NC advocates continue push for bill to crack down on youth vaping
House Bill 430, known as Solly's Law, and its corresponding Senate Bill 318 would require a tobacco retail sales permit for businesses to align with federal law, which sets the minimum age to purchase at 21.
SPECIAL REPORT | North Carolina mother fighting against teen vaping with new bill
The bill is named after Solomon 'Solly' Wynn. The New Hanover County teen died in 2023 at just 15. His stepmother Charlene Zorn says his doctors told her was due to complications from vaping.
'We have to do something now before someone else's child dies,' said Zorn.
She was one of the advocates who came to the GA pushing for the bills to pass but it's been at a standstill in both the house and senate rules committees since March.
Representative Donnie Loftis of Gaston County is one of the sponsors of the house bill.
'North Carolina is one of the last seven states to raise the age and to bring all unregulated vape shops into compliance with state law,' said Rep. Loftis.
The North Carolina Alliance for Health says though most vapes are acquired from retailers, the next most common way teens are able to access them is from a friend under the age of 21.
They also say e-cigarette sales have increased by 250% since 2020.
Macey Morris, a student at Eastern Alamance High School, is just one North Carolina teen who spoke about what she's seeing at her school.
'Trying to use the restrooms throughout the day during class change and even during class time can be nearly impossible. The bathrooms are filled with students vaping and take up the majority of the space which can make it uncomfortable to try and use the restroom throughout the day,' said Morris.
Rep. Loftis says they are waiting for the bills to go to their appropriate committees and they're hoping Tuesday's call for action will help.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
2 hours ago
- CNN
Why Putin is not ready to meet with Zelensky, and may never be
Agreement at the White House Monday on the next step – a bilateral meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky – seemed broadly unanimous. Then came the Russian response. 'The idea was discussed that it would be appropriate to study the opportunity of raising the level of representatives of the Russian and Ukrainian sides,' said Kremlin aide Yury Ushakov, briefing reporters on US President Donald Trump's call with Putin. No mention of either leader by name, or any indication the 'representatives' could be raised to that level. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov took a more conciliatory tone in a state TV interview later Tuesday. 'We do not refuse any forms of work – neither bilateral nor trilateral,' he insisted. But: 'Any contacts involving top officials must be prepared with the utmost care.' In Kremlin speak, that means they are nowhere near ready to agree to this. And that should come as no surprise. This is a war that Putin started by unilaterally recognizing a chunk of Ukrainian land (the self-styled Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics) as independent. He has argued Ukraine is 'an inalienable part of (Russia's) own history, culture and spiritual space,' and its separation from Russia is a historical mistake. So if this meeting happens – as Orysia Lutsevich, the director of Chatham House's Russia and Eurasia program puts it – Putin 'will have to accept the failure of sitting down with a president he considers a joke from a country that doesn't exist'. It would also, she argued, be a huge reversal in tone that would be tough to explain to the Russian people. '(Putin) so much brainwashed Russians on state television that Zelensky's a Nazi, that (Ukraine's) a puppet state of the West … that Zelensky's illegitimate, why is he suddenly talking to him?' The Kremlin not only routinely questions the legitimacy of the Ukrainian leader, fixating on the postponement of elections in Ukraine, illegal under martial law, but in its latest 'peace' memorandum requires Ukraine to hold elections before any final peace treaty is signed. Putin and other Russian officials rarely refer to Zelensky by name, instead preferring the scathing moniker of 'the Kyiv regime.' And don't forget it was Zelensky who traveled to Turkey for the first direct talks between the two sides in mid-May, only for Putin to send a delegation headed by a writer of historical textbooks. Tatiana Stanovaya, senior fellow at the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center and founder of which provides news and analysis on Russia, argues that while Putin does not view a meeting with Zelensky as critical in a war that for Russia is more about confronting the West than Ukraine, he could still take the meeting if he thought it would be successful. 'The key demands must be on the table and Zelensky must be ok to talk about it,' she told CNN in an interview Tuesday. As of now Zelensky has ruled out those key demands, which include giving up territory Ukraine still controls. But Putin, she argued, sees Trump as the key to changing that. 