After months of debates and amending, Colorado’s House passed a ban on flavored vaping and other tobacco products this week. The bill passed 35-27 on Wednesday after the appropriations committee approved it earlier in the day on a 7-4 vote.
That ban will not apply to the sale of premium cigars after they were given an exemption during the debate process, as was pipe tobacco and hookah products.
The bill now goes to the state Senate. Even with the session end looming, one of its co-sponsors, state Sen. Rhonda Fields said she was optimistic, according to Colorado Public Radio.
“You know, it looks great. It’s on its way to the Senate, and then we’ll make sure it goes through all the appropriate committees and I’m looking forward to debating it,” said Fields.
Opponents say a ban would hurt convenience stores and vape shops and have argued the issue is one of personal choice.
For Fields, she said it’s about the toll tobacco consumption, driven by attractive flavors like menthol, has taken on the community.
“It started back in the ’60s, (the brand) Kool Cigarettes, all these menthol flavors,” she said. “The industry has now put flavors into vaping, into cigarettes to make it more attractive for young people to start smoking early.”
The measure, HB22-1064, bans retailers of cigarettes, tobacco or nicotine products from selling or marketing any flavored product. Those are defined as products “imparting a taste or smell other than the taste or smell of tobacco.”
Selling flavored tobacco and nicotine products could soon be illegal in Colorado if lawmakers approve — and the governor signs — a bill prohibiting their sale.
House Bill 22-1064 would ban, starting July 1, the sale of all flavored tobacco and nicotine products, including vapes, e-cigarettes, menthol cigarettes, Hookah, chewing tobacco and cigars, in Colorado.
Under the proposal, any retailer caught selling flavored tobacco or nicotine products would be subject to the same penalties as a retailer caught selling to minors.
The measure’s sponsors are confident it would reach the finish line.
State Sen. Kevin Priola, one of the sponsors, said he was inspired to take action after his son started vaping around the age of 14. Priola said he would constantly search his son’s room for vapes and would have to drive to far-away dumpsters to throw them away to prevent him from digging the vapes out of the trash.
“It’s everywhere. Our experience isn’t unique,” Priola said. “You look at the data and realize a lot of these manufacturers — they use the flavors to get young kids hooked on it.”
Brian Fojtik, a Denver resident and representative of the National Association of Tobacco Outlets, said the ban is unnecessary because youth tobacco use has been decreasing for years.
“It’s shortsighted approach,” Fojtik said. “Prohibition proponents aren’t protecting kids. They’re shamefully using kids as political props, attempting to use legitimate concern about youth vaping to ban hundreds of products to adults that youth are not using that have nothing to do with vaping.”
In December, Denver, Colorado’s City Council approved a controversial ordinance that outlaws the sale of flavored vaping and other tobacco products, including menthol, beginning in July 2023.
After months of debate, the Denver City Council approved a controversial ordinance that outlaws the sale of flavored vaping and other tobacco products, including menthol, beginning in July 2023. With Monday’s 8 to 3 vote, Denver becomes the seventh Colorado municipality to enact a ban on flavored e-cigarettes.
Credit: Kevin Ruck
Exemptions are in place for hookah products, natural cigars, pipe tobacco and harm-reduction products. The ordinance also calls for retailers to receive a warning for a first offense, however, subsequent offenses could lead to a store losing its tobacco retail license.
Proponents of the ban argue tobacco companies have long used predatory marketing of menthol to lure people of color, those with low incomes and youth — especially those who identify as LBGTQ+. Companies deny this, according to an article on denverite.com.
“This proposal tonight, it really is about public health,” said council member Jamie Torres, who represents District 3 and voted for the proposal. “Our kids aren’t property owners. They’re not business owners, but they are the ones who are also telling us we need to make this less accessible to them.”
City Council President Staci Gilmore argues that Denver already regulates alcohol and cannabis. “We want to keep kids safe, but we also want to allow adults to be adults,” said Gilmore, who represents District 11, and voted against the measure. Last month, councilmember Kevin Flynn called the bill an overreach affecting adults who want to use these products.
