Yes on Proposition 31
Uphold flavored tobacco ban
What is it?
Proposition 31 is a referendum on Senate Bill 793 of 2020, which banned sales of flavored tobacco vaping products except for hookah tobacco, loose-leaf tobacco, and premium cigars.
A Yes vote maintains the ban on flavored tobacco products (the original law stays in effect).
A No vote legalizes flavored tobacco products (repeals the law).
Why is this on the ballot?
According to Article II, Section 9 of the California Constitution, citizens may introduce referendums to approve or reject previously enacted laws and ballot measures by collecting signatures (5% of the votes cast in the most recent Governor's race). The referendum must then be approved by voters with a simple majority of 50% + 1.
The campaign, primarily funded by big tobacco companies, spent $13.7 million to gather enough signatures to qualify for the ballot. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company donated nearly $10 million, Philip Morris USA donated $9.1 million, and ITG Brands (maker of blu e-cigarettes) donated $500,000.
Fiscal impacts
Prop 31 would reduce tax revenue from tobacco sales by about $100 million per yer by maintaining the ban on flavored tobacco sales. Fewer people would start and continue smoking due to the absence of fruit-flavored tobacco.
However, spending on health care by the state and local governments would likely go down over time, though an estimate for this cost savings was not provided by the Legislative Analyst's Office.
- See "Fiscal Effects" section of the Legislative Analyst Office report (PDF)
Why vote Yes?
The California legislature enacted the ban on flavored tobacco products in 2020, but it has been held in legal limbo due to this referendum. A Yes vote will allow the law to be implemented and let the legislature do its job.
GrowSF fundamentally believes that the legislature ought to write and enact laws, and if the people are unhappy with those laws, then we should vote out those lawmakers.
Beyond our principled stand against referenda, we also find the evidence that flavored tobacco bans lower tobacco usage by children very compelling. Not only are flavors a "major driver" of youth e-cigarette usage, but a CDC study found that over 22% of children using tobacco said they first tried tobacco because "they are available in flavors, such as mint, candy, fruit, or chocolate".
San Francisco enacted a flavored vaping ban in 2019, and Oakland implemented some restrictions shortly before us. In Oakland, these restrictions caused both the vaping and smoking rates to decline in Oakland high schools. In San Francisco, the flavored vaping ban caused flavored vape sales of regular tobacco products to decline 25% — indicating that not only were people were not switching from flavored tobacco to regular, but they were no longer starting with flavors and then using regular tobacco.
A flavored tobacco ban is indisputably effective at reducing tobacco use by children. This leads to long-term public health improvements. While we agree that consenting adults ought to be free to do as they please, that freedom doesn't extend to behaviors that harm others. Availability of flavored tobacco has a clear causative effect on increasing tobacco use by children, and we're not willing to make that bargain.
Vote Yes on Prop 31 to uphold the flavored tobacco ban.