Tobacco

New Bill Introduced To Ban All Tobacco Products To Those Born After 2007

February 17, 2023 By Evan Symon 8 Comments

AB 935 is modeled on a similar New Zealand law

A bill to ban all tobacco sales to those born after 2007, resulting in the eventual total phase out of tobacco sales in the state in the coming decade, was introduced in the Assembly on Tuesday.

Assembly Bill 935, authored by Assemblyman Damon Connolly (D-San Rafael), would specifically implement a phased tobacco ban by prohibiting a tobacco retailer from selling tobacco products to any person born on or after January 1, 2007. While sales would be legal for anyone born before the cutoff date, the 21-years-old restriction would eventually be replaced by this law. For example, in 2029, only those 22 and older would be able to purchase tobacco, and in 2040, only those 33 years and older. The bill would also provide penalties for violations, including escalating civil fines and the suspension or revocation of the sellers license to sell tobacco products.

Assemblyman Connolly wrote the bill as a measure to improve public health, as well as the health of the next generations in California. Connolly also noted that the bill was similar to laws passed in New Zealand, which set a tobacco ban for all born after 2009, and Norway, which has a proposed ban for anyone born after 2000.

“Preventing the next generation of Californians from becoming addicted to smoking should be a priority for anyone who cares about the public health of our state and the well-being of our children,” said Assemblyman Connolly to the Globe on Wednesday. “AB 935 is a measured solution to address the widespread issue of youth tobacco addiction. The bill selectively prohibits those born after January 1st, 2007 from purchasing tobacco products, similar to recent laws passed in New Zealand and Norway. To be clear—this bill will not affect anyone who is currently of legal age and able to purchase tobacco products and will not punish individuals for simply using or possessing these items. By slowing phasing out the use of these harmful products, we can ensure that the next generation children in California do not get addicted to smoking.”

A tobacco sales ban bill for those born after 2007

While no lawmakers have come out in opposition to the bill, some tobacco companies and retailers have. In statements made on Wednesday, they noted that the bill would restrict the rights of smokers from using legal products and that AB 935 is not based on any scientific evidence.

“We are deeply concerned about AB 935 and any legislation that seeks to restrict the rights of premium cigar smokers,” said Joshua Habursky, deputy executive director of the Premium Cigar Association, on Wednesday. “These proposals are not based on scientific evidence, but rather on a political agenda that seeks to demonize adult cigar smokers and restrict their freedom to enjoy a legal product. Clearly it is no longer a hidden agenda of the anti-tobacco groups to support full prohibition.”

Others have taken a more nuanced view, saying that while it is well known that using tobacco products are bad for peoples health and that it is still considered one of the largest public health crises out there, it is also still a legal product in the country and that use itself isn’t covered under the bill, meaning that older Californians can still buy for those 21 and older or that they can buy out of state.

“AB 935 is careful to only ban the sales and not usage,” explained Richard Groome, a tobacco use researcher, to the Globe on Wednesday. “Even if this is passed, and it’s a longshot, it will be very hard to control. People can still buy out of state, so it might gain this mystique, plus older people can still buy. It might become way more niche as a result, but it also won’t fully go away. Just the easiest option to buy would.”

“For this to pass, it will also have to get past the fact that smoking in California has been declining rapidly since the 1980s. Between 1988 and 2017, smoking amongst adults fell by 57%. Only about 8.8% of Californian adults still smoke, and that number is expected to go down further in the coming years. It’s already declining quickly, so that may add another point of contention here.

Click here to read the full article in the California Globe

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: California Politics, Legislature, Tobacco

Why did Michael Bloomberg Just Throw Nearly $29 Million at an Uncompetitive California Ballot Measure?

October 28, 2022 By Scooty Nickerson 3 Comments

The billionaire pumped big bucks into a campaign against Big Tobacco

Former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg has poured almost $29 million over the last month into the Yes on Proposition 31 campaign, which seeks to beat back Big Tobacco’s challenge to California’s 2020 statewide ban on the sale of flavored tobacco products.

The billionaire philanthropist ponied up the huge sum even as polling indicates that the Yes on Prop. 31 campaign has amassed a staggering lead. A Berkeley IGS poll conducted earlier this month found that the campaign to uphold the ban was ahead by 26 points, with only 12% of voters undecided.

