 I just like to take a minute to go back through S24. Our goal on Friday will be to make any changes that we think need to be changed and move the bill out of committee. There are two ways we can move the bill out of committee. One is to just simply vote it out. Then it sits on the calendar, and then it goes to economic development, and then it goes to finance. The other thing that I'm thinking about is after we've had our discussion, simply to relieve our committee of the bill and send it to economic development, where it originally had started, and I've talked with Senator Sorokin about doing that, and he's fine with that. All right. Jen, do you want to just quickly remind us of what S24 includes? Sure. That would be helpful. All right. It would be. Are you wanting me to put it up or just describe to you what's in it? Let's put it up. Nellie has also put it on your committee page if you're interested in pulling it. I will tell you, I understand that the Vermont NAACP is sending us a letter of support for the bill, and there are others who are similarly positioned who may also be sending us letters of support. We'll see that. For the record, Jennifer Kirby, Legislative Council. This is S24, an act relating to banning flavored tobacco products and e-liquids. It starts out with a number of findings. I'll just scroll through here. Then it updates definitions in the first case here in the definition of tobacco products. It's really to remove some ambiguities and inconsistencies with the definition in the tax statutes. Then also make some changes to the definition of tobacco substitute, which is the statute's term for electronic cigarettes and similar devices so that it's a little bit broader and captures some emerging products. Then we have the definition of e-liquid, which is the solution substance or other material used in or with a tobacco substitute that is heated or otherwise acted upon to produce an aerosol vapor or other emission to be inhaled or otherwise absorbed by the user regardless of whether it contains nicotine. You'll see the e-liquids term being either introduced or used to replace some various other terms throughout some statutes. Starting with this next one here, which is the license required to sell these products. Same thing in this next section, also including tobacco substitutes and e-liquids in this exception about where items can be displayed. Then the proof of age statute, again, adding e-liquids in here. Seven VSA section 1005, this would remove the penalty for possession of tobacco products by minors. So it would then just prohibit the purchase and the misrepresentation of age for purchasing. Jen, so what we've, sorry, go ahead Ruth and not all last one. On that, on page eight, line 13, this is a very specific question. The sale and purchase of bidders? BDs is my understanding of the pronunciation. Okay, what is that? Well, happily for us, it is a defined term in statute. So I'm gonna have to pull it up and tell you what it is. But in the beginning of this chapter, seven VSA chapter 40 in section 1001, BDs, and there's also another spelling, B-E-E-D-I-E-S, means a product containing tobacco that is wrapped in Timberney leaf, and then parenthetically it says diospirose melanoxalin, which I'm probably butchering, or tendu leaf diospirose exculpura or any other product that is offered to or purchased by consumers as BDs spelled this way and BDs spelled together. That is the extent of my knowledge. Okay, I've never heard of this thing. Okay, thank you. Well, you're not allowed to sell or purchase them currently. Okay, we'll do, we'll don't. So I was gonna, that was so, that was exciting. Thank you, Senator Hardy. I do remember a previous conversation about that, but I'm glad you brought it up. Not this year, another year. Yes, this particular language has been in the statutes longer than I've been working on tobacco stuff, which isn't all that long, but it's been in here a while. So we are taking out the penalty for possession. Yes, this would get rid of the $25 penalty for possession, which is in here somewhere. All right. Yes, there we go, in here in P. So it's sort of the civil penalty of $25 civil penalty brought by the Ed and the Judicial Bureau for possession. It does maintain it for purchase. Yeah, okay. This is an area that I think economic development, well, they have a bill on POP purchase issues. Right, they do have a bill and actually in that bill it would, I don't know if it's decriminalized because I don't think it's criminal, but unprohibit the possession of BDs because it is getting rid of all prohibitions on possession. So at least as introduced, it would allow for the possession, but not purchase. Okay. All right, section 1006 is adding the E-liquids to the placement of posting of signs in retail establishments. Section 1007 adds the E-liquids to the prohibition and penalties for selling or furnishing products to minors and then goes into the compliance testing and then updates and corrects the name of the reconstituted tobacco evaluation and review board which became part of the substance misuse prevention, oversight and advisory council along with some other boards and councils. Section 109 makes some updates to the contraband and seizure statute to pull in some of the, pull in some conforming changes with other or provisions with other statutes. So it would have the contraband and seizure provisions apply not only to cigarettes and tobacco products that were sold, offered for sale or possessed for sale in violation of certain statutes but also would add tobacco substitutes and tobacco paraphernalia and