The primary focus of the meeting was the proposed alignment of local tobacco sales regulations with state laws, specifically addressing the sale of products such as blunt wraps. The Board emphasized that local regulations needed to catch up with state-imposed fines, which are considerably higher. Currently, local fines are set at $100, whereas state laws dictate penalties of $1,000 for a first offense, $2,000 for a second, and $5,000 for a third. This discrepancy was a key point of concern, with attendees, including local business owners, expressing apprehension over the financial impact of increased fines.

A significant portion of the discussion centered on the definition and sale of “blunt wraps.” The Board highlighted concerns over products marketed under deceptive guises that might exploit current regulations. An example presented involved a product named “Cigar One” from a company referred to as “frto,” which, upon inspection, turned out to be a roll of tobacco leaf rather than a traditional cigar. The Board member noted, “That’s why we have this proposed change; it’s a problem,” emphasizing the necessity for clearer definitions to prevent such loopholes.

The Board’s proposal to redefine “blunt wraps” was met with mixed reactions. Some attendees argued that the proposed language could inadvertently affect the availability of popular products, impacting local businesses that depend on tobacco sales. One participant from a retail outlet pointed out the economic ramifications, stating, “We depend a lot on plants and cigars and the paper, so that’s going to really affect our business.” This sentiment was echoed by another retailer who expressed concerns over how these definitions could impact their inventory, specifically mentioning the sale of products like “Backwoods” and “Game” cigars.

The discussion also touched on the legality of flavored tobacco products, which are prohibited, and how non-flavored items remain permissible. The Board member reiterated the goal to prevent the sale of tobacco to minors, expressing discomfort with flavored tobacco products and the need for strict enforcement against underage sales. This prompted a dialogue on whether some products, like nicotine pouches, should be classified as flavored tobacco enhancers. Although current regulations do not view them as such, there were concerns about potential confusion.

The Board acknowledged the challenges retailers face in keeping up with evolving definitions and committed to providing education and guidance. They proposed a grace period for retailers to adapt to the new regulations, during which they would offer follow-up visits and educational resources. There was also a commitment to revisit the definitions of blunt wraps in six months.

To facilitate the implementation of these changes, the Board proposed an effective date of January 1, 2025, for the amended regulations, excluding the redefinition of blunt wraps, which was set aside for further discussion. This decision underscored the Board’s intention to ensure clarity and avoid unnecessary burdens on local businesses.

They reiterated that the intent of the regulations was to foster understanding and compliance rather than penalize retailers. Stakeholders were encouraged to reach out with questions about product legality, and the Board assured them that resources would be made available to clarify any ambiguities.