It’s unclear how the money, which will help the campaign pay for a dizzying array of digital ad buys, mailers, and consulting contracts, will have a meaningful impact on the race given the Yes camp’s huge polling lead. Bloomberg’s last-minute spending spree aligns with a fast-approaching deadline for a three-year pledge he made to spend $160 million on banning flavored e-cigarettes by the close of 2022. He’s also spent tens of millions on a battle with Big Soda.

Shaun Bowler, political science professor at UC Riverside, said he was shocked that Bloomberg donated such a huge haul of money with the race looking like a done deal.

“Wow, wow, and wow again! That’s a huge amount of money!” he said. “My one takeaway is that Bloomberg needs someone to tell him how to spend his money better… what are his goals here?”

Bowler says that California ballot races do often tighten as election day nears. And internal campaign polling could indicate that the race is tighter than public polling indicates. But given the number of competitive races across the country this cycle, Bowler says that Bloomberg could have spent the money more effectively.

For Bloomberg, this month’s donations are chump change, totaling around 0.038% of his net worth, which Forbes currently estimates at about $76.8 billion. His donations are the equivalent of a millionaire making a contribution of $375.

For the average U.S. minimum wage worker, it would take nearly 1,913 years of full-time work to earn the amount Bloomberg shelled out to snuff out the tobacco industry’s challenge of California’s ban.

There is plenty of speculation that the tobacco companies who qualified the ballot measure never expected victory at the polls. Just getting Proposition 31 on the ballot triggered a nearly two-year pause on the statewide ban of flavored tobacco sales, allowing them to continue to sell their products in the state.

Supporters of the ban say the delay allowed tobacco companies to make an estimated $830 million in sales, a huge payday for the $20 million investment that campaign finance records show they have sunk into the race.

Bloomberg’s $28.8 million donation is still dwarfed by contributions in some of California’s most expensive ballot measure contests. The two competing sides of the gambling reform measures, Prop. 26 and Prop 27, have raised in the neighborhood of a half-billion dollars. The Prop. 29 campaigns, which would add additional regulations to dialysis clinics, have raised a collective $86.4 million.

When asked about Bloomberg’s recent donations, Yes on Prop. 31 campaign spokesperson Molly Weedn said that the campaign is supported by “a diverse coalition of health care organizations, philanthropists, civil justice groups, and children’s advocates…” Nearly 97% of the campaign’s funding has come solely from Bloomberg.

Beth Miller, spokesperson for the No on Prop. 31 campaign, was quick to spin Bloomberg’s last-minute donations as a sign that the Yes campaign is getting nervous.

Click here to read the full article in the Mercury News

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: California Politics, Tobacco

Bay Area Takes Police-State Approach to Tobacco

November 25, 2017 By Steven Greenhut 2 Comments

The 2014 death of Eric Garner spurred Black Lives Matter protests. In fact, Garner’s final words — “I can’t breathe” — became a rallying cry for the movement designed to combat overly aggressive police behavior. Garner was approached by police for allegedly selling “loosies” — individual cigarettes sold without the proper tax stamps. He died after being held in a chokehold.

The ensuing national debate — if you can call a series of protests, riots and football-game kneeling a debate — has been remarkable given the degree to which both entrenched sides have avoided discussing the main causes of the problem.

Conservatives instinctively defend the police while ignoring the way police unions (which often back Democrats, by the way) protect bad behavior and bad policies in the same way as teachers’ unions make it nearly impossible to fire incompetent and misbehaving “educators.” Progressives would have us believe that such problems are entirely the product of racism.

And progressives are unable to answer the obvious question: What were police doing arresting someone for possibly selling a few loose cigarettes? It’s simple: New York City and other liberal locales are intent on regulating virtually every aspect of human behavior. The more piddling rules they pass, the more those rules invite potentially dangerous police encounters.

Think of that in the context of New York’s leftist Mayor Bill de Blasio, a harsh police critic who recently held a press conference with the city’s police leadership announcing a crackdown on that budding “menace” of people who ride environmentally friendly electric-assisted bicycles. We’ve reached the point where it’s impossible to tell which things the professional uplifters want to subsidize — and which things they want to punish and ban.

