The action in question refers to the decision made by the former presidential administration to discontinue plans that would have prohibited the sale of cigarettes flavored with menthol. This contemplated measure, initially considered a significant step toward reducing smoking rates, particularly among specific demographic groups, was ultimately reversed before its implementation.
This decision carries substantial implications for public health. Proponents of the ban argued it would have disproportionately benefited African American communities, where menthol cigarettes have historically been heavily marketed, contributing to higher rates of smoking-related illnesses. The reversal highlights the complex interplay between potential health benefits, economic considerations, and lobbying efforts within the tobacco industry. The initial proposal stemmed from concerns about the appeal of menthol flavoring, which can make cigarettes more palatable and addictive, especially for young people and new smokers.
The subsequent sections will delve into the potential reasons behind the withdrawal of the proposed prohibition, the stakeholders involved, and the ongoing debate surrounding the regulation of flavored tobacco products. Further examination will explore the possible consequences of this decision on public health initiatives and the future of tobacco control policy.
1. Political considerations
Political considerations played a significant role in the decision by the former presidential administration to withdraw the proposed prohibition on menthol cigarettes. The influence of political dynamics, party affiliations, and potential electoral impacts shaped the policy landscape surrounding this public health issue.
-
Lobbying Pressure
The extensive lobbying efforts by the tobacco industry and related organizations exerted considerable pressure on policymakers. These groups often contribute significantly to political campaigns and utilize their influence to advocate for policies favorable to their business interests. The administration likely weighed the potential political repercussions of opposing such a powerful lobby.
-
Electoral Impact
Decisions surrounding tobacco regulation, particularly those impacting specific demographics or geographic regions, can have electoral consequences. The administration may have assessed the potential backlash from voters in tobacco-producing states or from constituencies that view regulatory measures as government overreach, influencing the final decision.
-
Party Platform
The prevailing political ideology and party platform of the administration often guide policy decisions. A platform emphasizing deregulation and limited government intervention might have been inconsistent with a sweeping ban on a consumer product. The administration’s stance on business regulation likely factored into the choice to withdraw the proposed prohibition.
-
Relationship with Key Constituencies
Maintaining strong relationships with key voting blocs is crucial for any administration. The decision could have been influenced by the need to appease specific constituencies that might have opposed the ban, such as certain business groups or segments of the population skeptical of government regulations. The administration’s broader political strategy may have taken precedence over public health concerns.
Ultimately, the withdrawal reflects the complex interplay between political expediency and public health objectives. The administration’s decision suggests that political considerations, including lobbying influence, electoral impact, and party platform alignment, carried significant weight in shaping the final outcome. This highlights the challenges of implementing public health policies in the face of strong political and economic opposition.
2. Lobbying Influence
Lobbying exerted by the tobacco industry played a significant role in the Trump administration’s decision to withdraw the proposed ban on menthol cigarettes. This influence manifested through various channels, impacting policy considerations and ultimately contributing to the reversal of the ban.
-
Financial Contributions
The tobacco industry is a major contributor to political campaigns, providing substantial financial support to candidates and parties. These contributions create a direct line of communication and potential influence over policymakers. In the context of the proposed menthol ban, these contributions may have afforded industry representatives greater access to administration officials and provided them with a platform to voice their concerns and arguments against the ban, potentially swaying decision-making processes.
-
Direct Advocacy
Lobbyists representing tobacco companies engaged in direct advocacy with administration officials, presenting arguments against the proposed ban. These arguments often centered on potential economic consequences, such as job losses within the industry and decreased tax revenue. Additionally, they may have highlighted the potential for a black market for menthol cigarettes to emerge, making regulation more difficult. These arguments, presented directly to policymakers, could have shaped perceptions of the ban’s potential impact.
-
Public Relations Campaigns
The tobacco industry invests heavily in public relations campaigns aimed at shaping public opinion and influencing policy decisions. These campaigns often involve disseminating information that casts doubt on the health risks associated with tobacco use or highlighting the economic benefits of the tobacco industry. Such campaigns can create a favorable environment for industry interests and potentially reduce public support for policies aimed at reducing tobacco consumption, including the menthol ban.
