| Online: | |
| Visits: | |
| Stories: |
| Story Views | |
| Now: | |
| Last Hour: | |
| Last 24 Hours: | |
| Total: | |
Should NH require childproofing on liquid nicotine containers? (120 responses; 5/4/15)
By Jacquelyn Benson
E-cigarettes continue to rise in popularity, causing some lawmakers to express concern over the risks liquid nicotine might pose to children. A bill (SB 105) which passed the Senate but was deemed Inexpedient to Legislate by the House would have required the containers for liquid nicotine sold in NH to be equipped with child proof caps. On May 4, the Live Free or Die Alliance asked its nearly 60,000 Facebook members to weigh in on the issue, posing the question, “Should NH require child proof caps for liquid nicotine containers (used for e-cigarettes)?”
A 71% majority of respondents commenting or concurring with a direct response to the question expressed opposition to the bill, with 29% in favor. A further 22% of total respondents opted not to give a yes or no response, instead addressing their remarks to broader issues. In total, the LFDA received 120 responses.
Opponents of the bill argued that it was unnecessary, as common sense should dictate that harmful substances are kept out of reach of children. “Parents should be more cautious of how they store things that children shouldn't have,” one commenter wrote. “The manufacturers will mostly provide child-resistant packaging on their own to avoid questions of liability, and whether they do or not, parents still need to be mindful to keep the stuff out of reach of children. Requiring child-resistant packaging will only create a burdensome web of bureaucracy where there doesn't need to be one,” argued another.
Bill supporters countered that the requirement was a simple way to provide an additional level of safety for children. “With the number of emergency calls increasing rapidly due to this product being more prevalent in houses, it seems to me a sensible thing for us to do on a public policy level is to use childproof caps to protect grandchildren and children who are visiting different houses,” one commenter argued. “They should be child proof. It makes both sides happy and is an easy fix,” another wrote.
Those opting to address their comments to broader issues discussed the details of the bill and whether the risks that motivate it were relevant to NH. “It doesn't just require child safe packaging; it also establishes a committee to alter the Indoor Smoking Act,” one commenter pointed out. “Has this happened in NH?” another asked, referring to hospitalizations for liquid nicotine overdose.
The nonprofit, nonpartisan LFDA takes no position on this or any issue, as this report is presented as a summary of citizen testimony. As New Hampshire’s Virtual Town Hall, the LFDA community, numbering more than 62,000, provides objective information on state issues, promotes the civil exchange of opinions, and communicates views to elected officials. To learn more about this issue or the LFDA, visit www.lfda.org.
Jacquelyn Benson is an Editor with the Live Free or Die Alliance.
Live Free or Die Alliance
www.livefreeordiealliance.org
Source: http://townhall.livefreeordiealliance.org/xn/detail/4091641:BlogPost:72167
