The Bill That Would Have Permanently Banned Tobacco Sales In California Was Put On Hold
A legislative bill that would have effectively put an end to the sale of tobacco in the Golden State has been stalled. Last week in the California State Legislature, forever ban tobacco sales—including handmade cigars—from people born after January 1, 2007, was put on hold. The bill was amended by the State’s Assembly Health Committee to re-shift its focus entirely on the enforcement of California’s recently introduced flavored tobacco ban. It’s a temporary victory for smokers, but cigar fans shouldn’t get too comfortable. Assembly member Damon Connolly, who first proposed AB 935, doesn’t plan on stopping his fight.
“We are disappointed we will not be continuing with the phased tobacco sales ban this year,” said Connolly. “However, we plan to bring it up again next year and redouble our efforts to bring all stakeholders on board.”
Connolly represents California’s 12th district and was elected just last November. He officially introduced AB 935 in February. After accepting the amendments, the bill was re-referred back to the Assembly Committee on Governmental Organization on Monday for further deliberation.
The new, amended version of AB 935 is focused solely on the enforcement of California’s flavored tobacco ban, which was ed into law in 2020 but just went into effect late last year. Under the existing law, any violation from a tobacco retailer or employee regarding the sale or distribution of flavored tobacco products, is punishable as an “infraction.” The amended version of AB 935 aims to strengthen the enforcement of violations, making them punishable by civil penalties and authorizing enforcement responsibility to the California Department of Public Health and the state attorney general’s office. The goal was to have the punishment and enforcement match that of the Stop Tobacco Access to Kids Enforcement (STAKE) Act, which prohibits tobacco purchase to persons under the age of 21.
The changes to the bill come off the heels of diminished for AB 935 and critical analysis delivered directly by the Assembly Committee on Health:
“With California adult smoking rates on the lower end of the spectrum, 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.”
None of the primary sponsors from the flavored tobacco ban bill took an official position of for AB 935 and only a couple of anti-tobacco groups affirmed a position in favor. The majority of official came from health and physician-related associations like the Union of American Physicians and Dentists and the California American Academy of Pediatrics.
However, opposition from other associations and organizations outweighed the 13 to 10. Opposing organizations included the California Chamber of Commerce, California Taxpayers Association and the California Statewide Law Enforcement Association (CSLEA) whose statement was provided in the analysis: “Every time there is a restriction on access to products that millions of adult consumers want and use, we create increased demand for contraband product. That unmet demand leads to larger illegal markets, which in turn result in greater burdens on law enforcement.”
Despite the demise of the original version of AB 935, assembly member Connolly assures that this isn’t the end of this battle.
