobacco, products
containing nicotine, or electronic smoking products."
3:00:20 PM
TIM LAMKIN, STAFF, SENATOR GARY STEVENS, read a prepared
statement:
For anyone not acquainted with E-cigarettes, I have
prepared a brief slideshow, to play in the background
as I discuss the purpose of this bill. These images
will introduce, or remind, you of their common
components, sample styles and brands, what are now a
multitude of exotic flavorings, and marketing
strategies. This bill is about protecting our children
from becoming addicted to nicotine. It is about
clearly restricting sales to and possession of these
products to youth under the age of 19.
The use of electronic cigarettes is an exploding new
trend in smoking. It is commonly referred to as
"vaping." Public health advocacy, with the help of
proven scientific evidence, is winning the war against
tobacco. Use of traditional tobacco cigarette and
related products is clearly on the decline. Tobacco is
a dying industry. The tobacco manufacturers have
acknowledged this trend and are responding with a
barrage of new fashionable smoking options, in the
form of E-Cigarettes and related modular devices
designed to appeal to a wide range of consumers.
Currently, according to the US Center for Disease
Control, there are in the neighborhood of 4 million
middle and high school students using these products
nationwide. In Alaska, the numbers show about 15-25
percent of our students have at least been exposed to,
if they are not regularly using E-cigarette products.
See, there is a loophole.
While it is currently technically illegal to buy or
sell nicotine products to minors, it is not illegal to
possess E-Cig products. Nor are all of the products
supposedly containing nicotine, supposedly.
Furthermore, there is currently no provision for law
enforcement or investigators to enforce or issue
violations for possession. Nor cite vendors for
selling E-products to minors, the penalties are pretty
weak right now. And the industry and youth know it.
An informal survey our office commissioned last March,
asking Alaska school teachers and administrators about
E-Cigarette use in our schools, showed that 78 percent
of educators are concerned with a current or
foreseeable problem with youth access to and use of E-
cigarette products. Meanwhile, the feds, public health
advocates, state and local governments, schools and
communities are all struggling to catch up and respond
to this fast-moving industry.
There are a lot of questions, perhaps the biggest one
being, "Are these products safe?" and "should we be
tacitly allowing our children to take up this
activity?" The latest research available, not funded
by big tobacco, shows the health benefits being
dubious at best. I would concede that the chemicals
used in E-cig products may be safer than smoking
tobacco, but we would should not be too quick to
accept these chemicals as themselves being safe.
The FDA has approved of many of the known chemicals
used in E-juice to be safe enough for ingestion, but
not as an inhalant, long-term effects are just
beginning to be studied. The most common and intuitive
approach to addressing a policy on this new era of
smoking products is to treat them in the exact same
manner as we have structured tobacco policies. And
that is what this bill does.
We start with the commercial activity and the vendors
selling the products, to include a requirement for a
special endorsement on their business license, just
like tobacco retailers. This is the only way we can
effectively identify who is out there selling these
products, and in turn provided state agency authority
to monitor sales activity and enforce violations, with
stiffer penalties.
Currently, there are several hidden shops out there,
selling these products, but by the nature of their
business name, would give no indication they are
selling E-products.
Examples: Tesoro in the valley, Zooks downtown, Lola's
Filipino restaurant and mini grocery store, and the
Gas N Go Coffee hut, by Western Auto. Currently the
only way to find out that these vendors are selling E-
products is by word of mouth, or by driving around and
visiting random stores.
In wrap up, and before we get into the nuts and bolts
of the bill, I would like to take a moment to address
some of the rhetoric you will likely be hearing in
opposition to this bill. You will likely hear that we
do not need this bill, that the feds already have laws
in place restricting youth access and enforce those
laws. The fact is the Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental
Health Administration Reorganization Act of 1992
requires states to enact and enforce laws restricting
youth access to tobacco products. The FDA does have a
limited enforcement resources, that are usually
contracted out for occasional compliance checks, but
penalties consist of little more than a slap on the
wrist for vendors. I can go into some detail about
federal enforcement if you wish. But, we do need this
bill for meaningful monitoring and enforcement
purposes.
You may hear that the paperwork for getting the
tobacco endorsement is onerous and hurts businesses.
