#NNPA BlackPress
Activists Say Banning Newport, Other Flavored Cigarettes Puts Black Lives in Danger


Eric Garner’s mother Gwendolyn Carr says, for Black Men, selling a single cigarette, known as “loosey,” can lead to an arrest, a prison sentence or even death.
Six years ago, a police officer put her son in a chokehold and strangled him to death for allegedly selling illegal cigarettes on Staten Island, a borough of New York City.
Now, Carr is speaking out in a new video against California Senate Bill (SB) 793, which she says will create the same circumstances – the illegal sale and use of menthol cigarettes and aggressive, racially-biased law enforcement — that led to her son’s death. If the Senate passes the bill and Gov. Newsom signs it into law, it would ban the sale of menthol tobacco and other flavored cigarette products.
“A new law would criminalize menthol cigarettes, which Black people smoke almost exclusively, giving police officers another excuse to harm and arrest any Black man, woman or child they choose,” Carr says in the video opposing SB 793. “A bad law has consequences for mothers like me.”
Carr is not alone in her opinion of the bill. Across California, there is opposition to SB 793, which, if passed, would become the country’s strongest restriction on flavored tobacco products, including Newport, Kool and Salem cigarettes — three brands Blacks disproportionately smoke.
Old and young, faith leaders, retired law enforcement officers, and civil rights activists came together to protest SB 793. At protests in Los Angeles and Sacramento on Aug. 20, they called out the inherent discrimination coded into the language and spirit of SB 793, which California Sen. Jerry Hill (D-San Mateo) authored.
“The goal of this protest is to ensure we are heard,” said Rev. K.W. Tulloss, President of Baptist Ministers Conference Los Angeles and co-founder of Neighborhood FORWARD, a community-based social action organization. “SB 793 is a bad bill that’s not good for California. The unintended consequences of this legislation are real. Bills like this take us backward.”
But on the same day of the protests, the Assembly Appropriations Committee passed the bill, sending the bill to the full Assembly for consideration.
The rallies were two in a series of three held against SB793. The first one was held in front of the home of California Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon (D-Lakewood).
Like Carr, people and organizations that oppose SB 793 say it is discriminatory because some adult tobacco products — those preferred by whites – are exempted from the ban.
Meanwhile, the tobacco products preferred by African American adult smokers, menthol cigarettes, are included in the ban. Exemptions in SB 793 include shisha tobacco, which is used in hookah water pipes, premium tobacco, and loose-leaf tobacco.
The retail sale of flavored handmade premium cigars with a minimum price of $12 are also not prohibited under this bill.
Some California residents say that the exemptions for certain kinds of tobacco nearly mirror laws that unequally penalized people for selling or possessing the same amounts of crack cocaine and powdered cocaine.
In 1986, the federal government passed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act, which mandated stiffer punishments for people who sold crack cocaine, the rock form of the drug, which more Blacks used. Penalties for possessing or distributing cocaine powder, preferred by whites, were much lighter. Distributing just five grams of crack triggered a federal mandatory minimum prison sentence of 5 years. But it required 500 grams of cocaine for a distributor to receive a federal prison sentence of the same length of time – a 100:1 disparity.
Law Enforcement Action Partnership (LEAP) and the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement (NOBLE) agree that the bill has a racist element to it. They say the bill demonstrates clear discrimination and preferential treatment between two tobacco products preferred by two different cultural groups.
“We will not and cannot stand for more policies that resemble another Black tax yet find a way to make concessions and amendments for certain groups,” Rev. Tulloss said. “Hookah is exempted, yet menthol cigarettes are not. The Speaker can make this bill fair and that’s all we’re asking.”
Existing law prohibits a person from selling or otherwise furnishing tobacco products to a person under 21 years of age. It also prohibits the use of tobacco products in county offices of education, on charter school or school district property, or near a playground or youth sports event.
If SB 793 passes, each violation of the law would be punishable by a fine of $250.
“Using candy, fruit, and other alluring flavors, the tobacco industry weaponized its tactics to beguile a new generation into nicotine addiction while keeping longtime users hooked. SB 793 breaks Big Tobacco’s death grip,” said Hill said after the Senate voted 33-4 to advance the bill to the Assembly last month.
An estimated seven out of 10 African American youth ages 12 to 17 years smoke menthol cigarettes, according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). In addition, African American adults make up the largest percentage of menthol cigarette users compared to other racial and ethnic groups, the CDC says.
The coalition of SB 793 supporters include the Office of Lieutenant Gov. Eleni Kounalakis, the Tobacco-Free Kids Action Fund, the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, and the Common Sense Kids, who are all bill sponsors.
“SB 793 coauthors, cosponsors, African American thought leaders in government, health, the faith community, science, the arts and among our youth, as well as other supporters, have provided strong counterpoints to the obfuscation,” Hill stated. “We are confident that together we can ensure the strongest tobacco control restrictions in the country become California law.”
#NNPA BlackPress
Recently Approved Budget Plan Favors Wealthy, Slashes Aid to Low-Income Americans
BLACKPRESSUSA NEWSWIRE — The most significant benefits would flow to the highest earners while millions of low-income families face cuts

