California Church IMPACT
empowering & mobilizing people of faith to be effective advocates in public policy
  • Home Page
  • IMPACT Blog
  • About & Contact
    • Contact Us
  • Key Issues
    • Human RIghts
    • LGBTQ Rights
    • Health Care
    • Economic Justice
  • Take Action
    • Resources
  • DONATE
  • CCC
  • Prop 64 Faith Livestream

Proposition 31: Referendum on 2020 Law That Would Prohibit the Retail Sale of Certain Flavored Tobacco Products

9/7/2022

0 Comments

 
No Recommendation
Picture
Proposition 31: Referendum on 2020 Law That Would Prohibit the Retail Sale of Certain Flavored Tobacco Products

California has a tendency to address some concerns by overregulating personal behavior rather than reforming existing enforcement laws. Proposition 31 is a case in point. It is illegal for people under the age of 21 to purchase tobacco products at all. If there is truly an enticement to youth to want flavored tobacco, it’s still illegal. 

This measure addresses the continued operation of SB 793 passed in 2020 that bans the sale of flavored tobacco products entirely as if that, not improved enforcement of the existing laws, will stop young people from smoking. 

There is not much to say about this one way or the other morally. No one wants kids to smoke. The idea that this measure, already a law, will prevent their nicotine habit from occurring is neither proven nor rebuttable. 

Enforcement of the existing laws on prohibition of sales to underage people seems better, but this law is on the books and prohibits even grown adults from acquiring flavored products. 

A recent study (2018) showed that enforcing ID laws changed both access to cigarettes by minors and changed their views on smoking to a normative non-smoking pattern of belief. (How can a ban on tobacco sales to minors be effective in changing smoking behaviour among youth? — A realist view — ScienceDirect).

Also in 2018, the National Library of Medicine published a study of 675 Southern California independent tobacco retailers. They found only 41% of the stores were fully compliant with the ID laws. 11% had no compliance at all. Another 41% had regulations in-store but were lax in their handling of the demand for ID. Clearly this has an impact on underage access.

It seems clear that flavored or unflavored tobacco has less to do with whether or not young people begin smoking than does effective implementation of the laws requiring ID. 
​
A YES vote means you wish to uphold the existing law. A NO vote means you wish to overturn the ban on flavored tobacco products. CCCI takes no position. To us it is better to enforce existing laws on sales to underage people.

0 Comments



Leave a Reply.

    Author

    The Rev Dr Rick Schlosser

    Archives

    September 2022
    May 2022
    September 2021
    August 2021
    June 2021
    January 2021
    November 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    January 2020
    June 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    October 2015
    August 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    March 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    October 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    January 2014
    September 2013
    February 2013
    October 2012

    Categories

    All
    Civil Rights
    Economic Justice
    Elections
    Environmental Justice
    Faithful Fridays
    Health Care
    Racism
    Reproductive Rights
    Women's Rights

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.
Photo used under Creative Commons from ProComKelly