Standard business license applications are 4-pages and
takes about 10 minutes to complete. You check a box
for the endorsement and fill out a 5th page. The cost
of a license is $50 per year and $100 for and
endorsement per location, which were not onerous or
damaging to business. This is a very lucrative
business.
You may hear that these products are a miracle for
smokers trying to quit, which may be true in some
cases, most typically for older adults who have smoked
for many years. However, that is entirely irrelevant
to this bill, as adult smoking habits are not the
target here. We are trying to prevent youngsters from
taking up the habit in the first place.
You may hear that these are not tobacco products and
should be not be associated with tobacco, but they are
related. In August 2017, the FDA ruled that for
practical and regulatory purposes, these products
should be treated as tobacco products. After all, it
mimics traditional smoking: they often look like a
cigarette, glow like one, and produce smoke. It's just
another kind of smoking. However, they are available
in all the flavors and aromas of chocolate chip
cookies, apple pie, or cotton candy. You may hear that
these products are harmless because they don't always
contain Nicotine. That is unproven.
There are currently no requirements to verify or
regulate labelling and marketing of this E-juice. A
2016 study in North Dakota found that 51 percent of
the samples tested contained higher levels of nicotine
than was reported on the labels, sometimes up to 173
percent more than was labelled. Even this little
bottle here, which I bought at the Gas N Go for $1 (no
tax), says "Zero Nicotine" but on the side in fine
print it reads "may contain trace levels" of nicotine.
In that same North Dakota study, 43 percent of E-
liquid containers labelled as having no nicotine
actually had significant levels of nicotine present.
We should be skeptical of nicotine labelling of these
products.
You may hear that everyone wants to keep these
products out of youths' hands, but it is in their
hands, and readily so.
Most vendors are legitimately making that effort. But
some are not. If this industry is truly supportive of
restricting youth access to E-Cigarette products and
nicotine, there should be no opposition to this bill.
In closing, this bill is about closing a loophole. It
is about giving our state agencies the tools to
monitor and enforce these restrictions. The urgency is
growing. Senate Bill 15 would have us approach e-
cigarettes with severe caution on behalf of young
Alaskans.
Thank you for allowing us to place the issue on the
table.
[The presenter played a silent video depicting vape
products while making his presentation].
3:13:19 PM
Representative Kawasaki wondered about the comments that
teens introduced to vaping were more likely to develop a
habit. He was unsure to what extent that kids would develop
an addiction to vaping. He wondered whether scientific
evidence existed that proved the statement. Mr. Lamkin
indicated there was a "growing body of evidence that vaping
was a "gateway activity." He added that nicotine was proven
to be addictive and frequently engaging in an activity that
delivered nicotine developed into a habit.
Vice-Chair Gara supported the bill. He had a question for
Legislative Legal Services. Vice-Chair Gara referred to
page 2 of the bill regarding punishment for possession of
the product. He asked about the fine and wanted to
determine the level of criminality of the fine. He
indicated that fines were considered "quasi-criminal." He
wondered what the levels of fines and violations were. He
wanted to ensure the fine for a 19 year -old in possession
of e-cigarettes was a very low-level offense.
HILARY MARTIN, LEGISLATIVE LEGAL SERVICES, JUNEAU (via
teleconference), reported that a violation was defined as a
non-criminal offense, therefore a fine was only a penalty.
She detailed that under AS 12.53.050 a default fine for a
violation was $500. The court ruled that the fine could not
be so high that it signified criminality.
3:17:29 PM
Vice-Chair Gara asked if either a violation or a fine would
end up on someone's court record. Ms. Hillary believed
violations would show up on someone's record and were
posted on Court View. She restated that a fine was only
penalty. Vice-Chair Gara asked whether there was anything
lower than a violation that would not appear on records.
Ms. Martin responded that a violation was the lowest
penalty. Vice-Chair Gara asked if the type of violation
would be listed in the records. Ms. Martin thought that the
violation referenced the statute that was violated.
Mr. Lamkin noted that the provisions in the bill were the
existing statute for cigarettes and tobacco. The bill
inserted e-cigarettes into existing statute. Vice-Chair
Gara understood the bill.
