Statehouse Journal: February 6th to February 9th
Quickening pace
The Capitol is getting busy. The cafeteria is frequently packed and noisy. The hallways are often jammed with people rushing to meetings or stopping others in transition. Time on the chamber floor is still short as committees finalize bills and vote them out.
Town Meeting week is less than a month away.
The big topics for now remain the same: Education Funding, the flavored tobacco ban, but others are coming to the fore.
Education Funding: My committee (Ways & Means) voted a draft bill out of committee last week. It's a fix to the tax rate cap that has contributed to the education funding mess we're now in. Friday morning at 9:00 we voted the draft out of committee with a 12, 0, 0 vote (all in favor, none opposed and none absent). By 10:00 it was a bill (H.850) and introduced in the House chamber. The Speaker sent it off to the Appropriations committee. They may well vote it out next week, and a floor vote will send it on to the Senate the same day. Things can move fast when they need to.
H.850 does not save tax payers from the projected high increase in the state-wide projected education property tax bill increase, but it does help, and it makes it possible to apply other possible solutions. More on all that below.
The flavored tobacco ban: S.18 is now in my committee. Last week we heard testimony from those on both both sides of the issue. The House committee on Human Services proposes changes.
My committee is about finances; is the bill good or bad for the state's fiscal health? We try not to get hung up on policy: does the bill properly address a real problem?
Democratic leadership is starting to count votes on S.18, asking us how we might vote when/if it comes to the floor. I didn't have an answer. See the details below.
Tax Fright and Flight
Are people leaving Vermont because the taxes are high? We all hear stories of Vermonters that are fed up with high taxes and threatening to move (or have moved) to Florida or New Hampshire. The testimony mentioned in last week's journal indicated that when it comes to the wealthy, they really don't move much until they approach the end of their lives. This week we heard more on the issue.
The bottom line is that people move the most when they are young. They're changing jobs, meeting future spouses, trying different places. Taxes are not their big consideration. They're more interested in housing, schools, employment etc. As they get older, they move less. They've established a network of friends, their businesses are stable, their family has friends, and they know the area. Taxes might become a consideration, but is it worth the change of location? Here's the testimony we heard.
Banning flavored tobacco
I'm learning more about this.
Everyone supports the goal of the bill. Smoking is basically bad for you. How can inhaling smoke be anything but bad for your lungs and general health? Granted, for some people it might be relaxing, for some it's stimulating. It can be a social thing that friends do in common. And yes, it's an addiction that the body physically craves as much as, or more than, it craves food or water, no matter what common sense tells you. The goal is to reduce the number of people that smoke or use products that lead to smoking or a dependence on nicotine. That reduction, if realized, would save Vermont millions of dollars every year in health care costs.
Regulations and Bans
It's important to keep in mind the difference between Regulations and Bans. Regulations put restrictions on the sales. Bans say you can't sell it.
Vermont already regulates tobacco products. 7 V.S.A. Chapter 40 is where all those regulations sit in law. There are also significant taxes on tobacco products. It's all spelled out in 32 V.S.A. Chapter 205 which starts with a 92% tax on cigarettes.
With those regulations and taxes, the use of cigarettes has significantly declined over the years. When I took a plane on my way to start college in 1968 at age 18 the stewardess handed me a free three-pack of cigarettes. Those days are gone. At stores, cigarettes are now hidden under counters or locked away. You have to ask for the product, and show that you are over 21. Smoke filled bars and restaurants are also gone. But that does not mean nicotine addiction is a thing of the past.
Flavored tobacco products
The 1970s saw the introduction of "characterizing flavors" in cigarettes: cherry, chocolate, and citrus, were aimed at younger audiences and marketed heavily. Concerns about youth smoking resulted in the federal Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act in 2009, banning characterizing flavors in cigarettes (excluding menthol).
And Vapes?
In Vermont Vapes are considered a "tobacco substitute" and are regulated in much the same way tobacco products are. You have to be over 21 to purchase a vape.
What's up with Menthol?