This brings us to the nation’s other progressive bastion, the San Francisco Bay Area. One can count on that region’s progressives to protest some of the questionable policing techniques that have been in the news in recent years, but they can’t seem to comprehend the way their own policies contribute to the problem.

For instance, San Francisco, Oakland, Novato, Contra Costa County, and elsewhere have recently approved far-reaching bans on the sale of flavored tobacco products. The definition of tobacco is broad and includes electronic cigarettes, which contain nicotine but not tobacco. They also ban many smokeless tobacco and snus — other products that former smokers use to help break a dangerous habit. But more on that point in a moment.

Throughout most of the Bay Area, then, it will soon be illegal to sell a wide range of otherwise legal and popular products. The main target is menthol cigarettes, which are popular in the African-American community. I attended an Oakland City Council meeting where the ban was debated. Several residents raised that very point — that police might increase their presence in city neighborhoods to combat the sale of now-outlawed cigarettes. Council members dismissed the concern by arguing that it’s only illegal to sell menthol cigarettes, not to possess them.

Well, yes, but consider the process by which people will come into their possession. Menthol cigarette sales are banned in two of the largest area cities and a major county. This means that residents who don’t switch to other, equally dangerous forms of tobacco will have to drive outside of the area to buy them. Many will buy them in bulk and — you got it — sell “loosies” on street corners and cartons out of their car trunks. Police will set up sting operations and … there you go.

Bay Area politicians are inviting problems. Once again, we see that despite its façade of humanitarianism, progressivism is mainly about using the force of government to crack down on the things progressives simply don’t like. And they really don’t like Big Tobacco, so other progressive ideas get tossed aside as well.

The attack on tobacco use is based on some legitimate public-health concerns, of course. You’d be hard-pressed to find any sentient being who doesn’t understand that smoking combustible cigarettes is a sure path to an early grave. But California’s health officials refuse to acknowledge what Great Britain’s main health agency has found — that vaping is 95 percent safer than traditional cigarette smoking. The Brits urge policymakers to encourage vaping.

California officials, and Bay Area zealots in particular, consider vaping just another dangerous form of cigarette smoking. Bay Area “vapers” will find it particularly difficult to buy e-cigarettes and vaping liquids. If it’s too hard to find them — or if they don’t want to head to the streets to buy them illicitly — they might stick with the far-more dangerous smoking habit. That undermines public health. But there’s no reasoning with people on a crusade. Next summer’s referendum of the new San Francisco law will determine if city residents are as unreasonable as their leaders.

It’s pretty ironic, though. Bay Area cities have long been proud — to the point of smugness, actually — about their progressive approach toward “harm reduction” in the area of sexual behavior and drug addiction. Harm reduction calls for practical strategies that reduce the ills of the bad behavior rather than insisting that those engaged in the bad behavior go cold turkey.

It’s why San Francisco has touted “safe sex” rather than abstinence and needle-exchange programs rather than a police-driven drug war to deal with the city’s heroin-addiction problem. From a public-health standpoint, these strategies are quite effective. They are also wise from a taxpayer standpoint, given that it’s such a waste of police resources to focus on social ills rather than serious crime.

But just as Californians have voted to legalize marijuana for recreational uses, some of its biggest cities are determined to send tobacco sales into the black market. Doesn’t this unmask the hypocrisy of the Left? They want to ban, arrest, prosecute, and harass. And they won’t have any idea what happened the next time someone is tragically killed or injured as they peddle black-market menthol cigarettes in a Tenderloin alley.

This article was originally published by the American Spectator

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: Bay Area, Law Enforcement, Police, Tobacco

New Bay Area tobacco bans include non-tobacco products

May 5, 2017 By Steven Greenhut 6 Comments

Restrictive new anti-tobacco ordinances are spreading across the San Francisco Bay Area like a cigarette-sparked wildfire. Northern California cities already have some of the toughest anti-smoking laws in the nation, but a raft of new laws and proposals take aim at “flavored” tobacco products such as menthol cigarettes and fruity mini-cigars.

Health officials argue that these flavored products are particularly appealing to teens, and that their bans are designed to keep young people from picking up an unquestionably dangerous habit. They also argue that the purveyors of menthol cigarettes, for example, target minority communities, and lead to ongoing health problems there.

