Assembly Passes Bill to Raise Smoking Age

The Assembly passed a measure Wednesday that would raise the legal age for purchasing tobacco products in California to 21, siding with health advocates despite concerns that the measure could hurt state tax revenue.

With the end of the legislative year looming, an Assembly committee passed sweeping legislation that would bolster the privacy protections enjoyed by California consumers, but only after watering the bill down by adding a loophole sought by insurance companies. However, another committee is expected to restore the bill to its original form today, setting up a showdown when it hits the Assembly floor.

The tobacco legislation reached the Assembly after a bipartisan group of lawmakers hollowed out the language of a Senate bill, SB 1680 by Sen. Richard Polanco (D-Los Angeles), and injected the provisions of a bill by Assemblyman Paul Koretz (D-West Hollywood).

The measure would prevent anyone younger than 21 from legally buying tobacco in the state. Assemblyman Rod Pacheco (R-Riverside) carried the amended bill.

Opponents have quietly criticized the timing of the measure because it would dry up about $26 million in state tax revenues from tobacco taxes.

“Some people have actually come to me with a straight face and said they’re opposing this measure because the state would lose money,” Pacheco said during the Assembly floor debate. “Can you believe it?”

But others said the state did not need to protect 18-to 21-year-olds from the right to buy cigarettes, arguing that people that age should have the chance to decide for themselves.

Assemblyman Dennis Mountjoy (R-Monrovia) called the measure “government nannyism.”

“Are you going to tell members of the armed forces that they can’t smoke in this state?” he asked.

Koretz defended the measure, citing studies that indicate people are less likely to develop a smoking habit after age 21.

“This bill will save lives of young people who will never take up smoking during those crucial last years between 18 and 21,” he said.

The measure passed on a bipartisan 42-10 vote. It now goes back to the Senate and, if passed there, to Gov. Gray Davis

The privacy bill, SB 773 by Sen. Jackie Speier (D-Hillsborough), would prevent banks and other financial firms from selling or trading a customer’s personal information without their consent to prevent “financial profiling” and other abuses criticized by consumer groups.

It narrowly cleared the Assembly Banking and Finance Committee, which has been a graveyard for consumer protection legislation in recent years--but only after lawmakers led by Republican Phil Wyman of Tehachapi added a hostile amendment to the measure sought by insurance companies.

“No one should disregard or misrepresent the actions of this committee,” said committee Chairman Lou Papan (D-Millbrae) at the start of the proceedings.

“No one was bought out by any specific industry or special interest. Such allegations are totally degrading to the process.”

The change, which outraged consumer groups, would allow the companies to share a customer’s information with affiliates without notifying the person that they were going to do so--a loophole that would allow widespread sharing, since many insurers are part of large financial conglomerates.

Speier’s bill originally would have required almost all firms to send customers simple, clearly written notices before sharing or selling their information--even if they were planning to share it within their “family of companies.”

Though the bill was amended Wednesday, it is expected to be restored to its original form today when it goes before the more sympathetic Assembly Judiciary Committee.

Lawmakers said Assembly Speaker Herb Wesson (D-Culver City) dressed down Papan for not allowing Assemblyman Joe Nation (D-San Rafael), who is a coauthor of the privacy bill with Speier, to return it to its original form in his committee after Nation gathered the votes to beat back the GOP amendments.

Meanwhile, Sen. Don Perata (D-Oakland) confirmed that he will introduce legislation to prevent cities from passing so-called predatory-lending laws stronger than the one the state implemented this year.

Last year, Gov. Davis signed legislation by Assemblywoman Carole Migden (D-San Francisco) that imposed penalties on financial firms that target the poor with mortgages at rates they cannot realistically pay. Critics refer to that practice as predatory lending.

“It’s time to step backward and see how [the current law] works,” Perata said.

He fears that low-income people in his district will be unable to get credit for home ownership from mortgage banks, Perata said. He accused consumer activists of breaking an agreement he said was adopted last year in which the activists promised not to seek stricter predatory lending ordinances at the local level

The measure by Migden was the result of a compromise between the assemblywoman and lenders, and was not as strong as some consumer groups had hoped. So some have taken their fight to the local level. Oakland passed a stronger predatory lending law earlier this year, and the Los Angeles City Council is weighing one as well.

Norma Garcia of Consumers Union, the publisher of Consumer Reports magazine, said the legislation being sought by lenders would enact a moratorium on local predatory-lending laws for as long as five years--and would be retroactive, eradicating any possible Los Angeles law passed this year.

“This is a hijacking at the end of the session, and it’s injurious to the public,” Garcia said. “What this is about is trying to shut down the city of L.A.”