WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 1652

Alcoholic Beverages - As introduced, requires the alcoholic beverage commission to produce an annual report listing the persons convicted for offenses related to alcohol vaporizing devices; requires the report to be filed with the chair of the state and local government committee of the senate and the chair of the committee having jurisdiction over consumption of alcoholic beverages on premises in the house of representatives no later than December 1, 2026, and each December 1 thereafter. - Amends TCA Title 57.

114th Regular Session (2025-2026) Introduced by Rick Eldridge

Tennessee must report annually on alcohol vaporizing device convictions to legislature, establishing oversight of this emerging beverage regulatory category starting December 2026.

Rec. for pass; ref to Calendar & Rules Committee
#alcoholicbeverages
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 1652

Legislative bill overview

HB 1652 mandates that Tennessee's alcoholic beverage commission compile and submit an annual report to legislative committees documenting individuals convicted of offenses related to alcohol vaporizing devices, beginning December 1, 2026. The bill creates a new reporting requirement under Tennessee Code Annotated Title 57, which governs alcoholic beverages.

Why is this important

This bill establishes oversight and transparency around a specific category of alcohol-related violations that may be emerging as a regulatory concern. By requiring systematic data collection and legislative reporting, it enables policymakers to track enforcement patterns and determine whether additional regulatory action or public awareness campaigns are needed.

Potential points of contention

  • Vague definition: The bill does not define "alcohol vaporizing devices," leaving uncertainty about which products and violations would be included in the report, potentially creating enforcement inconsistencies.
  • Data privacy concerns: Publishing names of convicted individuals raises questions about privacy protections, rehabilitation considerations, and whether public reporting could create collateral consequences beyond legal sentences.
  • Limited scope and utility: The reporting requirement alone provides no enforcement mechanisms or proposed solutions, so legislators may question whether the administrative burden generates actionable intelligence or merely creates a list without policy direction.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.