Ge n. 149] 149

Baltimore City

Code, Health Article, §§2-104, 2- 105(5), a nd 5- 1 101(b). T OB AC CO RE GU L AT I ON
B ALTI MO RE C I T Y

– W HE T HE R B ALTI MO RE C I T Y H E AL T H C ODE R EG ULAT I ON C ONC E RN I NG S AL E S OF C HE AP C IG A R S IS P RE E MPT E D B Y S TATE L AW

O ct ober8, 2008

The H onor abl e Pet erFr anchot C om ptr ol l erof

M ar yland
Y o u have a s ked ouropi ni on w hethera pr opos ed B al t i m ore C i tyr egul at i on pr ohi bi t i ng the s al e of c i gar s i n packa ges of l es s than f i v e wo u l d b e p r e e mp t e d b yS t a t e l a w.
I n o u r o pi ni on, the pr opos ed r egul at i on i s notpr eempt ed by S t a t e l a w.
I Backg r ound
Y o u r re q u e st w a s p ro m p ted b ya p ro p o se d B a lti m o re C ity H eal th D epart m entr egul at i o n
. C i t i ng t o hi s author i tyunderthe B a lti m o re C ityH e a lth C o d e , th e B a lti m o re C ityH e a lth 1 C om m i ssi on er det erm i ned that ch eap, i nd i vidual l ysol d cigar s pose a publ i c hea l th haza r d and nui s ance
. Pur s uantt o § 2 -10 6 of the B al t i m or e C i tyH eal th C ode, he pr opos ed t o adopta r egul at i on banni ng the s al e o f cheap ci gar s i n verys m al l quant i t i es
. T he p ro p o se d re g u latio n w o u ld p ro h ib it:

A. a r e t a i l e rf

r o m p u r c h a s i ng f

r o m a t obacc o pr odu ctm anufa ctur eror w hol es al erors el l, r es el l , di s tr i but e, di s pens e, orgi ve aw ayt o anyper s on a pack age o f ci gars contai ning l ess than 5 cigar s;
B

. a r et ai l erfr om s el l i ng, r es el l i ng, di s tr i but i ng, d i s pens i ng, orgi vi ng150 [93 Op. Att’y

See Annotated Code of Mar yland, Commercial L aw Ar ticle, §11-5A- 2 01 et seq. aw ayt o anyper s on a pac kage of

ci gar s unl es s i n t he original packa gi ng fro m the pr oduct m anufa ctur er ; and
C

. a w hol es al erfr om s ell i ng, r es el l i ng, di s tr i but i ng, d i s pens i ng, orgi vi ng a w a yto a n yp e rso n in B a lti m o re C ity a pack age o f ci gars contai ning l ess than 5 cigar s. See B a lti m o re C ityH e a lth D e p a rtm e n t, P r opos ed Regulat i on B a n n in g th e Sa le o

fS in g le C h e a

p C ig a rs in B a lti m o re C ity ( M ay28, 2008) atp. 10. E xcept ed fr om the r egul at i on ar e t obacc oni s t s and pr emi um ci gar s thatar e r ol l ed i n w hol e l eaf t obacc o and s ol d forat le a s t $ 2 e a c h a t w h o le s a le

. Id

. E x p lain in g th e n e e d f o r th e re g u latio n , the H e a lth C om m i s s i onernot ed that , al thoug h St at e l aw r equi r es the s al e of ci gar ett es i n packs of 20 orm or e, no s i m i l arSt at e l aw addr es s es the 2
s a l e o f c ig a rs
. I

d. at 1. A s a res ult , according t o the H e a lth C o m m i s s i o n e r , i n d i v i d u a l c i g a r s a r e s o l d w i d e l y i n B a l t i m o r e C i ty. H e n o ted th a t v e n d o rs o f ten o p e n p a c k a g e s o f

5 o r 2 0 c ig a rs a n d se ll th e c o n te n ts in d iv id u a lly. Id

. H e s ugges t ed that the avai l abi l i tyof cheap ci gar s i n s m al l quant i t i es i s r es pons i bl e i n part fora nat i onal tr end of i ncr eas ed us e of c i gar s byy oung peopl e, i n contr as tt o a decl i ne i n ci gar ett e us e bythe s ame age gr oup overthe s ame per i od o f tim e
. Id

. at4- 8.

