My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02/16/2021
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2020's
>
2021
>
02/16/2021
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/1/2021 3:24:48 PM
Creation date
4/1/2021 3:22:02 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
BCC Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda Packet
Meeting Date
02/16/2021
Meeting Body
Board of County Commissioners
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
178
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
PUBLIC HEALTH <br />LAW CENTER <br />ct Mftcttetl Namlina ScheW of Law <br />Penalizing Underage Purchase, Use, and Possession and -the Use of a False Identification <br />.June 2019 <br />Prohibiting the attempted and actual possession, use, and purchase (PUP) of licensed products by <br />underage persons or the use of a false ID to purchase tobacco products is a part of many ordinances <br />around the country and Florida state law.' However, this model ordinance does not include penalties <br />for underage PUP and only provides non -criminal, non -monetary penalties for the use of false IDs. <br />At its core, a licensing ordinance is intended to regulate the behavior of licensees. Penalizing <br />underage persons detracts from the focus of the licensing code and siphons enforcement <br />resources away from the licensees to young consumers, many of whom are addicted to nicotine. <br />It is important to note that, even if PUP provisions are not included in an ordinance, retailers have <br />the authority to ask underage persons to leave the premises if they attempt to purchase products. <br />There is no strong evidence to support an assertion that PUP penalties are effective in <br />significantly reducing youth smoking. Historically, these laws were lobbied for by the commercial <br />tobacco industry to punish youth users while the industry simultaneously targeted, and continues <br />to target, youth to replace a dying consumer base and maintain profits in a dwindling market. <br />Furthermore, many advocates are concerned that PUP penalties open the door to selective <br />enforcement against youth from certain racial, ethnic, and socio-economic groups. Evidence <br />suggests that youth of color are disproportionately over -represented in similar status -level <br />offenses, increasing their interactions with law enforcement and resulting in their introduction to <br />the criminal justice system. Finally, Florida law currently penalizes PUP and the use of false IDs <br />and no further enforcement is needed at the local level. <br />Some of these concerns may be alleviated by offering alternative non -criminal, nonmonetary <br />penalties as suggested below in section 11(6)(3). <br />For further reading on the history of PUP laws and the disproportionate enforcement of laws against <br />youth of color and indigenous youth, please see Wakefield, M., & Giovino, G. (2003). Teen penalties <br />for tobacco possession, use, and purchase: evidence and issues. Tobacco Control,12(suppl 1), 6-03. <br />Section 10. Exceptions and Defenses. <br />(A) Religious, Spiritual, or Cultural Ceremonies or Practices. Nothing in this ordinance prevents <br />the provision of tobacco or tobacco -related devices to any person as part of an indigenous <br />practice or a lawfully recognized religious, spiritual, or cultural ceremony or practice. <br />133 -- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.