-BILL 24-0020-

RACIAL EQUITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT

FLAVORED TOBACCO PRODUCT PROHIBITION
AMENDMENT ACT OF 2021

TO: The Honorable Phil Mendelson, Chairman, Council of the District of Columbia
FROM: Brian McClure, Director, Council Office of Racial Equity
DATE: June 9, 2021

COMMITTEE
Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety

BILL SUMMARY
Bill 24-0020 bans the sale or distribution of any flavored tobacco product, like a menthol cigarette.
It also bans the sale or distribution of any electronic smoking device, like a JUUL, within one
quarter mile of any middle or high school in the District.

CONCLUSION
While Bill 24-0020 has the potential to advance racial equity by improving health outcomes,
enforcement of the bill has the potential to exacerbate racial inequity in economic and social
justice outcomes.

BACKGROUND
 The Flavored Tobacco Product Prohibition Amendment Act was introduced in 2019,
public hearings were held in 2020, and the bill was re-introduced in 2021.
 The bill bans the sale or distribution of 1) any flavored tobacco product and 2) an
electronic smoking device within a quarter mile of a middle or high school located in
the District.
 Electronic smoking devices are often called “e-cigarettes,” “e-cigs,” “vape pens,” and
“vapes.” If someone is using an e-cigarette, it can be referred to as “vaping.” Flavored
e-cigarette liquid, flavored cigars, flavored cigarillos, and flavored cigarettes, along
with any other type of flavored tobacco product, would be banned for sale or
distribution in the District as part of Bill 24-0020.
The Flavored Tobacco Product Prohibition Amendment Act of 2019 (Bill 23-0453) was first introduced on
September 17, 2019 and public hearings were held on January 2, 2020 and February 18, 2020. 1 The bill was
re-introduced in Council Period 24 on January 11, 2021 as Bill 24-0020. 2
When it was re-introduced, the intent of the bill was to stem “the growing epidemic of e-cigarette use
among youth.” The bill proposed banning all flavored electronic smoking devices and flavored smoking
products to 1) reduce the number of young people tempted to start smoking or vaping and 2) encourage

1
B23-0453 - Flavored Electronic Smoking Device Prohibition Amendment Act of 2019.
2
The Committee Print changes the name of the bill to B24-0020 - Flavored Tobacco Product Prohibition Amendment Act of 2021.

1
existing users to stop smoking or vaping. The Committee Print has expanded the bill’s size and scope
slightly. Now, the bill:
1) Bans the sale or distribution of any flavored tobacco product, like a menthol cigarette
2) Bans the sale or distribution of any electronic smoking device, like a JUUL, within one quarter mile
of any middle or high school in the District.
If this bill is passed, unflavored tobacco products would remain on the shelves, as would electronic smoking
devices sold farther than a quarter mile from middle and high schools.

Types of Tobacco Products and Smoking Devices

Electronic smoking devices are often called “e-cigarettes,” “e-cigs,” “vape pens,” and “vapes.” If someone is
using an e-cigarette, it can be referred to as “vaping.” There are several types of e-cigarettes, as shown in
the Figure 1. These are the types of
devices that would be banned within a
quarter mile of a middle or high school
as part of Bill 24-0020.
These electronic smoking devices
require a liquid that comes in a “pod” or
“tank.” These liquids are inserted into
the smoking device, heated, and
produce an aerosol (or vapor) which is -FIGURE 1- Types of Electronic Cigarettes
inhaled. This mist can contain Source: About Electronic Cigarettes (E-Cigarettes), CDC.gov
nicotine, cancer-causing chemicals,
heavy metals such as nickel, tin, and lead, and other chemicals that can negatively affect the lungs. 3
Flavored e-cigarette liquid, flavored cigars, flavored cigarillos, and flavored cigarettes, along with any other
type of flavored tobacco product, would be banned for sale or distribution in the District as part of Bill 24-
0020. This would include flavors like fruits, desserts, mint, and menthol.

