BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1504
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 7, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION
Isadore Hall, Chair
AB 1504 (Stone) - As Amended: April 2, 2014
SUBJECT : Cigarettes: single-use filters
SUMMARY : Prohibits that sale of cigarettes utilizing
single-use filters. Specifically, this bill :
1)Prohibits a person or entity from selling, giving, or in any
way furnishing to another person of any age in this state a
cigarette utilizing a single-use filter made of any material,
and any organic or biodegradable material. This prohibition
applies to any direct or indirect transaction, whether made
in-person in this state or by means of any public or private
method of shipment or delivery to an address in this state.
2)Specifies that a district attorney or city attorney may assess
a civil fine of $500 dollars for each violation.
3)Specifies that the sale, gift, or other furnishing of one to
20 cigarettes constitutes a single violation.
4)Specifies that the fine moneys assessed shall be deposited in
the treasury of the city or county, respectively, of the city
attorney or district attorney who assessed the fine.
5)Makes various legislative findings relating to the problem of
cigarette butt littering.
EXISTING LAW
1)Requires, under the Stop Tobacco Access to Kids Enforcement
Act (STAKE Act), all persons engaging in the retail sale of
tobacco products to check the identification of tobacco
purchasers, to establish the age of the purchaser, if the
purchaser reasonably appears to be under 18 years of age.
2)Specifies that an enforcing agency may assess civil penalties
against any person, firm, or corporation that sells, gives, or
in any way furnishes to another person who is under 18 years
of age, any tobacco, cigarette, cigarette papers, any other
instrument or paraphernalia that is designed for the smoking
AB 1504
Page 2
or ingestion of tobacco, or products prepared from tobacco.
The existing civil penalties range from $400-$600 for a fist
violation and up to $5,000 to $6,000 for a 5th violation
within a 5-year period.
3)Prohibits the sale, distribution, or non-sale distribution of
tobacco products directly or indirectly to any person under 18
years of age through the United States Postal Service, through
any other public or private postal or package delivery service
at locations, including, but not limited to, public mailboxes
and mailbox stores. Under existing law, a district attorney,
city attorney, or the Attorney General may assess civil
penalties against a violator of not less than $1,000 or more
than $2,000 for the first violation and up to $10,000 for a
5th violation within a 5-year period.
4)Specifies that every person, firm, or corporation that
knowingly or under circumstances in which it has knowledge, or
should otherwise have grounds for knowledge, sells, gives, or
in any way furnishes to another person who is under 18 years
of age any cigarette is subject to either a criminal action
for a misdemeanor or to a civil action brought by a city
attorney, a county counsel, or a district attorney, punishable
by a fine of $200 for the first offense, $500 for the second
offense, and $1,000 for the third and subsequent offense.
5)Prohibits a person in any vehicle or a pedestrian from
throwing or discharging from or upon any road or highway or
adjoining area, public or private, any lighted or non-lighted
cigarette, cigar, match or any flaming or glowing substance.
Current law specifies that such a violation shall be punished
by a mandatory fine of not less than $100 dollars but no more
than $1,000 upon a first conviction, by a mandatory fine of
$500 dollars but no more than $1,000 dollars for a second
violation and by a mandatory fine of $750 dollars but no more
than $1,000 dollars for a third and subsequent violation. In
addition to fines, current law also mandates that the court
require the offender to pick up litter or clean up graffiti,
as specified, in the jurisdiction of the court.
6)Prohibits a person from discarding, dropping, or scattering of
small quantities of waste matter ordinarily carried on or
about the person in a place other than a place or container
for the proper disposal thereof. Current law specifies that a
violation shall be punished by a mandatory fine of $250
AB 1504
Page 3
dollars but no more than $1,000 dollars for a first
conviction, by a mandatory fine of not less than $500 dollar
but no more than $1,500 for a second violation, and by a
mandatory fine of no less than $750 but no more than $3,000
dollars upon a third conviction or subsequent conviction. The
court may, in addition to the fines, require any violator to
pick up litter at a time and place within the jurisdiction of
the court for not less than eight hours.