-
Legal Challenges
The threat of legal challenges from the tobacco industry can also influence policy decisions. Tobacco companies have a history of aggressively litigating against regulations they deem unfavorable. The administration may have considered the potential legal challenges that could arise from implementing the menthol ban, weighing the costs and uncertainties associated with protracted legal battles against the potential benefits of the ban itself. This consideration may have contributed to the decision to withdraw the proposed regulation.
The influence of lobbying efforts on the Trump administration’s decision highlights the power of special interest groups in shaping public policy. The tobacco industry’s financial resources, advocacy efforts, public relations campaigns, and legal threats collectively contributed to a climate in which the proposed ban on menthol cigarettes faced significant opposition, ultimately leading to its withdrawal. This case underscores the challenges faced by public health advocates in combating the influence of powerful industries and implementing policies aimed at protecting public health.
3. Public health debate
The public health debate surrounding the Trump administration’s withdrawal of the proposed ban on menthol cigarettes is a contentious issue involving competing viewpoints on health, personal freedom, and economic impact. The debate is centered on the potential benefits of the ban versus its potential drawbacks and reflects a broader discussion on the role of government in regulating personal choices and corporate practices.
-
Impact on Minority Communities
One of the central aspects of the public health debate concerns the disproportionate impact of menthol cigarettes on African American communities. Studies have shown that menthol cigarettes are heavily marketed to this demographic, leading to higher rates of smoking-related diseases and mortality. Proponents of the ban argue it would address health disparities and promote racial equity. Conversely, some argue the ban could lead to unintended consequences, such as increased illicit trade or discrimination against minority smokers. The impact on these communities is a key point of contention in the debate.
-
Youth Smoking Rates
The influence of menthol flavoring on youth smoking rates is another significant point of debate. Public health advocates contend that menthol makes cigarettes more palatable and easier to start smoking, thereby increasing the likelihood of addiction among young people. Opponents of the ban argue that there is insufficient evidence to definitively link menthol flavoring to increased youth smoking rates and that other factors, such as peer pressure and marketing strategies, play a more significant role. The relative importance of menthol in initiating youth smoking is a key aspect of the public health discussion.
-
Economic Consequences
The potential economic consequences of a menthol cigarette ban are heavily debated. Supporters argue that the long-term health benefits outweigh any short-term economic losses, citing reduced healthcare costs and increased productivity. Opponents, including the tobacco industry, contend that the ban would result in significant job losses, decreased tax revenue, and the creation of a black market for menthol cigarettes. The economic impact on both the industry and public resources remains a central theme in the debate.
-
Government Regulation vs. Personal Freedom
A fundamental aspect of the public health debate revolves around the extent to which the government should regulate personal choices. Advocates for the ban argue that the government has a responsibility to protect public health and reduce the burden of smoking-related diseases, even if it infringes on individual liberties. Opponents contend that the ban represents government overreach and infringes on the right of adults to make their own choices, even if those choices are deemed unhealthy. This debate reflects broader ideological differences on the role of government in regulating personal behavior.
The withdrawal of the proposed menthol cigarette ban underscores the complexities inherent in balancing public health objectives with economic considerations, personal freedoms, and political influences. The public health debate surrounding this decision continues to evolve, with ongoing research and advocacy efforts aimed at informing policy decisions and promoting public health.
4. Economic Impacts
The decision by the Trump administration to withdraw the proposed ban on menthol cigarettes had significant economic ramifications across various sectors. These impacts range from the tobacco industry itself to governmental revenue streams and related industries. Understanding these economic consequences is crucial to evaluating the full scope of the policy reversal.
-
Tobacco Industry Revenue
The most direct economic impact was on the tobacco industry, particularly companies that produce and market menthol cigarettes. A ban would have resulted in a substantial decrease in sales, as menthol cigarettes constitute a significant portion of their revenue. The withdrawal of the ban allowed these companies to maintain their market share and continue generating profits. For example, companies like Reynolds American and Altria, which have prominent menthol cigarette brands, benefited directly from this policy reversal, avoiding potential losses in the billions of dollars. This preservation of revenue also had implications for employment within the industry, preventing potential job losses associated with declining sales.
-
Government Tax Revenue
Sales of menthol cigarettes contribute significantly to federal, state, and local tax revenues. A ban would have led to a decrease in these revenues, potentially impacting government budgets and public services. The withdrawal of the ban allowed these tax streams to continue uninterrupted. States with high rates of menthol cigarette consumption, such as those in the Southeast, would have experienced a more pronounced impact on their tax revenues had the ban been implemented. These funds are often earmarked for various programs, including healthcare and education, and a decline in tax revenue could have necessitated budget adjustments.
