Tobacco flavor ban in House committee

On Tuesday morning, the committee heard from Robert Melvin, senior manager of government affairs Northeast Region, at the R Street Institute and Elizabeth Hicks, U.S. affairs analyst at Consumer Choice Center.

Melvin said S.18 shouldn’t be passed because it would lead to fewer adults quitting “combustible cigarettes.”

“We believe that abstinence is not a viable method with regards to trying to effectively combat combustible tobacco use,” he said, claiming that while all tobacco products come with some level of risk, combustible cigarettes are among the riskiest.

“We believe that prescribing limits on adult smoker access to a wide variety of products that provide nicotine while minimizing the harm brought by combustion will largely be counterproductive,” Melvin said. “And while the intent of banning the sale of flavored nicotine products is to prevent use by underage individuals, which we think is a laudable goal, studies have found that adolescents do not start using vapes based on flavor availability.”

He claimed that a ban on flavored tobacco products likely would lead to an increase in illicit market sales.

According to its website, the R Street Institute “is the leading think tank engaged in policy research in support of free markets and limited, effective government. We work to bolster American innovation, increase consumer choice and protect individual liberty and believe in smaller, smarter government.”

Hicks’ testimony was along similar lines.

“Simply put, (SB.18), unfortunately, will do more harm than good if passed,” she said, echoing Melvin’s statements about a flavor ban pushing adults toward combustible cigarettes.

…

Chair of the House Committee on Human Services, Rep. Theresa Wood, D-Waterbury, thanked Melvin and Hicks for their testimony. She then noted that she’d gone to the Consumer Choice Center’s website and read the section where it states who funds them.