The proposal falls under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act. It would direct Acting Department of Labor Secretary Keith Sonderling to send state and local governments information on “evidence-based and promising practices” to mitigate economic harms related to SUD, including how to apply for relevant federal funding. And it would broaden eligibility for National Dislocated Worker Grants to include career training in SUD, mental health care and pain management in any jurisdiction “that, as a result of widespread substance use, addiction, and overdoses, has higher-than-average demand for such activities that exceeds the availability of State and local resources to provide.”

The legislation would add a new category of eligibility that’s specific to SUD, and would apply to dislocated workers; people who have been long-term unemployed; people who work or are looking for work as treatment providers for SUD, mental health or pain; and people who are  “unemployed or significantly underemployed as a result of widespread substance use in the area.”

McCormick’s office did not respond to Filter’s inquiry.

Drugs and the people who use them have long been scapegoats for economic underinvestment.

“If we’re going to help more people recover, we need enough skilled workers to provide that care,” McCormick stated in his announcement. “This bipartisan bill gives communities more tools to train that workforce so more people can get the help they need.”

Drugs and the people who use them have long been scapegoats for economic underinvestment, and the language used in the Act and by its proponents sort of conjures an image of a small town where the “scourge of addiction” has wiped out all the jobs. Or conceivably it could refer to people who are struggling to find work because first they need to access treatment, but aren’t able to due to overwhelming demand on the few providers in their area. Or to people who are unable to work because they’re surrounded by too much drug use to escape it. But one way or another, a lot of the workforce harms the legislation is concerned with probably don’t come from drug use so much as they come from drug-testing, and the larger drug war. 

While it’s certainly true that people have lost jobs because their SUD negatively impacted their performance or their behavior in the workplace, that’s also a stereotype obscuring the larger picture of people losing their jobs due to drug use. Often urinalysis testing is the barrier to remaining at or returning to work, rather than conduct or ability. Research indicates that workplace drug-testing is not an effective means of either reducing drug use or increasing productivity. A larger barrier to employment—and to recovery—is the criminalization of drugs and the unwillingness of many employers to hire candidates with felony records.

The proposal is the latest of many cosponsored by McCormick and Fetterman, who are often touted for their bipartisanship, although Fetterman has also prompted serious conjecture about whether he intended to switch parties and recently had an apparent Freudian slip in which he told NewsNation that he was a Republican. He did not make his own announcement about the legislation, but on August 5 did appear The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart to espouse some right-of-center views on socialism and the existence of genocide in Gaza.

Image via Coon Rapids, Minnesota

The post Federal Bill Would Add SUD Category to Dislocated Worker Grant Eligibility appeared first on Filter.

Hemp derivatives with less than 0.3 percent delta-9 THC on a dry-weight basis were federally legalized under the 2018 Farm Bill that President Donald Trump signed during his first term in office. But in late 2025, the president signed new legislation containing provisions that will redefine hemp to make it so only products with 0.4 milligrams of total THC per container will remain legal after November 12.

Leaders of the Senate Appropriations Committee recently released the text of a continuing resolution to extend funding for federal agencies through December 11, past the end of the current fiscal year on September 30. Included in the legislation are provisions that will also delay the planned prohibition on most hemp products until December 11—although there is a carve-out that will allow the immediate recriminalization on November 12 of synthetic cannabinoids “that are not capable of being naturally produced by a Cannabis sativa L. plant.”

While the White House supports the delayed ban on THC products, Sen. Ted Budd (R-NC) and several GOP cosponsors filed an amendment that seeks to strip those hemp provisions out of the bill and keep the planned prohibition on schedule.

“‘Closing the loophole’ is prohibition.”

Now, groups on both sides of the issue are weighing in as the Senate seeks to wrap up its business for the August recess.

“Allowing this deadline to proceed without a comprehensive regulatory framework will not result in improved public safety,” said a letter from Wine and Spirits Wholesalers of America, National Association of Convenience Stores and American Beverage Licensees. “It will produce the opposite: a thriving illicit market, weakened state enforcement, economic disruption for more than one million American workers, and less safety for the very consumers Congress is committed to protecting.”

Supporters of the forthcoming ban have said it will close a “loophole” in the prior Farm Bill, but the new letter, which is also signed by the Hemp Beverage Alliance, Coalition for Adult Beverage Alternatives, Beverage Wholesalers for Responsible Regulation and Beverage Alcohol Merchants Coalition, says that “‘Closing the loophole’ is prohibition.”

“Prohibition would be a failure and risk to Consumer Health & Safety. The November 12 deadline does not create a safer, better-regulated hemp market. It creates no legal market at all, while creating an illicit market,” it says. “This is not regulation. This is prohibition.”

“The historical record is consistent: prohibition does not eliminate consumer access, improve product safety, or reduce youth exposure. Bad actors will not disappear when the legal market closes, and many consumers will have no regulated alternative. The choice before Congress is not between a ‘loophole’ and safety—It is between regulation and prohibition. We urge Congress to choose regulation.”

Meanwhile, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States (VFW) and its Auxiliary, representing nearly 1.4 million veterans, also sent a letter urging hemp regulation over a ban, saying that THC products “could offer a real alternative to the heavy prescription drugs so many of our veterans are given for PTSD, anxiety, pain, and sleep problems.”

“Every day, doctors hand out strong sedatives and psychoactive meds to help veterans cope. They work for some, but too many end up hooked, numb, or dealing with brutal side effects,” the letter said. “We’ve all watched good men and women get trapped in a cycle of pills that dull the pain but don’t fix the problem.”

“A blanket ban on hemp cannabinoids would make it nearly impossible for researchers and VA hospitals to study these compounds legally.”

“It’s time to look harder at safer options. Early research on certain hemp compounds shows promise for managing symptoms and reducing physical pain without the same addiction risks … This isn’t proof of a miracle cure, just clear signs we should keep studying.”

“But sweeping moves to ‘close the hemp loophole’ could slam that door shut,” VFW wrote. “A blanket ban on hemp cannabinoids would make it nearly impossible for researchers and VA hospitals to study these compounds legally. It would also hurt veteran-owned small businesses already playing by the rules. Critically, it would drive veterans looking for relief straight to black-market junk, making things riskier, not safer.”

On the other side of the debate, however, the National Sheriffs’ Association sent a letter urging lawmakers to let the ban on hemp THC products take effect as scheduled.

“This loophole was never intended to create a parallel, unregulated marketplace for intoxicating products, and it should be allowed to close rather than be renewed,” it said. “These products are marketed and sold without meaningful safeguards. Many intoxicating hemp products are available in gas stations, convenience stores, vape shops, and online with limited or no age verification, inconsistent product testing, and no standardized potency limits. Consumers often have no assurance regarding product safety or contaminants.”