RACIAL EQUITY IMPACTS

Definitively, smoking is harmful, vaping is harmful, and the District has been and should continue working
towards preventing and reducing smoking and vaping. Tobacco use in the District varies by product, age,
race, and health consequences.
Among high school students, white students are the most likely to have used vaping products in the last 30
days (Figure 2), followed by students identified as “other races.” Based on DC Public Schools demographic
data, 4 “other races” may represent Native American, Alaskan, and Pacific/Hawaiian students, though the
original data source does not specify this. This group is also most likely to use cigarettes or cigars in the past
month, followed by white high school students. In terms of flavored tobacco use, 72% of high schoolers who
only used e-cigarettes used flavored e-cigarettes. 5 Another study, though older, noted that “54% of youth
ages 12-17 years who smoke use menthol cigarettes” and “seven out of ten African American youth ages 12-
17 who smoke use menthol cigarettes.” 6

3
About Electronic Cigarettes (E-Cigarettes), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
4
Landscape of Diversity in D.C. Public Schools, Chelsea Coffin, D.C. Policy Center, December 17, 2018.
5
E-Cigarette Use Among Youth in the United States, 2019.
6
Changes in the prevalence and correlates of menthol cigarette use in the USA, 2004–2014, Villanti et al., British Medical Journal.

RACIAL EQUITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT: BILL 24-0020 2

-FIGURE 2- White youth in DC were the most likely to use vaping products in the last 30 days.
Source: District of Columbia Youth Risk Behavior Survey, Office of the State Superintendent of Education, 2019.

High School Substance Use within Last 30 Days

40%
Percent of DC High School Students

30% 26.3% 24.8% 24.9%

20% 16.7%
15.0%
11.6% 10.9% 12.0%
10.1%
10% 6.0% 6.5% 7.3%

0%
White Other Races Hispanic/Latinx Multiple Races Asian Black

Used an Electronic Vaping Product Smoked Cigarettes or Cigars

However, these racial differences in use change later in life. 7 While Black high school students are the least
likely to be using tobacco products, Black adults are the most likely to use tobacco products. In 2017, about
1 in 5 Black District residents identified as a current smoker, compared to about 1 in 20 white residents.
Similar to the District high school trends, the group to report the next highest rate of current smokers was
made up of people of color.
-FIGURE 3- Black adults are the most likely to be current smokers in the District.
Source: District of Columbia Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Survey, DC Health Center for Policy, Planning
and Evaluation (CPPE), 2017. 8

Current Smoking Status

40%
Percent of Adult Residents

30%
22.2%
20%
13.9%

10% 6.9%

not reported
0%
Black/African American, Other, Non-Hispanic White, Non-Hispanic Hispanic/Latino
Non-Hispanic

7
The African American Youth Smoking Experience: An Overview notes that “while a number of protective factors including cigarette
price increases, religiosity, parental opposition, sports participation, body image, and negative attitudes towards cigarette smoking
may have all played a role in maintaining lower rates of cigarette smoking among [African American] youth as compared to white
youth, the efforts of the tobacco industry seem to have prevented the effectiveness of these factors from carrying over into
adulthood.”
8
Unfortunately, this source did not make specific data available about all racial groups.

RACIAL EQUITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT: BILL 24-0020 3

In terms of flavored tobacco use, nationally Black smokers above the age of 12 were the most likely to use
menthol cigarettes (85%), followed by Asian smokers (38%), Hispanic smokers (37%), and white smokers
(29%). 9
The large differences in smoking habits among racial groups are the direct result of the tobacco industry’s
targeted menthol marketing efforts. The comprehensive and predatory efforts to reach Black Americans have
been well documented. Efforts to target Black Americans have included “supporting cultural events and
making contributions to minority higher education institutions, elected officials, civic and community
organizations, and scholarship programs.” 10 Companies heavily advertised in African American magazines
and culturally tailored those messages (Figure 4). The industry also increased the shelf space for menthol
cigarettes in neighborhoods with high populations of African Americans and other people of color. 11