-
Retail Sector
The retail sector, including convenience stores and gas stations, also experiences economic impacts related to the sale of menthol cigarettes. These establishments rely on tobacco sales as a significant source of revenue, and a ban would have reduced their sales volume and potentially impacted profitability. The withdrawal of the ban allowed these retailers to continue selling menthol cigarettes, maintaining their revenue streams. Many small businesses depend on the sale of tobacco products to supplement their income, and a ban could have placed an additional burden on these enterprises, particularly those located in communities with high rates of menthol cigarette consumption.
-
Illicit Trade and Black Market
Some economists argue that a ban on menthol cigarettes could have inadvertently fueled the growth of an illicit trade or black market, as consumers sought out unregulated sources of these products. This would have resulted in a loss of tax revenue for governments and potentially exposed consumers to unregulated and potentially dangerous products. By withdrawing the ban, the Trump administration avoided this potential scenario, maintaining the regulated sale of menthol cigarettes and the associated economic benefits. However, this also meant foregoing the potential public health benefits of reducing menthol cigarette consumption.
In summary, the economic impacts associated with the Trump administration’s decision to withdraw the proposed ban on menthol cigarettes are multifaceted, affecting the tobacco industry, government revenues, the retail sector, and the potential for illicit trade. While the decision averted potential economic losses for certain stakeholders, it also perpetuated the public health challenges associated with menthol cigarette consumption, underscoring the complex trade-offs inherent in tobacco regulation policies.
5. Racial equity issues
The withdrawal of the proposed ban on menthol cigarettes by the Trump administration directly intersects with racial equity issues due to the disproportionate marketing and consumption patterns of these products within African American communities. Menthol cigarettes have historically been aggressively marketed towards African Americans, leading to higher rates of smoking-related illnesses and mortality compared to other demographic groups. The proposed ban was intended to address this health disparity and promote racial equity by reducing the availability of a product that has demonstrably contributed to negative health outcomes within this community. The decision to withdraw the ban, therefore, has been viewed by many public health advocates as a setback to efforts aimed at achieving health equity.
The importance of racial equity as a component of the debate surrounding menthol cigarettes stems from the recognition that health disparities are not simply random occurrences, but are often rooted in systemic factors, including targeted marketing practices by the tobacco industry. Real-life examples of these marketing practices include the placement of advertisements in predominantly African American neighborhoods, sponsorship of community events, and the use of culturally relevant messaging to promote menthol cigarettes. These tactics have created a situation where menthol cigarettes are perceived as more appealing and acceptable within African American communities, contributing to higher rates of initiation and continued use. Understanding this historical context is crucial for formulating effective policies to address health inequities.
In conclusion, the decision to withdraw the proposed ban on menthol cigarettes raises significant concerns regarding racial equity. The action undermines efforts to address health disparities that disproportionately affect African American communities, perpetuating a cycle of targeted marketing and negative health outcomes. Overcoming these challenges requires a commitment to evidence-based policies that prioritize health equity and address the root causes of health disparities. The practical significance of this understanding lies in its ability to inform future policy decisions and advocacy efforts aimed at reducing the burden of tobacco-related diseases within vulnerable populations.
6. Tobacco industry role
The tobacco industry’s role in the Trump administration’s withdrawal of the proposed ban on menthol cigarettes is central to understanding the decision. The industry engaged in extensive lobbying efforts, contributing financially to political campaigns and exerting influence on policymakers. The withdrawal is a direct consequence of the industry’s strategies aimed at protecting its market share and profits. These strategies included emphasizing potential economic losses associated with the ban, such as job losses and decreased tax revenues, and raising concerns about the creation of a black market for menthol cigarettes.
A primary example of the industry’s influence is the concerted lobbying campaign directed at key members of the administration and Congress. Tobacco companies and their affiliated lobbying groups spent considerable sums advocating against the ban, presenting arguments that resonated with the administration’s emphasis on deregulation and economic growth. The industry also funded research and public relations efforts designed to cast doubt on the scientific evidence linking menthol cigarettes to increased smoking rates, particularly among youth and minority communities. The threat of potential litigation against the ban also factored into the administration’s decision-making process, as the tobacco industry has a history of aggressively challenging regulations it deems unfavorable.
