Skip to main contentSkip to main content
You have permission to edit this article.
Edit
top story editor's pick
Prop. 31

Proposition 31 will let voters decide whether they want to ban flavored tobacco products

  • Updated
  • 0
U.S. Teens' Drinking, Smoking Declines While Vaping & Pot Use Keep Rising

Senate Bill 793 would have prohibited retailers in California from selling flavored tobacco products, popular among teens, with exceptions made for hookah, some cigars and loose-leaf tobacco.

California voters will decide in November whether to uphold or block a law Gov. Gavin Newsom signed in 2020 that banned the sale of certain flavored tobacco products, an effort by anti-tobacco advocates to stop a youth vaping crisis and weaken the industry's influence in the state.

Senate Bill 793 would have prohibited retailers in California from selling flavored tobacco products, popular among teens, with exceptions made for hookah, some cigars and loose-leaf tobacco. The bill passed the Legislature with bipartisan support, despite intense lobbying by the tobacco industry and other interest groups.

After it was signed, opponents gathered enough signatures from Californians to put the issue on the statewide ballot, which delayed the law's implementation until voters could weigh in on the new policy. It will appear on the Nov. 8 ballot as Proposition 31.

A "yes" vote means the law will go into effect, while a "no" vote means it won't.

Proponents of the ballot measure said the new rules would help prevent tobacco use among younger people, who often gravitate toward e-cigarettes that contain what the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention calls "kid-friendly" flavors such as cotton candy, berry and cherry.

The opposition said the ban would incentivize a black market and remove products that smokers use as a way to quit standard cigarette smoking.

Lindsey Freitas, advocacy director for the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, said passing Proposition 31 is critical to stopping the sale of products she describes as the industry's way "to hook a new generation."

"These youth are drawn in by the flavors but hooked by the nicotine," Freitas said.

A CDC youth survey in 2020 found that 20% of high school and 10% of middle school students reported current e-cigarette use.

"This policy is really about protecting our kids from an industry that sees them as dollar signs and nothing more. If not us stepping up and standing in the way, they will spend millions and millions of dollars to go after them," Freitas said.

The "Yes on 31" campaign is supported by Newsom, the California Democratic Party, the California Teachers Assn. and a slew of organizations representing doctors, dentists, nurses and public health professionals. The campaign to pass Proposition 31 has raised more than $6.1 million, according to state campaign finance records.

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and Philip Morris USA are supporting the campaign against Proposition 31, and the California Republican Party endorsed a "no" vote against the initiative. The opposition has raised more than $1.7 million.

These groups argue that the flavored tobacco ban is akin to "prohibition," and that it was would disproportionately affect those who favor menthol-flavored products, particularly people of color.

They've also pointed out Proposition 31's likely reduction of state tobacco tax revenues. The independent Legislative Analyst's Office estimates that loss could range from "tens of millions of dollars to around $100 million annually," depending on if tobacco users stop smoking altogether or simply switch to unflavored products.

Beth Miller, a spokesperson for the "no" campaign, called Proposition 31 a "sweeping ban" on products that are already heavily regulated.

Federal law prohibits the sale of tobacco products to anyone under 21. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has in recent years cracked down on flavored tobacco and e-cigarette products and in April announced a plan to ban the sale of menthol cigarettes. Dozens of California cities have already passed some level of restrictions against the sale of flavored tobacco products.

"What Proposition 31 would do is take this adult choice of what adults want to choose away from them," Miller said. "We believe that prohibition doesn't work."

Miller said the "no" campaign agrees that kids shouldn't have access to these products but that Proposition 31 would make it harder to enforce the law "because there's nobody selling underground cigarettes who is going to stop and ask kids for ID."

The "yes" side has countered those claims by saying some products will still be available on the California market.

"This is not something that is going to ban [all] tobacco products," said Dr. Michael Ong, chair of California's Tobacco Education and Research Oversight Committee and a professor in residence of medicine and health policy and management at UCLA.

"But it's going to ban specific flavors that unfortunately are addicting kids, and also unfortunately are sustaining addiction among particular populations that is unfair, because they've been targeted by the tobacco industry."

This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

0 Comments
* I understand and agree that registration on or use of this site constitutes agreement to its user agreement and privacy policy.

Related to this story

Most Popular

A Northern California woman has been sentenced to 18 months in prison for faking her own kidnapping so she could go back to a former boyfriend, which led to an three-week, multi-state search. Forty-year-old Sherri Papini pleaded guilty last spring under a plea bargain. U.S. District Judge William Shubb said he opted for a longer sentence than prosecutors recommended in order to deter others. Passersby found her with injuries including a blurred “brand” on her right shoulder. All of her injuries were self-inflicted. The married mother of two was actually staying with a former boyfriend in Southern California. He dropped her off about three weeks after she disappeared.

The California Supreme Court is allowing the state to consider protecting threatened bumblebees under a conservation law listing for fish. The San Francisco Chronicle says the court on Wednesday refused to grant a review sought by farming groups of an appellate court ruling that allowed the California Fish and Game Commission to consider granting endangered species protection to four types of bumblebees. They'll be considered under a section of a 1970 conservation law that included the term “invertebrates” under the definition of fish. The high court's decision means the appellate court ruling becomes binding precedent for trial courts statewide.

The trial of a longtime San Francisco Bay Area sheriff on public corruption allegations involving her office’s granting of concealed-carry weapons permits and costly jail mismanagement is set to begin. Jury selection begins Wednesday in the case of Santa Clara County Sheriff Laurie Smith. It's  a civil process to seek removal of an elected official but is similar to a criminal case. The trial follows an investigation into allegations that Smith’s office traded concealed weapons permits for donations to her reelection campaign and mismanaged the jails, where mentally ill inmates died or were injured. Smith denies the allegations. She is not seeking reelection and her term ends in January but if the jury finds any count to be true, she would be removed from office early.

Get up-to-the-minute news sent straight to your device.

Topics

News Alerts

Breaking News