In 2020, the California Legislature permitted a ban on gross sales of most flavored tobacco merchandise, together with menthol cigarettes. However the regulation has been on maintain ever since as a result of tobacco pursuits instantly spent hundreds of thousands of {dollars} qualifying a poll referendum to overturn it, permitting the business to reap two extra years of revenue from these harmful merchandise.
Voters now have an opportunity to strike again at Massive Tobacco and clear the best way for the brand new regulation to take impact by voting sure on Proposition 31 on the Nov. 8 poll. And so they completely ought to.
The regulation that will be upheld by the poll measure, Senate Invoice 793, was a good suggestion in 2020, and it nonetheless is. Flavors in tobacco merchandise are uniquely dangerous as a result of they masks the unappealingly harsh style of tobacco and may lure in new and infrequently younger customers and get them hooked. Research have proven yr after yr that the overwhelming majority of tobacco customers below 18 first tried flavored tobacco merchandise. That’s why the Meals and Drug Administration in 2009 banned flavors aside from menthol from flamable cigarettes, and is now contemplating increasing taste bans to vapes and menthol cigarettes.
It’s additionally why dozens of cities, together with San Francisco and San Jose, have enacted bans on flavored tobacco; Los Angeles’ ban is ready to enter impact subsequent yr.
Proposition 31 doesn’t criminalize flavored tobacco, as opponents counsel. It prohibits shops and merchandising machines from promoting flavored vapes, cigarillos and menthol cigarettes and levies fines on retailers who ignore the ban, however use or possession wouldn’t be prohibited. (The gross sales prohibition doesn’t apply to flavored loose-leaf and hookah tobacco and sure cigars.) And tobacco customers decided to proceed their behavior can change to non-flavored tobacco or purchase their merchandise from out of state.
The “no” marketing campaign, on which tobacco corporations have spent greater than $20 million thus far, can’t counter the proof that flavored tobacco harms folks and hooks children, so it has resorted to blowing scorching air in a unique course. The opponents’ predominant argument is that tobacco merchandise are already unlawful for folks below 21 to purchase in California, and this is able to solely deprive customers of authorized age. Sure, that regulation exists, however age limits haven’t stopped teenagers from getting their fingers on tobacco merchandise, particularly flavored merchandise.
The opposite arguments towards Proposition 31 are simply as weak: That the ban could be unhealthy for the state funds as a result of it might scale back income from the tobacco tax, which amounted to about $2 billion final yr, most of which is directed into packages supporting healthcare, tobacco management and early childhood growth. (This argument means that even tobacco corporations notice Proposition 31 would cut back tobacco gross sales, and subsequently use.
The state’s nonpartisan legislative analyst estimates the loss might be between tens of hundreds of thousands and $100 million a yr. However it’s income we’d be blissful to lose if it reduces nicotine habit and the expensive well being issues related to tobacco use. Earlier estimates have indicated this ban may finally save as much as $13 billion in healthcare prices yearly.
Opponents additionally argue that it’d drive some small retailers out of enterprise, although they provide no proof. It’s extra possible their actual concern is the impact a ban in California could have on their very own backside strains. Don’t be fooled by the tobacco business’s smoke display. Vote sure on Proposition 31 to permit a superb regulation to enter impact.