In conclusion, the tobacco industry played a significant and demonstrably influential role in the Trump administration’s withdrawal of the proposed ban on menthol cigarettes. This influence was exerted through lobbying, financial contributions, and strategic communication efforts, all aimed at preserving the industry’s economic interests. Understanding the dynamics between the tobacco industry and government policy is crucial for assessing the potential effectiveness of future public health initiatives and for addressing the ongoing challenges of tobacco control.
7. Youth smoking rates
The connection between youth smoking rates and the former presidential administration’s withdrawal of the proposed ban on menthol cigarettes lies in the demonstrated appeal of menthol flavoring to young people. Menthol’s cooling effect reduces the harshness of cigarette smoke, making it more palatable and easier for new smokers, often youths, to initiate and become addicted. Public health research consistently indicates that menthol cigarettes serve as a ‘starter product’ for many young smokers. The proposed ban aimed to reduce youth smoking rates by eliminating this flavored option, thereby decreasing the likelihood of initial experimentation and subsequent addiction.
The withdrawal of the ban directly counteracts efforts to curb youth smoking. Real-world examples, such as studies tracking smoking initiation rates among different age groups, show a correlation between menthol cigarette availability and higher smoking rates among adolescents. The administration’s decision effectively maintains the availability of a product that facilitates nicotine addiction in young people, potentially undermining broader tobacco control measures. The significance of understanding this connection lies in its implications for public health policy. By recognizing menthol’s role in attracting young smokers, policymakers can better formulate effective strategies to prevent and reduce youth tobacco use.
The practical significance of this understanding is that it underscores the need for alternative approaches to protect youth from tobacco addiction. These approaches might include enhanced public education campaigns, stricter enforcement of existing regulations regarding youth access to tobacco products, and further research into the behavioral factors driving youth smoking. Ultimately, the withdrawal of the ban highlights the ongoing challenges in balancing economic considerations with public health priorities, particularly when it comes to protecting vulnerable populations, such as young people, from the harms of tobacco use.
8. Regulatory challenges
The withdrawal of the proposed ban on menthol cigarettes by the former presidential administration was significantly influenced by a complex web of regulatory challenges. These challenges encompassed legal considerations, administrative hurdles, and the political feasibility of implementing and enforcing the ban effectively. Understanding these challenges is crucial to grasping the context behind the decision to halt the proposed regulation.
-
Legal Opposition and Litigation Risks
The tobacco industry has a history of aggressively challenging regulations through legal means. Anticipating potential lawsuits alleging violations of due process, equal protection, or other constitutional principles posed a significant regulatory challenge. The administration likely considered the costs and uncertainties associated with protracted legal battles, which could delay or ultimately invalidate the ban. The potential for the industry to successfully challenge the ban in court factored into the decision-making process, creating a disincentive for proceeding with the proposed regulation.
-
Administrative Complexity and Enforcement Difficulties
Implementing a ban on menthol cigarettes presents substantial administrative complexities, including defining the scope of the ban, establishing compliance standards, and enforcing the regulation across diverse retail environments. Monitoring and preventing the sale of illicit menthol cigarettes would require significant resources and coordination among federal, state, and local agencies. The administrative burden and enforcement challenges associated with the ban, combined with resource constraints, may have contributed to the decision to withdraw the proposal.
-
Political Feasibility and Public Acceptance
Regulatory actions require a degree of political feasibility and public acceptance to be successfully implemented. The proposed ban on menthol cigarettes faced opposition from various stakeholders, including members of Congress, lobbying groups, and segments of the public concerned about government overreach or potential economic impacts. The administration likely assessed the political climate and determined that the ban lacked sufficient support to overcome resistance, making its implementation politically challenging. The potential for political backlash and negative electoral consequences further contributed to the decision to withdraw the proposal.
-
Inconsistency with Broader Regulatory Agenda
The proposed ban on menthol cigarettes may have been perceived as inconsistent with the broader regulatory agenda of the administration, which generally favored deregulation and reduced government intervention in the economy. A sweeping ban on a consumer product could have been seen as a departure from this approach, creating internal conflict and undermining the administration’s overall regulatory philosophy. The decision to withdraw the proposal aligned with the administration’s broader commitment to reducing regulatory burdens and promoting economic growth, even if it meant foregoing potential public health benefits.
