In the ever-evolving landscape of public health policy and individual rights, the state of Vermont recently found itself at a crossroads with bill S.18—a piece of legislation aimed at banning flavored tobacco and vaping products. This bill, which supporters argue would have been a strong move to combat youth addiction to nicotine, was met with a surprising veto by Governor Phil Scott. The decision has since sparked a complex debate touching on health, freedom, and economics.
The Veto and Its Rationale
On April 3, Governor Phil Scott, a Republican, made the decisive move to veto bill S.18, which sought to prohibit the sale of flavored nicotine and tobacco products, excluding non-flavored tobacco varieties. The bill also included a ban on online sales of vaping products. In explaining his veto, Governor Scott emphasized the need to balance the protection of children with the rights of adults to make their own choices. He pointed out the inconsistency of banning flavored tobacco while allowing the sale of flavored cannabis and alcohol products. Furthermore, the Governor raised concerns about tax revenue losses that the ban could precipitate.
Legislative Dynamics
The Vermont General Assembly witnessed a divide on the bill, with the House passing it with an 83-53 vote and the Senate with an 18-11 vote in March 2023. Nevertheless, these numbers fell short of the two-thirds majority required to override a gubernatorial veto. Senate President Pro-Tem Phil Baruth announced that there was no intention to challenge the veto, and instead, the bill was sent back to the committee for potential revisions.
The Implications of the Proposed Law
Had S.18 been enacted, Vermont would have joined the ranks of states like California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island, which have instituted bans on flavored vape products. The law would have been comprehensive, outlawing the sale of all flavored consumer nicotine products, not just those authorized by the FDA. This would have included flavored vapes, nicotine pouches, smokeless tobacco, and all forms of combustible tobacco, including menthol cigarettes.
Smoke-free advocacy groups react
Tobacco control advocates expressed their disappointment and frustration over the veto. The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids accused Governor Scott of prioritizing the tobacco industry over the welfare of Vermont’s youth. The American Heart Association-Vermont also weighed in, claiming that “inhalational” nicotine products are exceptionally addictive and contribute to significant health and economic burdens in the state.
The Debate Over Flavored Tobacco Bans
The controversy surrounding the ban on flavored tobacco products is not new. Proponents of such legislation argue that flavors are particularly appealing to younger individuals and can lead to a lifetime of addiction. On the other hand, opponents raise concerns about adult freedoms and the potential for such bans to drive sales underground or across state lines, which could undermine the intended public health benefits while also affecting tax revenue.
Economic Considerations
Governor Scott’s concerns about the financial implications of the ban are not unfounded. The Joint Fiscal Office estimated a revenue loss between $3.0 and $5.4 million from the ban’s full implementation in fiscal year 2026. These economic considerations play a significant role in legislative decisions, particularly when the loss of revenue from tobacco taxes must be weighed against the long-term health care costs associated with tobacco use.
Subsequent impact
With the veto in place and the bill sent back to the committee, legislators in Vermont must now decide how to proceed. They could attempt to revise the bill to address the concerns raised by the Governor and potentially gain broader support, or they could choose to focus their efforts on other strategies to reduce youth tobacco use without imposing a ban.