Grier Bailey and Jonathan Shaer, writing for Colorado Politics, state that Denver city councilmembers should consider what’s happened to Massachusetts since it passed a statewide flavor ban of its own in 2020. “The state gave up a well-regulated and enforced network of licensed retailers, lost over $140 million on the sale of menthol cigarettes, and public health advocates can’t claim any empirical health benefits from the ban as the data shows most consumers shifted their purchase habits to other states or other nicotine products and flavors,” they state. “Many Massachusetts retailers have reduced employee hours and even had to cut jobs. The flavor ban has been a failure at every level.”
Some Loveland City Council members deliberated on a proposed ban on flavored vaping and other tobacco product sales in private text messages, possibly violating Colorado state law, a Dec. 8 text message thread shows.
Credit: Pixabay
Steve Zansberg, a Denver attorney and president of the Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition, called the thread an “extremely clear-cut” violation of state rules.
The Loveland Reporter-Herald obtained the messages from Mayor Jacki Marsh after the paper received a confidential tip. All nine council members and City Manager Steve Adams were included in the thread, though not all council members participated.
Time stamps on the text thread show that 13 of the messages were exchanged by councilors during their regular meeting that evening, which was held virtually and dealt mostly with the proposed ban and the problem of youth vaping.
In the text conversation, council members Kathi Wright, Steve Olson, Don Overcash and John Fogle deliberated on how they would respond to calls for a ban on selling the products.
“Looks like another special meeting this month,” Wright said at 9:17 p.m., reviving a thread that Adams began earlier in the day to let councilors know about a scheduling change.
“yup. but don’t cave,” Overcash replied.
After Olson asked whether Wright was interested in “working with business to find a win win solution,” Wright said she “still believe(d) we have another step, talking with local business.”
The truth is trickling out on Campaign for Tobacco -Free Kids (CTFK). In the documentary You Don’t Know Nicotine,one source exclaims that CTFK is a “dark money organization” that is “just about as greedy as Big Tobacco.” The organization is accused of using its massive amounts of funding to shutter small businesses by using false rhetoric and bad science about e-cigarettes and other vapor products. This has helped create a “regulatory environment where only the wealthiest people will be able to play.”
Credit: Ryan McGuire
During a Dec. 8 city council meeting in Loveland, Colorado, that centered on banning flavored e-cigarettes, the accusations levied against CTFK in the film played out in reality. Jodi Radke, the regional advocacy director for CTFK for the Rocky Mountain/Great Plains area, was accused of making false and misleading statements about several Loveland council members in a local newspaper ad and in several social media posts.
She accused the council members of being in cahoots with major tobacco companies. Those members took great offense to the accusations. Radke admitted to not having attended the meeting her social media posts referenced and had received her information anecdotally. She also said she did not validate what was being told to her with any of the council members she accused.
“How do you assume I’m pro-tobacco?” council member Don Overcash asked. Overcash said he did not smoke cigarettes, vape or have any tobacco industry affiliations. When asked how she garnered the information for her organization’s ad and social media posts since she did not attend the referenced meeting, Radke replied, “I don’t feel it is a question that should be directed towards me.” Radke would not directly answer other questions from named council members concerning the ad or posts. She said all CTFK actions and policy “are based on science and evidence.”
Several council members also questioned CTFK’s funding and its sources. Radke said she did not know anything about CTFK funding other than that it came from several major donors, including billionaire anti-tobacco activist Michael Bloomberg. Greg Conley, president of the American Vaping Association, told council members that CTFK had $109 million in its coffers as of 2020 and received an additional $50 million to $60 million per year from Bloomberg (on top of the billionaire’s regular CTFK funding) to help enact flavor bans at the local level. “[At CTFK], science is constantly ignored,” Conley said. “Studies show that flavor bans actually increase the use of [combustible] cigarettes.”
Radke was also asked by council member John Fogle if the CTFK had ever considered using some of its “hundreds of millions” in funding to help the small businesses affected by CTFK’s agenda. After saying she couldn’t answer the question several times, Radke finally replied that she couldn’t answer the question because CTFK had data that showed “small businesses don’t lose money” because of CTFK policies.
After several hours of debate, the potential vote was postponed to a meeting in February. For vapor advocates, it was just another day fighting well-funded misinformation campaigns around the globe.
