BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 9 X2
Page 1
(Without Reference to File)
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 9
X2 (Thurmond)
As Amended March 3, 2016
Majority vote
-------------------------------------------------------------------
|Committee |Votes|Ayes |Noes |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+---------------------|
|Public Health |12-0 |Bonta, Maienschein, | |
| | |Baker, Bonilla, | |
| | |Campos, | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | |Eduardo Garcia, | |
| | |Levine, Santiago, | |
| | |Steinorth, Mark | |
| | |Stone, Thurmond, Wood | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+---------------------|
|Finance |7-2 |Weber, Bloom, Gomez, |Melendez, Bigelow |
| | | | |
| | | | |
AB 9 X2
Page 2
| | |Jones-Sawyer, | |
| | |McCarty, Obernolte, | |
| | |Ting | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Clarifies charter school eligibility for tobacco use
prevention program (TUPE) funds; requires the California State
Department of Education (CDE) to require all school districts,
charter schools, and county offices of education receiving TUPE
funds to adopt and enforce a tobacco-free campus policy;
prohibits the use of tobacco and nicotine products in any county
office of education, charter school, or school district-owned or
leased building, on school or district property, and in school
or district vehicles; and, requires all schools, districts, and
offices of education to post a sign reading "Tobacco use is
prohibited" at all entrances.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Levies a $0.25 tax on each pack of cigarettes sold in the
state through Proposition 99 approved by the California voters
in the November 1988 General Election.
2)Establishes the Tobacco Education and Research Oversight
Committee (TEROC) charged with overseeing the use of
Proposition 99 tobacco tax revenues for tobacco control and
prevention education and for tobacco-related research. TEROC
provides advice to the State Department of Health Care
Services and CDE with respect to policy development,
integration, and evaluation of tobacco education programs.
AB 9 X2
Page 3
3)Specifies the duties of CDE with respect to tobacco programs
administered by local public and private schools, school
districts, and county offices of education and requires CDE to
award and administer grants for projects directed at the
prevention of tobacco use among school age children.
4)Requires all school districts and county offices of education
that receive grant funds to provide tobacco-use prevention
instruction that addresses all of the following topics:
a) Immediate and long-term undesirable physiologic,
cosmetic, and social consequences of tobacco use;
b) Reasons that adolescents say they smoke or use tobacco;
c) Peer norms and social influences that promote tobacco
use; and,
d) Refusal skills for resisting social influences that
promote tobacco use.
5)Requires all school districts and county offices of education
that receive funds to adopt and enforce a tobacco-free campus
policy which prohibits the use of tobacco products at any
time, in district-owned or leased buildings, on district
property and in district vehicles.
6)Specifies that any school district or county office of
education that does not have a tobacco-free district policy is
not eligible to apply for funds.
AB 9 X2
Page 4
7)Permits a charter school that elects to receive its funding
directly to apply individually for federal and state
categorical programs to the extent it is eligible for funding
and meets the provisions of the program.
8)Permits a charter school that does not elect to receive its
funding directly, to, in cooperation with its chartering
authority, apply for federal and state categorical programs to
the extent it is eligible for funding and meets the provisions
of the program.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Finance Committee,
potential state reimbursable mandate costs, in the range of
$130,000 to $165,000 (Proposition 98 of 1988/General Fund) due
to the requirement that schools post signs at all entrances
notifying the public that tobacco use is prohibited. Potential
cost pressure on existing TUPE funding due to the possible
increase in participating charter schools. Currently charter
schools are eligible to receive TUPE funds, however,
participation among charter schools is low.
COMMENTS: According to the author, by mandating tobacco-free
campuses and by updating tobacco definitions to include
smokeless tobacco and e-cigarettes, this bill will create
schools that protect students from tobacco and provide school
personnel a smoke-free environment. The author states that only
607 local educational agencies (LEAs) receive TUPE funds,
leaving 1,207 LEAs with no obligation to ban tobacco on their
campuses. The author points to information from TEROC which
shows the number of school districts with a tobacco-free
certification has decreased, and also notes that funding for
TUPE has decreased over time, rendering a further disincentive
to schools to create tobacco-free policies. The author
concludes this bill will help reduce tobacco use among our youth
by ensuring adult role models do not use tobacco, limiting youth
AB 9 X2
Page 5
access to tobacco, and discouraging groups from using tobacco on
school grounds.
