Supreme Court leaves California’s ban on flavored cigarettes in place | CNN Politics
www.cnn.com
The Supreme Court declined on Monday to hear a challenge to a California law that bans the sale of flavored cigarettes.

The Supreme Court declined on Monday to hear a challenge to a California law that bans the sale of flavored cigarettes, leaving the state law in place.

Tobacco manufacturers and retailers, including R.J. Reynolds, argued the state law conflicts with the federal Tobacco Control Act, which gives the US Food and Drug Administration the authority to regulate the sale of cigarettes, but stops short of allowing states to outright ban certain products as they see fit.

“Under the TCA, states have broad authority to regulate the sale of tobacco products. They can raise the minimum purchase age, restrict sales to particular times and locations, and enforce licensing regimes,” attorneys for the challengers told the justices in court papers. “But one thing they cannot do is completely prohibit the sale of those products for failing to meet the state’s preferred tobacco product standards.”

The court declined to hear the case without comment.

  • @aelwero
    1•1 year ago

    For the FDA’s purposes, if a tobacco product meets the legal definition of a cigarette but the tobacco is not heated to a temperature high enough to cause combustion, the product would be currently categorized as a non-combusted cigarette and regulated as a cigarette. The types of heated tobacco products currently authorized for sale in the U.S. are all non-combusted cigarettes.

    Tobacco companies got the FDAs blessing on some of those already. Some as far back as 2018.

    As for why they aren’t on the market, I dunno. Could be they aren’t as profitable (they certainly would cost more to produce), could be they dont see any need to compete with their own products, and if you’re a tinfoil hat type, could be those heat-not-burn products aren’t addictive enough.