Representative Wilson was having difficulty with non-
nicotine products and the potential for a violation. She
asked whether there were products that did not contain
nicotine that were included in the bill. Mr. Lamkin
answered that it was uncertain whether the products were
truly nicotine free. Products that were labeled nicotine
free were found to contain nicotine when tested. In
addition, current research was discovering the "dubious"
effects of other chemicals contained in the e-cigarette
"juice." He noted that all juice contained Propylene
Glycol, which was an anti-freeze chemical. He believed that
our bodies were designed to "just breathe air" and did not
believe the products were safe regardless of nicotine
contents.
3:22:49 PM
Representative Wilson asked why the issue was not left up
to parental choice. Mr. Lamkin maintained that the question
applied to any number of issues related to parental
involvement. He informed committee members that a provision
in the bill allowed parents to "make the accommodation" if
the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the
products for smoking cessation, which it had not.
Representative Wilson asked if the product was approved as
a cessation product by the FDA, it would not fall under the
bill and under such circumstances could a parent provide
the product to their children. Mr. Lamkin answered in the
affirmative and added that the products had to be used only
as a cessation product for the child.
3:24:26 PM
Representative Grenn asked how many states had "closed the
loophole." Mr. Lamkin responded that approximately 20
states had adopted the regulations. Representative Grenn
asked who regulated e-cigarette liquid. Mr. Lamkin answered
that the FDA was just beginning to regulate the industry.
Representative Grenn asked whether the hope was that a
detailed ingredient list would be published. Mr. Lamkin
answered in the affirmative. He heard antidotes that
generic 55-gallon drums of juice could be purchased from
China and an individual could concoct their own potion at
home. Representative Grenn referred to Page 2, Section 2.
He wanted to better understand the section that allowed a
child under 19 to obtain an e-cigarette as a cessation
device from a pharmacist without a prescription. Mr. Lamkin
reiterated the answer he gave to Representative Wilson. He
restated that the product had to be approved by the FDA as
a cessation device, was marketed as a cessation device, and
was either prescribed by a health care professional, or by
the Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), or
provided by the parents or a pharmacist. Representative
Grenn asked whether e-cigarettes were an FDA approved
cessation device. Mr. Lamkin asserted that in no way the
products were approved as a cessation devise by the FDA.
3:28:15 PM
Representative Tilton asked whether someone under the age
of 19 who was in possession of e-cigarettes was a violation
and the highest charge one would receive. Mr. Lamkin
stressed that the real target of the bill were the vendors
and the bill was not about giving teenagers tickets.
Representative Tilton relayed a story from personal
experience. She asked if he had seen the devices that
dispensed vitamins in a type of vaping devise. Mr. Lamkin
answered in the negative. He suggested that manufacturers
would find creative ways to market the devices.
Representative Tilton confirmed that the devices were
available with vitamins.
3:32:08 PM
Representative Kawasaki ascertained that currently a
business that did not sell tobacco products could sell e-
cigarettes. Mr. Lamkin responded that the bill provided
endorsements that enabled vendors to sell only e-cigarettes
or only tobacco products or both. Representative Kawasaki
surmised that a business could obtain an e-cigarette
endorsement and not sell any products containing nicotine
and would be licensed separately than a vaping shop that
would sell both. Mr. Lamkin replied that "nicotine
products" was the "distinction" in the bill. He delineated
that all the vaping "hardware" was considered a nicotine
product. Representative Kawasaki asked whether businesses
that were currently selling the vaping equipment and juices
that did not contain nicotine and no other tobacco products
would need an endorsement to continue selling vaping
products under the bill. Mr. Lamkin clarified that the bill
offered 2 separate endorsements; one was for tobacco
products and the other was for e-cigarettes and its
components; pens and juice regardless of whether the juice
contained nicotine.
3:35:20 PM
Representative Kawasaki asked whether underage youth could
legally purchase a bong in a vape shop. Mr. Lamkin believed
bongs were associated with the consumption of marijuana and
was not the subject of SB 15. Representative Kawasaki asked
whether a youth could purchase a tobacco pipe. Mr. Lamkin
replied that pipes were treated like tobacco products and
purchases were restricted to individuals under 19 years of
age and reiterated that it was similar to purchasing vaping
hardware which would be restricted to youth under 19 years
old.
Representative Guttenberg reiterated similar questions as
the previous inquiry regarding the vaping hardware. Mr.
Lamkin restated that the all the products associated with
vaping was covered under the bill and restricted from
purchase for youth under the age of 19. Representative
Guttenberg assumed the devices were preloaded. Mr. Lamkin
responded that not all devises were pre-loaded; the
components were modular. Therefore, the hardware was
regulated.