FISCAL EFFECT : The bill has been keyed non-fiscal by
Legislative Counsel.
COMMENTS :
Purpose of the bill : According to the author, the illegal
litter of cigarette "filters", commonly referred to as cigarette
butts, harms and pollutes our environment. The vast majority of
these cigarette butts are made from a plastic called cellulose
acetate. When a person discards a cigarette butt, the plastic
cigarette butt leaches carcinogenic toxins into the water and
soil, hurts children and wildlife that ingest them, and results
in large financial costs to local governments and agencies left
with the cleanup and disposal of the litter.
The author further argues that reliable estimates state that
845,000 tons of cigarette butts wind up as litter around the
globe each year. As a result of the litter, cigarette butts
remain as the single most collected item of trash collected by
volunteer groups and organizations that conduct parks, rivers,
and beach cleanup events. In the past 25 years volunteers have
picked up 52.9 million plastic cigarette butts during the
International Coastal Cleanup event sponsored by Ocean
Conservancy.
In California, citation rates for cigarette litter from vehicles
are annually about five times the amount of citations issued for
general litter from vehicles. Despite strong laws and
enforcement against cigarette litter, butts remain the single
most littered item on our highways. The California Department
of Transportation has estimated the costs to clean up cigarettes
on roadways at $41 million annually. The City and County of San
Francisco estimates its costs for cleanup at $6 million
annually.
AB 1504 would prohibit the sale, gift, or furnishing of
AB 1504
Page 4
cigarettes that come with single-use 'filters'. Given that
anti-litter campaigns and strict laws and penalties have not
resulted in the abatement of cigarette butt litter, this bill
takes the cigarette butts completely out of the equation. Each
violation of this prohibition is subject to a fine of $500.
The problem of cigarette butts : The problem of cigarette butt
litter is well documented and supported by numerous studies.
Cigarette butts are the most common form of litter, as an
estimated 4.5 trillion cigarette butts are thrown away annually
worldwide. In 2009 over 1.6 million pieces of cigarette butt
litter were retrieved from U.S. beaches, according to the
Surfrider Foundation. During the 2008 Coastal Cleanup Day in
California, 340,000 cigarette butts were collected from
California beaches. The Surfrider Foundation estimates that
Americans discard more than 175 million pounds of cigarettes
buttes every year. Therefore, it is no surprise that cigarette
butts have been the most common type of trash found during
coastal cleanup days for the past 24 years in a row. The recent
bans on indoor smoking have also appeared to cause a shift in
cigarette butt deposition. Circumstantial evidence indicates
that more cigarette butts are accumulating outside of buildings
due to the popularity of indoor smoking bans.
Discarded cigarette butts may present health risks to animals
and humans, especially children. From 2006 to 2008, the American
Association of Poison Control Centers reported nearly 14,000
medical problems caused by tobacco products among children, and
90 percent were due to the ingestion of cigarettes or cigarette
butts. The vast majority of cases were non-toxic, and the
children were not hospitalized.
Health benefits of cigarette filters : Historically, filters
were added to cigarettes beginning in the early 1950's as the
first evidence on the health risks of smoking began to be
reported. At the time, there was a prevailing theory that
cigarette tar was responsible for causing lung cancer and other
diseases and that a reduction of tar could be achieved through
the use of a filter. As a result, filters began to be made from
a variety of materials including cellulose acetate. Laboratory
test indicate that the filters seemed to have succeeded in
reducing the amount of tar that is consumed by the smoker
according to smoking machines. Beginning in the 1970s, the
tobacco industry further modified the design of cigarettes to
reduce the yield of tar. The reductions were accomplished
AB 1504
Page 5
primarily by adding ventilation holes to the filter and other
modifications.