-FIGURE 4- Tobacco companies targeted their advertising in publication and in person at events.
Ads shown from left to right are from 1970, 1975, 1981, and 2005.
Source: Research Into the Impact of Tobacco Advertising, Stanford University.
One study found that “stores in predominately Black neighborhoods in Washington, DC were up to ten times
more likely to display tobacco ads than retailers in areas with fewer black residents.” 12 The same study found
that “illicit sales to minors were more common at gas stations, outlets that displayed exterior tobacco
advertisements closer to parks, and outlets located closer to high schools in majority African-American block
groups.” 13
The tobacco industry has also heavily targeted American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Hispanic and Latino
communities, as evidenced by the industry’s exposed internal activities, external observations, and trends in
racially disaggregated data. 14
Smoking consequences also differ between racial groups. The CDC notes, “although African Americans usually
smoke fewer cigarettes and start smoking cigarettes at an older age, they are more likely to die from smoking
related diseases than whites.” Heart disease, cancer, stroke, and diabetes are the four leading causes of death
for African Americans, and tobacco use increases these risks, sometimes by as much as 40%. 15

9
Menthol: Facts, stats and regulations, Truth Initiative, August 13, 2018.
10
African Americans and Tobacco Use, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
11
Ibid.
12
Why tobacco is a racial justice issue, Truth Initiative, August 3, 2020.
13
Tobacco retail outlet advertising practices and proximity to schools, parks and public housing affect Synar underage sales
violations in Washington, DC, British Medical Journal, 2015.
14
Why tobacco is a racial justice issue, Truth Initiative, August 3, 2020.
15
African Americans and Tobacco Use, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

RACIAL EQUITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT: BILL 24-0020 4

Finally, it is worth noting that menthol cigarettes are disproportionately used by women, individuals who
smoke and identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, 16 people with low incomes or low education, and
those who have mental health conditions. People of color 17 whose identities intersect with these categories
may face an increased likelihood of smoking menthols. 18
Positively, banning the sale of flavored tobacco products may reduce the number of young people
who start smoking or vaping. The ban may also encourage some smokers or vapers to quit, resulting
in immediate positive effects. These outcomes would advance racial equity. It is also possible that Bill
24-0020 would not affect vast racial health inequities if residents who smoke flavored tobacco
products don’t quit—but rather switch—from flavored to unflavored tobacco products.
Discouraging residents from smoking or vaping before they start would prevent many negative
health consequences. Prevention is an ideal outcome of this bill. Another ideal outcome would be
encouraging individuals who currently smoke and vape to quit. According to the CDC, “quitting smoking is
one of the most important actions people can take to improve their health.” Quitting improves health and
increases life expectancy, lowers the risk of twelve types of cancer, lowers the risk of cardiovascular
diseases, lowers the risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), benefits people who have
already been diagnosed with COPD, and lowers the risk of some poor reproductive health outcomes. 19
Both outcomes—prevention and cessation (quitting)—would reduce racial health inequities. Therefore, an
important question to ask is: will the bill’s provisions affect prevention or cessation?
A 2011 study attempted to predict the effects of a menthol ban on the number of smokers and deaths
attributed to smoking. It found that “in a scenario in which 30% of menthol smokers quit and 30% of those
who would have initiated as menthol smokers do not initiate, by 2050 the relative reduction in smoking
prevalence would be 9.7% overall and 24.8% for [Black Americans].” 20 The study estimated that a ban would
have prevented 633,252 deaths overall and 237,317 deaths of Black residents in the United States. 21
A menthol cigarette ban in Canada provides another possibility of what might happen. A study on the 2017
ban found that “although menthol smokers were more likely to switch to non-menthol cigarettes, the
menthol ban was also significantly associated with higher rates of quit attempts and quit success among
menthol smokers compared with non-menthol smokers, and may have helped to prevent relapse among
menthol smokers who had quit smoking before the ban.” 22

16
The acronym LGBT is used here to reflect the information referenced by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This data
relies on the disclosure of identity and orientation and does not fully capture the full experience of all District residents that identify
as LGBTQIA+. While LGBT is grouped together in the original report, CORE recognizes that all identities and orientations have a
unique history and experience of homophobia, transphobia, and biphobia in the United States and the District of Columbia.
17
When CORE talks about “communities of color,” we are referring to Black, Indigenous, Latinx, Asian American, Pacific Islander,
and Native Hawaiian populations. We do so while acknowledging that each community of color has a unique history and experience
of racism in the United States, and particularly, in the District of Columbia. While it is sometimes more efficient to reference “people
of color” in narrative text, policies and actions must respond to the historical trauma each community has faced by naming
individual communities.
18
Menthol and Cigarettes, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
19
Benefits of Quitting, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
20
Modeling the Future Effects of a Menthol Ban on Smoking Prevalence and Smoking-Attributable Deaths in the United States, Levy
et al., American Journal of Public Health, July 2011.
21
Ibid.
22
Evaluating the impact of menthol cigarette bans on cessation and smoking behaviours in Canada: longitudinal findings from the
Canadian arm of the 2016–2018 ITC Four Country Smoking and Vaping Surveys, Chung-Hall et al., British Medical Journal, March
2021.

