One Stop Shopping in Sonora

( Valentino/SFGATE)

Guns and booze can be bought together at the Sportsman in Sonora.

The Sportsman — the last standing business in California where patrons can simultaneously buy a beer and a firearm — is encased in a historic brick building between the town’s main drag and its police station. The store-and-bar is as much a tourist destination as it’s a living room for some in the gateway town. On a weekday afternoon, two locals nursed Michelob Ultras beneath a television showing a Giants game while another man put down the next installment on a deposit for a rifle.

Storekeeper Steve Kane toggled between the two sides of the slim room. One half of the tawny-walled store is a pub with numerous framed photos of past and current customers. The other side is reserved for firearms — pistols and rifles — contained behind glass casings. A six-shooter goes for $250 while a .22-caliber rifle costs more than $600...

A fixture of Sonora but an oddity for the rest of the state, the Sportsman routinely draws tourists from around the world who enter with a wide-eyed gaze before Kane warmly welcomes them in. “I tell them, ‘This is a unicorn.’ You’ll go your whole trip in the United States and never see this,” he said. “And being in California, that’s what makes it crazy.”

The Sportsman also sells cigarettes, which means that it is overseen by a single Federal agency (Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms). Is this what is known as a regulatory advantage?

Number One Yet Again

(Photo by Tama/Getty/WSJ)

California is first in the nation in categories good and bad (e.g., wealth, business startups, agriculture, homelessness, technology, air pollution), but few people are probably aware that it is the leader in cigarette smuggling:

More than half of cigarettes smoked in California—53%, to be exact—evaded or avoided the state’s cigarette mandates and levies. That’s a stunning rise from a decade ago, when 28% of cigarettes were smuggled into the Golden State. It also takes California past New York, where we estimate that 52% of cigarettes are smuggled.

What changed? A 2017 California law raised the cigarette tax from 87 cents to $2.87, which gave smokers an incentive to find cheaper options—which out-of-state and transnational smugglers were more than happy to provide. California then banned menthol cigarettes, which make up roughly a third of the nation’s cigarette sales, along with other flavored tobacco products, in late 2022.

...The Golden State’s policies also encourage public corruption. Last year a former prison guard was indicted for his role smuggling tobacco into Solano State Prison, near Sacramento. The state struggles to keep tobacco, narcotics and cellphones out of prisons. What makes its leaders think they can keep a tidal wave of illicit cigarettes and other nicotine products out of the hands of nonincarcerated Californians? California has many major ports, bonded warehouses, the Mexican border, and nearby states with lower tax rates, all of which can be exploited by smugglers to save or make a buck at California’s expense.

Lower-taxed states are a major source of cigarettes to high-taxed ones. Wyoming’s smuggling export rate is 55%. Idaho’s is 28%. In other words, for every 100 cigarettes consumed in those states, an additional 55 and 28, respectively, are bought there and smuggled into other states. It doesn’t strain credulity to suggest that many of these lower-taxed smokes end up in California.

California politicians and their staff don't seem to have much knowledge about how incentives influence behavior. Until we elect more people who have spent time earning a living in the real world--and I don't mean lawyers and educators--our state and local governments will keep passing well-intentioned laws that have no chance of success.

Priorities

Menthol shelves are well stocked (WSJ photo)

The Biden Administration has been criticized for overstepping the constitutional powers of the Executive (e.g., forgiving $billions of student loans, banning fossil fuel power plants) and ignoring Executive responsibilities (e.g., controlling the Southern border). However, I suspect that the majority of Americans would approve this action that would save hundreds of thousands of lives: [bold added]

The Biden administration proposed a national ban on menthol cigarettes, advancing a regulatory plan that could sweep from the market more than a third of all cigarettes sold in the U.S. The products represent more than $20 billion in annual sales.

The Food and Drug Administration on Thursday published proposed rules laying out the details of the plan. The ban would prohibit the sale of menthol cigarettes and all flavored cigars. The FDA said it is considering allowing exemptions on a case-by-case basis for certain products, such as heated-tobacco devices or cigarettes with very low nicotine levels. The ban wouldn’t affect menthol e-cigarettes...

