Vote NO on HB 1220A
HB 1220A aims to regulate nicotine products and distributors, but as currently written the bill creates serious structural, fiscal, enforcement, and public health issues that outweigh its intended purpose of reducing underage vaping.
Here’s why we oppose HB 1220A:
| ❌ | Broad and Conflicting Definitions (Section 3) | ❌ | Unfunded Mandate Without a Fiscal Note (Section 14) |
| The bill creates an overly broad definition of “nicotine product,” including anything that “mimics or replicates” nicotine’s effects and even “components or accessories.” This conflicts with existing definitions in other statutes (like SB 221 and Chapter 34-46) and risks inconsistent, unpredictable enforcement. |
HB 1220A creates an enforcement fund but does not include a dedicated appropriation to support the expanded duties it assigns to DOR. This effectively shifts new responsibilities onto an agency without identified funding — an unfunded mandate. A formal Fiscal Note should be required so lawmakers can understand implementation costs before moving forward. | ||
| ❌ | Improper Transfer of Enforcement to DOR (Sections 5 & 7) | ❌ | Excessive Distributor Fee (Section 5) |
| The South Dakota Department of Revenue has confirmed in writing that it has never regulated vapor products and is not currently structured or staffed to do so. HB 1220A hands DOR new authority without clear evidence this shift is necessary or workable. | The bill imposes a $1,000 annual distributor license fee that many out-of-state distributors say will make it uneconomic to serve South Dakota’s small market. Their withdrawal would reduce competition, limit product availability, and raise costs for lawful adult consumers and small retailers. | ||
| ❌ | Out-of-State Enforcement Is Unworkable | ❌ | Missed Target on Youth Access (Sections 10–12) |
| The bill requires out-of-state distributors to submit to inspections. In practice, South Dakota cannot conduct physical inspections outside the state, meaning enforcement would likely be paper-based and litigation-driven — a heavy burden on both regulators and businesses. | Although the bill restricts shipment and creates penalties, it does not strengthen point-of-sale age-verification, compliance checks, or clerk training — exactly where underage sales violations occur. If youth access is the concern, policy should focus on retail enforcement, not broad supply-chain restructuring. |
Public Health Reality
It is also important to recognize that:
✔ Combustible cigarettes are the most harmful nicotine products
✔ Independent research finds that when adult smokers switch to non-combustible alternatives (like e-cigarettes), overall population harm declines
Several studies, including modeling from Georgetown University and population analyses in Tobacco Control, show potential public health benefit when adult smokers have access to lower-risk alternatives. Policies that restrict lawful adult access without addressing point-of-sale enforcement may inadvertently slow declines in smoking and shift consumers back to more harmful products.
TAKE ACTION NOW!
WHY THIS MATTERS
HB 1220A is not a narrow youth enforcement bill — it is a sweeping restructuring of how nicotine products are defined, licensed, and regulated in South Dakota.
If this bill passes as written:
-
Product availability will shrink: Several distributors have already indicated they would leave the South Dakota market due to the $1,000 licensing fee and compliance burdens. Fewer distributors means fewer choices for adult consumers.
-
Prices will increase: Reduced competition and added regulatory costs are passed down the supply chain — ultimately increasing costs for lawful adult customers.
-
Small local retailers will be hurt: Independent South Dakota businesses rely on consistent distributor access. If suppliers withdraw, local stores lose inventory and revenue
- Taxpayers may absorb new costs: The bill expands enforcement responsibilities for the Department of Revenue without a clearly defined appropriation — creating an unfunded mandate that could impact state resources.
- It does not strengthen point-of-sale youth enforcement: The bill restructures the supply chain but does not add stronger ID verification, compliance checks, or clerk training requirements — the areas where youth violations actually occur.
This is not simply a regulatory change. It is a market restructuring bill that affects product access, pricing, small businesses, and state resources — without clear evidence it will better protect minors than current law.
South Dakota consumers deserve policy that is targeted, enforceable, fiscally responsible, and focused on the real source of the problem.
READ THE BILL
TAKE ACTION
TESTIFY AT THE HEARING
This coming Monday, March 3 at 2:00 PM MDT / 3:00 PM CST you have the chance to speak directly to the Senate Health & Human Services Committee — but you must register in advance, today.
Prepare a brief 30–60 second statement (or 2 minutes if allotted), and join a few minutes early. Your testimony can make the difference — sign up now.
Tell Individual Committee Members:
Vote NO on HB 1220A
Click the phone or email icon on any committee member card to contact that member directly. The phone icon will open your device’s dialer (or call app) so you can place the call immediately; the email icon will open your mail client. Each action contacts the member individually, so you can personalize your remarks — when calling or emailing, remember to mention what bill you’re contacting them about, when the bill is coming up for hearing (Mon, March 3rd — Room 412 — 3:00 PM CST), your name, your city, and the reasons you would encourage them to vote NO. And remember to encourage them to vote NO on HB 1220A.
Contact the Whole Committee
Use the pre-written message below to contact members of the Senate Health & Human Services Committee and urge them to VOTE NO ON HB 1220A.
Or simply fill out your information and hit submit to send them the pre-written email expressing your concern and issues with HB 1220 as it is written.