Menthol cigarettes are a bit different for two reasons:
Menthol has been used in tobacco for much longer than most other flavors, dating back to the 1920s and 1930s. Menthol products are disproportionately popular among certain demographics, including Black smokers, young smokers, and LGBTQ+ smokers. This raises concerns about targeted marketing practices and unequal health burdens.
Menthol feels and tastes different, creating a cooling and numbing sensation in the throat. This masks the harshness of cigarette smoke, making it easier to inhale deeper, which can increase the uptake of harmful chemicals. In addition some research suggests menthol may enhance the effects of nicotine on the brain, making it more addictive and increasing the difficulty of quitting.
The FDA proposed a ban on menthol cigarettes in the US in 2021. Pushback from industry delayed the ban. It is currently delayed until sometime this year.
What does S.18 propose?
Basically, S.18 does two things:
Expands the products being regulated to include e-liquids.
Bans the sale of flavored tobacco substitutes, flavored e-liquids, and menthol flavored tobacco products
It delays the ban on menthol products until the Health Equity Advisory Commission reports back in January of 2025.
What are e-liquids?
Here's the definition in S.18
“E-liquid” means the solution, substance, or other material used in or with a tobacco substitute that is heated or otherwise acted upon to produce an aerosol, vapor, or other emission to be inhaled or otherwise absorbed by the user, regardless of whether the solution, substance, or other material contains nicotine.
What does that mean? It means an e-liquid is about anything that is used with a tobacco substitute to produce something like a spray or vapor that is absorbed into your body. To figure that out you need to know what a tobacco substitute is.
What is a tobacco substitute?
Here's the definition in S.18
“Tobacco substitute” means any product that is not a tobacco product, as defined in subdivision (21) of this section, and that meets one or both of the following descriptions:
(i) a product, including an electronic cigarette or other electronic or battery-powered device, or any component, part, or accessory thereof, that contains or is designed to deliver nicotine or other substances into the body through the inhalation or other absorption of aerosol, vapor, or other emission and that has not been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for tobacco cessation or other medical purposes; or
(ii) an oral nicotine product or any other item that is designed to deliver nicotine into the body, including a product or item containing or delivering nicotine that has been extracted from a tobacco plant or leaf.
And what does that mean? It's pretty broad. It means that a tobacco substitute is about anything that is not a tobacco product but is designed to deliver something into the body by vapor or absorption. And the product that is delivered in not for medical or tobacco cessation purposes.
Where I stand now
I'm beginning to understand all the products that might be banned and regulated by S.18. The points of view I still wrestle with are:
Bans vs. Regulation - I supported making cannabis legal because I question the effectiveness of bans. Capitalism has a way of getting around legal definitions of products. And, to some extend, the possible increase in black-market products and subsequent lack of oversite is a concern, though I doubt if that as persuasive as it was with cannabis.
As a member of the Ways & Means committee I am concerned about the loss in revenue caused by the ban, but I did vote against legalizing online sports betting which brings quite a bit of money into the State. It also sent quite a bit of money out of the State. I fully understand that, long-term, reducing the use of these products will save Vermont a lot of money, but in the short-term, we're in trouble.
I don't like making laws that cannot, or will not, be enforced. In this case that can happen because the definitions of what is being regulated and banned is so expansive. There are too many products that might be considered e-liquids or tobacco substitutes. Which ones will actually be banned?
Public health and private freedom. I don't like a heavy handed government, but I also don't like having to share the financial burden of other people's poor health care decisions. That's why I support the heavy regulation of tobacco products and am in favor of motorcycle helmet requirements.
How long can I waffle?
My committee is still taking testimony. There's still more to learn. But soon, perhaps this coming week, a decision will have to made in committee, and I will vote "yes" or "no." Still unsure which.
Education Funding
The funding of public education has been complicated and controversial for quite a while. Finding a solution the problems we've recently encountered requires understanding how it all works. That's not easy, but I'll give it a try.
There are several important concepts that some people already know about and understand, so I am having separated pages for them. That way you can skip them if you want.
How can we fix it?
This session is going to be centered on changes in education funding.
Coming up
More education financing. More consideration of a wealth tax. The current agenda for next week does not show additional consideration of the Flavored Tobacco Ban, but it may well be added.