South Carolina Considers Banning Local E-Cigarette Regulations

Feb.15.2023
South Carolina Considers Banning Local E-Cigarette Regulations
South Carolina lawmakers consider banning local regulations on e-cigarettes and tobacco products, drawing opposition from public health groups.

Legislators in South Carolina are considering several proposals that would prohibit local governments from enacting additional regulations on electronic cigarettes and other tobacco products.


This measure ensures that any local laws implemented before December 31, 2020, will remain valid. It also prohibits cities from creating their own tobacco permit regulations.


Dozens of public health organizations, including the American Cancer Society, have voiced opposition to the bill, according to WLTX.


According to data from the Office of Taxation and Fiscal Affairs, the tobacco tax revenue for the state is projected to reach nearly $30 million in 2022. Supporters of the measure, like Moe Raed, a store manager at a shop called Day and Night E-cigarettes, argue that regulations are detrimental to businesses and should be standardized across the entire state.


Two months ago, the Day & Night electronic cigarette store opened in Colombia. Raed said, "Yes, business has been good lately." He added that over half of the store's revenue comes from the sales of electronic cigarettes.


Raed stated, "People have been quitting smoking recently because tobacco has become more expensive." He believes that his adult customers should not be limited in what products they can purchase. "I don't allow anyone under 21 to enter these stores," he added. "Many tobacco shops will close. This will harm many businesses and other individuals.


There are currently no cities in South Carolina that are hoping to limit tobacco sales. This bill does not affect the ability of local governments to regulate local tobacco businesses.


Over the past six years, a similar bill has been proposed but has failed to pass.


South Carolina is one of 10 states without a tobacco retailer license. Last year, a bill proposing such a license was stalled in a subcommittee due to opposition from convenience store owners.



Disclaimer

This article is provided solely for professional research, industry discussion, and informational purposes. Any references to brands, companies, products, technologies, or policies are made for factual reporting and analytical purposes only, and do not constitute endorsement, recommendation, promotion, or advertising by 2Firsts.

Nicotine-containing products, including but not limited to cigarettes, e-cigarettes, heated tobacco products, and nicotine pouches, carry significant health risks. Readers are responsible for complying with all applicable laws and regulations in their respective jurisdictions, including age restrictions and access limitations.

The information contained in this article should not be regarded as investment, legal, medical, regulatory, or commercial advice. While 2Firsts strives to ensure the accuracy and reliability of its content, it does not assume liability for any direct or indirect loss arising from errors, omissions, inaccuracies, or reliance on the information contained herein.

This article is not intended for individuals below the legal age for accessing tobacco or nicotine-related information in their jurisdiction.

 

Copyright Notice

This article is either original content produced by 2Firsts or content reproduced, translated, summarized, or adapted from third-party sources with attribution where applicable. The intellectual property rights of the original content remain with 2Firsts or the respective original rights holders.

No individual or organization may copy, reproduce, distribute, republish, modify, translate, or otherwise use this content without prior authorization. Any unauthorized use may result in legal action.

For copyright-related inquiries, corrections, or removal requests, please contact: info@2firsts.com.

 

AI-Assisted Translation and Editing Notice

Portions of this article may have been translated, edited, or reviewed with the assistance of artificial intelligence tools to improve efficiency and readability. Due to the limitations of AI-assisted translation and editing, discrepancies, omissions, or inaccuracies may exist when compared with the original source.

Where applicable, readers are advised to refer to the original source for the most complete and accurate information. If you identify any errors or believe that any content infringes upon your rights, please contact us at info@2firsts.com, and we will review and address the matter promptly.