In conclusion, the regulatory challenges associated with the proposed ban on menthol cigarettes played a significant role in the Trump administration’s decision to withdraw the regulation. These challenges, encompassing legal risks, administrative complexities, political opposition, and alignment with the broader regulatory agenda, collectively contributed to the abandonment of the ban, highlighting the complexities of implementing public health policies in the face of competing interests and practical constraints.
9. Future policy direction
The withdrawal of the proposed ban on menthol cigarettes by the former administration has significant ramifications for the future direction of tobacco control policy in the United States. The decision necessitates a reassessment of strategies aimed at reducing smoking rates and addressing health disparities, particularly within vulnerable populations. The following points outline key considerations for future policy initiatives.
-
Re-evaluation of Regulatory Approaches
The withdrawal necessitates a re-evaluation of regulatory approaches to tobacco control. It raises questions about the effectiveness of outright bans versus alternative strategies such as taxation, marketing restrictions, and public education campaigns. Future policies may explore a combination of these approaches to achieve comprehensive tobacco control. For instance, increasing taxes on menthol cigarettes could discourage consumption, while stricter regulations on advertising and promotion could limit their appeal, especially to young people. The failure of the ban attempt emphasizes the need for adaptable and multifaceted policy frameworks.
-
Focus on Health Equity and Targeted Interventions
The disproportionate impact of menthol cigarettes on African American communities highlights the need for targeted interventions to address health disparities. Future policies must prioritize health equity by addressing the systemic factors that contribute to higher rates of smoking-related illnesses within these communities. Real-life examples could include community-based programs that provide culturally sensitive smoking cessation resources and education campaigns that counter the historical marketing of menthol cigarettes to African Americans. This targeted approach recognizes the unique challenges faced by different populations and aims to achieve more equitable health outcomes.
-
Strengthening Scientific Research and Data Collection
A robust evidence base is essential for informing effective tobacco control policies. Future efforts must focus on strengthening scientific research and data collection to better understand the behavioral and health effects of menthol cigarettes. This includes tracking smoking rates among different demographic groups, assessing the impact of various policy interventions, and investigating the mechanisms through which menthol flavoring affects nicotine addiction. Enhanced data collection and research will provide policymakers with the information needed to make evidence-based decisions and adapt policies to evolving trends in tobacco use.
-
International Collaboration and Best Practices
Learning from international experiences can inform future policy direction. Many countries have implemented successful tobacco control measures, including bans on flavored tobacco products, comprehensive advertising restrictions, and high taxation rates. Collaboration with international organizations and the adoption of evidence-based best practices can strengthen tobacco control efforts in the United States. Examples include learning from countries that have successfully reduced smoking rates through comprehensive regulatory approaches, such as Australia and Canada. This global perspective provides valuable insights and potential models for future policy initiatives.
These considerations highlight the need for a comprehensive and adaptive approach to tobacco control policy in the wake of the former administration’s decision. Future policies must prioritize evidence-based strategies, address health disparities, and learn from international experiences to effectively reduce smoking rates and protect public health. The withdrawal of the proposed ban serves as a reminder of the ongoing challenges in balancing economic interests with public health concerns and underscores the importance of sustained commitment to tobacco control efforts.
Frequently Asked Questions
The following addresses common inquiries concerning the decision by the former presidential administration to withdraw the proposed ban on menthol cigarettes. These responses aim to provide clarity and context to this complex issue.
Question 1: What was the primary reason for the proposed ban on menthol cigarettes?
The primary rationale behind the proposed ban was to reduce smoking rates, particularly among youth and African American communities, where menthol cigarette use is disproportionately high. Menthol’s cooling effect can make cigarettes more palatable and addictive, facilitating initial smoking and hindering cessation efforts.
Question 2: Why did the Trump administration ultimately withdraw the proposed ban?
Multiple factors likely contributed to the withdrawal, including extensive lobbying efforts by the tobacco industry, concerns about potential economic impacts (such as job losses and decreased tax revenue), and the anticipation of legal challenges to the ban. Political considerations and the administration’s broader deregulatory agenda also played a role.
Question 3: How does this decision affect public health efforts aimed at reducing smoking?