The law enforcement letter also argues that hemp products are “easily accessible to minors,” saying that “sheriffs across the country continue to report concerns about these products finding their way into schools and communities.”

“Closing this loophole would not eliminate legal access to cannabis products where states have chosen to regulate them, it would simply end an unregulated shadow market that undermines public health and circumvents the very state-level frameworks that were designed to protect consumers,” the sheriffs’ letter said. We urge you to let this hemp provision expire and to support comprehensive regulation of intoxicating cannabinoid products.”

Earlier in the week, a bipartisan coalition of 35 state and territory attorneys general sent a letter calling on Congress not to reverse the hemp THC product ban, saying that lawmakers’ move to enact the forthcoming prohibition “protected consumers, provided much-needed regulatory clarity, and preserved legitimate industrial, agricultural, and nonintoxicating hemp markets.”

A number of lawmakers from both chambers and both parties have filed or are circulating a bills to prevent the scheduled federal recriminalization of hemp THC drinks and other products.

In June, the House of Representatives passed its own version of a continuing resolution to keep federal agencies funded into December, but it did not have any provisions to alter the planned hemp product ban. As such, if the Senate passes its new provision it would then still need approval by the other chamber before being sent to the president.

Meanwhile, a number of lawmakers from both chambers and both parties have filed or are circulating a bills to prevent the scheduled federal recriminalization of hemp THC drinks and other products later in 2026. Until now, none of those proposals have gained traction with congressional leaders.

For example, Rep. James Comer (R-KY), who chairs the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, is circulating legislation that would delay a planned federal ban on hemp THC products and institute some regulations—including packaging requirements, testing rules and age limits.

Separately, Rep. Andy Barr (R-KY), filed a lengthier proposal to prevent the federal recriminalization of hemp THC products and put in place a number of regulations for manufacturing, labeling, sales and taxation of hemp-derived products, including an age limit of 21.

A press release from the congressman’s office claimed that the White House supports the legislation, which is cosponsored by Rep. Angie Craig (D-MN), but the administration has not specifically endorsed it despite generally calling for hemp regulations and backing a prior similar amendment filed by Barr.

Trump and White House officials have in recent weeks repeatedly pressed Congress to delay, alter or reverse the ban.

In a letter to House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) in June, for example, White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Russell Vought said the Trump administration wants lawmakers to “ensure the fair treatment of hemp products”—specifically citing Barr’s earlier amendment to keep many hemp products legal while adding regulations and taxes.

In April, the president urged congressional lawmakers to again redefine hemp to avoid recriminalization of full-spectrum CBD products.

The administration “welcomes the opportunity to work with the Congress to, at a minimum, update the statutory definition of final hemp-derived cannabinoid products to allow Americans to benefit from access to appropriate full-spectrum CBD products,” OMB separately said in June, “while preserving the Congress’s intent to restrict the sale of products that pose serious health risks.”

Also in April, the president himself urged congressional lawmakers to again redefine hemp to avoid recriminalization of full-spectrum CBD products.

“I am calling on Congress to update the Law to ensure that Americans can continue to access the full-spectrum CBD products they have come to rely on, and that help them, while preserving Congress’s intent to restrict the sale of products that pose Health risks,” Trump said in a Truth Social post.

“We must get this done RIGHT and FAST, especially for those who saw that CBD helps them,” he said. “Plus, I am told it will also help our GREAT FARMERS, who we love, and will always be there for.”

Industry advocates say that the law as enacted last year not only threatens to prohibit intoxicating and synthetic cannabinoid products but also stands to remove popular full-spectrum CBD products that many Americans use therapeutically from the market.

“ONE in FIVE adults used it in the past year, and many say it improved their chronic pain enormously,” the president said in his social media post, adding that hemp-derived CBD “has made a HUGE difference for so many people.”

He also referenced an initiative the administration launched in April to cover up to $500 worth of hemp-derived products each year for eligible Medicare patients. The program being implemented by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) focuses largely on CBD but also allows products to have up to 3 milligrams of total THC per serving. A federal judge granted the government’s motion to dismiss marijuana legalization opponents’ lawsuit challenging the initiative, but that is being appealed.

“In December, I signed a very important Executive Order calling for Research and Innovation for Hemp-derived CBD,” Trump said. “Our wonderful Dr. Mehmet Oz moved fast to follow the directive in the Executive Order, and launched a model for some Seniors earlier this month. But more must be done!”

“Please get it done, and SOON,” the president said in reference to a congressional fix for the broad recriminalization set to take effect in November. “Thank you for your attention to this matter!”

Wine and Spirits Wholesalers of America issued praise for Barr’s bipartisan hemp regulation bill, but said the measure’s tax provisions require “continued discussion.”

Hemp policy observers expect to see a Senate companion bill to Barr’s proposal filed soon, likely from Sens. Tim Sheehy (R-MT) and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN).

Sheehy recently cited hemp legislation as an area where Republicans and Democrats can work together in an otherwise “hyperpartisan time.”

A new poll from NuggMD found that most cannabis consumers say that state-level hemp product bans that lawmakers are enacting in line with the planned federal recriminalization move are causing them to shift their purchases toward licensed marijuana businesses.

The National Restaurant Association recently sent a letter urging congressional leaders to delay the federal recriminalization of hemp THC beverages and replace it with a regulatory framework that “ensures consumer safety while meeting growing market demand” for the products as an alternative to alcohol.

Major retailer Target, meanwhile, recently moved to expand its sales of hemp THC drinks into more states.

Photograph by UK College of Agriculture, Food & Environment via Flickr/Creative Commons 2.0

This story was originally published by Marijuana Moment, which tracks the politics and policy of cannabis and drugs. Follow Marijuana Moment on X and Facebook, and sign up for its newsletter.

The post Groups Press Congress Over Impending Hemp Ban appeared first on Filter.

“For too long, we have kept methadone—an evidence-based, life-saving medication—locked away, far from many of the people who need it,” Markey said. “The Modernizing Opioid Treatment Access Act 2.0 of 2026 would take a carefully considered step forward in expanding access to this medication by allowing the most highly trained addiction physicians in the country to prescribe methadone for their patients to pick up at a pharmacy. We must knock down barriers to treatment for people at risk of opioid overdoses—not build them up.”

He’s right that knocking down barriers to methadone is long overdue. But would MOTAA 2.0 unlock access for everyone who needs it? The answer is no. Nothing in the updated bill addresses the fundamental problems in the 2023 version.

“We know that there aren’t enough addiction medicine physicians and psychiatrists in the country.”

