Column: Youth vaping bill is counterproductive

The American Heart Association (AHA) applauds Gov. David Ige’s intent to veto Senate Bill 1405, CD 2.

That legislative proposal originated as a bill that the American Heart Association strongly supported and would have regulated the sale of e-cigarettes by establishing a tax on e-cigarette liquids with a portion of the tax revenue allocated to education, prevention and control programs, prohibited the online sale of e-cigarette products, and required e-cigarette wholesalers and retailers to acquire a license/permit to sell the products (which would have allowed for better identification of businesses selling e-cigarettes to make enforcement of illegal sales to people under age 21 more effective).

The bill was amended during conference committee with tobacco industry influence to eliminate the language listed above and replaced with language that would penalize people under age 21 $100 if caught in possession of those products. The amended bill would also require the state Department of Education to confiscate and dispose of e-cigarette products found in possession of anyone on school grounds under age 21.

The AHA opposes youth penalties for possession of tobacco products for these reasons:

>> Laws that penalize underage youth for purchase, use or possession (PUP) of tobacco products are ineffective in reducing underage tobacco use, difficult to enforce and raise the possibility of selective enforcement against young people of color. The tobacco industry has targeted youths for decades, seeking to create new generations of addicted customers. Instead of holding the industry and the retailers accountable, PUP laws shift the responsibility to their victims — young customers who are purchasing and using a deadly and highly addictive product.

>> Additionally, PUP laws are unlikely to reduce youth initiation and smoking prevalence at the population level. They are also inequitable because they disproportionally affect youth of color, LGBT youth, youth with disabilities and boys who are more likely to smoke and vape because they have been targeted via advertising and retailer placement by the tobacco industry.

Primary enforcement should focus on retailer compliance with not selling to minors rather than on illegal purchases or youth possession. One of the reasons that the tobacco industry focuses on criminalizing youthful purchasers of tobacco is to make it difficult or impossible to research and monitor merchant compliance programs. Criminalizing youthful purchases may also help shield tobacco producers from civil liability claims.

Best practices for limiting youth access to tobacco products include having an articulated plan for retailer enforcement, giving enforcement responsibility to a single agency motivated to conduct ongoing compliance checks and inspections, allocating funding for enforcement inspections, prosecuting violators, setting high penalties for violations, and practicing effective merchant education. Comprehensive tobacco retailer licensing policies, with appropriate funding and enforcement, have proven to be more effective than PUP laws in reducing youth initiation and ongoing tobacco use.

Based on these factors, we feel that SB 1405, CD2, would be at best ineffective at reducing youth consumption of smoking and vaping products and could be counterproductive to efforts to reduce youth consumption of those products. We applaud the governor’s decision to veto the bill.