then would add this new E-liquids language as well and also reflects some of the other sections that prohibit or place limitations on the sale and possession for sale. And then makes a conforming change down here to be to incorporate all of those items. Section 1010 is the internet sales provision and it corrects that or changes that definition or that language around the E-liquids and also adds some of the other types of products into what constitutes a separate violation for separate shipments. And we get to 1012 which is currently liquid nicotine packaging and instead using that new terminology around the E-liquid consistency. And then finally we get to the new section here, 1013 on the flavored tobacco products, a flavored tobacco substitutes and flavored E-liquids being prohibited. And there we have the definitions. So the characterizing flavor, the flavored E-liquid, the flavored tobacco product and the flavored tobacco substitute and the tobacco retailer. And it prohibits anyone from engaging in the retail sale of any flavored tobacco product, E-liquid or tobacco substitute. So again, here it's not the possession, it is the retail sale. It's not even the purchase, it's the retail sale. No retail sale of any flavored tobacco product, flavored E-liquid or flavored tobacco substitute. And if a retailer or their agent or employee violates the section, the retailer would be subject to a civil penalty like the penalties for the sale to minors. And it would be again brought in the Judicial Bureau, that's what it means to be brought in the same manner as for a traffic violation. Then it gives the Judicial Bureau jurisdiction over that new offense and also revises the language of the minors to be purchased and not possession. Then we get into some conforming revisions elsewhere in the statutes. So this is an existing statute elsewhere in title seven that talks about the penalty provisions that apply to other types of products, not applying to violations that are dealt with separately under the tobacco statutes. And so adding E-liquids there. Adding E-liquids to the prohibition on the use of certain products on public school grounds. Adds it also to the language around the substance misuse advisory, substance misuse prevention, oversight and advisory council and makes some conforming changes in the tax statutes definition as well. It's my understanding there's no actual policy implication here but using this same E-liquid language and also just making some grammatical changes in that definition. Then section eight would have the office of the attorney general report back on whether and to what extent Vermont can legally restrict advertising and regulate the content of labels for electronic cigarettes and other vaping related products that has been an issue of interest to a number of people and there are a lot of complexities around the federal law, federal preemption and case law including constitutional issues. And the act would take effect on September 1st. Okay. Go ahead. Question. So just in general, this bill would, everybody moved, would get rid of the violations about possession of tobacco products. But what about purchase? So it would not allow, it would continue to prohibit the purchase by minors. It does not address the purchase of flavored products. It prohibits the sale of flavored products. Okay. So the sale of the retail sale. The retail sale of flavored products and that would include internet sales as well. So these products are not allowed to be, are already not allowed to be sold online, direct to consumers. That was something you enacted. I think it was last biennium, maybe last year, last biennium. So nobody can ship products ordered online to anyone other than a licensed whole sale dealer or retail dealer. Okay. So for regular quote unquote regular cigarettes, non-flavored, just the run-of-the-mill cigarettes, it's no long, this bill, according to this bill, there's no longer a violation for possessing them, even if you're- By minors, right. By minors. But purchasing by minors is still illegal or there's a, that's a, and retail sales to minors are, is a violation. Right, still not allowed. That's right. So it doesn't do anything with the purchasing and that's something that the other committee is interested in looking at potentially or has a bill that's related to- Right, there's a purchase use and possession, some people call PUP, Purchase Use and Possession Bill that is in the Economic Development Committee. Okay, but this one only deals with possession, not purchasing use or trying to figure that. Right. This is just possession. This is just possession for minors. And retail sale of, of flavors. And retail sale of flavors. Okay, got it. All right, thank you. Okay, good. Other questions at this point? I mean, we have been through the bill previously and I did wanna, I do have an interest in how folks are feeling about the bill at this point and I don't know if you wanna do a little show of hands who supports passing the bill out of committee. That would help me. I have a question, Janine. Yeah, go ahead. With your other choice of sending this bill to Economic Development again. Well, I still wanna know how my committee feels about the bill. The question is, do you anticipate them including, you know, kind of melding the two bills, their bill on? I have, I don't know Senator Hooker, they may or may not. I think it would be, I think it would be very useful to have that happen. The, the per, per, per, the POP provisions are kind of anachronistic and they capture people for doing something that, you know, I think as Senator