Tag: California

Less Smoking Affects Childhood Services

Image: Seventyfour
The decline in California smoking rates is affecting the state’s early childhood services, reports the San Francisco Chronicle.
First 5 California, the state’s early childhood services, are mostly funded by cigarette and other tobacco product taxes. In 1998, voters passed Proposition 10, which levied a tobacco tax and dedicated the money to programs that would help families with young children. It was not meant to be a permanent solution for funding, however. First 5 programs around the state are trimming budgets and cutting back programs now that the funding is decreasing.
Last year, Californians passed Proposition 31, which banned the sale of flavored tobacco products.
“We all expect revenues to go down, the question is what will be the magnitude,” said Michael Ong, chair of the state’s Tobacco Education and Research Oversight Committee.
First 5 cuts differ among counties—some counties rely more heavily on tobacco tax funds than others, and each county has made cuts in ways they see fit, for example, cutting programs supporting foster children and dental health and support for family shelters.
The group funds a broad number of programs in partnership with nonprofits, local hospitals, clinics and county health and education offices. Some of the programs they fund include children’s mobile immunization clinics, dental services, developmental screenings, family case management, parenting classes and home visits from a nurse for first-time mothers. Programs vary by county.
First 5 expects to receive about 30 percent less funding from tobacco taxes by 2026 compared to 2021. Projections for this year’s budget had First 5 receiving about $348 million from tobacco taxes. After the flavor ban was passed, the new budget had the organization receiving about $310 million, and by 2026, projections show a decrease to $280 million.
From 1999 to 2000, the organization received $690 million from tobacco taxes.
Statewide, tobacco taxes account for 73 percent of First 5’s annual budget, but this varies by county—First 5 distributes funds based on an equation that takes into account birth rate.
Ong stated that ideally, the group would source funding from elsewhere. “But that’s a pretty tall order for county governments,” he said.
July 20, 2023
VLN Launched in California

Image: Tobacco Reporter archive
22nd Century Group launched VLN King cigarettes in the California market. Starting July 17, VLN cigarettes will be available in California at more than 275 sites of the No. 1 convenience store in the U.S. in addition to numerous other convenience stores across California.
“We see our VLN product offering Californians who smoke a tremendous new option because VLN cigarettes are specifically designed to help smokers smoke less, increase their number of smoke-free days and reduce their nicotine exposure and dependence,” said John Miller, 22nd Century Group president of the tobacco division, in a statement. “Our goal with VLN is to meet California consumers where they are with a combustible product that helps people smoke less.”
July 17, 2023
California Officials Sued Over ‘Flavored’ Smokes

Photo: RAI
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (RJRT) has filed a lawsuit against California state officials, including Attorney General Robert Bonta, in response to the Attorney General’s issuance of several Notices of Determination that allege certain Camel and Newport cigarettes styles are “presumptively” flavored based on their promotional materials. The lawsuit, filed in California state court, seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, including that the notices be rescinded.
In a press note, RJRT said it stands by its new products and believes that they comply with California state law and therefore can continue to be sold. Before introducing the products for sale, RJRT followed all applicable pre-market regulatory requirements.
According to RJRT, the new Camel and Newport styles do not impart a distinguishable taste or aroma other than tobacco and are marketed to clearly indicate that they are non-menthol. The California Attorney General’s Notices do not acknowledge the fact that RJRT’s new product introductions are prominently labeled and marketed as non-menthol.
“Reynolds has repeatedly called on enforcement officials in California to take action to combat the flood of illegal, unregulated, disposable vapes in kid-friendly flavors like Watermelon Bubble Gum and Rainbow Candy that are being shipped into the state’s ports from unknown origins,” RJRT wrote. Prioritizing enforcement of these illicit vapor products, rather than focusing on compliant products, would better serve Californians.”
May 12, 2023
“Compliant” Cigarettes Violate Flavor Ban, Says California AG

Photo: Borgwaldt Flavor
California Attorney General Rob Bonta has warned R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and ITG Brands that their menthol-like flavored cigarettes violate the state’s new law prohibiting sales of flavored tobacco products, including menthol cigarettes.
“The Tobacco Unit of the California Department of Justice has reviewed referred packaging and promotional materials for several of your company’s products—Camel Crush Oasis Silver, Camel Crush Oasis Blue, and Camel Crush Oasis Green and determined that each of these reviewed products is presumptively flavored under the California flavor ban law,” Bonta wrote in letters to Reynolds.
Following the enactment of California’s flavor ban, Reynolds and ITG Brands introduced cigarettes with a cooling flavor similar to that provided by menthol cigarettes. The products have been marketed with slogans such as “tropical oasis,” “new fresh taste” and “a taste that satisfies the senses.”
According to RJR, its new products don’t violate California law because they don’t have a distinguishable taste or aroma other than tobacco. California law defines a flavored tobacco product as any product that has a “distinguishable taste or aroma, or both, other than the taste or aroma of tobacco, imparted by a tobacco product or any byproduct produced by the tobacco product.”
The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids applauded Bonta’s actions. “Policymakers at every level must stand up to the tobacco industry by adopting and fully enforcing measures to end the sale of all flavored tobacco products, including menthol cigarettes,” wrote CTFK President Matthew L. Myers in a statement.
State legislators approved California’s law prohibiting flavored tobacco sales in 2020 and the ban was upheld by 63 percent of the state’s voters in 2022.

