Don’t look now, but S.18, the bill to ban flavored tobacco and tobacco substitutes is in line for a substantial haircut in the House Human Services Committee.
The bill passed the Senate last spring and was sent to House Human Services, which has heard from numerous witnesses this month on the subject — including, as noted in this space, a batch of out-of-state lobbyists presenting an array of, shall we say, creative arguments against the ban.
It didn’t seem like their testimony would have much effect — but clearly, something has gotten to the committee, because it is now considering an amendment, posted publicly today/Wednesday (downloadable here), that would remove menthol cigarettes from the ban on what seem to be specious equity grounds. The rest of the ban would remain intact, but the subject of menthol smokes would be referred for, Lord help us all, a study to be submitted by next January.
The amendment cites the fact that that use of menthol cigarettes is more common among smokers of color than white smokers and more common among LGBTQ+ smokers than their straight counterparts, and that “there are differing views” on whether a ban “would be racist or would discriminate against persons of color and members of other marginalized communities.”
I don’t know where this thing comes from. The committee has heard from multiple persons of color plus a leading LGBTQ+ organization in favor of S.18, and absolutely none from those marginalized communities who raised equity issues or opposed the ban.
Among those testifying in favor of S.18 was Wichie Artu, President of the Windham County NAACP and a former menthol smoker. “”My friends would joke with me saying “they’re the N***** killer,” he told the committee. Artu noted that the national NAACP is in favor of banning menthol cigs, as are the Center for Black Health & Equity and the African-American Tobacco Control Leadership Council. Included in Artu’s testimony is an NAACP statement that for the past 50-plus years, the tobacco industry has undertaken a…
…pattern of activity [that] continues today with expanded marketing strategies like supporting and providing sponsorship funding for events, supporting various Black leaders with financial support, discounting menthol products in Black neighborhoods, and abundant advertising in stores frequented by Black communities,
So maybe if persons of color are more likely to smoke menthols, it’s because they’ve been relentlessly targeted by the tobacco industry for decades.
As for LGBTQ+ concerns, Amanda Rohdenburg of Outright Vermont submitted testimony in favor of S.18. She noted higher rates of smoking and vaping in the LGBTQ+ community, and cited two explanations: the higher life stresses experienced by LGBTQ+ youth, and (yep) “predatory tactics” by the tobacco and vaping industries, which have “targeted marginalized populations, often mirroring LGBTQ+ movement language in their advertising campaigns which intentionally conflate LGBTQ rights with ‘smokers’ rights’.”
There are a couple of possible explanations for this belated and curious amendment. One is an outbreak of hypersensitivity to potential equity issues, which has been known to happen in rooms full of white folks. (There are no Black representatives on Human Services and only one person of color — the Iranian-American Rep. Rey Garofano.) Maybe that ol’ white guilt has reared its ugly head.
The other, and my favorite, is the never-to-be-underestimated tendency of our lawmakers to duck tough issues whenever possible. Like, for instance, opting for a study as a substitute for action. If they’re under heavy pressure from store operators, including the infamous “mom and pop” outfits present in so many legislative districts*, they might well camouflage a capitulation to commercial interests in an ink cloud of progressive language.
*And hey, looky there, convenience store owner Rep. James Gregoire is a member of House Human Services!
I don’t have all the answers on this. It would be instructive to hear from committee chair Rep. Theresa Wood and committee member Rep. Taylor Small, who is transgender. (For that matter, it’d be good to know why this bill was referred to Human Services instead of, say, House Health Care.) But I wanted to get the word out as quickly as possible because the committee is likely to vote on S.18 by the end of this week. This is the moment to act for anyone who wants the bill to remain whole moving forward.
The Vermont Political Observer. 
No maybe about it. Mentholated cigarettes were developed in the late 1920’s. Brown&Williamson came up with Kool in 1933, but it wasn’t until the1950’s that it became the flagship product in a focussed campaign to market menthol cigarettes to Black smokers. This is well known & documented.
Concerning the idea that a ban on menthol cigarettes would have an adverse or unfair impact on Black communities in Vermont…sorry, but that doesn’t pass the laugh test.
Intriguing. The ban might be racist or discriminatory of marginalized communities? Hmm. Seems to me there’s an argument that the ban is precisely the opposite–a counter to decades of racist and discriminatory marketing that has disproportionately and adversely affected the public health of the targeted communities. There’s really no such thing as personal choice (“But I like menthol cigarettes!”) in the absence of complete information–and certainly not when the product is addictive and deadly. The question did not come up, I’ll bet, when legislatures outlawed cocaine, heroin, and angel dust, whose victims are also disproportionately populated by marginalized communities. This is no different than, say, a seatbelt law: it applies to all of us, across the board. That some us don’t drive and some don’t smoke flavored cigarettes is immaterial: it is the health of our citizenry overall that we want to protect. I’d be happy with a ban on smoking altogether, but I’ll settle for now with banning the most dangerous versions of a dangerous product.