Cummings and I have talked about this and it's the, it's the kid driving down the highway smoking being pulled over for smoking a cigarette and especially if it's a BIPOC person, you have concerns about that. Go ahead, Senator Cummings. You're muted. As long as I'm muted, I can't chime in. I voted for this bill last year with reservations. The most reservations were around the sale to adults of flavored tobacco and that includes grandpa's cherry wood pipe tobacco. We did this prior to COVID. It was sitting waiting for next week in finance and since that time, what, who we did hear from this time to anywhere near the extent we did last year were the adult users of vapes and people that use vapes to step down and it's debatable, but there were a significant number of people. We had one retailer who was a firefighter and decorated and everything in his hometown who has moved his smoke shop to New Hampshire and is presently servicing all his Vermont customers a mile away. This time, I'm not gonna be able to support the bill with the ban on menthol. I really have a problem. A history, one of the reasons I voted for the cannabis bill was the testimony of teenagers that it was easier to get cannabis, i.e. there was always somebody in the parking lot than it was to buy alcohol because you had to get an adult to buy it for you. We admitted when we did that bill not that it was a good thing and it most certainly is not gonna be a good public health thing but because prohibition didn't work. All prohibition of alcohol did was create a huge explosion and organized crime, Vermont being like Champlain being one of those conduits. I don't see that prohibiting adults from making bad choices is going to stop them from making bad choices. It will just make them find other ways. My other concern is we did this bill pre-COVID. I assume all of you were getting the pushback on mask wearing, pressure to get vaccinations. We have asked more of people, vast people to give up more in the last year than we have since World War II at least in the way of things you just can't do for the public good. I don't think this is the time to tell them when their stress levels are up and they've been making sacrifices for the public that now we're gonna take away your menthol cigarettes that you by the way are totally addicted to and tell you that you've got a smoke, nasty flavored tobacco. And I just think the timing is wrong. I think people, and there's nothing in this to increase prevention or cessation services. I mean, we're taking a crutch away and we're not putting a cane in there for folks. So I just, I have great sympathy and I will take anything away from kids. I have a concern kids are gonna move down the table. The cannabis or back to pills, but I just don't feel this is the right time to do it. And I've changed on this one. Okay. Thank you, Senator. Well, I do want to say that if we look at the testimony that we've heard, we understand that the, that COVID has increased the use of these things and the public, health crisis associated with it. We've also heard that kids are getting this. So easily everything from. We don't know where, but they're getting it. And in our conversation, find it in Vermont. They're, they're getting, they're getting, getting it, but they're not over the internet is what we have heard from kids. They'll keep getting it there. So I'm the, that when a child begins this process, they become addicted and those, they become adults who are addicted. The, the issue around flavors is something that the cannabis bill took up and specifically banned flavors for the same reason. That we are interested in banning them here. 30% of the can cannabis. Tax revenue will go to prevention and that will include substance use disorder prevention overall and nicotine. I, you know, so we can, we can agree to disagree on the timing of this. But in terms of our awareness of public health, it's never been higher than it is now with, with COVID. We hear you, Senator. And I understand that. There are some passionate people out there who believe that men fall is helping them quit. The data and the supporting evidence is just not there. It just makes it easier to smoke. Because it's not, we're actually over our, a lot of time today. I do want to give everyone a chance to kind of weigh in. We'll come back to this bill on Friday very briefly. And then we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll deal with it. And, and see how it goes. I see one vote against the bill. And I would be helpful for me to understand how the full committee feels about the bill. Obviously I'm going to support it. And I'm. Willing to listen. I have to go to money chairs. Yeah, I, we have another meeting too, but Senator Tarenzini, go ahead. Well, out of respect for, for you, Senator Lyons and the committee, and I can give my reasons as well on Friday. I know that we're over, but I, I too will be in no vote on this. And I, like I said, I want you to know. Today versus way until Friday that I'll be a no on it. So, you know, you, you understand that sort of the pulse of the committee. So. Thank you. I appreciate that. All right. So let's, let's call it a day. And we'll. Tomorrow we meet. I'm sorry to do this to you, but. 8 a.m. We're going to have fun. We have a full day of testimony on S. 20. And it will be a full day on PFAS. We'll, we'll see, I'll see you all then. Thanks for hanging in there today. I think we've done a lot of good work. Appreciate it. I'll be late. Yes. Yeah. Jenny. Again, I'm, I'm dealing right now with. I understand. I understand. I understand. And I can't get a time. So.