John Graham
Professor John Mercurio
Introduction to American and California Government and Politics
M/W/F
10/1/22
Word Count: 1343
Proposition 31
Referendum On 2020 Law That Would Prohibit the Retail Sale of Certain Flavored Tobacco
Products.
There is an ongoing debate and controversy on the sale of Flavored Nicotine products
being sold in the state of California. The Center for Disease and Control states that the use of
flavored nicotine products such as “Juuls” are staggering. The CDC has released statistics such
as“E-cigarettes have been the most commonly used tobacco product among youth since 2014”
(CDC 1). However, The proposition being stated offers a more heavy handed approach to fixing
this consequential problem that is facing adolescent youth in California. The reaction to this bill
being proposed is being met with both receptive and critical views in California and has brought
up questions on the legality of the Proposition. In addition even more questions have been
brought up in connection to the use by legal adults and the tax and revenue potential that remains
essentially a source of income for thousands In contrast, I believe that Proposition 31 offers a
safer environment for both the growing adolescent that is vulnerable and susceptible to the
marketing practices of tobacco companies while also providing parents with the safety and
security of not needing to worry about another mainstream addiction.
First of all, The important idea to draw from the very start of this proposition is the
legality of it. Proposition 31 is by all means not calling for the removal of tobacco completely.
As stated by journalist Andrew Sheeler “It penalizes retailers who sell flavored products such as
menthol cigarettes or fruit-flavored cigarillos by fining them $250 for each violation. The law
carves out several exemptions, including hookah, pipe and loose-leaf tobacco and high-dollar
cigars” (Sheeler 1). With that being said, the proposition is mostly being aimed towards
preventing the sale of “flavored” tobacco products, not tobacco completely. In addition to the
legality of the proposition, Gavin Newsom who is the governor of cCalifornia has already signed
in the bill as early as August 28th 2020 (Sheeler 1). To add even more legal visibility, the State
PTA Legislative Action Committee voted 50-0 in favor of this bill being passed. To add the
cherry on top so to speak, the bill also passed the California Senate in a overwhelming victory of
34-0. As mandated, “Federal law bars sale of nicotine or tobacco products to anyone under 21.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is responsible for enforcement” (Sheeler 1). This
in turn causes the argument of the prohibition of tobacco to adults to be proved false.Overall, I
believe that through the ban of flavored tobacco products, it deinsentivies the younger generation
to start on this dangerous and addictive path.
However it is necessary to point out the cons of this bill, one being the increased
production of these products in the black market. The argument being that once you make this
product illegal, people will turn to alternatives that could be even more deadly and harmful such
as heroin, pills, or even cocaine. There will always be a demand for this product and people will
be able to find a way to get their hands on it one way or another. On the economical side,
flavored tobacco is taxed by the California local and federal governments. This means that there
will be a loss in revenue money for the state to use in other departments. The opposition argues
that through the elimination of this tax many state dependent organizations and nonprofits will
have their budget slashed as a result. TIn reference to this “The outcome of Prop. 31 would
impact the state budget because if the law is upheld the state could lose as much as $100 million
in annual tobacco tax revenue from the sale of flavored tobacco” ( Calmatters 1). Another
argument is that California already bans the use and selling of products to those under the age of
21. It is argued that all this law will ever accomplish is the infringement of legal adults over the
age of 21 to purchase said product which in turn is barring freedom of choice to the legal
consumer. There however have been discussions on the legality of banning legal adults over the
age of 21 to buy this product. In support of this Cal Matters states “Opponents say the flavored
tobacco ban is unnecessary because there are already laws on the books prohibiting the sale of all
tobacco products to minors. They argue that banning flavored tobacco products infringes on the
rights of adults who use the products and say a prohibition would increase underground markets
and lead to more crime”. Although I believe this reasoning is flawed it is still important to see
the opposition's point of view in this matter currently.
With any bill it is important to see who it will affect. A report by the CDC cited that 1 out
of every 35 middle school age children and 1 out of 9 highschool students have and currently are
smoking tobacco related products (CDC 1). That number is truly shocking, but based on this
statistic alone does not describe the magnitude of the problem. As mentioned before Proposition
31 prohibits the sale of flavored products but that is what unfortunately sets adolescents on the
road of smoking and vaping. The CDC provides the research that “In 2021, 80.2% of high school
students and 74.6% of middle school students who used tobacco products in the past 30 days
reported using a flavored tobacco product during that time”. The reason this would affect me per
say is that I have many friends that unfortunately use this drug. By banning this type of tobacco
flavored product it would help wean my friends off and stop an addiction that could potentially
affect them for the rest of their lives. Another statistic from the CDC reports that “If cigarette
smoking continues at the current rate among youth in this country, 5.6 million of today’s
Americans younger than 18 will die early from a smoking-related illness. That’s about 1 of every
13 Americans aged 17 years or younger who are alive today” (CDC 1). As stated before, I
believe that this affects not only me but my generation and the health and well being of Future
adults. Although there are arguments about whether or not a government has the right to tell us
whether or not they have a right to our bodies, I believe that this is not a government
infringement on our lives but rather a smart decision for the well being of our future. In
elaboration, this proposition is being pushed in California. This is not a federal law or mandate,
so if someone is unhappy about this ruling, they could always migrate and move to another state
that may have different laws on flavored tobacco products. However as stated by the Los
Angeles Times “This is not something that is going to ban [all] tobacco products,” said Dr.
Michael Ong, chair of California’s Tobacco Education and Research Oversight Committee and a
professor in residence of medicine and health policy and management at UCLA” (Wiley 1).
In conclusion I feel that through this proposition, my eyes have been opened to the
political polarization that takes place even in local and state legislations. This is simply not just a
law that is trying to restrict tobacco all together but is as Referred to by Dr. Micheal Ong “But
it’s going to ban specific flavors that unfortunately are addicting kids, and also unfortunately are
sustaining addiction among particular populations that is unfair, because they’ve been targeted
by the tobacco industry” (Wiley 1). Whether or not this proposition passes in the state of
California, I believe that through the awareness that is being brought up about underage smoking
and vaping brings to light a problem that is continuing to plague the American youth. Thus, I
believe that by voting Yes on Proposition 31 you are not only helping innocent children beat
their addiction, but you are creating a better future for yourself.
Work Cited
“Proposition 31 [Ballot].” Lao.ca.gov,
Hannah Wiley ‌“Proposition 31 Will Let Voters Decide Whether They Want to Ban Flavored
Tobacco Products.” Los Angeles Times, 23 Sept. 2022,
‌CDCTobaccoFree. “Youth and Tobacco Use.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 10
Dec. 2019,
‌SHEELER, Andrew “California’s Prop. 31 would ban flavored tobacco products. What to
know”, The Sacramento Bee, 16 September. 2022
Aguilera, Elizabeth. “California Prop 31: Flavored Tobacco Ban.” CalMatters, 6 Sept. 2022