Committee approves flavor ban but keeps local preemption; AG and public health groups propose technical definitions

House Bill 756 — a proposal to ban flavored tobacco and nicotine products — advanced after public health advocates, the Attorney General and the Department of Health urged the legislature to adopt a comprehensive ban with technical definitions to keep pace with product innovation.

Chelsea Okamoto, deputy attorney general in the Tobacco Enforcement Unit, recommended adopting definitions from another administration bill (HB1116) to address concept flavors and to create an inspection and enforcement definition. The Department of Health recommended similar amendments and said the agency was willing to administer an enforcement regime that is administrative rather than criminal.

Public health witnesses, including the Campaign for Tobacco‑Free Kids, the American Lung Association and the Hawaii Public Health Institute, urged the inclusion of menthol and requested that revenue fund enforcement and prevention. The Attorney General and DOH asked for an appropriation and suggested an annual funding level of $1 million per year to support enforcement, including program specialists and a hearings officer; the committee moved that staffing and budget language to report language rather than expressed bill text.

Retailers and some business groups opposed the bill, raising concerns about enforcement costs and the risk of a black market; some witnesses urged stronger enforcement rather than a ban on products that the Food and Drug Administration has authorized.

Committee action: the chair adopted most AG and DOH amendments but retained state preemption of local ordinances. The committee passed HB756 with those technical amendments and moved appropriation language and staffing into report language (an amount of $1,000,000 per year was recorded in the report language recommendation).

Why it matters: Supporters said banning flavored products — including menthol — reduces youth initiation, a claim backed by national evidence of sales declines in other states after flavor bans; retail opponents warned of enforcement challenges and potential substitution effects if out‑of‑state or illicit supply replaces legal sales.