Laserfiche WebLink
PCHSW-7 Page 3 December 5, 2023 <br />Corporation Counsel Judge Elizabeth Strance said that the principle of law states that if a State or <br />Federal Government has legislated in an area, then County cannot legislate in the same area. <br />Because the State has legislated there, it is not allowable for the County to legislate until the <br />State allows them to do so. Because the Counties cannot act in this area, there is a hope that State <br />law will repeal certain areas of the law that prohibit action. This bill signals to the State that there <br />is County interest to legislate in this area and can be seen as a formal request to let the County <br />act in that area if the State chooses not to act in that area. Often the County will pass resolutions <br />to encourage the State to act in a certain area, and this bill goes a step further encouraging action. <br />Ms. Galimba wanted to know why the State made laws in this area prohibiting County action and <br />what the history is around that. <br />Ms. Strance says that they can investigate that before the next reading. <br />Ms. Valera said that before the preemption legislation was snuck into a mostly unrelated bill, the <br />counties paved the way for the state to make laws that would protect us regarding tobacco usage. If <br />preemption was removed we could keep paving the way. Preemption is stopping advocates in our <br />County from continuing to pass stricter tobacco legislation. <br />Ms. Galimba said that she had a family member die early due to tobacco, but said she is on the fence <br />from a logical point of view, in that maybe this bill does not go far enough. She questioned that maybe <br />we need to go further and get rid of cigarettes entirely. Also she mentioned the fact that youth aren't <br />supposed to have them at all under age 21, so maybe it an enforcement issue? <br />Council Chair Heather Kimball responded that the justification for preemption may have been tied to <br />the State wanting to have consistency in tobacco legislation across all counties. She would be <br />supporting it but has similar concerns about the language Mr. Inaba mentioned regarding ordinary <br />consumers. <br />Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder said that he is going to vote yes on this bill, but believes that there will be <br />some kick back on this at future Council meetings. <br />Committee Chair Jenn Kagiwada stated that she is in strong support of this bill and is happy to Chair <br />this Committee, especially with her background of youth education. <br />Ms. Lee Loy then brought forth her amendment contained in Communication 496.39 to add in the word <br />"numbing" in that section to round out the cool and mint flavors, which is consistent with the <br />discussion already had. All present supported the amendment, with Ms. Evans excused. <br />When they moved back to the main motion- Ms. Lee Loy finished by thanking her colleagues and <br />testifiers and said how glad she was that our youth were here to speak up for themselves. She said she <br />would bet on the kids every single day. <br />Mr. Inaba added that in the enforcement section that the word "generally" could be removed. <br />Ms. Lee Loy said that she got it. <br />PCHSW Report No. 7 <br />