'Trump is seen as an enabler of (the) Russian vision of the settlement and for that the United States is supposed to work with Kyiv to push them to be more flexible, to be more open to Russian demands.' Stanovaya suggested Russia may try to keep the US on side by doing what Ushakov suggested, and suggesting a new round of Istanbul talks, but with a higher-level delegation, perhaps including Ushakov himself, and foreign minister Lavrov. But he won't risk an 'ambush' by sitting down with Zelensky only to find all his demands rejected. Trump ended his day on Monday by posting on Truth Social that he 'began the arrangements for a meeting … between President Putin and President Zelensky.' By the time he had woken up and dialed into the breakfast show on Fox News Tuesday morning, it seemed to have dawned on him this was not a done deal. 'I sort of set it up with Putin and Zelensky, and you know, they're the ones that have to call the shots. We're, we're 7,000 miles away,' he said. Putin has no reason to acquiesce at this point. Having made zero concessions, he has been rewarded with a grand summit in Alaska, the dropping of a demand by Trump to sign onto a ceasefire before a peace talks, and the crumbling of all sanctions ultimatums to date. Having slightly dialed down the scale of nightly drone attacks on Ukrainian cities so far in August, Russia ramped them up again Monday night, firing 270 drones and 10 missiles. If Trump's pressure on Zelensky hasn't yet yielded the results Moscow wants, there's always military force to fall back on. The only wild card for Russia at this point is who Trump will blame when this latest peace effort fails.
CNN
2 hours ago
- CNN
Why Putin is not ready to meet with Zelensky, and may never be
Agreement at the White House Monday on the next step – a bilateral meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky – seemed broadly unanimous. Then came the Russian response. 'The idea was discussed that it would be appropriate to study the opportunity of raising the level of representatives of the Russian and Ukrainian sides,' said Kremlin aide Yury Ushakov, briefing reporters on US President Donald Trump's call with Putin. No mention of either leader by name, or any indication the 'representatives' could be raised to that level. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov took a more conciliatory tone in a state TV interview later Tuesday. 'We do not refuse any forms of work – neither bilateral nor trilateral,' he insisted. But: 'Any contacts involving top officials must be prepared with the utmost care.' In Kremlin speak, that means they are nowhere near ready to agree to this. And that should come as no surprise. This is a war that Putin started by unilaterally recognizing a chunk of Ukrainian land (the self-styled Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics) as independent. He has argued Ukraine is 'an inalienable part of (Russia's) own history, culture and spiritual space,' and its separation from Russia is a historical mistake. So if this meeting happens – as Orysia Lutsevich, the director of Chatham House's Russia and Eurasia program puts it – Putin 'will have to accept the failure of sitting down with a president he considers a joke from a country that doesn't exist'. It would also, she argued, be a huge reversal in tone that would be tough to explain to the Russian people. '(Putin) so much brainwashed Russians on state television that Zelensky's a Nazi, that (Ukraine's) a puppet state of the West … that Zelensky's illegitimate, why is he suddenly talking to him?' The Kremlin not only routinely questions the legitimacy of the Ukrainian leader, fixating on the postponement of elections in Ukraine, illegal under martial law, but in its latest 'peace' memorandum requires Ukraine to hold elections before any final peace treaty is signed. Putin and other Russian officials rarely refer to Zelensky by name, instead preferring the scathing moniker of 'the Kyiv regime.' And don't forget it was Zelensky who traveled to Turkey for the first direct talks between the two sides in mid-May, only for Putin to send a delegation headed by a writer of historical textbooks. Tatiana Stanovaya, senior fellow at the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center and founder of which provides news and analysis on Russia, argues that while Putin does not view a meeting with Zelensky as critical in a war that for Russia is more about confronting the West than Ukraine, he could still take the meeting if he thought it would be successful. 'The key demands must be on the table and Zelensky must be ok to talk about it,' she told CNN in an interview Tuesday. As of now Zelensky has ruled out those key demands, which include giving up territory Ukraine still controls. But Putin, she argued, sees Trump as the key to changing that. 'Trump is seen as an enabler of (the) Russian vision of the settlement and for that the United States is supposed to work with Kyiv to push them to be more flexible, to be more open to Russian demands.' Stanovaya suggested Russia may try to keep the US on side by doing what Ushakov suggested, and suggesting a new round of Istanbul talks, but with a higher-level delegation, perhaps including Ushakov himself, and foreign minister Lavrov. But he won't risk an 'ambush' by sitting down with Zelensky only to find all his demands rejected. Trump ended his day on Monday by posting on Truth Social that he 'began the arrangements for a meeting … between President Putin and President Zelensky.' By the time he had woken up and dialed into the breakfast show on Fox News Tuesday morning, it seemed to have dawned on him this was not a done deal. 