Want create site? Find Free WordPress Themes and plugins.

Countless state- and local-level governments are deciding to restrict or even ban electronic cigarettes based solely on what they might or could do. Often, laws against electronic cigarettes are made for no better reason than that they look like smoking and so should be treated like it. Utah state regulators decided to go a different way, however, and it’s quite refreshing to see.

Following debate about the issue of electronic cigarettes, Utah’s Senate Business and Labor Committee voted unanimously to kill a bill. They decided the issue was too complex and not well defined enough to make any mandates just yet. According to Senator Curt Bramble, for instance, eight different versions of the bill have been proposed, each without resolving the last. This is often a sign of legislation that requires more scrutiny before implementation.

It almost seems like opponents of electronic cigarettes were too venomous towards the devices. Banning sale of the devices to minors wasn’t nearly enough — they wanted high taxes, special business licences, internet sales bans, tight marketing controls, extensive labeling and even to regulate manufacturing quality. After debate, the committee decided more study was needed not only to justify implementing laws focused on the devices, but also to create an appropriate balance between protecting youth and not interfering with the rightss of adults and businesses.

You can read coverage of the situation here.

I’ve got to say, though, this is a good sign. While even the two largest cities in the U.S. seem content to implement e-cig legislation with almost no research, there are places what want to get it right. It took the U.S. nearly 50 years to get tobacco control right (some would argue we still haven’t). Apparently in Utah, they prefer to get it done right rather than done first.

It seems many are starting to see through prohibitionists’ attempts to slam electronic cigarettes as hard as they can without legitimate reason to do so. This time the effort might have bitten them back. While they probably could have gotten a measure against e-cig sales to minors, they wanted way, way more. So much more that what they were asking couldn’t be passed without a lot more justification. Often, prohibitionists even call age restrictive bans “Trojan horse” legislation because if passed, it makes further bans difficult to justify.

Most e-cig advocacy efforts aren’t actually asking to avoid regulation. All they want is for regulators to take some time and study the issue before it making laws.

The final decision was to study the issue for a year and then revisit legislation. If things continue the way they have, a year is only going to give the pro-e-cig side more research and supporting evidence while the prohibitionist side only gets more holes poked in the arguments it makes.