Gil Cisneros
As Colorado’s 2022 legislative session moves into the second month of the session, our legislators are being asked to consider the merits of a ban on flavored tobacco and vaping products. Even casual observers of the Denver City Council’s recently failed attempt to ban flavors could repeat the well-worn arguments for and against a flavor ban. Proponents of a ban on flavored tobacco will cite the need to keep these products out of the hands of children and opponents will focus on the freedoms of adults to use legal products. Undoubtedly we will see these arguments rehashed in the upcoming debates at the State Capitol.
But what state lawmakers need to talk about are the trade-offs that would be made should a flavor ban pass. Legislators and the public need to consider the impact a flavor ban will have on other public policy decisions, because it’s not just the availability of flavored nicotine that will be decided. Public education and the future of thousands of small businesses will also be directly impacted by the passage of this bill. No debate on the flavor ban would be complete without these issues being discussed. The trade-off for passage of a flavor bill is the denial of a preschool education for thousands of minority and low-income children and the potential devastation of important sectors of our state’s economy.
For those of us who have spent decades advocating on behalf of Latino and minority communities, the results of the latest Colorado CMAS tests from the past year continue to disappoint. Continuing a trend stretching back decades, Latino and minority students still lag far behind their ethnic counterparts in crucial educational metrics. Despite the best efforts of talented teachers and administrators in our public schools, the achievement gap between minority children and their white classmates refuses to close.
New approaches to this problem need to be tried because the attempted solutions of the past couple decades clearly are not working. It’s why I and many others supported Gov. Jared Polis’ push to make preschool available to all Colorado schoolchildren. This was a promising new idea that is close to being implemented for the first time. According to the Brookings Institute, experts are in near-unanimous agreement that preschool increases language and social skills and better prepares kids for a lifetime of learning. If all children attend their first day of kindergarten equally prepared, we can expect the achievement gap to close. Minority and low-income students will have the same advantages of a preschool education that the children of more financially-secure families currently enjoy.
Universal preschool also has the added benefit of providing child care for families that cannot afford it. Most daycare providers in Colorado charge more than $1,000 a month to take care of children. To put it in perspective, the cost to send a child to a year of daycare is similar to the cost of sending a child to college for a year. How many more low-income parents would be able to improve their household finances with a part-time job if the cost of childcare were already covered?
The benefits of universal preschool were obvious, but it took some effort to find a way to fund it. In 2020, Gov. Jared Polis and legislative leaders passed and sent to the voters Proposition EE, to increase taxes on tobacco products, and implemented a tax on vaping products for the first time. Prop EE passed easily with more than 67% of Colorado voters supporting it. For the past year the state has been collecting new taxes that will fund universal preschool.
How negatively will a ban on flavored nicotine products impact this program? As flavored nicotine consumers change their buying habits to online and out-of-state sales, how much money will the state lose in lower tax receipts? With a smaller budget will this mean fewer preschools will be funded across the state? Or, to cover this funding shortfall, will existing programs be cut to provide funding for universal preschool? Which trade-off are supporters of a flavor ban proposing since tax revenue will most certainly fall?
Legislators will also need to consider how a tobacco flavor ban is going to impact minority-owned businesses and jobs. Talk to any independent convenience store owner in Colorado and the odds are high that you will be speaking with an immigrant or first-generation American. For many of these stores 30-40% of their profits come from the sale of tobacco. How many employees will Colorado businesses lay off or how many businesses will close if consumers are forced to shop online or travel to neighboring states to buy what they want? Have legislators recognized what a flavor ban will do to the hundreds and thousands of minority-owned independent convenience stores? It may not be the intention of flavor ban proponents to take away the ability of an immigrant to make a living, but that’s cold comfort to those who will lose their jobs or their businesses.
As the flavor ban is debated, I hope our legislators have real, concrete answers to the questions raised. Are the unintended consequences of a flavor ban worth it? With teen tobacco use at historically-low rates, are the efforts to lower it further worth the price to Colorado preschoolers and minority business owners? These are the questions legislators need to ask. Parents, educators, and the minority business community will be watching.
Gil Cisneros is president and CEO of the Chamber of the Americas in Denver.