RACIAL EQUITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT: BILL 24-0020 5

During public hearings on the proposed bill, DC Health supported the legislation to ban flavored products
“because evidence shows that limiting the availability of tobacco products, particularly those that appeal to
youth, does reduce youth initiation and use of tobacco. Strategies such as this are likely to decrease e-
cigarette use and subsequent nicotine addiction among teens in the District.” 23
Regarding the bill’s second provision, however, DC Health noted that they “currently don’t have data about
where youth are acquiring these products in the District of Columbia, so it is unclear what impact this
[school proximity] restriction alone would have on youth tobacco use [in DC], especially as compared to a
prohibition of flavored products.”
As another data point on the school proximity restriction, a recent study looked at how e-cigarette use was
affected by the circumstances created by the pandemic. The study found that “among e-cigarette users,
those with reduced access to retail environments [due to the pandemic] had 1.51 higher odds of reporting
reduced e-cigarette use, suggesting that retail point-of-sale remains an important area for intervention
efforts to reduce youth and young adult e-cigarette use.” 24 During this time, sharing of e-cigarettes was also
down. The study’s authors believe their “findings support an urgency in implementing interventions
designed to reduce underage access to e-cigarettes to help accelerate the downward trajectory of e-
cigarette use among youth.”
In sum, this ban has several possible outcomes, ranging from largely neutral (residents switching to regular
cigarettes from menthol, residents still obtaining electronic smoking devices) to positive (stronger
prevention, reduced use of tobacco products, residents increase quit attempts, and residents experience an
increase in successful quitting). Different outcomes would have different effects on health.
Positively, the ban may reduce the number of residents exposed to secondhand smoking and vaping.
This would be especially beneficial to non-Hispanic Black residents who do not smoke.
If the ban reduces the number of residents who start and/or increases the number of residents who quit,
this would, in theory, reduce the negative effects of secondhand vaping and smoking.
Inhaling secondhand vaping aerosol can contain “nicotine, ultrafine particles that can be inhaled deep into
the lungs, flavoring such as diacetyl, a chemical linked to serious lung diseases, volatile organic compounds,
cancer-causing chemicals, and heavy metals such as nickel, tin, and lead.” 25 It’s not clear who is most
exposed to secondhand vaping, but reducing exposure to it is certainly positive.
For non-smoking adults, secondhand smoke can negatively affect the heart and blood vessels, and cause
premature deaths from heart disease, lung cancer, and stroke. 26 Children’s exposure to secondhand smoke
can begin before they are even born—and lead to lower birth weight and death. 27 After birth, secondhand
smoke can cause ear infections, respiratory symptoms, and acute lower respiratory infections. 28 It can also
increase the severity and frequency of asthma attacks and increase the risk of Sudden Infant Death
Syndrome (SIDS). 29

23
Public Hearing Record: Bill 23-0453, the “Flavored Electronic Smoking Device Prohibition Amendment Act of 2019”; Bill 23-0454,
the “Prohibition of Electronic Smoking Sales Without a Prescription Act of 2019”; and Bill 23-0472, the “Electronic Smoking Device
Sales Restriction Amendment Act of 2019,” Ankoor Shah, February 19, 2020.
24
Youth vaping declines during pandemic as young people report less retail and social access to products, Truth Initiative, April 15,
2021.
25
About Electronic Cigarettes (E-Cigarettes), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
26
Secondhand Smoke (SHS) Facts, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
27
Ibid.
28
Ibid.
29
Ibid.

