In 2020, the California Legislature accepted a ban on gross sales of most flavored tobacco merchandise, together with menthol cigarettes. However the legislation has been on maintain ever since as a result of tobacco pursuits instantly spent tens of millions of dollars qualifying a poll referendum to overturn it, permitting the trade 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 legislation to take impact by voting sure on Proposition 31 on the Nov. 8 poll. They usually completely ought to.
The legislation that may 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 might lure in new and infrequently younger customers and get them hooked. Research have proven 12 months after 12 months 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 12 months.
Proposition 31 doesn’t criminalize flavored tobacco, as opponents recommend. 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 swap 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 youngsters, so it has resorted to blowing scorching air in a unique course. The opponents’ fundamental 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 legislation exists, however age limits haven’t stopped teenagers from getting their palms on tobacco merchandise, particularly flavored merchandise.
The opposite arguments towards Proposition 31 are simply as weak: That the ban can be dangerous for the state finances as a result of it could scale back income from the tobacco tax, which amounted to about $2 billion final 12 months, most of which is directed into applications supporting healthcare, tobacco management and early childhood growth. (This argument means that even tobacco corporations notice Proposition 31 would scale back tobacco gross sales, and subsequently use.
The state’s nonpartisan legislative analyst estimates the loss might be between tens of tens of millions and $100 million a 12 months. But it surely’s income we’d be comfortable to lose if it reduces nicotine habit and the expensive well being issues related to tobacco use. Earlier estimates have indicated this ban might ultimately save as much as $13 billion in healthcare prices yearly.
Opponents additionally argue that it would drive some small retailers out of enterprise, although they provide no proof. It’s extra probably their actual concern is the impact a ban in California may have on their very own backside traces. Don’t be fooled by the tobacco trade’s smoke display screen. Vote sure on Proposition 31 to permit an excellent legislation to enter impact.
Post a Comment