Protecting Sonoma Kids Policy Campaign to Pass a Tobacco Retailer License with Flavor Restrictions in Sonoma City

Transcription

1 Protecting Sonoma Kids Policy Campaign to Pass a Tobacco Retailer License with Flavor Restrictions in Sonoma City Written in collaboration with Pam Granger

2 Page 2 of 5 Background Cities and counties across California are taking action to reduce the number of youth who start smoking. Sonoma, like many cities throughout California, had not updated their tobacco control laws since the early 1990 s. Previous ordinances lacked effective strategies to prevent illegal sales to underage youth. In January 2014, the city received a failing grade in the American Lung Association s State of Tobacco Control: California Local Grades Report (SOTC), indicating that their policies were not adequately preventing secondhand smoke or monitoring retail sales of tobacco products. Meanwhile, seven out of ten jurisdictions within Sonoma County had enacted tobacco control policies that raised their grade, leaving only the City of Sonoma and two other jurisdictions with an F. The tobacco retailer licensing (TRL) policy campaign took place over one and half years, facing stiff opposition that could have derailed similar efforts. The campaign garnered local, state, national, and international attention as tobacco industry professionals mobilized to stop the ordinance from passing. By June 2015, Sonoma passed a comprehensive TRL policy that adequately monitored retailers and set tobacco restrictions helping protect youth from purchasing tobacco products. For more information on comprehensive tobacco retail policies, visit: tobacco-policy/tobacco-retail-environment/ business woman and volunteer with the American Cancer Society (ACS), had previously approached Councilmember Gillian about working towards smoke-free outdoor spaces and TRL laws. Elizabeth, a public health professional with chain-smoking neighbors in her condo complex, had encouraged Mayor Rouse to support a smoke-free multi-unit housing ordinance. Their connections became the catalyst to build important relationships with other advocates, city council, and city staff, all of which became crucial in fighting tobacco industry pushback. Laying the Groundwork In February, the Coalition for a Tobacco-Free Sonoma County tobacco policy workgroup (workgroup) seized an opportunity to collaborate with two passionate Sonoma city residents. Tobacco prevention staff at Sonoma County s Local Lead Agency (LLA) connected the workgroup with Lori and Elizabeth¹ due to their motivation to update the old tobacco control policy to include secondhand smoke protections and tobacco retail regulations. Lori, a local Key partners who rallied most actively on the Sonoma tobacco control policy campaigns alongside Lori and Elizabeth included LLA staff and members of the workgroup, represented by the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network (ACS CAN), the American Lung Association in California (ALA), and the Northern California Center for Well Being (NCCWB). The workgroup helped support other local volunteers with key messages development, letter/ writing templates and preparation for giving testimony at city council meetings. The workgroup also received valuable assistance from ChangeLab Solutions and the Center for Tobacco Policy and Organizing. 1 Last names withheld to protect privacy.

3 Page 3 of 5 Campaign Summary Limited early opposition March 2014 (First City Council Meeting) Council supports updating tobacco policy Based on a conversation with Elizabeth, Mayor Rouse made a last-minute addition to the city council agenda requesting research on smoking restrictions. During public comment, nine people spoke in favor of updating the city tobacco control policies, including six ACS resident volunteers. There was no opposition. The council voted 4-1 to direct city staff to research options for smoking and retail sales restrictions. One council member dissented over concern about the city s inability to enforce new laws. After the first city council meeting, Mayor Rouse followed Elizabeth s suggestion and assembled the city manager, assistant city manager, planning director, and workgroup members in a meeting to discuss policy information. Workgroup members and volunteers also surveyed the community about youth tobacco use and strategies to educate and monitor retailers. Survey results showed respondents strongly favored a TRL. May 2014 (Second City Council Meeting) Council selects priorities The City Attorney guided the council through policy options listed on a strong policy checklist as detailed in the State of Tobacco Control Report by the American Lung Association in California. During public comment, nine people supported updating the tobacco control policies, including five people who were running in the upcoming city council elections. There was still no opposition. Following the second council meeting, the LLA coordinated an informative phone conference between a staff attorney at ChangeLab Solutions, the mayor, city staff, and the workgroup that would help draft the initial ordinance. In addition, the workgroup provided information about flavored little cigars, nicotine addiction, and included contacts in other cities willing to share TRL fee structures used in existing policies. When it was clear in September that the policy development process had stalled, Elizabeth reached out to the council via describing her experiences dealing with drifting secondhand smoke at her condo and sharing a video on the consequences of inaction. February 2015 (Fourth City Council Meeting) New council selects TRL elements and requests additional research October 2014 (Third City Council Meeting) Election causes delay; secondhand smoke/retail policies separated The workgroup evaluated the draft policy, which combined both secondhand smoke and TRL provisions, prior to the meeting and made suggestions about definitions and policy elements such as minimum price. Since an election was only two weeks away, the council voted to delay the draft ordinance until the new council members were seated. The council also decided to address secondhand smoke and retail policies as two separate policies moving forward. The election resulted in three new members on the council. At the meeting, they voted to have staff prepare a draft policy including elements of a TRL on which they agreed. The draft policy would include regulating e-cigarettes as tobacco products and capping tobacco retailers to the sixteen in business at that time. During public comment, seven people outlined their support for TRL components. Two workgroup members also reminded the council that the city of Sonoma had received an F on the State of Tobacco Control report. Although the city clerk mailed a public notice to the retailers of record in January, there was no retailer opposition.