Wall Street Journal: U.S. FDA Plans Faster Vape and Nicotine Pouch Reviews, Revisit of 2021 PMTA Rule
Wall Street Journal: U.S. FDA Plans Faster Vape and Nicotine Pouch Reviews, Revisit of 2021 PMTA Rule
The Trump administration is preparing changes intended to accelerate FDA market authorization reviews for e-cigarettes and nicotine pouches, according to The Wall Street Journal. The FDA is expected to revisit its 2021 PMTA rule and may simplify some scientific study requirements and shorten review times. The agency has not formally announced the changes. Over the past year, the FDA has already accelerated nicotine-pouch reviews, expanded ENDS authorizations and upgraded its CTP Portal NextGen application system. As of August 2026, 43 nicotine pouch products and 48 e-cigarette products had received FDA marketing authorization.
Sep.24
FDA Unifies Tobacco Registration and Product Listing Form Across Product Categories
FDA Unifies Tobacco Registration and Product Listing Form Across Product Categories
The U.S. FDA has consolidated two tobacco establishment registration and product listing forms into a redesigned Form FDA 3741 covering all regulated product categories, including e-cigarettes, heated tobacco products and nicotine pouches. The current requirements remain limited to domestic establishments. Separately, the FDA has proposed extending registration and product listing requirements to foreign manufacturers, signaling greater regulatory attention to manufacturing entities and product-level information across the tobacco and nicotine supply chain.
FDA
Sep.30
Philippines Weighs Unified Vape Tax as Lawmakers Back Risk-Based Rates and Government Seeks to Fill ₱66 Billion Revenue Gap
Philippines Weighs Unified Vape Tax as Lawmakers Back Risk-Based Rates and Government Seeks to Fill ₱66 Billion Revenue Gap
Philippine lawmakers are considering an overhaul of the country's vape excise-tax regime to eliminate the wide gap between taxes on nicotine salt and freebase nicotine liquids and reduce incentives for misdeclaration. House Bill 5364, filed by Rep. Rufus Rodriguez and Rep. Maximo Rodriguez Jr., would impose a unified ₱10-per-milliliter tax on vapor products, with 5% annual increases beginning in 2027. Rodriguez says the proposal could generate an average ₱6 billion in annual collections from 2027 through 2030. The debate comes as the Philippine government considers tobacco, vape and other health-tax reforms to help offset around ₱66 billion in revenue expected to be forgone under a proposed tax-relief package.
Aug.18
California Lawmakers Pass Disposable Nicotine Vape Ban, With Sales Prohibition Set for 2028
California Lawmakers Pass Disposable Nicotine Vape Ban, With Sales Prohibition Set for 2028
According to CBS Los Angeles on August 27, 2026, California lawmakers have passed Assembly Bill 762, which would phase out disposable, battery-embedded nicotine vapes in the state. If signed by Governor Gavin Newsom, manufacturing and importation of the covered products would be prohibited beginning January 1, 2027, followed by a sales ban on January 1, 2028. Driven primarily by concerns over electronic waste, lithium-battery fires and environmental pollution, the legislation would further shift California’s legal vape market toward rechargeable, refillable or replaceable-pod devices.
Aug.28
Smoore Seeks to Toss CCELL Price-Fixing Claim as Court Weighs Vertical Distribution Versus Horizontal Conspiracy
Smoore Seeks to Toss CCELL Price-Fixing Claim as Court Weighs Vertical Distribution Versus Horizontal Conspiracy
Smoore and four authorized U.S. CCELL distributors are asking a California federal court to permanently dismiss a core antitrust claim brought by direct purchasers. Plaintiffs allege that Smoore coordinated minimum wholesale prices, customer allocation and limits on price competition among distributors, amounting to a per se unlawful horizontal conspiracy. The defendants say the alleged conduct reflects ordinary vertical relationships between a manufacturer and its distributors. The court previously dismissed a similar claim, and the latest dispute centers on whether the second amended complaint adds sufficient facts to establish a horizontal agreement.
Sep.14
Juul Sublicense Reshapes Vuse Alto Patent Bill as Court Ends R.J. Reynolds’ 5.25% Royalty Obligation to Altria
Juul Sublicense Reshapes Vuse Alto Patent Bill as Court Ends R.J. Reynolds’ 5.25% Royalty Obligation to Altria
According to Law360 on August 31, 2026, a federal judge in North Carolina ruled that a patent sublicense between R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. and Juul Labs Inc. relieves Reynolds of its obligation to continue paying royalties to Altria Client Services LLC over Vuse Alto. A jury had previously found that Vuse Alto infringed three Altria patents and awarded approximately $95.2 million in past damages, after which Reynolds was ordered to pay an ongoing royalty equal to 5.25% of positive net sales. The new ruling finds that a valid sublicense can eliminate future infringement, potentially ending what Altria described as hundreds of millions of dollars in future royalties.
Sep.01