How did the Loveland City Council go from discussing teen vaping to a ban on dozens of products legal for adult purchase? To get to the root of this controversy, I’ll refer to two positions regarding choice and responsibility.
The first position: As an adult, I can think for myself and make informed decisions. My body, my choice.
The second position: Adults are not capable of making good choices. We need to protect people from themselves.
We acknowledge alcohol and tobacco abuse lead to health issues. Yet society has decided to handle these products through health education and access restrictions, while respecting adults’ personal choices. Bans create black markets, and history has demonstrated suppliers will always find ways to provide what consumers want. Decreasing demands works better than decreasing supply.
Don Overcash / Credit: Loveland, Colorado
On Dec. 4, the House of Representatives voted for national marijuana legalization. The law doesn’t claim marijuana is free from health concerns, but that informed adults should be free to make a personal choice. Local governments will create access restrictions to protect kids, as they do with alcohol and tobacco.
Campaigns to ban or promote certain products often have catchy names and slick marketing strategies, and they are nationally organized and locally deployed for maximum effect. And there is nothing wrong with executing a well-developed plan.
However, the truth is often lost in the battle for public favor. The proven way to win is to use emotion, along with facts and logic selectively chosen to justify a position. Obfuscation is common. Campaign workers get paid to win. This is the nature of competition in the marketplace of ideas, each side using their power to shout their position. Citizens must sort out what is true and false.
Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and others have championed many “protect people from themselves” initiatives, including regulations on salt, firearms, vaping, tobacco, and even soft drink serving sizes. Bloomberg also supports the nonprofit “Tobacco-Free Kids.” Perhaps a margarita ban is on the horizon, given the drink’s combination of alcohol, sugar, and salt.
Most of these issues are handled by national or state bodies, such as the FDA, to avoid the unintended consequences and confusion that might result from a patchwork of local bans. Non-federal government bodies do have a role to play, however, in the distribution and sale of select products such as alcohol, tobacco, and — if nationally legalized — marijuana.
When the vaping topic first came before the Loveland City Council, the focus was on limiting access for kids without impeding adults’ freedoms, similar to restrictions on alcohol and tobacco.
I believe council members became wrapped up in anti-tobacco emotion without considering the very real impact a flavored tobacco ban will have locally. While the intent of the ban is to protect our kids, the task force and council have not considered its harsh impact on over 60 Loveland small businesses, their hundreds of employees, and our adult citizens’ freedom of choice. Any serious consideration would reveal these impacts, and council has fortunately delayed further discussion pending a more thorough investigation.
It is apparent this vaping debate has more to do with ideology than Loveland’s kids, given the recent false advertisements accusing three council members by name of being “for Big Tobacco” at the expense of our children. These advertisements were developed and paid for by Tobacco-Free Kids.
Yet every member of the council has clearly supported access restrictions for minors for tobacco, alcohol, and vaping products. The real challenge is how we can do so without impeding Loveland businesses, and without frustrating thousands of Loveland citizens who legally purchase these products. An outright ban is an issue for the FDA.
Councilor Wright bought us some time to consider all factors with a delay until February 2021. I believe an amendment to the proposed ordinance would be in the best interest of Loveland citizens. This amendment would include:
• License requirements for retail outlets.
• A minimum purchasing age of 21.
• An active enforcement policy, including penalties for violation.
• No restrictions on existing flavored tobacco products.
• Limiting sales to age-restricted stores and age-restricted partitions of large stores.
I believe in adults’ freedom of choice and protecting our kids.
Don Overcash is Loveland’s mayor pro-tem. He represents Ward IV on the City Council.
Loveland City Council members will put off voting on a ban that may target sales of flavored vaping, smoking and tobacco products until Feb. 16, after a marathon six hours of debate and public comment during Tuesday’s meeting.
Credit: Haiberliu
Council members voted 6-2 to postpone the item, with Mayor Jacki Marsh and Ward II councilor Andrea Samson opposed, and Ward I councilor Richard Ball absent, despite joining for part of the discussion, according to an article in the Loveland Reporter-Reporter.