'I sort of set it up with Putin and Zelensky, and you know, they're the ones that have to call the shots. We're, we're 7,000 miles away,' he said. Putin has no reason to acquiesce at this point. Having made zero concessions, he has been rewarded with a grand summit in Alaska, the dropping of a demand by Trump to sign onto a ceasefire before a peace talks, and the crumbling of all sanctions ultimatums to date. Having slightly dialed down the scale of nightly drone attacks on Ukrainian cities so far in August, Russia ramped them up again Monday night, firing 270 drones and 10 missiles. If Trump's pressure on Zelensky hasn't yet yielded the results Moscow wants, there's always military force to fall back on. The only wild card for Russia at this point is who Trump will blame when this latest peace effort fails.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Appeals court overturns order that stripped some protections from pregnant Texas state workers
NEW YORK (AP) — A federal appeals court has upheld a law strengthening the rights of pregnant workers, vacating a judge's earlier order that had stripped those protections from Texas state employees. The ruling was a victory for advocates of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, a law that passed with bipartisan support in 2022 but quickly became embroiled in controversy over whether it covers workers seeking abortions and fertility treatments. A federal judge last year blocked enforcement of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act for Texas state employees, ruling that its passage was unconstitutional because a majority of House members were not physically present to approve the law as part of spending package in December 2022. In a 2-1 decision, the Fifth Circuit appeals court disagreed, finding that the law was properly passed under a COVID-19 pandemic-era Congressional rule allowing members to vote by proxy to meet the quorum requirement. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act strengthens the rights of women to receive workplace accommodation for needs related to pregnancy and childbirth, such as time off for medical appointments and exemptions from heavy lifting. Its passage came after a decades long campaign by women's advocacy groups highlighting the struggles of pregnant workers, especially those in low-wage roles, who were routinely forced off the job after requesting accommodations. The Texas case differed from other lawsuits that have narrowly focused on federal regulations stating that abortion, fertility treatments and birth control are medical issues requiring protection under the new law. The lawsuit, filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, instead took aim at the entirety of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, drawing opposition from Republican lawmakers including former Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who defended the pandemic-era proxy voting rule. Under the Trump administration, the Department of Justice has continued to fight Paxton's lawsuit, which if successful, could help open the door to legal challenges of other pandemic-era laws passed by proxy. Paxton's office did not reply to emails seeking comment, and it was not clear whether he would appeal Friday's ruling. The Justice Department declined to comment. 'This is a big win for women's rights. We are really happy to see that the Fifth Circuit agreed with us that the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act was passed constitutionally and will continue to fight for the PWFA to stay legal,' said Inimai Chettiar, president of a Better Balance, an advocacy group that spearheaded the campaign for passage of the law. Texas state employees are not immediately protected, however, because the appeals court ruling doesn't become final for several weeks to give time for a possible appeal, Chettiar said. Conservative officials and religious groups, meanwhile, have been largely successfully in challenging the regulations passed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which established that workers seeking abortions are entitled accommodations. In May, a federal court struck down the abortion provisions of the EEOC regulations in response to lawsuits brought by states of Louisiana and Mississippi, and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Catholic University and two Catholic dioceses. The Trump administration is almost certain to comply with that ruling. President Donald Trump in January fired two of the EEOC's democratic commissioners, paving the way for him to quickly establish a Republican majority at the agency. EEOC Acting Chair Andrea Lucas, a Republican, has signaled her support for revising the regulations, arguing the agency exceeded its authority by including not only abortion but fertility treatments and birth control as medical needs covered by the law. Solve the daily Crossword