II

P r e e m p tio n A n a ly sis
Y o u h a v e a sk e d w h e th e r th e p ro p o s e d C ityo rd in a n c e is pr eempt ed bySt at e l aw
. T he doctr i ne of pr eempt i on i s pr edi cat ed on the ground t hat the G ener al A s s embl ym ayr es erve t o i t s el f exc l us i ve d o m in io n o v e r a n e n tire f ield o f leg isla tiv e c o n c e rn . A s w e re c e n tly not ed, a l ocal l aw m aybe pr eempt ed bySt at e law expr es s l y , by confl i ct , orbyi m pl i cat i on. 93 O pi ni ons of

the A t t or ney G ener al 1 2 6 , 1 3 0 (2 0 0 8 ).Ge n. 149] 151

See Annotated Code of Mary land, Commercial L aw Ar ticle, §11-501 3 et seq. (Ci garette Sales Be low Cost Act), §11-5A- 01 et seq. (re stricting sales of c iga

rettes to pac ks of at lea st 20 cig arettes). T her e i s no expr es s pr ovi s i on i n St at e l aw pr ohi bi t i ng a l ocal ju risd ict i on from enacti ng a health regulat i on rel at ed to ci gars. N ei theri s ther e any St at e l aw or r egul at i on thati s i n di r ectconfl i ct w i th the pr opos ed C i tyr egul ati on. T hus , the ans w ert o y our q u e stio n d e p e n d s o n w h e th e r o r n o t th e p r o p o se d re g u latio n is i mp l i c i t l yp r e e mp t e d b yS t a t e l a w.
T her e i s pr eempt i on by i m pl i cat i on w hen an e nt i r e fi el d of l aw i s compre hens i vel yoccupi ed by legi s l at i ve ac t i on bythe G ener al A s s e m b ly. Se e A lli e d

V e n d in g, In c . v. C ity o

f B o w ie , 332 M d. 279, 6 3 1 A

. 2 d 77 ( 1993)

. Forexampl e, i n A l l i ed Vendi ng , two m uni ci pal i t i es had ena ct ed or di nance s r es tr i ct i ng the loc at i on of S tate -lice n se d c ig a r e tte v e n d in g m a c h in e s. T h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls ext en s i v e l yr e v i e wed th e “ c o mpr e h e n s i v e p r o v i s i o n s ” i n St a t e l aw re g u latin g th e sa le o f

c ig a re tt e s th ro u g h v e n d in g m a c h in e s in M ary l and. 332 M d. at 2 8 8 -94

. I thel d that“i n l i ghtof the compre hens i ve s t at e-l i cens i ng s cheme forci gar ett e vendi ng m achi nes pr ovi ded [i n St at e s t atut es ] , . . . the s al e of ci gar ett es thr ough ci gar ett e vendi ng m achi nes i s one of thos e ‘ ar ea[ s ] i n w hi ch th e L e g isla tu re h a s a c ted w ith su c h f o rc e th a t a n in ten t b yth e S tate t o occupy the ent i r e fi el d m us tbe i m pl i ed...

. ’ ” Id

. at300 ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed)

. H ow ever , the C our t ’ s hol di ng i n A l l i ed Vendi ng does not p r e c lu d e a ll lo c a l r e g u la tio n o f to b a c c o p ro d u c ts

. See P enn A dver t isi ng of

B al t i m or e, I

nc. v. Mayorand C i t y C ounci lof B alt i m ore , 8 6 2 F . S u p p . 1 4 0 2 , 1 4 2 0 -2 1 (D .M d . 1 9 9 4 ), a ff’d , 63 F. 3d 1 3 1 8 , 1 3 2 4 -25 (4 C ir

. 1 9 9 5 ), vacated and r em anded on other th gr ounds , 5 1 8 U .S . 1 0 3 0 (1 9 9 6 ), adopt ed a s m o di f i ed on other gr ounds , 101 F. 3d 332 ( 4 C i r
. 1996) ( loc al or di nance conce rni ng th ciga rett e a d v erti sing n o t pree m p te d b yS tat e law u n d er A l l i ed V endi ng ) ; 78 O

p in io n s o

f th e A tto rn e

y G e n e ra l 359, 362 ( 1993) (“A l l i ed Vendi ng i t s el f nei therhol ds nors ugges t s thatanyotherki nd o f to b a c c o -r e la te d lo c a l e n a c tm e n t is p re e m p te d b yS ta te la w ” ).
I n contr as tt o the ext ens i ve regul at i on of ci gar ett es underthe C om m er ci al L aw A r t i cl e and Ti t l e 16 of the B us i nes s R egul at i on 3 A rticle (“ B R ” ) a n d th e c o rre sp o n d in g re g u latio n s, th e re is re lativ e ly li tt le reg u lat ion o f th e sale o f “ o ther tob ac co p rod u cts, ” a ca tego ry thati ncl udes ci gar s , underSt at e l aw
. A partfr om the i m pos i t i on of tax e s a n d th e p ro h ib iti o n o n sa les to m in o rs, th e G e n e ra l A ss e m b ly has no textended S t at e regul at i on of tobacco produ ct s t o en com pass sales of ciga rs
. See A nnot at ed C ode of M ary l and, T ax- G ener al152 [93 Op. Att’y