May 9, 2023
‘Mimic Menthols’ Soar Following Flavor Ban
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.’s (RJR) “California compliant” cigarettes, which contain an artificial, flavorless cooling chemical, have proven a big hit among smokers in the wake of the state’s ban on menthol cigarettes and other flavored tobacco products, according to an article in Politico.
By March, sales of the new cigarettes were on track to replace nearly half of the menthol sales compared to last year, according to an expert cited by Politico who tracks cigarette sales trends.
RJR sold 2.8 million packs of Camel-branded menthol cigarettes and 2 million packs of Newport-branded menthol cigarettes in California in March 2022, according to Alex Liber, an assistant professor in the department of oncology at Georgetown University’s School of Medicine who studies tobacco sale trends.
This year, the company sold 1.4 million “California compliant” Camel branded cigarette packs and about 800,000 “California compliant” packs of its Newport brand.
According to RJR, the new products don’t violate California law because they don’t have a distinguishable taste or aroma other than tobacco. California law defines a flavored tobacco product as any product that has a “distinguishable taste or aroma, or both, other than the taste or aroma of tobacco, imparted by a tobacco product or any byproduct produced by the tobacco product.”
Some of RJR’s new products, like the Camel Crisp, contain a lab-made chemical called ethyl menthane carboxamide, or WS3. That chemical has less of the minty odor than menthol, but it provides the same cooling, soothing sensation as conventional menthol cigarettes.
Other new “California-compliant” cigarette products don’t list WS3 as an ingredient. The company considers many of its ingredients to be propriety and is required to list them only under a general description of “natural and artificial flavors.”
The success of RJR’s “mimic menthols” comes as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration prepares to ban menthol cigarettes nationwide this year.
Menthol cigarettes make up nearly 40 percent of U.S. cigarette sales and are particularly popular in minority communities, with an estimated 90 percent of Black smokers using menthol products.
The California Department of Public Health said it is aware of the new products, but doesn’t have the power to enforce the ban.

Photo: New Africa
April 20, 2023
California Shelves Endgame Bill

Photo: Kit Leong
California lawmakers have quietly shelved a proposal to ban people born after Jan. 1, 2007, from buying tobacco products, reports Jefferson Public Radio.
In February, assembly member Damon Connolly introduced a bill that would make it illegal for anyone in California who is presently 16 years old or younger to ever buy a tobacco product in that state. Vendors caught selling would risk fines of up to $6,000 and a loss of their tobacco license. The minimum age to buy tobacco products in California is presently 21, as it has been in every U.S. state since the law was changed in 2019. The proposed legislation is similar to laws passed in New Zealand and considered elsewhere, including Hong Kong and Malaysia.
Connolly’s bill struggled to attract backing, however. By mid-April, only 10 organizations, including the California chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, had sent letters of support to the Assembly Health Committee, where it was first set to be considered, according to an analysis prepared by the committee.
The committee reportedly suggested that phasing out tobacco sales in California was less urgent because adult and youth smoking rates are only slightly higher than half the national average. “The legislature may want to consider whether it would be more effective to focus on enforcing the flavored tobacco ban rather than engaging on a new front and attempting to prevent a product that is legal in 49 other states, as well as on sovereign tribal lands, from entering the state,” the committee wrote.
At the Assembly Health Committee hearing on April 11, Connolly accepted amendments from the committee that changed the focus of his bill. It will now authorize the California Department of Public Health and the state attorney general’s office to enforce the recently enacted flavored tobacco ban, in addition to local agencies.
April 17, 2023
Court Rejects Challenge to California’s Flavor Ban

Photo: mehaniq41
A U.S. federal judge has thrown out a tobacco industry lawsuit against California’s statewide ban on the sale of flavored tobacco products, reports Law360.
On March 15, Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo rejected the plaintiffs’ claim that the measure would unfairly discriminate against out-of-state businesses. Bencivengo argued that the contested law applies to sales only; manufacturers are still permitted to manufacture flavored tobacco products in California. Most manufacturers of flavored tobacco products are located outside California.
R.J. Reynolds and other tobacco companies sued California after voters approved the ban in a November referendum, claiming the law violates the federal Tobacco Control Act (TCA) as well as the U.S. Constitution’s commerce clause.
The law was originally passed by the state legislature but didn’t take effect after industry opponents gathered enough signatures to put the issue on the November ballot.
In rejecting the TCA claim, Bencivengo cited a 9th Circuit ruling in March 2022 that upheld a Los Angeles County ban on flavored tobacco products. The tobacco industry lawsuit also doesn’t meet the standards for arguing a state law discriminates against or unduly burdens interstate commerce, she argued.
The court also rejected the tobacco companies’ claim that out-of-state manufacturers of flavored tobacco products would be forced to change their operations to the tune of “tens of billions of dollars” to comply with the law’s new standards for tobacco products, an undue burden on interstate commerce.
California’s flavor ban doesn’t set new standards for the manufacture or marketing of tobacco products that depart from federal regulations, Bencivengo said. And financial losses for the tobacco industry alone are “not excessive enough for the court to find that the ban substantially burdens interstate commerce,” she added, citing the law’s aims to protect public health.
The TCA also gives states the authority to “opt out of the market for flavored tobacco products,” Bencivengo said in the ruling, which does not allow the tobacco companies to file an amended complaint.
March 16, 2023
California’s Flavored Tobacco Ban Begins

