With House split on whether to keep ban on flavored vape sales, status quo remains

Yahoo

05-03-2025

A legal challenge has kept vape shops in Utah selling flavored vapes without restriction. (Getty Images)
Remember that law the Utah Legislature passed in 2024 to ban the sale of flavored vapes?
While both the Senate and the House voted in comfortable margins to approve it, a legal challenge has kept vape shops across the state selling cotton candy and fruity pens without restriction.
Now, the Utah Legislature is split on the issue, but after holding hot debates on whether to eliminate the ban altogether, it appears nothing may change this session.
Rep. Matt MacPherson, R-West Valley City, introduced HB432 in early February with a big provision repealing the prohibition on sweet vape flavors that critics say draw in underage users, and adding other stronger enforcement mechanisms to prevent minors from getting access to electronic cigarettes.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
After weeks delaying the bill's discussion on the House floor, his proposal was hijacked by a Republican colleague during the last week of the legislative session. Rep. Kristen Chevrier, R-Highland, updated MacPherson's bill to strike what are perhaps the most substantial parts of the legislation.
'We vape, we vote': Vape shops ask lawmakers not to ban sale of flavored vapes
'Repeals the ban on flavored electronic cigarette products,' was deleted from the bill, and so was 'repeals the nicotine content limit for electronic cigarette products.'
The reason, Chevrier said on Tuesday, is because amid deadline extensions and lawsuits, SB61, the 2024 law sponsored by Sen. Jen Plumb, D-Salt Lake City, 'never had a chance to be tried.'
While Chevrier flexed her version's supporters, which included Primary Children's Hospital and the Utah Medical Association, before a vote, MacPherson seemed dismayed by the possibility of making such changes, describing Chevrier's move as 'hostile.'
'SB61 and what this substitute bill does is simply says we would rather have a political statement than any real tools, any resources or any enforcement we will get to the actual meat of this argument,' MacPherson said.
Ultimately, the House voted 40-34 to adopt Chevrier's version. However, a few hours later, MacPherson's version was brought back to the floor, where it failed 22-47.
It's still unclear whether this is the end of the road on flavored vape legislation, but that last vote left the flavored vape ban as is, still in place, and still facing litigation.
'The beauty of the second sub is that it maintains all of the regulations and protections for ensuring that kids are protected from a predatory industry, but also maintains very firm legislation, like the sponsor of the substitute motion said, that was passed with very strong bipartisan support,' said House Minority Whip Jennifer Dailey Provost, D-Salt Lake City, 'in recognition of the fact that the most effective way to prevent kids from vaping is to get rid of flavors. Full stop.'
Rep. Jason Thompson, R-River Heights, criticized Chevrier's update, arguing a lot of work was put into MacPherson's bill to bring many players together.
'By adopting this second substitute, we might as well stay with SB61 and not even worry about voting on today's bill,' he told the House.
The Utah Vapor Business Association, which represents many vape shops in the state, has been pushing hard against Plumb's 2024 bill, first by loudly protesting it in the state Capitol last year, and then, in December, by suing the state over the constitutionality of unwarranted searches of all books, records, premises, desks, safes, vaults, and other fixtures and furniture in vape shops, which was included in the 2024 bill.
According to the suit, about 180 Utah businesses licensed as retail tobacco specialty shops 'will lose a significant source, and in most instances the overwhelming majority, of business by being prohibited from selling flavored e-cigarette products and products with a higher nicotine content than allowed under SB61.'
The businesses would also be subject to 'warrantless, unconstitutional searches of their entire premises,' the lawsuit reads. But, that's a factor that Plumb intended to resolve with this year's SB186, which eases what she called the 'more onerous than needed' vape shop search and seizure requirements. That bill hasn't left the House Rules Committee since the Senate approved it in early February, and at this point in the session, isn't likely to.
In a court hearing on Feb. 11, the Vapor Business Association asked a federal judge for a 30-day extension of a temporary restraining order that paused the flavored vape sales ban while SB186 and HB432 played out in the Legislature.
However, Chevrier's version of HB432 'removes the language that inspired the lawsuit that we are currently in,' she told the House, as it would do the same as Plumb's SB186 — remove the strict, warrantless inspections, and potentially defuse an argument vape shops are using in court to challenge the flavors ban.
With HB432 failing and SB186 dormant, potential changes on the ban will have to be sustained in court.
After the vote, Senate Minority Leader Luz Escamilla, D-Salt Lake City, told reporters her caucus is passionate about keeping 'good policies' and fixing what needs to be tweaked. SB186 alone would solve the lawsuit issue, she said.
'To him it was hostile, which was an interesting word to use when he did the hostile (action) against the bill we passed last year,' Escamilla said.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE