Blog

Understanding Vaping Laws for Minors

 

Vaping is a fad that is quickly solidifying into a stable industry of products around the world. Vaping and electronic cigarette (or e-cigarette) use have dramatically increased from roughly “seven million [users] in 2011 to 35 million [users] in 2016.”

In this blog, we will detail what vaping is, its prevalence with young folks, and the laws surrounding it.
 

What is Vaping?

E-cigarettes are devices using for inhaling nicotine and other flavored liquids in aerosol form. These devices using a heating coil to turn liquids into a form that users can inhale. The resulting “vapor,” which contains chemicals from the heated liquid, gave rise to the popular name for using an e-cigarette, “vaping.”
 

Vaping is Popular Among the Youth

Vaping is a big deal for young folks.

Schools have taken note of vaping among students. Some minors in k-12 schools have been using vaping products in school bathrooms and sometimes even in classrooms.

As many as “3 million school-age children” have tried e-cigarette products according to a Free Press News article. The devices are easy to conceal and the vapor produced dissipates quickly making vaping perfect for this age group.
 

Michigan Law Regarding E-Cigarette and Tabacco Use

Currently, there is no mention of vape products in Michigan’s law regarding tobacco use or in the original Michigan Smoke-Free Law which the Michigan legislature passed in 2009.

However, in 2016, there were additional guidelines passed regarding e-cigarettes. In general terms, Michigan began recognizing e-cigarettes as tobacco products.

There were also specific mentions of guidelines focusing on minors under the age of 18 and e-cigarette use. The document notes “E-cigarettes may be particularly attractive to youth due to their novelty; the fact that they are sold in places easily accessible to youth, such as mall kiosks and gas stations; and their availability in flavors appealing to youth, including chocolate, strawberry, peach, and mango.”

The information presented in these guidelines is not new, but the legislature officially recognizing its impact elevates the stipulated risk e-cigarettes pose to minors. The document goes on to state in no uncertain terms that there is a “minimum purchase age of 18.”

Some cities have begun to enact consequences for minors in possession of vaping devices. In these municipalities, someone under the age of 18 with a vaping device could be given a misdemeanor.
 

What this Means for You

Though this law continues to evolve with the evolution of technology and the products tobacco and e-cigarette companies develop, we can state this: minors under the age of 18 can not legally purchase, possess, or consume e-cigarette or vaping products legally.

If you have any questions regarding vaping or e-cigarette laws that may impact you or your dependent minor, please don’t hesitate to reach out to the legal professionals at Aldrich Legal Services today.
 

The defense attorneys at Aldrich Legal Services can provide reliable criminal advising up to and including litigation. Contact us today for more information by calling (734) 404-3000.

 
 

REAL ESTATE 40: Tax Tribunal denied petitioner’s claim of a principal residence exemption (PRE).

MCL 211.7cc(2) provides that an owner of property can claim the PRE by filing an affidavit that must state that the property is owned and occupied as a principal residence by that owner of the property on the date that the affidavit is signed and shall state that the owner has not claimed a substantially similar exemption, deduction, or credit on property in another state.

The Steps of Construction Litigation

Most contracting agreements move forward without any problems, but when disputes between contracting parties come up, it can be confusing to understand the legal process to take. The legal experts at Aldrich Legal Services want to make the...

REAL ESTATE 38: Plaintiff fails to make land contract payments.

The land contract stated that T Company sold real property to plaintiff. The land contract further stated that if plaintiff failed to make a monthly payment, T Company could execute the quitclaim deed, thereby terminating plaintiff’s rights to the real property under the land contract.

CONTRACTS 6: Do you understand the clauses in your Purchase Agreement?

The trial court granted defendants’ motion for summary disposition, concluding that the claims against the realty companies were barred by the valid release contained in the purchase agreement and that the claims against sellers were required to be resolved in arbitration because they fell within the scope of the arbitration clause in the purchase agreement.

DIVORCE 29: Spousal support in gross is non-modifiable, whereas periodic is subject to modification.