Though all of this has resulted in a reduction in the yield of
tar when measured by a smoking machine, scientists have argued
that this does not reflect the way that people actually smoke
and that filters have done little to protect smokers. Various
scientists argue that smokers compensate for the reduced yield
by taking a deeper inhalation and also blocking the ventilation
holes with their fingers. Doctor Jonathan M. Samet, a physician
and epidemiologist with longstanding research interests in the
risk of smoking and a director at the USC Institute of Global
Health, argues, in a letter submitted to the committee, that:
"Research has been carried out to assess whether the
reductions of tar yield through cigarette modifications
have changed the health risks of smoking over the decades
since filters were added to cigarettes. Identifying any
health consequences of adding filters and of other design
changes to cigarettes has proven challenging. However,
several authoritative reports have addressed this issue,
all finding little relationship between tar yield or
cigarette type and reduced risk. The evidence shows
clearly that the risk of lung cancer and other diseases
varies directly with how long the smoker has smoked and how
many cigarettes per day the smoker has smoked. The
particular characteristics of the cigarettes smoked seem to
have little consequence for risk to health."
Ultimately, it seems that cigarette filters have done very
little to curb the health risks of smoking. However in the same
letter described above, Doctor Samet when answering the question
of, if 1504 were passed, would unfiltered cigarettes pose a
greater risk than today's filtered cigarettes? He states that it
is difficult to anticipate what the risks of unfiltered
cigarettes might be in the 21st century.
Impact of a prohibition on single-use filter cigarettes : Though
there seems to be some consensus on the fact that a cigarette
filter has done little to mitigate the health risk of
cigarettes, the impact of a prohibition on single-use filter
cigarettes is harder to quantify. One of the positive impacts
could be a reduction in the amount of people who smoke, however
the amount in that reduction is hard to estimate. Surely there
would be some people who currently smoke who simply stop
AB 1504
Page 6
smoking, however if there is one thing that studies have proven
over the years is that quitting smoking is very difficult. It
would make sense that the prohibition would result in less
cigarette butt litter, as the product would not be as easily
available, however if all smokers who smoke filtered cigarettes
switch to unfiltered cigarettes one would think that those would
also end up in our environment. Therefore, would the bill simply
be substituting one piece of litter for another?
The prohibition on single-use cigarettes could also increase the
black market sales of cigarettes. According to the Tax
Foundation, 32.7% of the cigarettes smoked in California are
smuggled cigarettes. California currently ranks 6th among all
states in this category. A full prohibition on single-use
filter cigarettes would surely only make the matter worse. Many
smokers state that the reason they do not smoke unfiltered
cigarettes is because of the bitter taste associated with that
type of cigarette. Even though a certain percentage of smokers
would simply switch to unfiltered cigarettes, it would seem that
some would try and obtain single use filter cigarettes in other
illegal ways. If the number of smuggled cigarettes is currently
at 32.7%, even though they are not currently prohibited in our
state, it is easy to see how that number could drastically
increase. The Tax Foundation states that a person can make
upwards of $25,000 dollars on a single car trip smuggling
cigarettes.
Such an increase in smuggled cigarettes would not only give rise
to an increase in drug smuggling activity, but would also
dramatically decrease the amount of tax revenue to the state of
California. Those tax revenues not only support the state's
general fund, but mainly support programs aimed at reducing the
negative impacts of smoking. If single use filter cigarettes are
thus prohibited in the state of California, there could be a
scenario where there is a drastic increase in cigarette
smuggling. Such an increase would significantly reduce the
amount of tax revenue that is dedicated to programs aimed at
reducing the negative impacts of smoking. This would not be a
problem if there is also a similar reduction in the amount of
people who are smoking, however it is hard to predict if such a
reduction would occur or if smokers would simply move to smoking
smuggled cigarettes.