3:38:47 PM
Co-Chair Seaton OPENED public testimony.
3:38:59 PM
ALLISON KULAS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ADVISORY BOARD OF
ALCOHOLISM AND DRUG ABUSE, related that in her previous job
she worked as a Tobacco Regulatory Science Fellow with the
National Academy of Medicine placed in the Food and Drug
Administration Center for Tobacco Products. She was not
speaking on behalf of the FDA but used the knowledge gained
to "protect Alaska's children." She believed that SB 15 was
"an important step to prevent youth from tobacco products."
Research had proven that nicotine was highly addictive,
harmful to teenager's brain development and exposure to
nicotine left them more susceptible to nicotine and other
substance additions. Nicotine also reduced impulse control
and was attributed to mood disorders and deficits in
attention and cognition. Nicotine in any form was unsafe
for use, yet e-cigarettes were the most commonly used
tobacco products. A newly released report discovered that
e-cigarettes increased the risk of using combustible
cigarettes. She commented that SB 15 was consistent with
the current laws that restricted tobacco products.
Preventing illegal sales to minors protected the nations
youth from the harmful effects of nicotine. Alaska had a
proven track record of effective enforcement of businesses
with a tobacco endorsement. The bill clarified the business
rules and restrictions on the sale of tobacco products by
including e-cigarettes in the existing statutes and further
protected Alaska's youth. She urged member to vote in favor
of the bill.
Representative Grenn asked whether evidence existed that
tobacco companies were manufacturing e-cigarette products.
Ms. Kulas responded that the FDA did not know all the
manufacturers of the products. She indicated that some
existing tobacco companies were marketing the products
along with small businesses. Representative Grenn asked if
the marketing of e-cigarette were targeted at youth. Ms.
Kulas answered in the affirmative and expounded that the e-
cigarette advertising was like cigarette advertising. The
FDA had spent ample funding to develop marketing campaigns
for youth to counter the advertising exposure. She reported
that in October 2017 the FDA developed a digital campaign
aimed at e-cigarette youth prevention.
3:43:51 PM
Representative Guttenberg wondered whether there were any
other products that people ingested without any safety
standards because it appeared that e-cigarettes were
totally unregulated. He wondered whether any existing
standards applied to e-cigarettes and confirmed what was in
the products. Ms. Kulas answered that the FDA did not know
what ingredients were in the products. The FDA was
currently accepting applications that included the liquid
product ingredient list and FDA's toxicologists were
attempting to identify what was in the product and if the
ingredients were safe. She noted that some ingredients when
ingested were designated by the FDA as Generally Recognized
As Safe (GRAS) but it was unknown if they were harmful when
inhaled.
3:45:32 PM
KRISTIN COX, GRANT COORDINATOR, TOBACCO PREVENTION AND
CONTROL, NATIONAL COUNCIL ON ALCOHOLISM DRUG DEPENDENCE,
JUNEAU, supported SB 15. She shared some statistical
information. She indicated that flavors attracted children
and 81 percent of youth tobacco users chose a flavored
product as their first product and 25 percent believed that
flavored tobacco products were safer. However, they were
unsafe because they initiated youth into cigarette smoking
and nicotine addiction. Three recently published studies in
medical journals determined that youth that used e-
cigarettes were 4 to 7 times more likely to become tobacco
smokers. She added that the effect was "unilateral" meaning
cigarette smoking was not associated with increased vaping.
She concluded that restricting youth access to e-cigarettes
would reduce youth smoking and adult addiction rates.
3:47:23 PM
BEVERLY WOOLEY, SELF, JUNEAU, was retired but previously
served as the Director of the Division of Public Health
with the state and the municipality. She related that in
the 1990's the state knew that large numbers of retailers
were selling tobacco products to children due to lack of
accountability. The state instituted enforcement and the
number of incidents decreased to 5 percent. She emphasized
that SB 15 would establish the same laws that regulated the
tobacco industry for e-cigarettes and close the loophole
and provide enforcement. She underscored that edibles that
were considered healthy were much different when turned
into an aerosol or combusted and inhaled into the lungs.
She noted a state-wide study where researchers went to some
of the "vape" shops and found they were more likely (36
percent of shops) to sell e-cigarettes to children while
established retailers only sold the product 5 percent of
the time to children. She believed in protecting children.
She urged members to move the bill out of committee.
3:50:06 PM
JAMIE MORGAN, AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION, AMERICAN STROKE
ASSOCIATION, JUNEAU, spoke in support of SB 15 for the
associations and urged members to move the bill from
committee. She reiterated that e-cigarettes were harmful
and unregulated. She reported that in the 2016 surgeon
general report on e-cigarette use showed that e-cigarette
use in children increased the likelihood of cigarette use.
She related that the associations supported including e-
cigarettes in laws that restricted access to children.
3:51:39 PM
JOE DARNELL, MANAGER, YOUTH TOBACCO ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES, ANCHORAGE (via
teleconference), related that he was the Chief Investigator
for Tobacco Enforcement for the state. He spoke in support
of the bill. He cited the states statewide vape shop study
and reported that in 2016 he encountered a 26 percent sell
rate for vaping products versus 5.4 percent for tobacco
products; in Anchorage the sell rate was 50 percent. He
added that in 2017 the statewide sell rate jumped to 35
percent. He supported the bill and asked for member's
support.
3:53:40 PM
ALEX MCDONALD, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference),
testified against the bill. He shared that he owned the
vape shop Ice Fog Vapor. He declared that he heard much
misinformation in the prior testimony. He stated that
federal law required him to age verify customers for any
vape equipment. He countered that since the previous fall
FDA instituted registering and labeling requirements. He
emphasized that federal regulations were the norm that
considered vape products tobacco products. He noted that
compliance checks were carried out for the federal
government through a contracted vendor. He opined that "new
rules" were not necessary but better enforcement of the
existing rules were. He related that the American Cancer
Society recommended that long time smokers switch to a less
harmful product such as vapor products. He mentioned that
the FDA was engaged in studies related to the safety of e-
cigarettes. He concluded that everything in the bill was
covered under federal tobacco law.
Representative Grenn asked whether he knew all the
ingredients in the juice. Mr. McDonald answered in the
affirmative and maintained that propylene glycol acted as a
carrier and was found in asthma inhalers and oxygen tanks
and had been used for a long time. He added that vegetable
glycerin and food flavorings had also "been around for a
long time." Some vape juice did not contain nicotine. He
claimed that propylene glycol was added to hospital H Vac
systems to keep airborne infections down. Representative
Grenn asked why the label read that the product may contain
nicotine. Mr. McDonald responded that the labeling was an
FDA requirement. Representative Grenn asked why the
nicotine labeling would be necessary. Mr. McDonald answered
that there was a very low chance of cross contamination.
3:59:53 PM
Representative Wilson mentioned the age requirement of 19
for purchasing vape products and asked whether she was
correct. Mr. McDonald answered in the affirmative.
Representative Kawasaki asked if the bill was more
restrictive than federal law. Mr. McDonald thought the bill
seemed redundant to federal law, although federal law did
not require licensing. He thought SB 15 provided a
duplicate service since the federal law required full
enforcement authority and compliance checks. He surmised
that the legislation was more of a licensing law than one
designed to protect children. He purported that the
prevalent source for youth tobacco products was "social";
supplied by older friends or family. Representative
Kawasaki suggested that the state survey showed that many
vape shops were not in compliance with federal laws. He
asked for comment. Mr. McDonald felt that it did not make
sense to make new laws when the current laws were not
enforced.
Vice-Chair Gara had been told numerous times that until
federal laws were implemented the heating element in e-
cigarettes could contain asbestos and other toxic
materials. Mr. McDonald replied in the negative. He
explained that the heating elements used Kanthal A-1, a
resistance heating wire found in toaster ovens and hair
dryers and the wicking material was organic cotton. He did
not know where it was even possible to purchase asbestos.
4:03:38 PM
JENNIFER CHIKOYAK, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
spoke in support of the bill. She spoke from the
perspective of a parent and shared that she tried to "guide
her son into making good choices" and she valued the
assistance that tobacco and alcohol laws supplied. She
"appreciated the state stepping in and regulating" e-
cigarettes like other tobacco products. She favored the
state's penalties for tobacco sales to minors and wanted to
close the loophole for e-cigarettes.