As Filter reported at the time, the first iteration of the bill contained fatal flaws. Limiting non-clinic prescribing to physicians board-certified in addiction medicine would exacerbate racial disparities in access to medications for opioid use disorder (OUD). It’s also just not nearly enough. There are about 6,400 doctors with this certification. About 600,000 patients currently take methadone.

“We know that there aren’t enough addiction medicine physicians and psychiatrists in the country to expand care to everyone who needs it,” a representative from the office of Sen. Markey told Filter.

“The goal of the bill is to expand the universe of providers who can prescribe methadone,” they continued. “It starts this expansion by allowing health care providers with the greatest expertise in addiction treatment—board-certified addiction medicine physicians and addiction psychiatrists—to prescribe methadone outside of an OTP.”

When it comes to prescribing methadone for OUD specifically, however, doctors board-certified in addiction medicine have no more experience than other doctors—because none of them have been able to do it. The law has restricted this to physicians who work in opioid treatment programs (OTP). There are approximately 2,100 OTP in the US, the majority concentrated in urban centers.

“One of the main changes in MOTAA 2.0 compared to the version introduced last Congress is the addition of language to allow the HHS Secretary to designate providers able to prescribe methadone outside of an OTP setting, in addition to board-certified addiction medicine physicians and addiction psychiatrists,” Sen. Markey’s representative said. “These providers would need to be licensed and registered to prescribe controlled substances.”

But who are these other providers? The representative didn’t say. The bill itself states that they would be “otherwise determined by the Secretary, under standards established by the Secretary.” The language is troublingly vague.

We still don’t know who the “future licensed providers” would be, nor any timeline. And what’s to stop HHS using its new “flexibility” to do precisely nothing?

The American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) interprets the sentence to mean, “The HHS Secretary could add other qualified prescribers, who would remain subject to applicable state scope-of-practice laws…” But who are the “other qualified prescribers”?

Kelly M. Corredor, chief advocacy officer at ASAM, confirmed via email to Filter that the organization was involved in drafting the updated bill. But when asked who the other qualified prescribers would be, she wouldn’t specify.

According to a press release from Rep. Donald Norcross (D-NJ), a sponsor of the bill in the House this provision means, “flexibility for the Department of Health and Human Services to authorize future licensed providers without Congress needing to pass a separate law.”

But we still don’t know who the “future licensed providers” would be, nor any timeline on which this might happen. And what’s to stop HHS using its new “flexibility” to do precisely nothing?

MOTAA 2.0’s inclusion of more providers, however ambiguously, is a direct response to methadone reform activists’ criticisms of the original MOTAA. But its terms offer no guarantee that the HHS secretary will ever allow more prescribers.

Unfortunately, other provisions that helped doom the original MOTAA made it into 2.0. Participating doctors would need a special registration from the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)—extra surveillance that will deter some as has been the case with buprenorphine. The other poison pill is that any state attorney general could stop registering new providers and revoke or deny a registration.

“We cannot allow ourselves to become embroiled in territorial turf wars over prescribing privileges under the guise of ‘modernizing.’”

ASAM is the leading advocate for MOTAA 2.0. This conservative medical society has done almost nothing to end three decades of a crisis that has seen over 1 million people die from an opioid-involved overdose. It’s notable that ASAM had zero interest in reform prior to the pandemic. Given this abysmal track record, on what basis should its members have the exclusive right to prescribe methadone outside of clinics?

“The urgency of providing access to life-saving medications for people dealing with substance use disorders, particularly opioids, cannot be overstated,” Jerry Otero, who takes methadone and is the manager of the Drug User Health Hub at St. Ann’s Corner of Harm Reduction, told Filter. “We cannot allow ourselves to become embroiled in territorial turf wars over prescribing privileges under the guise of ‘modernizing.’”

In 2023, Dr. Stephen M. Taylor, then president-elect of ASAM, (now president), testified to a US Senate committee: “MOTAA is not methadone for everyone, prescribed by anyone. It represents a responsible expansion in methadone access for OUD.”  Taylor’s statement shamefully carried no sense of urgency to save lives. The incremental, “responsible” expansion he advocated would free very few patients from the carceral clinic system.

ASAM’s description of MOTAA 2.0 as having strong federal and state oversight and safety guardrails” plays into the worst discrimination against methadone patients—the notion that they can’t be trusted and must be continuously monitored.

ASAM’s one-pager on the new bill has a section titled, “Improve Patient Safety and Address Diversion.” Diversion isn’t a major problem; lack of access is. This DEA framing panders to the idea that methadone is a uniquely dangerous medication. It’s not.

The first bullet point states that ASAM supports the terrible idea of DEA special registration of doctors. This is the DEA that has kept methadone under lock and key as people die; the DEA that has made the unregulated opioid supply exponentially more dangerous by pursuing its deadly drug war. Yet instead of campaigning to get these killer drug warriors out of addiction medicine, ASAM cosies up to them and rarely, if ever, criticizes their actions.

The second bullet point endorses the use of prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMP) for methadone dispensed through community pharmacies. According to those who’ve studied them, PDMP are tools of law enforcement and often harm patients.

“There is one thing that prescription drug monitoring programs are really good at, and that is bringing down prescribing rates,” said Dr. Elizabeth Chiarello, author of, Policing Patients: Treatment and Surveillance on the Frontlines of the Opioid Crisis. “But overdose is through the roof.”

Other ASAM bullet points welcome MOTAA 2.0’s ideas of states setting dispensing limits, which many will do to the detriment of patients, and prescriptions being written for “supervised use”—meaning pharmacists would be required to watch certain patients swallow methadone, just as clinic nurses do.  

“This bill, in action, will keep methadone out of reach for the patients who need it the most.”

The Modernizing Opioid Treatment Access Act 2.0 doesn’t modernize access to methadone. It’s designed to fail by handing a small group of doctors a monopoly on prescribing to a small group of patients, who will skew wealthier and white. And it gives states veto power over new providers—states like West Virginia, which is so hostile to methadone that it’s had a moratorium on opening new clinics for 19 years.

In line with the DEA narrative, MOTAA 2.0 emphasizes diversion control and surveillance of patients; it reinforces stigma.

“This bill, in action, will keep methadone out of reach for the patients who need it the most,” Otero said, “by overcomplicating who can prescribe.”

A bill to truly modernize access to methadone would abolish the clinic system and permit all provider prescribing.

The obfuscating language in MOTAA 2.0 that might, maybe mean more providers can prescribe sometime in the distant future—who knows!—is an insulting trick to make methadone reform advocates believe 2.0 is a different bill from its predecessor. It’s not.

Instead, believe Dr. Taylor when he says, “MOTAA is not methadone for everyone, prescribed by anyone.” 