The plan, which has been in the works for more than two decades, is the biggest move the federal government has made to curb cigarette sales since the FDA gained regulatory control over the tobacco industry in 2009.

The policy could save hundreds of thousands of lives, FDA Commissioner Robert Califf said Thursday. He said in his career as an intensive-care cardiologist, he had seen many people die of smoking-related diseases.

The government has the legal authority to enforce the ban, so what's the holdup? Politics from its own base (hint: it's not Big Tobacco):

The Biden administration is reversing course on its plan to ban menthol cigarettes, after the White House weighed the potential public-health benefits of banning minty smokes against the political risk of angering some Black voters in an election year.

The administration said Friday that it is delaying a decision on whether to impose a ban, contending that it needs more time to consult with outside groups on the matter. There is no timeline for the administration to revisit the decision, as President Biden competes with former President Donald Trump for votes in November.

Menthols account for more than a third of all cigarettes sold in the U.S. each year and are predominantly used by Black and Hispanic smokers. Some 81% of Black smokers used menthols in 2020, compared with 30% of white smokers and 51% of Hispanic smokers, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health.

The Administration has no hesitancy in banning carbon-producing activities because it knows better than the people what's good for them (Pew--August, 2023: "This ranks climate change 17th out of 21 national issues included in a Center survey from January.") However, it refuses to outlaw menthol cigarettes, which are certain to cause thousands of deaths in the near future. That's one inconsistency that is tough to explain, if only there was a single truth-searching reporter that would ask them about it.

Smoke for the Goose

Chris bongs, Iris breathes it in (Chron photo)

Not unexpectedly, a study has shown that marijuana bong smoke is dangerous. The revelation is that bong hits are much more harmful than tobacco smoke.

The results showed that cannabis smoke from the bong produced four times the particulate matter as the smoke produced by tobacco.

From the history of laws against tobacco, we should immediately expect California to enact legislation to protect its residents against bonging: [bold added]

California and its cities and counties have led the way in protecting residents and visitors from these harms through an array of smoking bans that include cigarettes, little cigars (or cigarillos), e-cigarettes, marijuana and hookah. The vast majority of California’s indoor spaces are protected from secondhand smoke, ensuring people breathe clean air while they are at work, school or play. Smoking is prohibited in most indoor places including public and private office buildings, public and private schools and universities, factories, warehouses, restaurants, bars, pool halls, movie theaters, hotel and motel lobbies and meeting rooms and even covered parking lots, among many, many other spaces. There are only a small number of exceptions to these state laws. Because American Indian tribes are sovereign entitities, their lands are not covered by state laws that prohibit smoking in indoor spaces. Many tribal casinos have adopted some policies restricting smoking in tribal gaming casinos and a few have adopted 100% smokefree policies.

Many of California’s outdoor spaces are also protected through local laws as well. To start, many of our parks and beaches have banned smoking to make visiting them more enjoyable to everyone. More than 100 cities and counties have passed comprehensive outdoor secondhand smoke ordinances that prohibit smoking in outdoor dining areas, public events, such as concerts and fairs, recreation areas, worksites and sidewalks. Hundreds more cities and counties have restricted smoking in the entryways of buildings, as well as service areas, which include places such as ATM lines, public transit stops, taxi stands and ticket lines.

Your humble blogger tried smoking cigarettes 50 years ago, didn't like it, and has never smoked since. As one whose allergies are triggered by tobacco smoke, I appreciate the widespread bans, but I think prohibiting smoke outdoors is going too far. I suspect that some of the animus is directed against people who smoke as well as the act itself.

The crowd who uses marijuana is not the same as the one that uses tobacco. If laws to protect bystanders against marijuana smoking are passed quickly, I will be wrong that there are elements of get-the-other-tribe in anti-tobacco ordinances.

But I'm not holding my breath.

Vaping: the Hard Way to Change

Vaping devices confiscated from students (NPR)

In 2018 San Francisco banned the sale of e-cigarettes, primarily to prevent teenagers from getting hooked on this latest delivery system for nicotine.