4:04:59 PM
BETTY MACTAVISH, SELF, KODIAK (via teleconference), spoke
in favor of the bill. She shared that she was a retired
school teacher and was currently a substitute teacher. She
stated that e-cigarette use among youth was increasing and
characterized e-cigarettes as an "addictive tool" for the
tobacco industry rather than a "quit" tool. She observed
that youth who would not use conventional tobacco products
were attracted to vaping, and she characterized vaping as
"the new cool thing to do." She noted that toxic aerosols
and chemicals were "hidden" in flavored vape juiced. She
supported protecting the state's youth through passage of
the bill.
4:07:12 PM
MARGE STONEKING, AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION, ANCHORAGE (via
teleconference), spoke in support of the bill. She relayed
that almost all e-cigarette contained nicotine and
chemicals and toxins that were unsafe to inhale. The FDA
delayed review of ingredients and any potential harmful
effects of e-cigarettes until 2022 leaving unregulated
products. She thought members were aware of the harmful
effects of nicotine on youth's brain development and
functioning and the increase in teen use. She reported that
the FDA had performed some product testing but there were
thousands of ingredients that varied from product to
product. The testing had discovered that "ultra-fine"
particles were inhaled deep into the lungs like diacetyl,
which was a flavorant linked to lung disease, volatile
organic compounds, and heavy metals. She argued that
whether the product contained nicotine or not there were
inherent risks in the use of the products. The bill would
hold vendors accountable. She felt that the bill would also
assist in changing the public perception that the products
were safe.
4:10:41 PM
PAMELA HOWARD, KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH SCHOOL DISTRICT,
SOLDOTNA (via teleconference), spoke in support of SB 15.
She had been a school nurse for over 30 years and taught
students about the harmful effects of vaping. She reported
that in her school district principles saw a significant
increase in students use of vaping products. The bill
addressed students carrying devices. She believed that the
students carrying the devices showed intent to use the
devise and possession should be prohibited. She had not
seen vitamin e-cigarette products. She spoke of the
importance of educating students on the health risks of
using the products.
4:13:37 PM
KATIE STEFFENS, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke
in support of the bill. She related that e-cigarette use
contributed to harmful brain development and addiction in
youth. She spoke about the other aerosol ingredients that
were smaller in particulate composition and the associated
risks of inhaling those particulates. She reported that the
Philip Morris tobacco company was promoting a "smoke free
future" by supporting the use of vape products. She felt
that vaping would become a future trend making the bill
timelier. She urged for passage of the bill.
4:15:32 PM
JOSHUA SILAS, SELF, SOLDOTNA (via teleconference), spoke in
opposition SB 15. He worked at Mapes Vapes vape shop. He
agreed that the bill was redundant and was a waste of time
and state government resources. He purported that the FDA
had addressed regulating vaping products and carried out
enforcement. Alaskan vape shops were compliant with the
federal regulations. His shop was committed to offering a
healthy alternative to smoking and helped 554 adults quit
smoking in the last 26 months. He wondered what the cost of
enforcement was to the state. He believed that "there was
no reason" to move forward with the bill.
4:18:16 PM
Co-Chair Foster CLOSED public testimony on SB 15.
4:18:49 PM
Co-Chair Foster asked whether Mr. Darnell had heard the
testimony of Mr. McDonald regarding the redundancy of the
Alaska law and if he had any comments.
Mr. Darnell reported that he heard criticism that the state
did the requirement check study but did not carry out
enforcement. He noted that the state did not currently have
enforcement authority. He reported that the study was
performed as a baseline to determine what was necessary
when enforcement became law. He declared that he did not
know of any FDA compliance checks that had been conducted
in vape shops. He had only heard of them being carried out
in convenience stores. He informed committee members that
the fiscal note would be zero and the compliance checks
could be done without any additional costs to the state. He
had had numerous complaints from parents about where their
children had been able to obtain vape products. He knew of
vape shops that operated legally but others knowingly broke
the law. He relayed anecdotal evidence that when he went
into a tobacco only shop that was not smoke free and was
subjected to tobacco smoke he had some nasal discomfort and
his clothes smelled but when he went into a vape shop for
15 or 20 minutes and people were vaping it left him with a
burning sensation in his chest.
Co-Chair Foster indicated that amendments were due by
tomorrow at 5:00 pm.
SB 15 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Foster indicated that SB 155 would be moved to
tomorrow morning's meeting at 9:00 am.