RACIAL EQUITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT: BILL 24-0020 6

These gains would be important for everyone, but especially for non-Hispanic Black residents who do not
smoke, but who are exposed to secondhand smoke more than non-Hispanic white people (21%) and
Americans of Mexican descent (20%). Black Americans face an exposure of 50%. 30 These disparities also hold
at younger ages: “non-Hispanic Black middle and high school students have a higher prevalence of
secondhand smoke exposure in the home (28%) and in vehicles (26%) than Hispanic (18%) and non-
Hispanic other students (14%).” 31
Concerningly, the enforcement of the bill could increase interactions with police, which can range
from inconvenient to traumatizing to fatal—especially for Black residents.
The bill proposes fines for the sale and distribution of flavored tobacco products and allows the Mayor to
decide which agency would issue the fine. Based on the bill’s Fiscal Impact Statement, it appears that the
Mayor will likely assign enforcement authority to the Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs.
However, the bill as written does not specify this authority. Because the bill is silent on the matter, the
Council Office of Racial Equity must examine and assess the possibilities from a racial equity perspective.
Currently, several agencies have some level of enforcement authority, including the Office of the Attorney
General, the Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs, DC Health, the Department of Behavioral
Health, and the Metropolitan Police Department. For example, it appears that the Department of Behavioral
Health and the Metropolitan Police Department jointly conduct inspections of retail outlets to reduce illegal
tobacco sales to minors. 32 While the fine proposed in this bill is civil (vs. criminal) and may not directly result
in a criminal record, the administration of a fine could increase interactions with police (if the police are
given the authority to enforce the fine). Given the over policing of communities of color nationally and in the
District, these interactions are more likely for residents of color. 33
In addition, the joint inspections bring additional law enforcement into communities. The 2020 Synar
Report, a state report on youth tobacco access law enforcement, notes:
In order to minimize the risk of bias to the survey results from retailers alerting
each other to presence of the survey team, the District ensured that the vehicle
in which teams use to conduct inspections (e.g., white government van, police
cruiser, etc.) remained outside of direct sight of establishment (e.g., one block
away). In addition, when violations took place, the team continued inspections
in another area within the Ward and revisited the area where the violation took
place at a later date during the inspection time frame.”
Additional law enforcement in neighborhoods is likely to result in increased interactions between residents
and police.
Open data sets on fines and fees in DC does not include information on race, 34 making it hard to know if
individuals of color or minority-owned businesses are also disproportionately targeted in civil fines
enforcement.

30
Ibid.
31
Ibid.
32
Department of Behavioral Health Announces Results of Program to Curb Illegal Tobacco Sales to Minors, Department of
Behavioral Health, December 16, 2019.
33
Racial Disparities in Stops by the Metropolitan Police Department: 2020 Data Update, ACLU Analytics and ACLU of the District of
Columbia.
34
Fines and Fees, DC GIS Opendata, Open Data DC.

RACIAL EQUITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT: BILL 24-0020 7

Concerningly, fines may have a disproportionate impact on -FIGURE 5- Black residents face the
Black residents and other residents of color. highest rate of poverty in the District.
The Committee Print proposes fines for the sale and distribution Source: National Equity Atlas, 2017.
of flavored tobacco products—up to $25 for individuals and up
RESIDENT PERCENT BELOW
to $10,000 for corporate firms or businesses.
RACE/ETHNICITY POVERTY LINE
The Committee Print is unclear on how the size of the fine BLACK 26%
would be determined, 35 but even the same size fine may be PEOPLE OF COLOR 23%
more penalizing to Black residents and other residents of color,
ALL 17%
because they face higher rates of poverty in the District than
LATINO 15%
white residents (Figure 5). Economic inequities are the result of
the relentless denial and blocking of Black residents and other ASIAN OR PACIFIC
15%
ISLANDER
residents of color from wealth and education building
MIXED/OTHER 11%
opportunities.
WHITE 7%
In addition, fines can have ripple effects. Unpaid fines can
increase in size due to late fees, becoming larger than intended by the law but resulting in “long-term
effects on credit scores and background checks, making it more difficult to secure quality employment or
housing, and increasing the likelihood that future financial shocks will be met with other types of unsecured
debt, such as payday lenders or credit cards.” 36
Additional consequences could be felt by the District’s Clean Hands law. When fully implemented,
“residents with more than $100 in outstanding debt to the D.C. government—including fines, unpaid taxes,
past due water and sewage fees, and other debt from various civil infractions—should be unable to obtain
or renew a driver’s license, obtain a business license, or compete for government contracts, among other
activities.” 37
Concerningly, the ban on selling flavored tobacco products and selling electronic smoking devices
near schools may affect the businesses and livelihoods of some residents. Due to systemic barriers,
these economic effects may be disproportionately experienced by Black residents and other residents
of color. 38
Businesses that sell flavored tobacco, vaping devices and products, and hookah such as tobacco bars and
retail stores, are likely to be impacted by Bill 24-0020. Determining what that impact may be or who may be
disproportionately impacted in DC requires more data, disaggregated by race.
Some tobacco companies who oppose similar bans sometimes “warn of severe economic losses for
communities.” One case study that examined projections and outcomes in Minneapolis and St. Paul,
Minnesota found that “restricting menthol sales doesn’t cause catastrophic job and profit losses.” 39
While this may be true, we do know that Black-owned and minority-owned businesses face systemic
barriers that make it more challenging for them to weather the same economic hits as white-owned

