Editorial says West Virginia’s HB 5437 “Vape Safety Act” goes too far, targeting residency and citizenship provisions

Key Takeaways 

• Editorial says the vape shop industry should be better regulated and notes HB 5437’s licensing and fee increases
• Editorial opposes language barring any part of a vape/smoke shop from being used as a “residence, dwelling place or location for human habitation”
• Editorial opposes the bill’s requirement that vape and smoke shop owners be U.S. citizens
• McCormick is quoted citing “bad actors,” including claims about legal status, living in shops, and underage sales/marketing
• Editorial says laws already exist to address those issues and warns political additions may harm the bill’s effectiveness

2Firsts, February 26, 2026 – 

According to News and Sentinel, an editorial titled “Smoke Signals: Vape Safety Act goes too far” argues that Del. David McCormick’s (David McCormick) Vape Safety Act—House Bill 5437—goes too far in its proposed restrictions.

The editorial says it is important to acknowledge the vape shop industry should be better regulated in the state, and that if one does not get past the basics, HB 5437 might appear to merit approval. It notes the bill would require specialty shops selling tobacco, tobacco-derived products, alternative nicotine, or vapor products and accessories to obtain a state license from the Alcohol Beverage Control Administration, including thorough criminal background checks and annual fees, and that the bill increases those fees dramatically.

The editorial says the bill “goes off the rails” by also requiring that no part of a vape or smoke shop could be used as a “residence, dwelling place or location for human habitation,” and by requiring vape and smoke shop owners to be U.S. citizens.

The editorial quotes McCormick saying: “The purpose of House Bill 5437 is to regulate an industry or a business segment that is virtually unregulated and virtually untaxed,” and includes his statements alleging “bad actors,” including claims that many are “not here legally,” that they “live in the shops,” and that they sell to and market to underage kids.

The editorial then questions the implications of such provisions, referencing examples of people historically living above or behind their businesses while building livelihoods and noting that people can be in the country legally, working and paying taxes, without being U.S. citizens.

It also argues that McCormick’s use of words like “illegally” and “underage” shows he understands there are already laws in place to address the problems he says he is targeting, adding that enforcement is a separate matter and that there is space for doing something good with parts of the bill.

The editorial concludes that once other House members look more closely, the attempt to score points by adding a political hot topic could harm the bill’s ability to accomplish any of its aims.

Image source: News and Sentinel