On Nov. 24, council members voted 6-3 to pass the ban on first reading, with Steve Olson of Ward III and Dave Clark and Don Overcash of Ward IV opposed. A second vote was pushed from Dec. 1 to Tuesday after that agenda item similarly ran late.
Marsh stressed the public health impact of smoking and said she planned to vote “yes” again on the ban. Samson pointed out the 10-plus hours of public comment heard by the council, including concerns shared by members of Loveland’s business community, and questioned the need for more outreach.
After a debate over flavored vaping products ran late during its last session, Loveland’s City Council will try to finish that agenda Tuesday. If a majority of the council votes in favor of the ban a second time, retailers of tobacco and vaping products will be able to apply for licenses starting Jan. 1, and they’ll have through July 1 to clear their remaining inventory of banned items.
Credit: Vaporesso
Council members voted 6-3 on Nov. 24 to introduce the ban, which was recommended by a panel of public health experts and anti-smoking advocates as a way of curbing underaged vaping, according to the Loveland Reporter-Herald.
The ordinance would ban sales of flavored e-juices, flavored smokeless tobacco, menthol cigarettes and any other non-tobacco-flavored vaping or smoking products.
Critics have attacked the ban as overbroad and unfair for law-abiding businesses and consumers, particularly the ban on flavored dip and menthols.
After a 6-3 vote from its city council on Tuesday, Loveland, Colorado is on track to ban flavored vaping and other more traditional tobacco products, including e-juices, dip and smoking tobacco. Flavored marijuana vapes will not be subject to the ordinance, if passed.
Credit: Elsa Donald
While councilors Steve Olson, Dave Clark and Don Overcash voted “no,” calling the ban arbitrary and unfair to law-abiding businesses, supporters said restricting flavors was necessary to keep more children from getting addicted to nicotine, according to a story in the Loveland Herald-Reporter.
“I wrestled with this so much because I care about the businesses that will be affected, but I feel like the tobacco industry played a mean game here, and they’re hurting our kids,” councilor Kathi Wright said.
Tuesday night’s vote ended more than a year of debate on how best to curb a local spike in youth vaping, which was reflected in the number of citations issued for underage tobacco possession until the Thompson School District switched to remote learning earlier this year.
Last week, the council heard multiple hours of public comment on the issue. Speakers agreed on the need for more regulation to keep tobacco products out of the hands of children though some disagreed on implementation.
Council members were presented on Tuesday with five versions of an ordinance introducing various restrictions on the sale of tobacco and vaping products. Alternatives would have excluded menthol-flavored products from the flavor ban, introduced other age restrictions while leaving flavors alone or limited the sale of tobacco or vaping products to age-restricted stores.
Overcash said he would not support the flavor ban, and suggested supporters were only voting in favor only because they personally disliked vaping and smoking.
“What other products are we going to decide for whatever reasons are going to be allowed in our community or not?,” he said. “I have a problem when we mandate things because we don’t like something.”
Molloy and Overcash sparred briefly when Molloy started laughing during Overcash’s statements.
“No, councilor Molloy, I’m serious,” Overcash said. “You let me know what product you’d like to take off the market next, and I’ll champion that for you.”
“Medical marijuana,” Molloy replied.
Other parts of the ordinance introducing the ban would:
Reaffirm that the legal minimum age to purchase tobacco products is 21.
Introduce a licensing structure.
Set licensees back from schools and other “youth-populated areas.”
Prohibit self-service.
The ban will return for a second vote on Dec. 1. If it is approved, the ordinance will go into effect on Jan. 1, 2021.
Colorado voters have passed a measure that will raise the tax on e-cigarettes and vapor products at 30 percent starting in 2021 and go up to 56 percent starting in July 2024.
Proposition EE’s is estimated to raise up to $250 million in revenue this fiscal year and next.
Passage of the measure also adds price floors for tobacco products. The minimum price for moist snuff products will be $1.48 per container and will increase to $2.26 by 2027.
The measure was referred to Colorado voters by state lawmakers as part of HB20-1427 as the state tries to address its high teen vaping rates and other tobacco and nicotine use.The added revenue is allowed to be spent on a new cash fund for rural schools, preschool funding, tobacco education programs, housing and health care.