35
This omission creates an opportunity for racial discrimination. Research has shown racial inequities in sentencing for the same
offense.
36
Applying a racial equity lens to fines and fees in the District of Columbia, Kathryn Zickuhr, D.C. Policy Center, April 22, 2019.
37
Ibid.
38
The Council Office of Racial Equity believes that racial equity impact assessments should highlight the range of potential impacts
for Black residents and other residents of color. However, a discussion of the bill’s economic impacts should not be interpreted as
more important, or even equivalent to, the bill’s health impacts for people of color. At the same time, livelihoods are not
unimportant. A reliable income is often critical to one’s physical and mental health.
39
Majority of U.S. adults support banning menthol cigarettes, including many menthol smokers, Truth Initiative, November 10, 2020.

RACIAL EQUITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT: BILL 24-0020 8

businesses. Systemic barriers include the lack of access to capital, 40 lack of access to collateral, less savings
in case of an emergency, 41 and smaller business networks.
The pandemic both highlighted and exacerbated these challenges. The National Bureau of Economic
Research reported that from February to April 2020, the number of Black-owned businesses fell from 1.1
million to 640,000, a loss of 440,000 Black businesses. 42 Some officials have even predicted 43 that twenty
percent of certain establishments “may not come back after the pandemic.” It has also been reported that
Black business ownership rates 44 dropped forty one percent between February and April 2020. This was the
largest rate of any racial group.
Establishments likely to be affected are dispersed throughout the city and have diverse ownership. In DC,
there are over 500 corner stores 45 and 112 gas stations, 46 many of which are licensed to sell tobacco
products. Some neighborhoods have a high concentration of corner stores, 47 meaning these areas could be
affected to a greater degree.

FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS
This bill does not require the monitoring or evaluation of disparate impacts.
The bill aims to reduce the number of young people who start smoking and encourage those who currently
smoke and vape to quit. While smoking rates in the District seem to be tracked fairly consistently, the bill
does not monitor how its activities are positively or negatively impacting residents, and if those impacts
differ by race. For example, it would be important to know if Black residents and minority business owners
are being disproportionately fined.
It is not clear how DC is addressing racial inequities in smoking via the Groundwater Approach.
The Groundwater Approach aims to treat systems, not just problems at the individual level. The approach is
grounded in three ideas: 1) that white supremacy ideology operates the same across systems; 2)
socioeconomic difference does not explain racial inequity; and 3) inequities are caused by systems,
regardless of people’s culture or behavior.
Using the Groundwater Approach, a city in a housing crisis would not only provide temporary shelter to
individuals experiencing homelessness. Rather, the city would also seek to understand and address the
underlying—or groundwater—issues that sustain and cause homelessness.
In the case of e-cigarette and tobacco use, the District should prevent smoking and help residents quit, but
also examine what is driving people to turn to tobacco and address these issues as well. In this area, there is
room for improvement.