Cigarette taxes use in California : The State of California
currently places an eighty-seven cent ($0.87 tax) per package of
AB 1504
Page 7
cigarettes. Ten cents ($0.10) is deposited into the state's
General fund, and two cents ($0.02) per package goes into the
Breast Cancer Research Fund. Additionally twenty-five ($0.25)
is used for tobacco related health education programs and
research, medical and hospital care and treatment of patients
who cannot afford those services, and for whom payment will not
be made by any private coverage or federal program, and programs
for fire prevention, environmental conservation, protection,
restoration, enhancement, and maintenance of fish, waterfowl,
and wildlife habitat areas, and enhancement of state local parks
and recreation. In addition, fifty cents ($0.50) of the
cigarette and tobacco products tax is used for programs that
encourage proper childhood development of professional and
parental education and training, informed selection of
childcare, development and education of childcare providers, and
research into the best practices and standards for all programs
and services relating to early childhood development.
Arguments in support : The Nature Conservancy writes in support
of the bill stating that according to some estimates, 845,000
tons of cigarette butts end up as litter worldwide per year.
These discarded cigarette butts wind up in numerous locations
including streets, storm drains, streams, and beaches and are
the single most collected litter item in beach and park clean
ups annually. Furthermore, the majority of filters are made of
cellulose acetate a material that is not easily degraded so,
once filters find their way into the environment they can
persist for several months or years before breaking down
depending on environmental conditions.
Similarly, the American Academy of Pediatrics states that the
toxic single-use plastic cigarette butts end up in our urban
environments where they may be ingested by children or wildlife,
contaminate fragile ecosystems, and cost local governments
taxpayer dollars. Further, although the filter is inserted into
the cigarette with the assumption that it is filtering the smoke
of harmful pollutants and chemicals, evidence does not support
that conclusion. In 2010, the US Surgeon General's Report has
this to say: "The evidence indicates that changing cigarette
designs over the last five decades, including filtered
[variations], have not reduced overall disease risk among
smokers and may have hindered preventions and cessation efforts"
Arguments in opposition : RAI Services Company (RAI) writes in
opposition to the bill arguing that prohibiting the sale of
AB 1504
Page 8
filtered cigarettes would clearly constitute a state-established
product standard mandating that tobacco-burning cigarettes sold
in California may not be designed with a filter as an integral
product component. A standard of this type is specifically
precluded by the U.S. Tobacco Control Act of 2009, which would
govern under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
RAI further argues that industry analysis suggests that on an
annual basis unfiltered cigarettes account for only a miniscule
0.25 percent of California's cigarette market. Banning filtered
cigarettes would essentially result in a de facto prohibition of
all cigarette sales in the state. Because of the state's
87-cent per pack tax rate only applies to products sold in the
state, California would stand to lose 99.75 percent ($786
million) of its annual excise-tax revenue from cigarettes if
filtered cigarettes were banned. In addition, more than $350
million in local and state sales taxes would be jeopardized.
Significantly because revenues received by the state from 1998
Master Settlement Agreement are based upon annual sales within
the state, reduction in those sales would obviously affect state
revenues. In 2014 California received $697.8 million from the
MSA.
Finally, RAI argues that according to a 2012 study by the
Mackinac Center for Public Policy, California already has a
significant problem with illegal cigarettes smuggled into the
state. The study ranks California sixth out of 47 states
surveyed for cigarette smuggling. More than 32 percent of the
cigarettes consumed in the state come from illegal sources. A
ban on filtered cigarettes would not have the effect of forcing
California smokers to switch to unfiltered cigarettes or to
quit. It would only have the effect of forcing them to look to
alternative means to acquire the filtered cigarettes they
consume. The surrounding states of Oregon, Nevada and Arizona,
which will not be subjected to the ban, make them a ready source
for illegal filtered cigarette imports to California. Every
highway leading into the state will serve as a pathway for
illicit product. In essence, passing this law would flood the
California market with cigarettes of suspect origin not taxed by
the state of California.