Image by Helen Redmond

The post MOTAA 2.0 Is Not Real Methadone Reform appeared first on Filter.

As the CSA stands currently, 10-year mandatory minimums in federal fentanyl trafficking cases are triggered at 400 grams. The Act would drop this to 20 grams. For fentanyl analogs, the threshold would drop from 100 grams to 5 grams. 

Five-year mandatory minimums are currently triggered at 40 grams, which the Act would drop to 2 grams. For fentanyl analogs, the threshold would drop from 10 grams to 0.5 grams. Analog thresholds would apply regardless of whether or not the analog in question has been scheduled.

The Act was introduced July 23 by Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-IN) as the companion bill to the Fairness in Fentanyl Sentencing Act sponsored by Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA). The latter was introduced in February 2025 and hasn’t moved out of committee. Kennedy previously attempted it in 2023 under the Biden administration. 

Stutzman and Kennedy’s public messaging around the legislation has been that 400 grams of fentanyl, the current threshold for 10-year mandatory minimum sentencing, is enough to kill 200,000 people. This was also the case for the sponsors of the Fentanyl Penalties Parity Act of 2021, which proposed the exact same threshold modifications. But the actual threshold in the CSA is not 400 grams of fentanyl. It’s “400 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of” fentanyl, which is very different. Stutzman’s office did not immediately respond to Filter‘s inquiry.

If that logic bore out, a fentanyl pressed pill would be the size of three grains of table salt.

If you consider the common Drug Enforcement Administration talking point about how fentanyl is approximately 50 times more potent than heroin, you can imagine that it’d be difficult to sell or use a dose that’s 50 times smaller. Because of this, most of the “fentanyl” in a typical stamp bag or pressed pill is a mixture of non-psychoactive fillers like mannitol (sugar alcohol) or acetaminophen. The United States Sentencing Commission has acknowledged that the mixture’s total weight is used even “when a drug is mixed with an inert substance, such as a binder or filler used in the production of pills or tablets.” Changing a quantity threshold from e.g. 400 grams to 20 grams has no direct bearing on the amount of actual fentanyl involved.

Proponents of the Act and similar legislation, however, consistently characterize the mixtures as pure fentanyl.

“It only takes two milligrams of fentanyl to kill a person. That’s just about three grains of table salt,” stated cosponsor Rep. Rob Bresnahan (R-PA). “Despite this, it takes 40 grams of fentanyl, or roughly three tablespoons of butter, to trigger the federal five-year mandatory minimum sentence for trafficking. That threshold simply does not reflect the deadly reality of this drug.”

If that logic bore out, a fentanyl pressed pill would be the size of three grains of table salt.

Lowering the five-year mandatory minimum threshold for fentanyl analog mixtures from 10 grams to 0.5 grams would effectively target possession and low-level distribution—0.5 grams could mean just two stamp bags, or five pills. Anyone who uses street-supply fentanyl could find themselves subject to the penalty, if what they picked up that day happen to contain trace amounts of any analogs. It’s extremely unlikely that either the buyer or seller in that scenario would know whether the bags contained any analogs, which are usually found in combination with fentanyl and many of which are comparable in potency.

The fentanyl crisis demands action. My new bill goes after drug dealers and traffickers by:

Keeping these criminals off our streets through lowering federal sentencing thresholds.
Investing $9M to strengthen drug detection, staffing, and enforcement across the Postal… pic.twitter.com/dJVslxCi8M

— Rep. Marlin Stutzman (@RepStutzman) July 24, 2026

“This bill targets the worst offenders,” stated National District Attorneys Association Executive Director Nelson Bunn. National Alliance of State Drug Enforcement Agencies Executive Director Carlon Stapleton praised the “zero-tolerance approach toward those who manufacture or distribute” fentanyl. Indiana Drug Enforcement Association President Chris Goergen condemned those who “take advantage of fentanyl’s low cost to produce as well as its high profit margin … with little to no regard for the people it hurts the most.”

USSC data show that most of the people convicted in federal overdose cases are local sellers and that, of those who’d been at the scene of the overdose when it happened, most had tried to help the victim. But it’s not clear that the Act has any direct bearing on cases linked to overdose. The CSA currently provides that regardless of whether the mixture quantity triggers a 10- or five-year mandatory minimum, the sentencing range is 20 years to life when the case is linked to overdose; the Act does not propose to change this.

“Hundreds of thousands of Americans die every year from fentanyl poisoning,” Stutzman claimed in his announcement. “I am proud to take up the No Leniency for Fentanyl Dealers Act with Senator Kennedy so those peddling this lethal substance are punished with sentences commensurate with their actions.”

Kennedy correctly described US fentanyl-involved deaths as in the tens of thousands per year, but stated that he was proud to work with Stutzman “to ensure these ghouls get the punishment they deserve.”

The legislation would additionally authorize $9 million for drug interdiction within the United States Postal Service, and require more staffing resources—namely scientists who can be “available during all operational hours” to identify suspected fentanyl as quickly as possible.

It would also direct the USSC to review the changes and, “if appropriate,” update its drug sentencing guidelines accordingly. In late 2025 the USSC amended those guidelines to deemphasize the role of thresholds in determining someone’s sentence, in recognition of how easily those numbers are distorted in court and how meaningless they were to begin with.

“I find no greater joy than putting a fentanyl dealer behind bars,” stated cosponsor Rep. Clay Fuller (R-GA).

Image (cropped) via New Hampshire Division of State Police

The post No One’s Really Expecting the “Fentanyl Dealers Act” to Make Sense appeared first on Filter.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee advanced the legislation in a unanimous 46-0 vote July 21. The measure from Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA) is known as “Tyler’s Law,” after Tyler Shamash, a 19-year-old who died following a fentanyl ingestion in 2018 and was not tested for the drug when brought to the hospital for a suspected overdose.

The panel’s Subcommittee on Health previously approved the bill in June.

While the legislation, H.R. 2004, is largely focused on fentanyl, it states that within a year of passage the HHS secretary would need to complete a study to determine “how frequently hospital emergency departments test for fentanyl (in addition to testing for other substances such as amphetamines, phencyclidine, cocaine, opiates, and marijuana) when a patient is experiencing an overdose.”

The study would also need to look at costs associated with fentanyl testing, the potential benefits and risks of such testing and how it may impact patients’ experiences—including with respect to confidentiality and privacy protections and the patient-physician relationship.

Companion legislation was approved in January—but amended to remove references to marijuana and other drugs besides fentanyl.

The bill, which has 65 House cosponsors, states that within six months of completing the study, HHS would also need to issue guidance covering:

(1) Whether hospital emergency departments should implement fentanyl testing as a routine procedure for patients experiencing an overdose.

