MINNEAPOLIS -- Since the Providence, R.I., City Council adopted a flavored tobacco sales ban in early 2012, anti-tobacco advocates have proposed similar flavor ban ordinances around the country even though the facts do not support banning the sale of these tobacco products.
As NATO and its retail members make clear to local lawmakers, while the purported goal of a flavor ban ordinance is to reduce youth tobacco use, none of these advocacy groups has submitted scientific evidence that banning the sale of flavored tobacco products would reach that goal.
That is, no scientific study has been offered up that concludes banning the sale of flavored cigars, flavored pipe tobacco, flavored smokeless tobacco, and flavored e-cigarettes and vapor products results in a reduction in underage tobacco use. The reason that no studies have been submitted is because such studies have not been conducted and, therefore, do not exist.
However, NATO has provided local lawmakers with data from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) retail compliance check program which proves that approximately 95% of retailers do not sell tobacco to minors. That is, the facts demonstrate that the vast majority retailers abide by the law but will be forced to remove dozens and dozens of flavored tobacco products from their store shelves as if they are guilty of some act when, in fact, they are completely innocent.
Earlier this month, the St. Paul, Minn., City Council adopted a flavor ban ordinance on a unanimous 7-0 vote even though these lawmakers were provided FDA compliance check data that showed 97% of St. Paul retailers did not sell tobacco to minors. Moreover, NATO provided actual sales data that the ordinance would result in an estimated $50,000 loss in flavored tobacco product sales per store for a citywide economic impact of $13 million in lower tobacco sales. Some St. Paul elected officials do not consider this financial impact a punishment on retailers, but that is exactly what it is.
The anti-tobacco advocates also allege that the tobacco industry is marketing flavored tobacco products to underage youth while these very groups ignore the facts and the real source that minors rely on to obtain tobacco. How can manufacturers be marketing to youth when by federal law and court settlements they are prohibited from advertising tobacco products on television, on radio, on billboards, and in magazines read by youth?
The real problem is social sources. In August of 2014, the Journal of School Health published a study which concluded that underage minors obtain tobacco products 86% of the time from non-retail sources, namely social sources including older friends, siblings, parents, and even strangers.
The anti-tobacco advocates know that social sources are the problem, but retailers are a much easier target to regulate than changing societal behavior so that individuals do not act as a source of tobacco products for minors. Educating adults about not supplying youth with tobacco products would be a real solution to the real problem.
But, instead of focusing on the real problem of social sources, anti-tobacco advocates lobby city officials to ban a legal product from being sold in retail stores, when those very retailers have demonstrated almost perfect compliance with the law.
At some point, the facts and the law have to prevail. States and most cities have laws on the books prohibiting the sale of tobacco products to minors. Retailers are complying with those laws to a very high degree and the law should prevail over the unsubstantiated claims of advocacy organizations.
Members help make our journalism possible. Become a CSP member today and unlock exclusive benefits, including unlimited access to all of our content. Sign up here.