The ordinances, however, share one trait that has advocates for tobacco “harm reduction” concerned. They make no distinction between combustible tobacco products – i.e., cigarettes, cigarillos, pipe tobacco and cigars – and smokeless products such as e-cigarettes and snus (Swedish-style spit-less tobacco that one places on one’s upper lip).

Tobacco “harm reduction” is a public health strategy designed to reduce the harmful effects of cigarette smoking by encouraging smokers to switch to far-less dangerous – not safe, but less dangerous – types of tobacco-related products. For instance, Public Health England, the United Kingdom’s main public-health agency, argues that vaping is 95 percent safer than cigarette smoking and therefore is a potentially beneficial alternative to smoking.

“About 40 percent of former and current adult smokers predict that removing their ability to choose flavors would make them less likely to remain abstinent or attempt to quit,” wrote Carrie Wade, the R Street Institute’s director of harm-reduction policy, in a recent Washington Examiner column. “While the vast majority of quit attempts are of the ‘cold turkey’ variety, e-cigarettes beat out both nicotine replacement therapies like the patch or nicotine gum and prescribed drugs like Chantix and Zyban.”

Vape liquids are not actually tobacco but mostly contain nicotine. They almost always are flavored. Many adult e-cigarette users prefer vaping with flavored liquids than vaping with those that have a tobacco flavor. These local bans on flavors, by the way, follow a recent statewide law that taxes vaping liquids at the same rate as cigarettes. The California Board of Equalization is currently working out the details of that taxation edict.

Wade described the essence of tobacco harm-reduction policy: make it easier for smokers to switch to smoking alternatives that cause fewer health-related problems. It might be ideal, health-wise if every smoker simply went “cold turkey,” but that’s not likely to happen, so harm-reduction advocates see vaping as a reasonable alternative. They see efforts to limit access to liquids and to boost taxes on them as policies that work against this harm-reduction approach.

Even California’s official Tobacco Education and Research Oversight Committee explained, in a public meeting earlier this year, that insufficient numbers of smokers participate in medically approved nicotine-replacement therapies. The committee, however, made no effort to distinguish between degrees of harm, and one member depicted vaping as just another form of smoking. In Bay Area cities and elsewhere, public-health officials argue that vaping is still dangerous – and they argue (despite contrary evidence) that it serves as a gateway for teens to actual smoking.

As a result of the new rules, it will become increasingly difficult for nicotine-addicted northern Californians to purchase and use vaping products. That’s particularly true as neighboring counties and cities embrace similar bans. Supporters of these bans admit that it is one of their goals to have such ordinances spread from one community to another, thus making it more difficult for people to simply go to a neighboring city to grab some vape juice.

Some proposals have become law, such as one in the Marin County city of Novato. Others are under consideration. The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors is now considering a ban after one of its committees recently approved a new proposal. Likewise, officials in San Francisco and Oakland have also introduced flavor bans.

San Francisco Supervisor Malia Cohen’s public statements focus on the sale of mentholated tobacco products. She explains that 80 percent of African-American smokers use menthol products. Nevertheless, her proposal includes all flavored tobacco, which includes vaping liquids. Oakland Councilmember Annie Campbell Washington, who led a 2016 campaign to increase soda taxes in the city, has introduced a similar measure that includes vapor products in the flavoring ban.

Novato’s ordinance, which goes into effect January 2018, requires that all residential leases in the city include a clause calling it a “material breach of the agreement for tenant or any other person subject to the control of the tenant … to violate any law regulating smoking while anywhere on the property.” In other words, tenants can be evicted from their apartments not only if caught smoking – but if they or their guests are caught vaping.

The Contra Costa County health department justifies its proposal by stating that e-cigarettes contain nicotine, which is addictive, and includes various chemicals known to cause cancer and lung problems. But harm-reduction advocates don’t claim that vaping is totally safe, only that it is far safer than cigarette smoking.

Given the political bent of Bay Area cities and counties, it seems likely that most if not all of these proposals will eventually become law. The question remains whether in their zeal to improve the public’s health, these officials are embracing policies that will make actual smoking-related health improvements that much harder to attain.

Steven Greenhut is Western region director for the R Street Institute. Write to him at sgreenhut@rstreet.org.