The propose d City

regulation w ould not aff

ect the a pplicable tax or 4 the c o l l e c t i o nan d

r e m i s s i o no f

th att ax. N o r

i s i tato d d s w i thth eS t ate re stric tio nson

vendingma c hin e s o r s a le s to min or s. A r t i cl e, §12- 101( c) ( ci gar s i ncl uded i n defi ni t i on of “othert obacc o p rod u cts” fo r p u rpo ses of taxa ti o n ); B R § 1 6 -3A -01 (c ) ( c ig ars i ncl uded i n defi ni t i on of “t obacc o pr oduct ” for purpos es of S t at e l aw li m it ing ac ce ss o f m ino rs t o tob ac c o p ro d u ct ve n d ing m ac h ines ); C r i m i nal L aw A r t i cl e, §§10- 107, 10- 108 ( pr ohi bi t i ng s al es of

“ to bacco produ ct s, ” i ncludi ng ci gars, t o m i no rs ). W hil e no titse lf 4 di s pos i t i ve of the ques t i on of pr eempt i on, i ti s not abl e thatthe G ener al A s s embl yr ece nt l ydecl i ned t o enac tpr opo sed l egi s l at i on th a t w o u ld h a v e sp e c if ica llyre g u late d th e sa le o f c ig a rs in sm a ll q u a n titie s
. See H o u se B il l 2 0 /Se n ate B il l 2 3 (20 0 7 S p ec ial S essio n ); H o u s e B ill 6 0 9 (2 0 0 8 ).
I n anal ogous ci r cumst ance s , pr i or opi ni ons of thi s O ffi ce ha ve a n a ly z e d w h e th e r lo c a l o rd in a n c e s re stric tin g sm o k in g in p u b lic p la c e s o r i n p ri v a te re s id e n c e s w o u ld b e p re e m p te d b yS ta te la w . A 1993 opi ni on s urve y ed the “di s par at e gr oup” of St at e s t atut es r es tr i ct i ng s m oki ng and conc l uded:

T he Legi s l atur e has s i m pl ynotaddr es s ed th e q u e stio n o f sm o k in g in a h o st of p u b lic places no tenco m passed b yanyof these enac t m ent s
. W e di s cern no evi d en ce of l egi s l at i ve i nt ent t o p r e c l u d e l ocal governm ent s w i th hom e rul e pow erfr om exer ci s i ng that author i ty as t o the unaddr es s ed pr obl em of smoki ng i n publ i c pl ace s g e n e r a l l y. 78 O p in io n s o f th e A tto rn e

y G e n e ra l 359, 372- 73 ( 1993)

. A s i m i l ar c o n c lu sio n w a s re a c h e d a s to lo c a l re g u latio n o f sm o k in g in p riv a te r es i dence s
. 87 O

p in io n s o f th e A tto rn e

y G e n e ra l 1 6 7 (2 0 0 2 ).
W i th r es pectt o s al es of ci gar s , ther e i s “no i ndi ci a of a l egi s l at i ve purpos e t o pr eempt an ent i r e fi el d, ” nor has the G ener al A ss e m b ly“ a c ted w ith su c h f o rc e th a t an in te n t b y t h e S tate to occupy the ent i r e fi el d m us tbe i m pl i ed. ” A llie d V e n d in g, In c ., 332 M d. at299, 3 0 0 (ci t at i ons om i t t ed)

. I n ourvi ew , the G ener al A s s e mbl yh a s n o tp r e e mpt e d l o c a l r e g u l a t i o n b yi mpl i c a t i o n. A c c o rd in g ly , the lim ited re g u latio n o f th e sa le o f

c ig a rs u n d e r S tate l aw does notpr eventa l ocal j ur i s di ct i on w i th hom e rul e pow er , s uchGe n. 149] 153

We express no o p i n ion as to the Health Commissioner’s regulatory 5 authority under theCity

Charter or ordinanc es – an issue of local law on which wetraditionally

defer to the o p inion of the attorney for the loc al jurisdiction. a s B a lti m o re C ity , f

ro m e x e rc isin g its a u th o rityto re g u late th e sa le of ci gar s i n packa ges of l es s than fi ve. 5

III
C oncl usi on
I n ouropi ni on, the pr opos ed r egul at i on i s notpr eempt ed by S t a t e l a w. D ougl as F. G ans l er A t t or ney G ener al
B r i an O l i ner A s s is tantA t t or ney G ener al
R o b e rt N . M c D o n a ld C hi ef C ouns el O pi ni ons and A dvi ce