(2) How hospitals can ensure that clinicians in their hospital emergency departments are aware of which substances are being tested for in their routinely-administered drug tests, regardless of whether those tests screen for fentanyl.

(3) How the administration of fentanyl testing in hospital emergency departments may affect the future risk of overdose and general health outcomes.

“A simple drug test can mean the difference between life and death,” Lieu stated in a press release. “Tyler’s Law is a bipartisan and commonsense piece of legislation. It is a privilege to work with Tyler’s mom, Juli, to honor Tyler’s memory and fight so no other family is forced to undergo such devastating loss.”

The bill is expected to head next to the House floor after its approval by the committee.

Companion legislation in the Senate from Sen. Jim Banks (R-IN) was approved by the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee in January—but not before being amended to remove the language that references marijuana and other drugs besides fentanyl.

Unlike the House bill, the HHS secretary would have three years to complete the study on hospital drug-testing under the amended Senate proposal.

In April, a pair of Republican senators filed a separate bill that would require the federal government to track the cost of hospitalization due to marijuana use.

The Marijuana Impact on Medicaid Act of 2026 from senators Ted Budd (R-NC) and Pete Ricketts (R-NE) would require the secretary of HHS to compile data on “Federal and State expenditures under the Medicaid program … that are attributable to costs incurred for providing medical assistance for inpatient hospital services, outpatient hospital services, and for services received at a hospital emergency room … related to marijuana use.”

The bill’s language is similar to two amendments Budd previously filed on the cannabis and hospitalization issue that didn’t end up being considered on the Senate floor.

Image via American Society of Addiction Medicine

This story was originally published by Marijuana Moment, which tracks the politics and policy of cannabis and drugs. Follow Marijuana Moment on X and Facebook, and sign up for its newsletter.

The post House Advances Bill Scrutinizing How Hospitals Test Patients for Fentanyl appeared first on Filter.

The government launched a 12-week public consultation on July 10, seeking “views on proposals for vapes and nicotine products,” such as limiting the colors of vaping devices to white, black or gray, and mandating plain white packaging with limited branding and images. Heated tobacco products would have to come in a “drab brown color.”

Flavor names could meanwhile be limited to simple descriptors like “apple,” with a ban on “concept and sensory names” and those that relate to desserts or candy.

Other potential changes include restricting retail displays of vapes to the same degree as those of cigarettes, with this measure also extending to airports.

Underpinning the proposed regulations, which would be imposed under new powers granted by the Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026, are findings from the charity Action on Smoking and Health (ASH UK) that around 1 million 11-17 year olds had tried vaping in 2025.

Health Secretary James Murray said in the press release that “too many young people experimenting with vapes” are being “attracted by the array of flavors, bright colours and marketing displays.”

“We want a healthier future for the next generation, so we must act now to reduce the appeal of addictive vapes to our children,” he added.

“Where does that logic end? Plain packaging for beer and wine?”

But tobacco harm reduction advocates aren’t buying it. Mark Oates, director of the consumer advocacy group We Vape, told Filter that the government’s proposals are “wrongheaded.” It should focus instead, he said, on enforcing existing age restrictions that prohibit vape sales to under-18s. 

“Where does that logic end?” Oates asked. “Plain packaging for beer and wine? These proposals must be stopped before they become the starting point for even more restrictions.” 

Oates urged consumers to respond to the consultation by giving the government a “firm no.”

Advocate Clive Bates, of Counterfactual Consulting, said the research supporting the plain packaging proposal “is risibly weak and inadequate.” It was based, he explained, on immediate responses to questions about how people would react to plain packaging when they were shown different pack designs.

“In the case of questions put to young people, the question isn’t even about what they would do themselves, but what they think others would do,” Bates told Filter. 

“None of the research takes account of the longer-term adjustments that such packaging may cause,” he continued, referring to a dampening effect on tobacco harm reduction. 

“None of the research—none—estimates what would happen to smoking rates if plain packaging for vapes actually works as intended.”

Bates pointed to the other product that has mandatory plain packaging: cigarettes, the leading cause of preventable death and disability in the UK,  responsible for 70,000 deaths annually. 

Having two products with radically different risk profiles share the same packaging, he argued, would do little to quell widespread, damaging misperceptions that vapes are as harmful as cigarettes or worse. 

“None of the research—none—estimates what would happen to smoking rates if plain packaging for vapes actually works as intended,” Bates said.

Even the premise of vapes causing net harm to young people is dubious, when you consider what youth who vape might be doing instead if vapes weren’t available.

“The government just assumes that vaping is a bad thing, and therefore the plain packaging is justified if it reduces the appeal to young people,” Bates said. “But vaping is displacing smoking in young people, and has been beneficial.”

These proposals come on top of other recent restrictions on vapes—which help the majority of British adults who manage to quit smoking. Single-use vapes were banned in 2025. And from October 1, the Vaping Products Duty takes effect, significantly increasing the price of e-liquids. 

“If the government intended to create a policy to confirm that misconception in the minds of the public, the proposals they have suggested are exactly what they would do.”

Advocate Martin Cullip is among the many who were able to quit smoking by switching to vapes. He fears that if the latest proposed measures are adopted, other people who smoke will be deterred from pursuing the same opportunity to improve their health.

People who smoke are already told by friends and colleagues that vaping is worse for you than smoking, Cullip noted, and large numbers of people who smoke believe this to be true. What these measures would do, he said, is validate misinformation instead of correcting it.

“If the government intended to create a policy designed to confirm that misconception in the minds of the public, the proposals they have suggested are exactly what they would do,” Cullip told Filter. 

Oates agreed that making vapes less visible and attractive will point adults who smoke in only one direction, perpetuating harm.

“Can you imagine the complexity of asking to buy a ‘DD1’ flavoured vape?” he asked. “You just wouldn’t bother; you’d continue smoking.”

Image (cropped) via United States Food and Drug Administration

The post Plain Packaging and “Drab” Colors: The UK’s Latest Anti-Vape Plan appeared first on Filter.

It was a historic victory to those who support access to a variety of safer nicotine products—including flavors, which research and experience have repeatedly shown to be key to many people’s ability to switch from cigarettes. Access is vital because combustible tobacco use is still the leading cause of preventable disease and death in the United States. Smoking kills more than 480,000 people each year.

“The amount the company had to spend was in the high double-digit millions of dollars … We had numerous meetings with the FDA, navigating the process through substantial scientific review.”

Sean Greenbaum, the founder and president of Glas, explained to Filter how the company got through the FDA’s expensive and legendarily arcane Premarket Tobacco Product Application (PMTA) process.

