Commentary

Brennan: It’s time for Vermont lawmakers to put flavor bans to rest

Andriy Blokhin / Shutterstock.com

by Peter Brennan, in The Center Square

Last week, lawmakers in Vermont reviewed legislation that would impose a statewide ban on flavored tobacco products, e-cigarettes and nicotine pouches. The proposed bill might seem well-intentioned at first glance, but as we’ve seen in other states, prohibition policies do little to improve public health, and in many cases actively undermine it.

By removing tobacco alternatives from the market – including those that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) considers less harmful than cigarettes and appropriate for the promotion of public health – this policy would push tobacco users to unregulated products and remove a key source of revenue for Vermont’s small businesses and the state economy.

Proponents of the ban have argued that restricting access to flavored products – namely e-cigarettes and flavored nicotine pouches – would help curb youth tobacco and nicotine use. Fortunately, youth tobacco use is at a historic low, and the Centers for Disease Control’s (CDC) 2023 National Youth Tobacco Survey found that youth vaping rates were cut in half between 2019 and 2022 while only 1.5 percent of middle and high school students reported using oral nicotine pouches. This positive trend is the result of robust educational campaigns and the commitment of responsible retailers to enforce restrictions on underage purchases.

The reality is that bans on flavored e-cigarettes and oral nicotine products will only hurt public health by taking away the option of reduced risk products commonly used by adult smokers looking to quit and lead more Vermonters to switch back to more harmful combustible cigarettes. A recent study from the Yale School of Public Health found that flavored e-cigarette bans resulted in an uptick in traditional cigarette sales. This is the exact opposite of what public health officials intend.

In addition to having adverse effects on Vermonters’ health, this ban would be detrimental to the Green Mountain State’s economy by removing a key source of tax revenue and a significant portion of sales for small businesses. After Massachusetts enacted a similar ban in 2020, nearly 90 percent of sales shifted out of state, costing the Bay State $120 million in cigarette excise tax revenue in the first 12 months.

An updated note from Vermont’s Joint Fiscal Office estimated that sales revenue from flavored tobacco products totaled $21.1 million in 2023, and predicted a loss of over $7.3 million in tax revenue in the first full year following a ban. Even worse, Vermont retailers’ remitted tax reports from 2023 indicate that the number may be much higher. Based on revenue reports from several Vermont businesses, retailers could expect to lose anywhere from $100,000 to well over $2 million in annual sales revenue if the state followed through with this ill-conceived policy.

It’s time for Vermont lawmakers to acknowledge that flavor bans simply do not work. Instead of following through with a ban that would have far more drawbacks than benefits for Green Mountain State residents, legislators would be well served to consider policies that would bolster education and training practices that continue to meet the objective, drive down youth tobacco use.

Peter Brennan is executive director of the New England Convenience Store & Energy Marketers Association


Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Categories: Commentary

6 replies »

  1. More importantly it’s time for money to stop running our policies and psychologically beating us down with advertisements and phrases through media and news.

    I have seen that green add on YouTube about how LGBTQlmnop and Black people are affected more than any other demographic so much that I’ve been reporting it to Google as false or misleading advertising just because it makes me feel like I’ve done something to oppose it.

    The thing is it’s sponsored by one non-profit and that non-profit spent a ton of money to advertise the same ad to the same person over and over again and likely spent the rest of their money on talking and schmoozing the politicians. The scary part about all of that is that it’s working and the people are mostly unaware.

  2. If the concept of a ban on “flavored” tobacco were extended to another addictive product that most Vermonters enjoy and the state collects huge revenues on, namely alcohol, people might see it for how absurd it really is. If we extended it to a ban on any flavored products that cause health problems, then we can also get into banning ice cream and all manner of junk foods with any “flavor”. Who elects these people?

  3. tel/// lie/// vison/// three hours of snews/// two hours of commercials/// one half hour of weather/// one half hour of the propaganda of the day/// all stations run the same crap every day///

  4. I’ve been commenting for two years that banning menthol just sounds like another way the libs are trying to control black community outcomes, then of no surprise, the new ad campaign on YouTube features blacks (from out of state) promoting the ban in the name of health…. So how many blacks in Vermont have COPD? Bet you can count on a single hand…

    • …and whatever happened to Darwinism?! Tobacco users are treated like second class citizens, told to indulge in their habit outdoors, in the rain, out in back of the dumpsters, while the legislature is debating providing comfortable and “safe” spaces for IV drug users…you can’t make this stuff up.