The California Chamber of Commerce also writes in opposition of
the bill arguing that business costs increase anytime companies
must segregate their operations to produce a California only
product. AB 1504 eliminates the choice for consumers by
AB 1504
Page 9
prohibiting them from purchasing filtered cigarettes. By
reducing the choices available to consumers, the state is
mandating which product consumers must purchase. Furthermore,
by mandating all consumers purchase non-filter cigarettes, there
may be no difference in the amount of litter we face from
cigarettes, it may just occur in a different form. Filters
serve to snub out the fire from a cigarette. Should the filter
be eliminated, there may still be the same number of remnants of
cigarettes littered, either snubbed or not snubbed out. This
may lead to an increase in fires, not only in residences, but
also in trash containers and along our highways. As the state
faces the worst drought in recent history, the increase of fire
danger causes great concern.
Related legislation : AB 1500 (Dickinson), 2013-2014 Legislative
Session. The bill would prohibit a delivery seller, as defined,
from selling or delivering an electronic cigarette (e-cigarette)
to a person under 18 years of age. (Pending in Assembly
Appropriations Committee)
Previous legislation : SB 648 (Corbett), 2013-2014 Legislative
Session. The bill would have extended the restrictions and
prohibitions against the smoking of tobacco products to include
restrictions or prohibitions against e-cigarette in various
places, including, but not limited to, places of employment,
school campuses, public buildings, day care facilities, retail
food facilities, and health facilities. (Failed passage in the
Assembly Governmental Organization Committee)
SB 882 (Corbett), Chapter 310, Statutes of 2010. The bill made
it unlawful, to the extent not preempted by federal law, for a
person to sell or otherwise furnish an e-cigarette to a person
under 18 years of age.
SB 400 (Corbett), 2009-2010 Legislative Session. The bill would
have defined e-cigarettes as drugs under state law, making them
subject to the Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law, and would
have allowed the Department of Public Health (DPH) to halt the
sale, distribution, or offering of e-cigarettes as part of its
enforcement of the STAKE Act. (The bill was vetoed by the
Governor)
SB 1766 (Ortiz), Chapter 686, Statutes of 2002. Required that
all sales of cigarettes in the State be vendor-assisted,
face-to-face sales unless the seller receives valid
AB 1504
Page 10
identification, that the purchaser is over 18, the product is
shipped to the address provided on the identification, the sales
is at least for two cartons, and the seller either provides the
State Board of Equalization with all taxes due on the sale or
includes with the shipment a notice that the purchaser is
responsible for state taxes.
AB 1830 (Frommer), Chapter 685, Statutes of 2002. Prohibits the
sales of tobacco products to minors through the United States
Postal Service or through any other public or private postal or
package delivery service, and imposes specified
age-verification requirements on tobacco product sellers or
distributors.
SB 1927 (Hayden), Chapter 1009, Statutes of 1994. Enacted the
STAKE Act to address the increase in tobacco sales to minors in
California and fulfill the federal mandate that prohibited the
sale of cigarettes and tobacco products to minors.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
American Academy of Pediatrics, California
Ash Kalra, Councilmember, District 2, City of San Jose
Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association
Californians Against Waste
City of El Cerrito
City of Palo Alto
City of San Francisco
City of San Rafael
CLEAN South Bay
Coastal Environmental Rights Foundation
County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors
County of San Francisco Board of Supervisors
Gallinas Watershed Council
Oceana
Physicians for Social Responsibility
Monterey County Board of Supervisors
Natural Resources Defense Council
The Nature Conservancy
Recycling and Waste Reduction Commission of Santa Clara County
Salud Carbajal, First District Supervisor, County of Santa
Barbara
San Rafael Clean Coalition
AB 1504
Page 11
Santa Clara Valley Water District
San Lorenzo Valley Women's Club
Save our Shores
Sierra Club of California
Opposition
California Chamber of Commerce
California Manufacturers and Technology Association
National Federation of Independent Business
RAI Services Company
Analysis Prepared by : Felipe Lopez / G. O. / (916) 319-2531