40
Disparities in Capital Access between Minority and Non-Minority-Owned Businesses: The Troubling Reality of Capital Limitations
Faced by MBEs, U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development Agency, January 2010.
41
The trials and triumphs of owning a Black business, Mike Turner, WUSA9, August 29, 2020.
42
The Impact of Covid-19 On Small Business Owners: Evidence of Early-Stage Losses from the April 2020 Current Population Survey,
Robert W. Fairlie, June 2020.
43
D.C. mayor moves to permanently ease restrictions on alcohol sales, deliveries, Katishi Maake, May 28, 2020.
44
Committee Report Outlines COVID’s Devastating Impact on Black-Owned Small Businesses, February 26, 2021.
45
Where Are D.C.’s Corner Stores?, Chris Dickersen-Prokopp, Washington City Paper, February 27, 2014.
46
Gas Stations, OpenData DC, May 6, 2020.
47
Where Are D.C.’s Corner Stores?, Chris Dickersen-Prokopp, Washington City Paper, February 27, 2014.

RACIAL EQUITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT: BILL 24-0020 9

In Fiscal Year 2020 and Fiscal Year 2021, the District spent less than 20% of what the CDC recommends
spending on prevention efforts ($1.9 million rather than $10.7 million) and less than what the tobacco
industry spent on marketing in DC (an estimated $4.6 million). 48
In addition, DC has the highest state cigarette excise tax rate in the country, at $4.50 per pack. The cigarette
producer pays an excise tax, but then the cost is added to the retail price, so the customer ends up paying it.
While research has shown this to be an effective policy intervention to prevent smoking and encourage
quitting—and it’s also effective in bringing in revenue. Excise taxes on cigarettes add up about $69.9 million
per year in revenue 49 for the District. Black residents and other residents of color are more likely to smoke
than white residents, and therefore they disproportionately bear this cost. This system does not address the
reasons that people turn to tobacco.
This bill does not account for the fact that nicotine is an addiction and that quitting is harder for
menthol smokers, who are disproportionately Black.
A higher proportion of African American smokers want to quit (73%) than other racial groups (68% of whites,
70% of Asian Americans, 67% of Hispanics, and 56% of American Indians/Alaska Natives). In addition,
African Americans report attempting to quit more than all other racial groups besides Asian Americans. 50 Yet
“despite more quit attempts, African Americans are less successful at quitting than white and Hispanic
cigarettes smokers, possibly because of lower utilization of cessation treatments such as counseling and
medication.” 51
The American Cancer Society notes that “about 2 out of 3 smokers say they want to quit and about half try
to quit each year, but few succeed without help.” 52 Nicotine is a physical and psychological dependence and
the habit “may be harder to quit…than to stop using cocaine and opiates like heroin.” 53 A 2012 literature
review examined 28 different studies of people who were trying to quit substance addiction. “[The authors]
found that 18% were able to quit drinking, and more than 40% were able to quit opiates or cocaine, but only
8% were able to quit smoking.” 54
On top of this, menthol cigarettes, which Black residents and other residents of color disproportionately
smoke due to the industry’s targeted marketing efforts, are even harder to quit than non-menthols. 55
This bill bans these addictive products without due consideration for those who are already addicted.
Relatedly, cessation program considerations do not accompany the bill.
In 2017, 71% of the District’s current and former smokers over 18 reported that they tried to quit in the past
year. 56 Research on 1) encouraging smokers to quit and 2) reducing smoking-related disease, death, and
costs suggests that “increased implementation of proven tobacco control interventions, such as tobacco
price increases, smoke-free policies, mass media campaigns, and barrier-free access to evidence-based

48
Washington, DC State Report, Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, 2021.
49
Ibid.
50
African Americans and Tobacco Use, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, November 2020.
51
Ibid.
52
Why People Start Smoking and Why It’s Hard to Stop, American Cancer Society, November 2020.
53
Ibid.
54
Ibid.
55
Comprehensive review provides further proof that FDA should ban menthol cigarettes, Truth Initiative, March 7, 2018.
56
Ibid.