As the name implies, periodic spousal support payments are made on a periodic basis. Periodic spousal support payments are subject to any contingency, such as death or remarriage of a spouse, whereas spousal support in gross is paid as a lump sum or a definite sum to be paid in installments. In addition, one major difference between the two types of spousal support is modifiability. Spousal support in gross is non-modifiable, whereas periodic spousal support is subject to modification pursuant to MCL 555.28.1.

How to Dispute an Insurance Adjustment

When something drastic happens, many people need to take extra steps to rebuild your home, recover property, or pay medical bill collectors. Unfortunately, most people believe they have no backup plan if their insurance company refuses their claim...

PROBATE 28: Probate court enters a protective order providing support for a community spouse.

A probate court’s consideration of the couple’s circumstances cannot involve an assumption that the institutionalized spouse should receive 100% free medical care under Medicaid or an assumption that a community spouse is entitled to maintain his or her standard of living. Medicaid is a need-based program, and a Medicaid recipient is obligated to contribute to his or her care.

REAL ESTATE 36: Plaintiff argued that her claim was not time-barred because it did not accrue until the grandmother’s death.

Plaintiff’s interest in the subject property is best characterized as a remainder estate, because her right to possession of the property was postponed until the occurrence of a specific contingency, that being the deaths of the grandparents. Plaintiff pursued this action within the 15-year limitation period; accordingly, this action is not barred by MCL 600.5801(4).

LITIGATION 6: The terms of the agreement prevails over the course of performance.

The trial court determined that under the UCC, the express terms of the parties’ agreements prevailed over the course of their performance and course of dealing. Although a course of performance may show that parties have waived a specific contractual term under MCL 440.1303(6), the statute does not similarly provide that a course of dealing may demonstrate waiver.

PROBATE 27: Petitioner filed a petition for mental-health treatment.

In support of the allegations, petitioner attached clinical certificates from a physician and a psychiatrist who observed respondent at the hospital. Both doctors diagnosed respondent with bipolar disorder, determined that she displayed a likelihood of injuring herself and that she did not understand the need for treatment, and recommended a course of treatment that consisted of 60 days of hospitalization and 90 days of outpatient care.

5 Things Everyone Should Do Before Starting a Business

So, you have a great idea and the experience to back it up. You are in a great starting place, but you have some work to do before jumping into forming your own business. Consider the following steps before you begin the process of starting your...

FAMILY LAW 32: Trial court committed error in failing to address whether there was an established custodial environment.

On appeal, plaintiff argues that the trial court failed to make any findings regarding (1) the child’s established custodial environment, (2) the child’s best interests regarding the grant of primary physical custody to defendant, (3) the child’s best interests with respect to parenting time, and (4) the child’s best interests pertaining to the parties’ dispute over daycare.

PROBATE 25: Daughter removed as personal representative of the estate.

the probate court determined that Daughter J had managed the estate in a manner that promoted her own interests as a beneficiary over the interests of the estate. The probate court found that such management demonstrated mismanagement of the estate and that removal of Daughter J was therefore in the best interests of the estate.

4 Last Minute Ways to Avoid Foreclosure

One tough break seems to lead to another. If you get behind on mortgage payments, you could be in danger of having your house foreclosed upon by the bank. Lenders foreclose on real estate to recoup their losses. But this means you won’t have a...

5 Necessary Sections Your Prenuptial Agreement Needs

Many big decisions come with getting engaged. Planning for marriage can be exciting and romantic, although the thought of adding a prenuptial agreement may not stoke your passion, they can help you now and in the future. Prenuptial agreements are...

REAL ESTATE 32: Plaintiffs and defendants executed a second easement.

Plaintiffs requested that the trial court, either through reformation of the First Easement or interpretation of the Second Easement, quiet title in favor of plaintiffs and declare them to be the owners of an easement to access Lake Superior through the ravine on defendants’ property, enjoin defendants from interfering with their use of the easement, and order compensation for damages to the stairs.

Don't let a bad decision, unfair contract, or a messy divorce get in the way of a promising future!
Contact the experienced team at Aldrich Legal Services today to schedule your free initial
consultation
and secure reliable and trustworthy representation today!
Get the Help You Need From a Team You Can Truly Count On: (734) 404-3000
734-237-6482