SB 793 made it illegal for any store that sells tobacco to sell flavored tobacco or tobacco flavor enhancer products

By Chris Micheli, October 5, 2020 2:08 am

The Legislature passed and Governor Newsom signed SB 793 by Senator Jerry Hill (D-San Mateo) on August 28 as Chapter 34. The bill, which banned flavored tobacco, added Article 5 (commencing with Section 104559.5) to Chapter 1 of Part 3 of Division 103 of the Health and Safety Code. Section 1 of the bill added Article 5, which is titled, “Tobacco Sale Prohibition.”

Article 5 begins with Section 104559.5 and subdivision (a) provides numerous definitions of terms used in this article, including:

Subdivision (b) provides that a tobacco retailer, or any of the tobacco retailer’s agents or employees, are prohibited from selling, offering for sale, or possessing with the intent to sell or offer for sale, a flavored tobacco product or a tobacco product flavor enhancer.

There is a rebuttable presumption that a tobacco product is a flavored tobacco product if a manufacturer or any of the manufacturer’s agents or employees, in the course of their agency or employment, has made a statement or claim directed to consumers or to the public that the tobacco product has or produces a characterizing flavor, including, but not limited to, text, color, images, or all, on the product’s labeling or packaging that are used to explicitly or implicitly communicate that the tobacco product has a characterizing flavor.

Subdivision (c) provides that the prohibition does not apply to the sale of flavored shisha tobacco products by a hookah tobacco retailer if all of the following conditions are met:

Subdivision (d) provides that the prohibition of selling or offering for sale does not apply to sales of premium cigars sold in cigar lounges where products are purchased and consumed only on the premises. In addition, subdivision (e) specifies that the prohibition does not apply to loose leaf tobacco or premium cigars.

Subdivision (f) provides that a tobacco retailer, or agent or employee of a tobacco retailer, who violates this section is guilty of an infraction and shall be punished by a fine of two hundred fifty dollars ($250) for each violation of this section.

Finally, subdivision (g) provides that this section does not preempt or otherwise prohibit the adoption of a local standard that imposes greater restrictions on the access to tobacco products than the restrictions imposed by this section. To the extent that there is an inconsistency between this section and a local standard that imposes greater restrictions on the access to tobacco products, the greater restriction on the access to tobacco products in the local standard shall prevail.

Section 2 of the bill provides a severability clause, which provides, “The provisions of this act are severable. If any provision of this act or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.”

“When people can’t do anything about the real problems, then they fight over the garbage.”

Evident to even the most dimwitted*, California has some pressing and serious problems that need to be dealt with ASAP. Vaping isn’t one of them.

The only reason that these otherwise do-nothing clowns keep getting voted in is that the dependent classes of various ethnicities (and their marxist enablers) want to keep up the flow of free goodies.

It will be interesting to see what becomes of them when the state finishes crumbling around their feet.

VicB3 *Or maybe not. These public officials – dull normals every one of them – seem oblivious to it all as they traipse about their little privileged bubbles, including their very own private DVM.

It will help keep violent drug addicts gangbanger thugs from harassing store workers who have no where else to go

Police agencies including the California Statewide Law Enforcement Association also opposed the bill. The Association sent a letter arguing that the ban would allow criminal networks to smuggle and sell the products in California. https://tobacco.ucsf.edu/sites/g/files/tkssra4661/f/wysiwyg/CSLEA%20Opposition%20Letter%20to%20SB793%20July%2015%202020.pdf

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *