House approves amended S 18 to ban flavored tobacco products; funds online-sales investigator

The Vermont House on Friday approved amendments to Senate Bill 18, a sweeping proposal to ban flavored tobacco products, including flavored e-liquids and menthol cigarettes, and to tighten enforcement of Internet sales.

The House adopted an amendment creating one permanent investigator at the Department of Liquor and Lottery to focus on direct-to-consumer Internet sales of alcohol and tobacco products. The amendment, offered by the member from Coventry, includes an initial appropriation of $160,000 from the Tobacco Litigation Settlement Fund for fiscal year 2025 and anticipates that collected fines would fund the position thereafter. The presenter said a pilot enforcement effort over three years had produced roughly $900,000 in fines and demonstrated online sales can be prosecuted, arguing the state needs dedicated enforcement capacity.

Supporters said the bill is a public‑health measure aimed at reducing youth nicotine initiation. The presenter of S 18, the member from Shelburne, told colleagues the bill bans “all flavored e-liquids” as written and that the legislation explicitly excludes cannabis products regulated by the Cannabis Control Board. Multiple members cited testimony from the Department of Health and national public‑health studies showing flavored products are attractive to young people.

Opponents raised concerns about economic and practical consequences. Several members warned the ban will reduce retail revenue — the Joint Fiscal Office’s fiscal note estimated a revenue impact in the range of $7 million to $14.2 million — and argued that consumers could cross state lines or resort to Internet purchases. One member cited potential black‑market activity and cautioned that prohibition historically has unintended consequences.

Lawmakers spent extended floor time clarifying definitions and implementation details: the bill’s definition of “e‑liquid” covers substances used with a tobacco substitute “regardless of whether the solution . . . contains nicotine,” the presenter said, and the text explicitly excludes cannabis products regulated under state law. Effective dates in committee amendments push comprehensive bans to Jan. 1, 2026; the Health Equity Advisory Commission’s report on menthol is due Jan. 15, 2025, allowing the Legislature to act on that recommendation before the menthol ban takes effect.

The House also considered and rejected multiple amendments. An amendment to delay a menthol/“methyl” ban until after the Health Equity Advisory Committee’s recommendation failed on division (yes 54, no 64). A separate amendment to exempt products with an FDA premarket tobacco product authorization (PMTA) was not adopted after committee discussion about the PMTA process.

Floor debate included personal testimony and constituent letters describing addiction, prevention, and retail impacts. One lawmaker described starting to smoke at 14 and supporting the bill for youth protection; others described small-business hardship and urged caution about revenue and enforcement costs. Members repeatedly emphasized the bill does not criminalize adult possession; civil penalties for under‑21 possession remain in existing law and were described on the floor as a $25 civil ticket where applicable.

After debate and a roll‑call, the House approved the human services committee report as amended, 83 yes to 53 no, and ordered third reading. The House recessed for dinner and is scheduled to return to continue its agenda.

What happens next: With third reading ordered, S 18 will return to the floor for final consideration under the House rules. If the House passes the bill on third reading and it is enacted, the timing included in the adopted amendments would put many flavored‑product bans into effect on Jan. 1, 2026, with required committee reports and oversight steps earlier as specified in the statute.