Proposition 99. In November 1988, California voters approved
the California Tobacco Health Protection Act of 1988, also known
as Proposition 99. This initiative increased the state
cigarette tax by $0.25 per pack and added an equivalent amount
on other tobacco products. The new revenues were earmarked for
programs to reduce smoking, to provide health care services to
indigents, to support tobacco-related research, and to fund
resource programs for the environment. The money is deposited
by using the following formula: 20% is deposited in the Health
Education Account (HEA); 35% in the Hospital Services Account;
10% in the Physician Services Account; 5% in the Research
Account; 5% in the Public Resources Account; and, 25% in the
Unallocated Account (funds in this account are available for
appropriation by the Legislature).
Tobacco prevention in schools. The HEA funds both community and
school-based health education programs to prevent and reduce
tobacco use and is jointly administered by the California
Tobacco Control Program (CTCP) and CDE. Currently, CTCP
receives approximately two-thirds of the funding and CDE
receives approximately one-third of the funding available in the
HEA. CDE administers school-based funding to grades 4 to 8
based on an allocation method and to high schools through
competitive grants that go directly to school districts and
charter schools. LEAs, including school districts, county
offices of education, and directly-funded charter schools apply
directly for TUPE grant funding. Locally-funded charter schools
must apply for TUPE funding through its chartering authority.
These competitive grants are funded in two tiers. The first tier
of funding is $1,500 per year for three years and goes to school
districts and charter schools that establish a tobacco-free
school policy, complete the healthy kids survey, and post
AB 9 X2
Page 6
tobacco free signs on the school property. The second tier of
funding is for school districts and charter schools that comply
with the requirements under tier one, in addition to
implementing a more comprehensive tobacco-free school policy
including cessation programs and school curriculum. CDE uses
Proposition 99 funds to administer TUPE which provides grants to
local education agencies as an incentive to implement and
enforce tobacco-free campus policies.
Smoking and youth. California monitors smoking rates among high
school students using the California Student Tobacco Survey
(CSTS). The 2012 survey showed the percentage of California
high school students who reported smoking a cigarette within the
previous 30 days was 10.5%, or 297,000 students. Smoking among
high school students in California is declining consistently and
is lower than for the rest of the United States. Student
smoking rates declined 51% from 2000 to 2012; however, there are
substantial differences in student smoking prevalence when
examined by race or ethnicity. While rates declined for
non-Hispanic whites, Hispanics, and Asian/Pacific Islanders, the
rate for African-Americans increased by 15.9% over this same
time period.
Health effects of smoking. Smoking is a major cause of many
deadly health problems heart disease, aneurysms, bronchitis,
emphysema, and stroke. Using tobacco can damage a woman's
reproductive health and hurt babies. Tobacco use is linked with
reduced fertility and a higher risk of miscarriage, early
delivery (premature birth), and stillbirth. It's also a cause
of low birth-weight in infants and has been linked to a higher
risk of birth defects and sudden infant death syndrome.
Smoking causes 80% of all deaths from chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease, and causes stroke and coronary heart disease,
the leading causes of death in the United States. Smokers are
30 to 40% more likely to develop type 2 diabetes than
AB 9 X2
Page 7
nonsmokers, and people with diabetes who smoke are more likely
than nonsmokers to have trouble with insulin dosing and with
controlling their disease.
Smoking causes more than 480,000 deaths each year in the United
States, or about one in five. The average annual
smoking-attributable mortality rate in California for the years
2000-04 was 235 per 100,000. The range across states is 138.3
per 100,000 to 370.6 per 100,000. California ranks 6th lowest
per capita among all 50 states in deaths attributed to smoking.
If nobody smoked it would prevent one of every three cancer
deaths in the United States from happening.
The California Medical Association, the Service Employees
International Union, the Association of Northern California
Oncologists, the Medical Oncology Association of Southern
California, the American Lung Association, and others state in
support of the bill that it protects students, staff and
visitors from the harmful effects of tobacco by requiring that
all LEAs adopt and enforce tobacco-free policies on their
campuses. Supporters further state that only school districts
that receive TUPE funding are required to implement 100% tobacco
free policies and that requiring all LEAs to adopt 100%
tobacco-free campus policies and by expanding the definition of
tobacco products ton include electronic cigarettes, snuff, chew,
and other nicotine delivery services, student health will be
improved.
The First 5 Association of California, the American Heart
Association, and the California Dental Association all state in
support of this bill, that schools that consistently enforce
tobacco-free policies have shown decreased rates of smoking
among their students. Supporters argue that evidence shows that
comprehensive school-based programs that include tobacco free
AB 9 X2
Page 8
policies, combined with community and mass-media efforts, can
effectively prevent or postpone the onset of smoking by 20% to
40% among United States teens.
Analysis Prepared by:
Lara Flynn / P.H. & D.S. / (916) 319-2097 FN:
0002642