California Voters to Decide on Ban of Flavored Tobacco Products

California voters will decide in November whether to support the law signed in 2020 by Governor Gavin Newsom that prohibits the sale of certain flavored tobacco products. This decision was made by anti-tobacco advocates to prevent the youth vaping crisis and weaken the industry's influence in the United States.

The 793 Senate bill will prohibit retailers in California from selling flavored tobacco products that appeal to minors, with the exception of hookah, some cigars, and loose-leaf tobacco. Despite intense lobbying efforts from the tobacco and other interest groups, the bill passed the legislative body with bipartisan support.

Opponents of the bill collected enough signatures from Californians to bring the issue to a statewide vote, delaying the implementation of the law until voters can weigh in on the new policy. It will appear as Proposition 31 on the ballot on November 8th.

Supporters of the voting measure claim that the new regulations will help prevent young people from using tobacco products, as they are often drawn to electronic cigarettes with flavors marketed as "child-friendly" such as cotton candy, berries and cherries, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The opposition argues that the ban will fuel the black market.

Lindsey Freitas, the director of Smoke-Free Kids, stated that "these young people are attracted to flavors, but are captivated by nicotine.

According to a youth survey conducted by the CDC in 2020, 20% of high school students and 10% of middle school students reported current e-cigarette use. "This policy is really about protecting our kids from an industry that views them as dollar signs, plain and simple," said Frattas.

The "Yes on 31" campaign has received support from California Democrats, including Governor Newsom, as well as the California Teachers Association and various organizations representing healthcare professionals including doctors, dentists, nurses, and public health workers. Financial records show that the campaign has raised over $6.1 million to promote the passage of Proposition 31.

RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co. and Philip Morris USA are backing a movement against Proposition 31, with the California Republican Party supporting a vote against the initiative. The opposition has raised over $1.7 million.

According to a report by the FDA, mint-flavored cigarettes appear to be more addictive than unflavored tobacco and pose a greater threat to health.

The tobacco industry in California has submitted signatures during a public vote to block the ban on the sale of flavored tobacco products. They argue that the ban on flavored tobacco is akin to a "prohibition," disproportionately affecting those who enjoy mint-flavored products.

They also noted that Proposal 31 could reduce state tobacco tax revenue. The independent Legislative Analyst's Office estimated that the loss could range from "tens of millions of dollars per year to about $100 million," depending on whether tobacco users quit completely or just switch to flavorless products.

Beth Miller, spokesperson for the "No" campaign, stated that Proposal 31 represents a "complete ban" on products that are already subject to strict regulations.

It is against federal law to sell tobacco products to anyone under the age of 21. In recent years, the US Food and Drug Administration has cracked down on flavored tobacco and e-cigarette products, and in April announced a plan to ban the sale of menthol cigarettes. Dozens of cities in California have already passed some form of restriction on the sale of flavored tobacco products.

Miller stated, "What Proposition 31 does is allow adults to choose what they want to choose from as adults." "We believe that prohibition is not the solution.

Statement:

This article is compiled from third-party information and is only intended for industry exchange and learning purposes.

This article does not represent the viewpoint of 2FIRSTS and 2FIRSTS cannot confirm the truthfulness and accuracy of the article's content. The translation of this article is only intended for communication and research within the industry.

Due to limitations in translation ability, the translation of this article may not fully express the same meaning as the original. Please refer to the original article for accuracy.

2FIRSTS holds the same position as the Chinese government on any domestic, Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan, and foreign issues.

Copyright of compiled information belongs to the original media and authors. If there is any infringement, please contact us for deletion.