TobaccoReporter logo

Tag: Oregon

  • Oregon Bill Looks to Ban Flavored Products

    Oregon Bill Looks to Ban Flavored Products

    A bill to ban flavored nicotine products in Oregon got a first hearing Tuesday, with wording broad enough, according to Sen. Lisa Reynolds, to include any flavored product that contains tobacco or nicotine and “things we haven’t thought of yet.” If passed, Senate Bill 702 would ban the sale or distribution of any “flavored inhalant delivery system products or flavored tobacco products” in the state.

    “The bill would also ban promotional giveaways and other free distribution of all tobacco products, whether flavored or not, and it would require all cigarettes, vapes, and smokeless tobacco products to be sold only at licensed retailers,” Anthony Macuk wrote for KGW8.

    Dozens of people testified about the bill at the hearing before the Senate Committee on Early Childhood and Behavioral Health. Students, parent advocates, and lawmakers mainly focused on the health risks of tobacco and the appeal of flavored vapes to teens and young people. However, several tobacco shop owners testified that it’s already illegal for people under 21 to purchase vaping and tobacco products, and said an across-the-board ban on flavored products would heavily damage their businesses and create an expanded and empowered black market for flavored products. Others, including Sen. David Brock Smith, argued that vapes and smokeless tobacco products are less harmful to users’ health than traditional cigarettes and that banning the alternatives would push some users back towards the more damaging products.

  • Oregon Court Strikes Down Vape Packaging Law

    Oregon Court Strikes Down Vape Packaging Law

    Image: Alexander Berdyugin

    The Oregon Court of Appeals on Oct. 16 struck down a law restricting the packaging of vape and cannabis products on the grounds that the legislation unconstitutionally restricts free speech, reports Keller & Heckman.

    The contested law prohibited an “inhalant delivery system” from being packaged “in a manner that is attractive to minors.” Subsequently, the Oregon Health Authority banned the use of cartoons, celebrities and other representations that are likely to appeal to minors.

    It also restricted descriptive words for flavors that are likely to appeal to minors, such as tart, tangy or sweet. In addition to a comprehensive list of items explicitly prohibited from packaging, the rule includes a general catch-all restriction to include any presentation, shape, graphic, coloring or writing that is likely to appeal to minors.

    Plaintiffs Paul Bates and No Moke Daddy argued that the packaging restrictions were overly broad and unconstitutionally vague and infringed on their right to free speech by prohibiting truthful, non-misleading communication.

    the Oregon Court of Appeals reversed a lower court’s dismissal of the challenge, noting that the law violates free speech as outlined in the Oregon Constitution.

    The Court of Appeals explained that selling products is a form of communicative behavior that may involve protected speech. The court stated that the law restricting “attractive” packaging is reasonably interpreted to refer to the communicative aspects of the packaging and not its functionality. Thus, the packaging restrictions are a direct restriction on expressive speech.

  • Oregon Court Approves Local Flavor Ban

    Oregon Court Approves Local Flavor Ban

    Credit: Mehaniq 41

    The Oregon Court of Appeals upheld a Washington County ban on flavored tobacco sales.

    Washington County commissioners approved Ordinance 878 in 2022, but it was not enforced because a circuit court judge overturned it.

    In his opinion, Circuit Judge Andrew Erwin wrote that prohibiting the sale of flavored tobacco must come from the state, not the county, according to media reports.

    The county appealed the judge’s decision, and the court found that the county is not preempted by state law. According to Washington County’s website, businesses will be inspected each year to ensure compliance with the ordinance.

    Tony Aiello, Jr., the attorney for the plaintiffs-respondents, released a statement, saying, in part, “My Clients are disappointed with the decision by the Court of Appeals today and intend to seek review by the Oregon Supreme Court.

    “We read the Court of Appeals’ decision to conflict with itself in several places and are optimistic that the Oregon Supreme Court will reach a different conclusion if our case is granted review.”