“We started working on our application in 2019,” he said. “The amount the company had to spend was in the high double-digit millions of dollars. It was a significant investment of time, resources and capital. We had numerous meetings with the FDA, navigating the process through substantial scientific review, various deficiency letters, and we responded to all the questions they had. We conducted scientific, clinical and age restriction studies.”

Not everyone celebrated that blueberry and mango vapes passed FDA muster. The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids (CTFK) and Parents Against Vaping Electronic Cigarettes (PAVE) were apoplectic.

CTFK trotted out the old, tired and false narrative that “kid-friendly” flavors’ purpose is to hook youth. “By authorizing fruit flavors and allowing e-cigarette makers to disguise them with names like Gold and Sapphire, the FDA is risking a resurgence of youth e-cigarette use,” President Yolanda C. Richardson said in a press release. “History can’t be allowed to repeat itself; mango was one of the most popular Juul flavors that contributed to a past surge in youth e-cigarette use before it was pulled off the market.”

Their fury flows from a sense of betrayal towards an agency that has generally caved to their demands.

On a PAVE webinar to discuss the FDA decision, cofounder Meredith Berkman was enraged: “It’s a catalytic moment where the FDA has failed us. Has failed American families. Has failed to live up to its regulatory authority to protect public health and the health of our children … It’s shameful that at this moment the FDA has been co-opted by the predatory tobacco industry.” Apparently the mango-hating Manhattanite doesn’t know that Glas is an independent vape business that’s never been affiliated with the tobacco industry.

The apocalyptic language over the sale of two fruit-flavored vapes is ridiculous. Surely CTFK and PAVE are aware that vapes in dozens of fruit flavors are easily purchased on the booming illicit market created by the FDA’s obstructionism? Despite this, there has been no increase in youth vaping for years—in fact, the number has dropped sharply.

Their evidence-free claims that the legal availability of flavored vapes will unleash another teen vaping “epidemic” are an attempt to create another drug panic and to bully the FDA into reversing its decision. Their fury flows from a sense of betrayal towards an agency that has generally caved to their demands.

FDA Commissioner and tobacco control lapdog Marty Makary was toeing that line in April when he issued a memo preventing the authorization of Glas menthol, mango and blueberry vapes, after FDA scientific reviewers green-lit them. Then the Trump Whitehouse got involved and suddenly they were authorized. Weeks later Makary resigned specifically over this issue. Don’t be surprised if he ends up working for CTFK. That’s where Brian King, the former Director of the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products, is now employed.

PAVE initiated a letter-writing campaign demanding repeal of the authorization. Joining the attack are 21 state attorneys general who wrote a letter to the FDA urging it to “reverse guidance easing sales of flavored e-cigarettes.”

“DARS are an information-gathering device masquerading as a youth prevention.”

Tobacco control organizations and other groups have another bone to pick with Glas. They have denounced the “device access restrictions” (DARS) technology, arguing it won’t stop tech-savvy youth and deploys Big Brother spying software.

“DARS are an information-gathering device masquerading as a youth prevention,” stated Willow Najjar Anderson, an attorney at the Public Health Law Center. “They give the industry a socially responsible gloss while doing little to stop youth from seeing, wanting or accessing flavored vapes. Moreover, privacy concerns with DARS remain real, especially when access to an addictive product is conditioned on surveillance, biometric check-ins, and data collection.”

Anderson makes an important point about the monitoring features embedded in the Glas app. Where do the information and photos collected by the company go, and who has access to them? In an era of powerful hacking groups, rampant identity theft and massive data breaches, this might be a deal-breaker.

I asked Greenbaum why Glas did this. “We wanted to take a very conservative approach that presented zero risk in regards to any form of appealing to youth, and we combined that with our extensive and robust age-restrictive technology,” he said. “We conducted two age restriction studies. The first study didn’t expose youth to the brand or the physical product. We put the technology in their hands and provided them the opportunity to game the system. They couldn’t. Then the FDA told us to put the actual vape in the hands of young people, and we conducted the same set of tests where they tried to game or break the system. Zero youth were able to.”

That’s a lot of steps to puff on a vape. Compare that to how fast and easy it is for anyone—of any age—to pick up and smoke a cigarette.

Here are the steps to activate a Glas flavored vape. Before it can be unlocked, the device has to be paired with a smartphone app, so the first step is to download the app. The next step is uploading a government-issued ID and a real-time selfie, which the software analyzes to confirm legal age. Once verified, a digital certificate is sent to the vape, allowing the heating coil to be activated. Sensors in the vape actively monitor the connection to the smartphone, and if the phone is moved out of close range of the vape, or if it is turned off, the vape automatically deactivates.

That’s a lot of steps to puff on a vape. Compare that to how fast and easy it is for anyone—of any age—to pick up and smoke a cigarette. Or use an unauthorized, non-age-gated vape, for that matter.

“Every new technology product has a little bit of a hurdle in the beginning, but our process is seamless and efficient,” Greenbaum said. “From the perspective of thinking about all of the products that we use as consumers in today’s world, everything for the most part is connected and you have some form of a mobile app. The process that we have for verifying a user, it occurs in under three minutes. It’s similar to a mobile banking app. In our studies we pulled from a demographic of heavy smokers of all ages and demographics, and the ease of use on the technology side was not a concern for them.”  

To be sure, some people will be able to activate the device, but seriously, in under three minutes and nothing will ever go wrong?

It’s a feature that is the opposite of user-friendly—but this is where the FDA, and the manufactured outcry at “kid-friendly” flavors, have gotten us.

What Greenbaum isn’t taking into account is the digital divide that is a reality for low-income, vulnerable populations, especially in rural areas, that have the highest rates of smoking. People who are street-homeless often don’t have consistent access to wifi, often don’t have government-issued ID, and cell phones get lost, stolen or are shut off for nonpayment. People with serious mental health diagnoses might have cognitive or functional impairments that limit their ability to follow directions to activate the vape.

Another problem is that the pleasure of inhaling nicotine could be lost because the freedom to move around while vaping is compromised by the technology. I envision people forgetting that they have to keep their cell phone and vape in close proximity and the device abruptly deactivating. Annoying! It’s a feature that is the opposite of user-friendly—but this is where the FDA and the manufactured outcry at “kid-friendly” flavors have gotten us.

It was a seven-year battle to get FDA authorization of flavored vapes. But if age-gating surveillance technology becomes the norm and makes vapes too difficult, frustrating, time-consuming or invasive to use, then tobacco control zealots will have found yet another way to block the use of safer nicotine products. 

Photographs courtesy of Glas

Correction, July 24: A previous version of this article incorrectly stated that the FDA did not issue a press release about the Glas authorizations. In fact, the agency did issue a press release on May 5.

