Key points:
- North Dakota’s HB 1003, initially a budget bill, now includes stringent vaping regulations that could significantly impact vape retailers statewide.
- The bill mandates that only vaping products with FDA marketing authorization or pending applications can be sold, effectively limiting available products to those from major tobacco companies.
- Vape shop owners express concern that the regulations could lead to widespread closures, particularly affecting small businesses and rural consumers.
Vape shop owners across North Dakota are expressing deep concern over House Bill 1003, a legislative measure that, while primarily a budget bill for the Attorney General’s office, includes provisions that could drastically alter the state’s vaping industry.
The bill stipulates that only vaping products marketed in the U.S. before August 8, 2016, or those that have submitted a Premarket Tobacco Product Application (PMTA) to U.S. Food and Drug Administration by September 9, 2020, would be permitted for sale.
This criterion effectively excludes a vast majority of flavored vaping products, many of which are popular among adult consumers, and predominantly allows products from large tobacco manufacturers.
Zach Johnson, owner of Urban Vape in Grand Forks, voiced his apprehension, stating, “Everyone says they want to make vaping safer. This doesn’t make it safer. It makes it prejudicial and entirely gets rid of it.”
Similarly, Darius Enders, proprietor of Sports Vape in Fargo, highlighted the urgency of the situation in a media report, noting that the bill could be voted on imminently, leaving little time for opposition voices to be heard.
Advocacy groups, including the Vapor Technology Association and the Consumer Advocates for Smoke-Free Alternatives Association, argue that the PMTA process is prohibitively expensive and complex, favoring large corporations and disadvantaging small businesses.
They also contend that the bill could limit access to vaping products for rural residents, who often rely on online sales—a channel that might be restricted under the new regulations.
Proponents of HB 1003 assert that the measure is aimed at enhancing consumer safety and curbing youth access to vaping products. However, opponents argue that the bill’s restrictions could inadvertently push consumers toward unregulated markets, potentially increasing health risks.