This piece was originally published by CalWatchdog.com

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: Bay Area, E-Cigarettes, san francisco, Tobacco, Vape, Vaping

Beware of Props. 51, 55, and 56 Wreaking Havoc on CA Budget

August 8, 2016 By David Kersten 4 Comments

As a professor of public budgeting and someone who has worked their entire career analyzing public budgets, I can say that ballot box budgeting wreaks havoc on the California budget process and taxpayer interests.

Yet it is something that voters are so accustomed to doing that most average voters don’t even know what “ballot box budgeting” is.

In short, ballot box budgeting is the practice of making major budget decisions at the ballot box. And unlike the normal budget process, these decisions are commonly written into the California Constitution, and not subject to change in any way short of another ballot measure.

The result is that funds are locked in to being spent for a particular purpose regardless of other budget needs and priorities, and commonly lack the same accountability and oversight that the rest of the California budget is subject to through the legislative process.

There are three measures on the November 2016 ballot that represent ballot box budgeting at its worst, and should be rejected — Proposition 51 School Bonds, Proposition 55 School Funding and Proposition 56 Tobacco Tax Increase. There is one other measure, Proposition 64 Marijuana Legalization and Tax, which represents ballot box budgeting, but is less egregious and is worthy of consideration on its policy merits given that marijuana is not currently legal and therefore not taxed at all but should be considered on policy grounds.

The reality is that nearly all initiatives have some type of budget impact, but initiatives that allocate a significant dollar amount of public funds should generally be looked at with great skepticism, particularly those that raise taxes or reallocate existing public funds in some way.

Another common element in ballot box budgeting is a “pay to play” element, characterized by a situation where special interests sponsor a ballot measure that allocates public funds that benefit their private financial interest. All four initiatives mentioned above have a significant “pay to play” element, that should be considered as well, and viewed with great skepticism.

In generally all such cases, initiatives are sold as being crafted in the “common good” or for the “public interest” but the real motivation is to benefit the private interests that raised the money to quality the measure and run a support campaign.

For example, Prop. 51 authorizes $9 billion in general obligation bonds for construction of K-12 public schools. The construction of school facilities is done through a process at the local level, with state bond funds providing a state match, but this local process has come under great fire in the media recently, largely due to California Treasurer John Chiang’s efforts.

Treasurer Chiang has stopped short of criticizing Prop. 51 specifically but he has came down hard on the local municipal bond process as being a “pay to play” process that “rips-off taxpayers,” according to Treasurer Chiang’s press release.

Chiang says this “pay to play” process rewards special interests including developers, bondholders, and construction companies who offer to fund local bond campaigns in exchange for lucrative contracts, which are “no bid” contracts in many cases.

“Not only are these “pay-to-play” arrangements unlawful, they rip off taxpayers and endanger the integrity of school bonds,” Treasurer John Chiang declared, noting that between 2012-15 K-12 school districts issued $43.8 billion in long-term debt.

Without cleaning up this “corrupt” process, Prop. 51 essentially puts $9 billion in public funds at risk for misallocation by school districts and public agencies. And will subject taxpayers to huge future costs, for spending with questionable public benefits given the process through which these bonds are issued under the current system.

Of course, the same special interests who benefit from this “pay to play” process are the primary proponents of Prop. 51, and are putting up millions of dollars to lock in these lucrative contracts for public bond spending. A number of local districts are also proposing local bonds on the November 2016 ballot to provide a local match for these highly questionable public projects.

Prop. 55 is the example of another measure which might appear legitimate on its face because it raises money for “schools” and “health programs.” But should also be rejected on ground of being a terrible case of “ballot box budgeting” and “pay to play” corruption of the state’s initiative process.

Prop. 55 extends the Prop. 30 (2012) income tax increases taxes on individuals and small businesses, which expire at the end of 2017, for another 12 years until 2030. The effort is being sold as being a legitimate effort to fund schools and health care because Prop. 30 is something that the Governor, Legislature and business community agreed on back in 2012.

But Prop. 55 is not the same as the deal cut back in 2012, and should be rejected. First, Prop. 55 is much more expensive, nearly twice as expensive as Prop. 30—and represents an $8-11 billion tax increase, as opposed to a $6.5 billion annual hit from Prop. 30. Secondly, the measure is not “temporary,” and results in a broken promise Governor and Legislature made to voters in 2012—that’s why Governor Brown says he will not endorse Prop. 55.