The Influence Foundation, which operates Filter, has received unrestricted grants from Juul Labs, Inc. Filter‘s Editorial Independence Policy applies.

The post The Glas Ceiling: Gold, Sapphire and Vaping Surveillance appeared first on Filter.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, who was nominated by President Donald Trump to serve in the role on a permanent basis, answered senators’ written questions as part of the confirmation process—including queries about cannabis.

Blanche in April issued an order that immediately reclassified state-licensed medical cannabis, as well as marijuana products approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to Schedule III. Broader rescheduling of cannabis, including for adult nonmedical use, is being considered through a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) hearing that wrapped up testimony earlier in July.

Blanche dodged the question, saying he “will give the matter careful consideration after conferring with all relevant stakeholders, including DEA personnel.”

Senator Alex Padilla (D-CA) asked why the department had “forgone the traditional notice-and-comment period and an administrative hearing required by the CSA for rescheduling” before adopting the partial rescheduling of marijuana for medical use.

“The Department of Justice delivered on President Trump’s promise to expand Americans’ access to medical treatment options,” Blanche wrote. “This rescheduling action allows for research on the safety and efficacy of this substance, ultimately providing patients with better care and doctors with more reliable information.”

When pressed about whether he supports further rescheduling of cannabis for adult use or reducing current penalties for possession and sales, Blanche dodged the question, saying he “will give the matter careful consideration after conferring with all relevant stakeholders, including DEA personnel,” if confirmed as attorney general.

Padilla also pressed the acting attorney general on whether he supports a Trump DOJ move directing federal prosecutors to begin enforcing laws against simple cannabis possession in places like national parks.

“As a general matter, I think it is important to empower our US Attorneys to enforce all laws as appropriate and in accordance with relevant facts and law to keep the American public safe,” Blanche replied, indicating he does not oppose prosecuting people in federal court for possessing marijuana in national parks.

Blanche was also asked about whether relief from the 280E tax penalty under rescheduling applies to businesses that hold licenses for both medical and adult-use cannabis.

“Section 280e of the Internal Revenue Code applies to businesses engaged in trafficking in controlled substances in schedule I or II,” he said, without directly answering Padilla’s question about how relief would apply to dual-licensed businesses if adult-use marijuana remains in Schedule I following the ongoing administrative hearing process.

The latest tracking poll shows cannabis consumers’ support for the Trump administration’s actions on the issue has declined—as most don’t believe rescheduling will be completed this year.

Blanche’s refusal to commit to broader rescheduling comes as the latest Marijuana Moment/NuggMD quarterly tracking poll shows cannabis consumers’ support for the Trump administration’s actions on the issue has declined in the months since the DOJ first announced it was moving forward with rescheduling—as most don’t believe it will be completed this year.

Blanche was also pressed about cannabis issues in 2025 during his confirmation process to become deputy attorney general. He said in response to a written question about marijuana rescheduling from Sen. Peter Welch (D-VT) that he would “give the matter careful consideration after conferring with all relevant stakeholders, including [Drug Enforcement Administration] personnel.”

When asked about aligning federal and state marijuana laws, he said that “coordination between federal and state authorities is critically important,” but that he had “not had the opportunity to study this particular issue.”

“If confirmed, I will consult with the necessary stakeholders and give this matter careful consideration,” he said.

Welch also asked about Obama-era enforcement guidance that directed prosecutors to generally not interfere with state cannabis laws, which was rescinded during the first Trump administration.

“I have not had occasion to study this particular issue,” Blanche replied. “If confirmed … I think it is important to empower our US Attorneys, who we trust to follow the law and to follow Department rules.”

Meanwhile, the DEA, which has been charged with defending the rescheduling proposal during the administrative hearing, has focused testimony on the medical benefits of cannabis and its relative safety compared to alcohol and other substances—despite excluding reform supporters from participating in the proceedings.

The cannabis rescheduling move is also being challenged in court through a number of lawsuits from the drug-testing industry, a pharmaceutical corporation, legalization opponents and others.

In May, the House Appropriations Committee voted to block federal officials from taking further steps to carry out cannabis rescheduling. Bipartisan lawmakers told Marijuana Moment, however, that they don’t expect the legislative effort to block rescheduling to succeed.

Photograph by Ndispensable via Unsplash

This story was originally published by Marijuana Moment, which tracks the politics and policy of cannabis and drugs. Follow Marijuana Moment on X and Facebook, and sign up for its newsletter.

The post Trump AG Pick Dodges Question on Full Marijuana Rescheduling appeared first on Filter.

That shows how local governments that have refused to get on board with California’s legalization law, which voters approved 10 years ago, “benefit” the illicit market, the state’s top cannabis regulator told State Affairs, which obtained and first reported on the data.

The DCC has repeatedly argued that the current system of patchwork regulations—where localities are able to opt in or opt out of allowing certain types of licensed marijuana businesses from operating in their area—is a key factor keeping the state’s unregulated cannabis trade alive.

It creates barriers to access for adult consumers, while allowing unlicensed operators to function in a policy vacuum. The state established the Unified Cannabis Enforcement Taskforce (UCETF) in 2022 to coordinate multi-agency enforcement action against illicit-market growers, manufacturers and sellers.

The DCC Director said that “cannabis is used in every community, regardless of local rules,” and while localities can ban licensed shops, “they cannot eliminate consumer demand.”

According to data on enforcement activity spanning October 2022 to August 2025, the DCC found that 96.6 percent of unregulated marijuana seized by UCETF in unincorporated areas of the state was discovered in eight counties—almost all of which maintain local bans on licensed marijuana cultivators.

DCC Director Clint Kellum said that “cannabis is used in every community, regardless of local rules,” and while localities can ban licensed shops, “they cannot eliminate consumer demand.”

“When local governments deny consumers access to licensed retailers, the illicit market and organized crime benefit, while public health and safety is harmed,” he told State Affairs.

Kellum added that the department “will continue applying pressure to illegal operators, particularly when the activity involves organized crime, unlawful transportation and distribution, illegal manufacturing, diversion, threats to the licensed market, environmental harm, labor exploitation or conduct that crosses jurisdictional lines.”

DCC released the county-level data days after Governor Gavin Newsom (D) touted the state’s work seizing 63,000 pounds of unregulated cannabis valued at more than $104 million, while destroying more than 89,000 cannabis plants, from April to June.

All told, the multi-agency task force has seized over 841,000 pounds (or 420 tons, as the governor’s office went out of its way to note in a press release) since its establishment four years ago.

“Disrupting the illegal cannabis market is about more than seizing unlicensed products—it’s about taking on criminal networks, removing illegal firearms out of the hands of dangerous individuals, and stopping activity that threatens public safety,” the governor said. “Through strong multiagency collaboration, California is making clear: if you threaten our communities, we will act.”