A Yale study says the unintended consequence was to increase teen usage of traditional cigarettes, whose smoke causes much more damage to the body than e-cigarettes: [bold added]

When San Francisco voters overwhelmingly approved a 2018 ballot measure banning the sale of flavored tobacco products — including menthol cigarettes and flavored vape liquids — public health advocates celebrated. After all, tobacco use poses a significant threat to public health and health equity, and flavors are particularly attractive to youth.

But according to a new study from the Yale School of Public Health (YSPH), that law may have had the opposite effect. Analyses found that, after the ban’s implementation, high school students’ odds of smoking conventional cigarettes doubled in San Francisco’s school district relative to trends in districts without the ban, even when adjusting for individual demographics and other tobacco policies.

When politicians are convinced of the righteousness of their position, and when these politicians hold the power to impose their will, banning of supposedly harmful products and services seems like the quickest and easiest course of action.

We have seen how, in the case of Prohibition, drugs, gambling, and prostitution, criminalizing these behaviors never eliminates them. Moreover, the unintended consequences, i.e., creating black markets or forcing addicted consumers to choose more harmful substitutes, can make things worse.

It took half a century of public education and regulation to reduce consumption of conventional tobacco products to its current level of 14% of the U.S. adult population. To effect permanent change the right way is usually the hard way.

To SF Politicians: Save Your Breath

San Francisco can forbid and allow whatever activities it wants just because it can: [bold added]

S.F. bans tobacco smoking inside apartment buildings, allows cannabis smoking

A perfectly fine principle

San Francisco residents who live in apartment buildings with three or more units will no longer be allowed to smoke tobacco inside their homes — but they can still smoke cannabis, under a new ordinance the Board of Supervisors passed on Tuesday.

The board voted 10-1, with Supervisor Dean Preston dissenting. San Francisco is now the largest city in the country to ban tobacco smoking in apartment buildings.

“One should not have to live in a single family home to be able to breathe clean air,” said outgoing President Norman Yee, who wrote the ordinance. “That right should exist for every single person and family, regardless of where they live or what their income is.”

The ordinance is intended to protect residents from secondhand smoke. The original proposal sought to ban residents from smoking cannabis in their apartments, but supervisors voted 8-3 — with Yee, Gordon Mar and Ahsha Safaí opposed — to exclude cannabis from the ordinance.

The fine speech about the right to breathe clean air means that cannabis smoke is harmless, right? According to the American Lung Association

But don't pretend that principle matters

Smoke from marijuana combustion has been shown to contain many of the same toxins, irritants and carcinogens as tobacco smoke...Secondhand marijuana smoke contains many of the same toxins and carcinogens found in directly-inhaled marijuana smoke, in similar amounts if not more...

Smoking marijuana clearly damages the human lung. Research shows that smoking marijuana causes chronic bronchitis and marijuana smoke has been shown to injure the cell linings of the large airways, which could explain why smoking marijuana leads to symptoms such as chronic cough, phlegm production, wheeze and acute bronchitis.

The cannabis exclusion was justified, according to advocates, because marijuana smokers have no choice but to smoke indoors because the activity is not permitted in public spaces.

San Francisco supervisors caved when one of their favored interest groups requested an exemption. OK, that's politics, but please spare us the noble language when you forbid tobacco with one breath and allow marijuana with the next.

When Public Servants Do Product Management

No surcharge: he's not enrolled either (collegecandy.com)

Another brilliant idea by the designers of Obamacare: impose higher premiums on smokers, especially older ones ("age-dependent tobacco surcharges"); the surcharges would incentivize older smokers to quit.

Instead, smokers simply didn't enroll in Obamacare.

[Yale researchers] found a lower likelihood of enrollment—as much as 11.6 percent—for smokers who faced surcharges versus smokers who didn’t. The higher the surcharge, the bigger the dampening effect. And smokers under 40 were nearly 20 percent less likely to be insured.

Those people--smokers young and old--refused to behave as the central planners wanted them to.

How deplorable!