Lastly, Prop. 55 adds a significant “pay to play” element as well by giving private hospital interests a piece of the action. Specifically, Prop. 55 locks in another $2 billion in funding for “health programs,” which did not even exist in Prop. 30, and is a pure handout to the hospital interests which have already contributed more than $21 million to the Yes on Prop. 55 Campaign.

Public employee union interests get the bulk of the funds, estimated at $75 billion over 12 years, in salary and benefit spending primarily but the public generally does not view them as being the same type of “special interest” as purely private interests. Yet, these public employee union interests have put up another $18 million thus far to support Prop. 55, and stand to reap huge rewards for their members and dues increases if Prop. 55 passes.

From a ballot box budgeting perspective, both Prop. 55 and the Prop. 56 $2 per pack tobacco tax increase are terrible budget policy because they lock in significant expenditure of public funds that will be allocated outside of the state’s annual budget process without regard to actual need or other pressing spending priorities.

Prop. 55 locks in $8-11 billion in spending with the bulk going for education, but another $2 billion going to “health care” programs—again not allocated according to need or the accountability standards under the state’s annual budget process which subjects all public spending to annual review. Prop. 56 locks in another $1-1.4 billion in health care spending that will be allocated outside the state’s budget process.

Voters are encouraged to reject Propositions 51, 55, and 56 on grounds that they are terrible examples of “ballot box budgeting,” in which special interests put up millions of dollars, even tens of millions of dollars, to try to pass “public interest” measures with the expectation of a big payday at taxpayer expense for the years to come.

David Kersten is executive director of the Kersten Institute for Governance and Public Policy (www.kersteninsitute.org). He is an expert on fiscal issues and teaches a masters’ course on public budgeting for the University of San Francisco.

This piece was originally published by Fox and Hounds Daily

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: budget, education, Election 2016, Schools bonds, Tobacco, Tobacco Tax

Tobacco Tax – Conflicting Goals of Prop. 56

August 7, 2016 By Joel Fox 3 Comments

What is the tobacco tax increase for? Is the tax proposed in Proposition 56 to reduce smoking or to gain revenue? It seems the proponents’ goal is to be all things — a deterrent to smoking by raising the cost, plus raising revenue mostly for health care. Can they really have it both ways?

Raising the cost of a product means you will get less of it. The idea behind raising the cost of cigarettes and other tobacco products is to diminish and even eliminate their use. Previous tobacco tax increases have been accompanied by reduced use.

In a new study by the Proposition 56 campaign aimed at convincing the business community of the measure’s positive economic impacts, additional costs for a single smoking employee in health care costs and reduced productivity is calculated to be more than $5,000 per year.

The study also notes that, “From an employer ’s perspective, money spent on Medi-Cal is a good investment.”

About a billion dollars raised by the new tax would be dedicated to Medi-Cal. The idea is for an on-going financial commitment to the Medi-Cal program that has seen a dramatically increased population in recent years–and not just because of smokers. California has one the smallest percentage of smokers of any state.

The study briefly remarks on the loss of business for retailers who carry tobacco products asserting that the net benefit of eliminating “all” smokers would outweigh the costs involved from lost revenue of private sector retailers and lost government revenue. In this context, can we call eliminating all smokers a pipe dream?

If cessation of smoking is the prime goal, with all the economic benefits that the study says comes with the end of smoking, why not raise the tax instead of $2 a pack to $20 or more. That should discourage smokers.

But then all the revenue will disappear as well.

How important is the revenue goal of Proposition 56? If revenue diminishes with the decrease in smoking won’t those who benefit from the government dollars look for a replacement? In fact, Proposition 56 calls on the state Controller to transfer some of the new money to programs already benefiting from previous tobacco tax increases to make up the expected revenue loss if this measure passes. It stands to reason that those benefiting from the revenue haul from an increased tax will not want it to disappear.

There’s an example of such logic on the same ballot. California voters will decide on Proposition 55 to continue what was supposed to be a temporary tax.