California’s two major-party general election gubernatorial candidates both support legalization.

Newsom is term-limited, but California’s two major-party general election gubernatorial candidates both support legalization. Republican Steve Hilton, who is endorsed by President Donald Trump, recently told Marijuana Moment that taxes and regulations on cannabis are “too high.”

Not all California Republicans are on board with the reform, however. The vice chair of the state Senate Budget Committee has floated the idea of putting a new initiative on the state ballot to “reverse” Proposition 64, for example, arguing that voters were misled and voicing concerns about the health impacts of marijuana use.

“We have seen significant negative consequences of this legalization, both here as well as in other states,” said the senator, speaking at a hearing at which lawmakers approved a bill to legalize marijuana dispensary drive-thru windows in California.

Meanwhile Democratic gubernatorial contender Xavier Becerra, who previously served in Congress and as California’s attorney general, facilitated a scientific review process during his time as health and human services secretary under the Biden administration, which ultimately resulted in a recommendation to move cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).

California regulators recently adopted emergency rules changes for the state’s marijuana licensing process that are intended to make it easier for businesses to qualify for benefits in line with the Trump administration’s recent decision to move ahead with federally rescheduling medical cannabis. They also launched a new AI tool to help businesses identify marijuana-product packaging that may appeal to kids in violation of state rules.

California officials recently awarded nearly $30 million in grants for marijuana-focused academic research projects.

Separately, Newsom recently took credit for helping to lead the push for the state to legalize marijuana and discussed his own limited experience with using cannabis.

In October, however, the governor vetoed a bill that would have allowed certain marijuana microbusinesses to ship medical cannabis products directly to patients via common carriers like FedEx and UPS, stating that the proposal “would be burdensome and overly complex to administer.”

Newsom did sign a bill earlier that month aimed at streamlining research on marijuana and psychedelics. In September, the governor also signed a measure into law to put a pause on a recently enacted tax hike on marijuana products.

Separately, the state attorney general has said Indigenous tribes cannot independently engage in marijuana commerce with licensed cannabis businesses without first obtaining their own commercial license from state officials.

California officials recently awarded nearly $30 million in grants for marijuana-focused academic research projects.

Photograph by CRYSTALWEED cannabis via Unsplash

This story was originally published by Marijuana Moment, which tracks the politics and policy of cannabis and drugs. Follow Marijuana Moment on X and Facebook, and sign up for its newsletter.

The post In CA, 97 Percent of Seized Marijuana Is From Counties That Ban Growing appeared first on Filter.

The Public Health (Single-Use Vapes) Bill 2025 completed Ireland’s parliamentary process at the Oireachtas on July 7. It currently awaits the signature of President Catherine Connolly, which is expected to be a mere formality. Retailers will be given a six-month period to shift existing products, with the new law taking full effect in January 2027. 

“By banning single-use vapes, we are helping to prevent nicotine addiction before it starts and creating a cleaner environment for everyone,” said Health Minister Carroll MacNeil, echoing talking points that have driven disposable vape bans in countries such as the United Kingdom.

The new ban is only part of Ireland’s wider crackdown on nicotine vapes. In 2025, for instance, the country imposed the European Union’s highest tax rate on e-liquids. 

Meanwhile, the Public Health (Tobacco Products and Nicotine Inhaling Products) (Amendment) Bill 2026, introduced earlier in the year, seeks to further restrict safer nicotine products that have helped millions quit smoking. Ireland’s smoking rate of about 18 percent remains vastly higher than the government’s target of below 5 percent—which it was supposed to reach by 2025.

“This now looks certain to go through, with little pushback from the opposition.”

That bill would limit vape flavors to tobacco or unflavored e-liquids only. It would additionally restrict colors and imagery on devices and packaging, and ban retail outlets from advertising nicotine products, among other measures. It would give ministers the power to regulate flavor descriptors and to amend the law to cover any future nicotine products.

Having recently passed the lower house, the bill is due to be debated in the upper house, the Seanad, later in July. An EU notification process would need to be completed before it can be enacted, but the government plans for it to take effect before the end of 2026.

“This now looks certain to go through, with little pushback from the opposition apart from [political party] Sinn Fein,” Tom Gleeson, a trustee of the New Nicotine Alliance Ireland charity, told Filter. 

“This move by the health minister will result in the first minister for health to leave office with a higher rate of smoking than when they took office,”said Gleeson, who credits vapes with helping him quit smoking. “Given the clear evidence that restrictions on reduced-harm products benefit smoking, it’s puzzling that they are willing to take that risk.”

“The lack of support for vaping from our health bodies has already reduced the impact of safer products on smoking rates,” he continued, “with Ireland lagging behind places like our close neighbors in the United Kingdom.”

In the UK, most people who quit smoking do so with the help of vapes. Though politicians there have also turned against tobacco harm reduction in recent years, the country has a prior track record of embracing it. The UK now has a significantly lower smoking rate than Ireland, and Brits are more likely to vape than to smoke.

Dr. Garrett McGovern, an Irish addiction medicine specialist and tobacco harm reduction advocate, told Filter that “flavors are an essential component of helping smokers quit”—an assertion that’s supported by substantial evidence. 

“They have not considered the unintended consequences: increased smoking rates across the age spectrum and a burgeoning illicit market.”

McGovern described the current bill as a “missed opportunity.” It makes the assumption, he continued, that a “so-called youth epidemic” of vaping entails harms that are somehow comparable to those caused by cigarettes. This is not true. 

In reality, McGovern said, “youth e-cigarette use is experimental, transient and in the vast majority of cases unproblematic, and not a gateway to cigarette smoking. Despite this, policymakers have decided that vaping is the enemy and needs to be eradicated.” 

The Healthy Ireland Survey 2025 found that 50 percent of Irish people who vape formerly smoked and have now quit combustible tobacco entirely. Another 33 percent vape and smoke—so-called “dual use,” which typically involves reducing the number of cigarettes smoked, and is often part of a journey to complete smoking cessation. 

Just 17 percent of people who vape in Ireland have never smoked—and even with them, there’s the question of what they would be doing if vapes weren’t available, given evidence of “common liability” to both vaping and smoking. 

When the most effective smoking-cessation aids are made not only more expensive but less visible and less enjoyable, advocates say that damaging outcomes are inevitable.

“They have not considered the unintended consequences: increased smoking rates across the age spectrum and a burgeoning illicit market to fill the void left by the unregulated one,” McGovern said.

Photograph (cropped) by Ecig Click via Flickr/Creative Commons 2.0

The post Disposables Banned, Flavors Next: Irish Vape Crackdown Gathers Pace appeared first on Filter.