Image: Tobacco Reporter archive
California’s controversial ban on flavored tobacco begins today, reports ABC10. A week ago, the U.S. Supreme Court blocked R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company’s contention that the new state law conflicted with federal law.
Flavored tobacco products, such as e-cigarettes, menthol cigarettes, flavored cigars and more, can no longer be sold in stores.
“If they wanted to ban flavored tobacco or regulate it, I feel they should have selected certain stores to be authorized to retail it. It’s saved so many lives, helped so many people get off cigarettes,” said Carlo Sharmoug, owner of Ziggy’s Smoke Shop in Stockton.
Sharmoug says in his 14 years in business, his store has never once sold tobacco to a minor.
Lindsey Freitas, an advocacy director representing California and Hawaii for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, says California’s tobacco rates among teens at one point began to decline until e-cigarettes appeared.
“They started being sold in flavors like grape and cherry and gummy bear. And all of a sudden, we saw our youth tobacco rates increasing again,” said Freitas.
Smoke shops like Ziggy’s say California will lose out on millions in tax revenue and believes product will be sold on the black market. However, Freitas disagrees, saying the savings in medical treatment in California alone will be huge.
December 21, 2022
Top Court Clears Way for California Flavor Ban

Photo: Oleksii
The U.S. Supreme Court on Dec. 12 refused to block California’s ban on flavored tobacco, clearing the way for the law to take effect next week, reports The New York Times. Consistent with its practice when ruling on emergency applications, the court gave no reason for its decision.
Originally passed by lawmakers in 2020, California’s flavor ban was put on hold after opponents gathered enough signatures to force a referendum on the measure.
After Californians voted to uphold the law on Nov. 8, tobacco companies challenged it in court, arguing that only the federal government can ban tobacco flavors, as the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act gives the U.S. Food and Drug Administration authority to regulate tobacco.
State officials responded that the federal law was meant to preserve the longstanding power of state and local authorities to regulate tobacco products and to ban their sale.
The tobacco companies also argued that they would suffer “irreparable harm” from being shut out of one of the country’s largest markets. Small retailers, they argued, would potentially have to lay off employees and close. The plaintiffs further noted that menthol cigarettes make up about a third of the cigarette market and are disproportionally smoked by people of color, suggesting that that group would suffer disproportionally from a flavor ban.
In their Supreme Court brief, state officials urged the justices not to delay the law any longer. “The unsuccessful referendum campaign has already delayed the implementation” of the law for nearly two years, they wrote, “allowing children and teenagers across the state to be initiated into the deadly habit of tobacco use via flavored tobacco products throughout that period.”
Previously, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals denied the tobacco companies’ request to block the law pending appeal.
Industry critics welcomed the Supreme Court ruling. “The tobacco companies’ battle against the California law shows once again that they haven’t changed and are lying when they claim to care about anything other than their bottom line,” said Matthew L. Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, in a statement.
The California flavor ban applies to flavored e-cigarettes, menthol cigarettes and flavored cigars but exempts loose-leaf tobacco, premium cigars and shisha tobacco.
The state joins Massachusetts and the District of Columbia in ending the sale of flavored tobacco products, including flavored e-cigarettes, menthol cigarettes and flavored cigars. Three other states—New Jersey, New York and Rhode Island—prohibit the sale of flavored e-cigarettes. With local laws included, 25 percent of the U.S. population will now be covered by laws ending the sale of flavored e-cigarettes.
December 13, 2022
Supreme Court Asked to Stop California Ban

Photo: kuosumo
Tobacco companies have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to stop California from enforcing a ban on flavored tobacco products set to go into effect on Dec. 21, reports CBS News Bay Area.
On Nov. 8, Californians voted to uphold a state law ending the sale of most flavored tobacco products, including flavored e-cigarettes, menthol cigarettes and flavored cigars.
Originally passed by lawmakers in 2020, the measure was put on hold after opponents gathered enough signatures to force a referendum on the ban.
Following the Nov. 8 ballot, tobacco companies challenged the law in court, arguing that only the federal government can ban tobacco flavors, as the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act gives the U.S. Food and Drug Administration authority to regulate tobacco.
The Supreme Court filing states that the companies would suffer “irreparable harm” from being shut out of one of the country’s largest markets. Small retailers, they argued, would potentially have to lay off employees and close.
Previously the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the tobacco companies’ request to block the law pending appeal.
November 30, 2022