The Utah Legislature finds itself split on the issue of banning the sale of flavored vapes, a law they passed in 2024 with comfortable margins in both the Senate and the House. Despite the ban, a legal challenge has allowed vape shops across the state to continue selling cotton candy and fruity pens without restriction. After heated debates on whether to eliminate the ban altogether, it appears that nothing may change this legislative session.
Competing Bills and Amendments
Rep. Matt MacPherson, R-West Valley City, introduced HB432 in early February, which included a provision to repeal the prohibition on sweet vape flavors that critics argue attract underage users. The bill also proposed stronger enforcement mechanisms to prevent minors from accessing electronic cigarettes.
However, during the last week of the legislative session, Rep. Kristen Chevrier, R-Highland, hijacked MacPherson's proposal by updating the bill to strike the most substantial parts of the legislation, including the repeal of the flavored vape ban and the nicotine content limit for e-cigarette products.
Chevrier argued that the 2024 law, SB61, sponsored by Sen. Jen Plumb, D-Salt Lake City, "never had a chance to be tried" due to deadline extensions and lawsuits. MacPherson, dismayed by the changes, described Chevrier's move as "hostile."
House Votes and the Future of the Ban
The House initially voted 40-34 to adopt Chevrier's version of the bill. However, a few hours later, MacPherson's original version was brought back to the floor, where it failed 22-47. This final vote left the flavored vape ban in place, still facing ongoing litigation.
House Minority Whip Jennifer Dailey Provost, D-Salt Lake City, praised Chevrier's substitute bill, stating that it maintains regulations and protections for ensuring kids are protected from a predatory industry while also upholding the firm legislation passed with strong bipartisan support in 2024.
Vape Shops' Legal Battle
The Utah Vapor Business Association, representing many vape shops in the state, has been pushing hard against the 2024 bill. In December, they sued the state over the constitutionality of unwarranted searches of vape shops, as included in SB61.
According to the lawsuit, about 180 Utah businesses licensed as retail tobacco specialty shops would lose a significant source of business by being prohibited from selling flavored e-cigarette products and products with higher nicotine content than allowed under SB61. The businesses would also be subject to "warrantless, unconstitutional searches of their entire premises."
Sen. Plumb aimed to resolve this issue with this year's SB186, which eases the "more onerous than needed" vape shop search and seizure requirements. However, the bill hasn't left the House Rules Committee since the Senate approved it in early February and is unlikely to progress further this session.
The Path Forward
With HB432 failing and SB186 dormant, potential changes to the flavored vape ban will have to be sustained in court. Senate Minority Leader Luz Escamilla, D-Salt Lake City, told reporters that her caucus is passionate about keeping "good policies" and fixing what needs to be tweaked, emphasizing that SB186 alone would solve the lawsuit issue.
As the Utah Legislature remains divided on the issue of flavored vapes, the status quo remains, leaving the future of the ban in the hands of the courts.