4 Page 4 of 5 Opposition Takes Notice For nearly a year, the TRL workgroup educated community members, city staff, and old and new council members about the potential of TRL policies to reduce the number of youth addicted to tobacco products. During this time, local and regional papers only published two articles focusing on secondhand smoke with little mention of retail regulations. The campaign seemed to be flying under the radar. Opposition formed when three articles were published leading to the March council meeting highlighting the TRL and its potential flavor restrictions. The opposition group was organized mostly by the vaping industry which was already fighting campaigns across the state to redefine tobacco products to include electronic smoking devices (e-cigarettes, vapes) and to regulate their use in the same manner as combustibles. At the time, there were over 110 tobacco retail licenses throughout California, but only two other jurisdictions had passed policies regulating flavored tobacco. Workgroup members anticipated that the vaping industry, motivated to protect their profits, would respond to the campaign s increased visibility. One workgroup member uncovered action alerts, including talking points and city council contact information, on four national websites that sell or promote vaping products. These organizations encouraged people from across the country to attend the upcoming city council meeting or to send messages claiming some sort of tie with Sonoma. Locally, a vape store manager from a neighboring city attended a Sonoma County tobacco coalition meeting and used meeting update information to inform and organize vape industry advocates. To offset the vape industry correspondence strategy, the TRL workgroup educated the council of these campaign tactics, alerting them of possible deception. Volunteers mounted a successful support letter writing campaign, generating over 20 short support s by citizen and public health supporters. The workgroup also created a press packet for print media with talking points highlighting the importance of minimum pack size and flavor restrictions, along with links to public health websites. They reached out to reporters from local and regional newspapers who had covered the campaign before. March 2015 (Fifth City Council Meeting) Vaping industry opposes; support for TRL including flavor ban grows As anticipated, vape industry pushback became more visible during public comment at the fifth city council meeting. Eight people spoke in favor of aspects of a strong TRL, including five workgroup members. Four people spoke in opposition, including a local 7-11 owner who said the proposed $246 fee would be a financial burden. A 7-11 corporate representative from Texas who attended the meeting said they did not need a TRL because they have an excellent training program and a spotless record of not selling to minors. The vape store manager who attended the coalition meeting, objected to lumping electronic smoking devices with combustibles and restricting flavors. A vape industry organization president warned that local customers would drive two miles out of town to purchase their flavored tobacco products in the county unincorporated areas. Following public comment, Councilmember Edwards shared that he had met with baseball players at Sonoma High School and was surprised to learn that their least favorite thing about high school was the overwhelming presence of e-cigarettes on campus. Mayor Cook, who had originally rejected new tobacco control policies because of enforcement concerns, now embraced a TRL as a compelling way to address youth tobacco and vaping use. After reviewing youth purchase rates across the state, he had concluded that if there is a low rate reported in Sonoma, it was likely because little to no resources had been allocated to enforcement. He found that the TRL fee would pay for the enforcement and, as a businessman, the $246 to be a small price to pay for selling tobacco products. The council then voted and approved a final list of TRL elements. With a few remaining edits, a draft ordinance was expected to be ready soon for a vote.

5 Page 5 of 5 May 2015 (Sixth City Council Meeting) Vaping pushes back hard, but council votes to support TRL Between March and the first reading of the draft ordinance in May, both supporters and the opposition stayed very engaged and contacted city council members. Workgroup members met an hour before the council meeting as usual to coordinate testimony. At the May city council meeting, twenty people spoke during public comment: eight in support (four workgroup members), two neutral with questions, and ten in opposition, five of whom came from as far away as Redding, Sacramento, Vacaville and Texas. One workgroup member provided examples of FDA-approved cessation products to illustrate that they don t have to be in kid-luring flavors to work. The TRL passed this first reading by a 5-0 vote. June 2015 (Seventh City Council Meeting) TRL passes on second reading on the consent calendar June 1, 2015 Challenges and Lessons Learned There were a number of unforeseeable factors that contributed to the campaign s struggles and successes. The process was slowed by the council trying to consider both secondhand smoke and TRL policies at the same time over a ten-month period. By splitting the topics and working on the policies in separate years, staff, council and advocates could focus on reating strong policy. Passing secondhand smoke policy in 2016, one year after the TRL campaign, also allowed the campaign to work with city staff and council members already familiar with the issue. Increased press coverage of the TRL considerations generated visibility and resulted in opposition forming from outside the city. Despite outreach to local retailers, significant pushback did not emerge until the tobacco industry, particularly the vaping retailers and organizations, brought in outside representatives and used online media. Shielding the campaign strategy from potential opposition is critical. Updating coalition membership guidelines could have prevented a vaping industry professional from obtaining sensitive campaign information at a tobacco coalition meeting. At the same time, uncovering the opposition s strategies helped coalition members alert city staff and council While gaining new city council members mid-campaign slowed the process, the workgroup took advantage of the opporunity to schedule more meetings with and provide the most recent data to city staff. The workgroup fostered a relationship as a credible partner with local media, city staff and council by providing statistics and information, such as links to reliable public health sources which helped counter influence from the tobacco industry. Data from local public intercept surveys and the SOTC report card, for example, are excellent tools to both rally support from local leadership and increase public knowledge about local tobacco laws.