The withdrawal presents a setback to public health efforts. It maintains the availability of a product that contributes to smoking-related diseases, particularly among vulnerable populations. It necessitates a reassessment of strategies to reduce smoking rates and address health disparities.
Question 4: What is the potential impact on racial equity, given menthol cigarette use among African Americans?
The decision has raised concerns about racial equity. Menthol cigarettes have been historically marketed toward African Americans, leading to higher rates of smoking-related illnesses. The withdrawal perpetuates this disparity and undermines efforts to achieve health equity.
Question 5: What are the potential economic consequences of not banning menthol cigarettes?
The economic consequences include continued revenue for the tobacco industry and sustained tax revenue for governments. However, these benefits are offset by the long-term healthcare costs associated with smoking-related illnesses and the loss of productivity due to smoking-related morbidity and mortality.
Question 6: What alternative policy approaches could be pursued to address the issues that the ban intended to solve?
Alternative approaches include increasing taxes on menthol cigarettes, implementing stricter regulations on advertising and promotion, funding comprehensive public education campaigns, and supporting community-based smoking cessation programs tailored to specific populations. A multi-faceted approach is essential for effective tobacco control.
In summary, the withdrawal highlights the ongoing complexities in balancing public health goals with economic and political considerations. It underscores the need for sustained commitment to evidence-based strategies to reduce smoking rates and protect public health.
The subsequent section will analyze the long-term implications of this decision on public health and tobacco control policy.
Navigating the Aftermath
The decision by the previous administration to reverse the proposed ban on menthol cigarettes necessitates a strategic approach to mitigate potential adverse effects. The following points offer guidance to stakeholders committed to reducing tobacco-related harm.
Tip 1: Strengthen Evidence-Based Advocacy. Support and promote scientific research demonstrating the detrimental health effects of menthol cigarettes, particularly their disproportionate impact on vulnerable populations. This evidence should inform public awareness campaigns and policy advocacy efforts.
Tip 2: Foster Community Engagement. Engage with community leaders and organizations, especially within African American communities, to address the historical targeting of these groups by the tobacco industry. Community-led initiatives can promote awareness and encourage smoking cessation.
Tip 3: Advocate for Targeted Policy Interventions. Encourage policymakers to consider alternative policy interventions, such as increasing taxes on menthol cigarettes, restricting advertising and promotion, and expanding access to smoking cessation resources. These measures can reduce menthol cigarette use without resorting to a complete ban.
Tip 4: Support Comprehensive Tobacco Control Programs. Advocate for the funding and implementation of comprehensive tobacco control programs that address all forms of tobacco use, including menthol cigarettes. These programs should include public education campaigns, cessation services, and policy interventions at the federal, state, and local levels.
Tip 5: Promote Health Equity. Recognize and address the social determinants of health that contribute to tobacco-related disparities. Interventions should be designed to reduce health inequities and promote equitable access to resources and opportunities for all populations.
Tip 6: Monitor Industry Tactics. Continuously monitor the tobacco industry’s marketing and promotional tactics, particularly those targeting vulnerable populations. Publicly expose these tactics and advocate for regulations to restrict deceptive and manipulative marketing practices.
Tip 7: Encourage International Collaboration. Learn from successful tobacco control strategies implemented in other countries. Collaborate with international organizations and experts to identify and implement best practices for reducing tobacco-related harm.
These measures represent a proactive strategy to lessen the continued health consequences and promote long-term community well-being. Proactive and well-informed public health policies are key to counteracting this setback.
The subsequent paragraphs will outline the long-term effects and present solutions for policy advancements.
Conclusion
The examination of the former presidential administration’s decision to withdraw the proposed ban on menthol cigarettes reveals a complex interplay of political, economic, and public health considerations. The decision, influenced by lobbying efforts, concerns over economic impact, and regulatory challenges, perpetuates health disparities, particularly within African American communities, and undermines broader tobacco control efforts. The absence of a ban ensures the continued availability of a product demonstrably linked to higher rates of smoking-related illnesses and mortality.
The implications of this decision extend beyond immediate economic or political gains. It necessitates a renewed commitment to evidence-based policies, targeted interventions, and community engagement to mitigate the adverse effects of menthol cigarette use. The pursuit of health equity and the protection of vulnerable populations demand sustained vigilance and proactive measures to counteract the ongoing burden of tobacco-related harm.