Hospitals and health care union members are taking a two-prong approach to fund Medi-Cal. Go after dollars from the rich with Proposition 55’s extension of the income tax, and capture money from the poor who tend to make up the bulk of smokers with Proposition 56’s tobacco tax increase.

So, what is the intention of Proposition 56 — is it designed to discourage and ultimately stop smoking, or is it to raise revenue?

This piece was originally published by Fox and Hounds Daily

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: cigarettes, Health care, Medi-Cal, Prop. 56, Tobacco

Legalizing Marijuana … While Cracking Down on Tobacco

May 8, 2016 By David Kersten 6 Comments

Governor Jerry Brown just signed a package of tobacco regulatory bills sent to him by the California Legislature which is being billed as a “major victory for public health.”

Among the bills signed yesterday, was an increase in the age at which one can consume tobacco products from 18 to 21 and banning the use e-cigarette vaporizers in public places.

What is the point? In case the Legislature has not gotten the memo, the state is poised to legalize the recreational use of marijuana in California on the November 2016 ballot. So we’re legalizing marijuana but cracking down on tobacco – doesn’t that strike anyone around the Capitol as being a bit odd.

Based on polling, we know the public’s favorability of legalizing marijuana has dramatically increased over the last several decades. But is there is there any evidence that the California public is now all of a sudden demanding tougher tobacco regulation? I don’t think so.

As for controlling the use of tobacco by minors, the California Legislature is about 30 years too late. This type of legislation may have mattered in 1988 when California voters passed the first of its kind Prop. 99 which increased taxes on tobacco to fund public health programs. At that time, the Legislature was completely captured by the tobacco industry, and it has taken about 40 years to wean state lawmakers off campaign contributions from “big tobacco.”

Prop. 99 was found to have significantly reduced tobacco use and fatalities in California. At this time, public health advocates were calling for the California Legislature to send a message to the tobacco industry to quit targeting are kids and do something about the tobacco epidemic.

But 30 years later, this type of restriction is basically meaningless, and done more for appearances than any actual public policy benefit.

In the meantime, the Legislature has collected large amounts of tobacco campaign contributions, most of it funneled through the California Democratic Party, for a very long time. And now that those campaign contributions are starting to dry up, they decide it is now time to “get tough on tobacco.”

This is another example of the California Legislature trying to create a major legislative victory out of nothing, so it looks like they are doing a good job on policy issues such as “protecting public health,” and “standing up to big tobacco” in the run up to the 2016 election.

The reality is that raising the smoking age will not do much if anything to curb tobacco use. Research shows that most kids start smoking before age 18, and that restricting use to age 18 is not effective at preventing use to begin with.

According to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, more than 80 percent of all adult smokers begin smoking before the age of 18; and more than 90 percent do so before leaving their teens.

So what’s the Legislature’s solution, increase the smoking age to 21, even longer after teens have already started smoking. Moreover, making it illegal to smoke could even enhance its appeal to teens, and serve to be counter productive.

As for banning the e-vaporizers in public. These are intended to help people stop smoking by providing a smoke-less alternative. The smoking cessation industry has already criticized the banning of these instruments as being counterproductive to reducing tobacco use.

In California, individuals are considered to be “adults” at age 18, so why shouldn’t they be able to make their own decisions at that age regarding tobacco use. Does the California Legislature really need to tell legal adults everything that they should and should not be doing?

The last thing California needs is the California Legislature trying to act as the “responsible adult” on every marginal issue. Adding insult to injury, is California lawmakers “declaring victory” against an industry that has been one of their core supporters for the last 40 plus years.

David Kersten is president of the Kersten Institute for Governance and Public Policy

This piece was originally published by Fox and Hounds Daily

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: cigarettes, Marijuana, Smoking, Tobacco

New Bill Introduced To Ban All Tobacco Products To Those Born After 2007

A tobacco sales ban bill for those born after 2007

Why did Michael Bloomberg Just Throw Nearly $29 Million at an Uncompetitive California Ballot Measure?

Bay Area Takes Police-State Approach to Tobacco

New Bay Area tobacco bans include non-tobacco products

Beware of Props. 51, 55, and 56 Wreaking Havoc on CA Budget

Tobacco Tax – Conflicting Goals of Prop. 56

Legalizing Marijuana … While Cracking Down on Tobacco

Recent Posts

Connect With CPR On Twitter