RACIAL EQUITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT: BILL 24-0020 10

cessation treatments, can increase the number of smokers who make a quit attempt and who succeed in
quitting.” 57
To this end, the District Government operates a tobacco quitline (1-800-QUIT-NOW) twenty four hours a day,
seven days a week, in many different languages. 58 For context, 85% of the callers were African American,
over 60% were female, and over 50% were 45-64 years old. In the first half of 2020 the quitline received 1,250
calls. Callers can reach out for themselves or to get advice for someone they care about. It’s unclear how
many of the callers were calling for themselves, but under 250 of the total callers who called for themselves
received counseling or medications, potentially indicating a steep drop off between inquiries and receiving
help. For the bill to achieve its policy goals, especially for current smokers, it may be important to
understand and resolve this discrepancy. 59
It may also be important to examine why the CDC indicates that DC’s Medicaid coverage for cessation 60
treatments can make it hard 61 for tobacco users to access treatment and discourage them from quitting. 62
About 1 in 4 people enrolled in Medicaid smoke, over twice the rate of people with private insurance. 63 This
is also a matter of racial equity, as the majority of Medicaid patients are Black in the District (over 80% in
2019). 64
Finally, in the first six months of 2020, almost 100% of quitline callers called about cigarettes, suggesting
that e-cigarette users didn’t know about the hotline or didn’t feel it would work for them. 65 If the DC Quitline
provides help to quit e-cigarettes, it may be important to increase advertising for it.
The existing structure for fines and fees poses a broader question around racial equity.
The DC Code includes various enforcement mechanisms to ensure laws are being followed. However, the
current fines and fees structure tends to disproportionately impact people of color in the District, who
disproportionately experience poverty.
Economic racial inequities are the result of the relentless denial and blocking of Black residents and other
residents of color from wealth and education building opportunities. In turn, fines and fees exacerbate
economic racial inequities. Work has been and is being done on new approaches and practices 66 in this
space. The Council Office of Racial Equity encourages the Council to comprehensively examine all
enforcement through a racial equity lens. 67

57
State-Specific Prevalence of Quit Attempts Among Adult Cigarette Smokers – United States, 2011 – 2017, Walton, Kimp et al., July
2019.
58
State Highlights: District of Columbia Quitline, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
59
Ibid.
60
STATE System Medicaid Coverage of Tobacco Cessation Treatments Fact Sheet, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2021.
61
State Highlights: District of Columbia, Cessation Coverage, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2021.
62
Medicaid Coverage Of Cessation Treatments And Barriers To Treatments Glossary and Methodology, Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, 2020.
63
Tobacco-Free Kids Strongly Supports the Quit Because of COVID-19 Act – Federal Legislation to Expand Medicaid and CHIP
Coverage for Tobacco Cessation Treatments, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, June 22, 2020.
64
Distribution of the Nonelderly with Medicaid by Race/Ethnicity, KFF, 2019.
65
Ibid.
66
Cities and Counties for Fine and Fee Justice, PolicyLink.
67
Examining a process through a racial equity lens means developing tailored systems and tools that center and account for the
needs of residents of color. This is done by: 1) identifying and considering past and current systemic racial inequities; 2) identifying
who benefits or is burdened from a decision; 3) disaggregating data by race, and analyzing data considering differing impacts and
outcomes by race; and 4) evaluating the program, activity, or decisions to identify policies, plans, or requirements, that reduce
systemic racial inequities, eliminate race as a predictor of results, and promote racially equitable development outcomes.

RACIAL EQUITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT: BILL 24-0020 11

ASSESSMENT LIMITATIONS
Alongside the analysis provided above, the Council Office of Racial Equity encourages readers to keep the
following limitations in mind:
Assessing legislation’s potential racial equity impacts is a rigorous, analytical, and uncertain
undertaking.
Assessing policy for racial equity is a rigorous and organized exercise but also one with constraints. It is
impossible for anyone to predict the future, implementation does not always match the intent of the law,
critical data may be unavailable, and today’s circumstances may change tomorrow. Our assessment is our
most educated and critical hypothesis of the bill’s racial equity impacts.
This assessment intends to inform the public, Councilmembers, and Council staff about the legislation
through a racial equity lens.
As a reminder, a REIA is not binding. Regardless of the Council Office of Racial Equity’s final assessment, the
legislation can still pass.
This assessment aims to be accurate and useful, but omissions may exist.
Given the density of racial equity issues, it is unlikely that we will raise all relevant racial equity issues
present in a bill. In addition, an omission from our assessment should not: 1) be interpreted as a provision
having no racial equity impact or 2) invalidate another party’s racial equity concern.

RACIAL EQUITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT: BILL 24-0020 12