By Stacy M. Brown
BlackPressUSA.com Senior National Correspondent
The new budget framework approved by Congress may result in sweeping changes to the federal safety net and tax code. The most significant benefits would flow to the highest earners while millions of low-income families face cuts. A new analysis from Yale University’s Budget Lab shows the proposals in the House’s Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Resolution would lead to a drop in after-tax-and-transfer income for the poorest households while significantly boosting revenue for the wealthiest Americans. Last month, Congress passed its Concurrent Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2025 (H. Con. Res. 14), setting revenue and spending targets for the next decade. The resolution outlines $1.5 trillion in gross spending cuts and $4.5 trillion in tax reductions between FY2025 and FY2034, along with $500 billion in unspecified deficit reduction.
Congressional Committees have now been instructed to identify policy changes that align with these goals. Three of the most impactful committees—Agriculture, Energy and Commerce, and Ways and Means—have been tasked with proposing major changes. The Agriculture Committee is charged with finding $230 billion in savings, likely through changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), also known as food stamps. Energy and Commerce must deliver $880 billion in savings, likely through Medicaid reductions. Meanwhile, the Ways and Means Committee must craft tax changes totaling no more than $4.5 trillion in new deficits, most likely through extending provisions of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Although the resolution does not specify precise changes, reports suggest lawmakers are eyeing steep cuts to SNAP and Medicaid benefits while seeking to make permanent tax provisions that primarily benefit high-income individuals and corporations.
To examine the potential real-world impact, Yale’s Budget Lab modeled four policy changes that align with the resolution’s goals:
- A 30 percent across-the-board cut in SNAP funding.
- A 15 percent cut in Medicaid funding.
- Permanent extension of the individual and estate tax cuts from the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
- Permanent extension of business tax provisions including 100% bonus depreciation, expense of R&D, and relaxed limits on interest deductions.
Yale researchers determined that the combined effect of these policies would reduce the after-tax-and-transfer income of the bottom 20 percent of earners by 5 percent in the calendar year 2026. Households in the middle would see a modest 0.6 percent gain. However, the top five percent of earners would experience a 3 percent increase in their after-tax-and-transfer income.
Moreover, the analysis concluded that more than 100 percent of the net fiscal benefit from these changes would go to households in the top 20 percent of the income distribution. This happens because lower-income groups would lose more in government benefits than they would gain from any tax cuts. At the same time, high-income households would enjoy significant tax reductions with little or no loss in benefits.
“These results indicate a shift in resources away from low-income tax units toward those with higher incomes,” the Budget Lab report states. “In particular, making the TCJA provisions permanent for high earners while reducing spending on SNAP and Medicaid leads to a regressive overall effect.” The report notes that policymakers have floated a range of options to reduce SNAP and Medicaid outlays, such as lowering per-beneficiary benefits or tightening eligibility rules. While the Budget Lab did not assess each proposal individually, the modeling assumes legislation consistent with the resolution’s instructions. “The burden of deficit reduction would fall largely on those least able to bear it,” the report concluded.
#NNPA BlackPress
A Threat to Pre-emptive Pardons
BLACKPRESSUSA NEWSWIRE — it was a possibility that the preemptive pardons would not happen because of the complicated nature of that never-before-enacted process.

By April Ryan
President Trump is working to undo the traditional presidential pardon powers by questioning the Biden administration’s pre-emptive pardons issued just days before January 20, 2025. President Trump is seeking retribution against the January 6th House Select Committee. The Trump Justice Department has been tasked to find loopholes to overturn the pardons that could lead to legal battles for the Republican and Democratic nine-member committee. Legal scholars and those closely familiar with the pardon process worked with the Biden administration to ensure the preemptive pardons would stand against any retaliatory knocks from the incoming Trump administration. A source close to the Biden administration’s pardons said, in January 2025, “I think pardons are all valid. The power is unreviewable by the courts.”
However, today that same source had a different statement on the nuances of the new Trump pardon attack. That attack places questions about Biden’s use of an autopen for the pardons. The Trump argument is that Biden did not know who was pardoned as he did not sign the documents. Instead, the pardons were allegedly signed by an autopen. The same source close to the pardon issue said this week, “unless he [Trump] can prove Biden didn’t know what was being done in his name. All of this is in uncharted territory. “ Meanwhile, an autopen is used to make automatic or remote signatures. It has been used for decades by public figures and celebrities.
Months before the Biden pardon announcement, those in the Biden White House Counsel’s Office, staff, and the Justice Department were conferring tirelessly around the clock on who to pardon and how. The concern for the preemptive pardons was how to make them irrevocable in an unprecedented process. At one point in the lead-up to the preemptive pardon releases, it was a possibility that the preemptive pardons would not happen because of the complicated nature of that never-before-enacted process. President Trump began the threat of an investigation for the January 6th Select Committee during the Hill proceedings. Trump has threatened members with investigation or jail.
#NNPA BlackPress
Reaction to The Education EO
BLACKPRESSUSA NEWSWIRE — Meanwhile, the new Education EO jeopardizes funding for students seeking a higher education. Duncan states, PellGrants are in jeopardy after servicing “6.5 million people” giving them a chance to go to college.

By April Ryan
There are plenty of negative reactions to President Donald Trump’s latest Executive Order abolishing the Department of Education. As Democrats call yesterday’s action performative, it would take an act of Congress for the Education Department to close permanently. “This blatantly unconstitutional executive order is just another piece of evidence that Trump has absolutely no respect for the Constitution,” said Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) who is the ranking member on the House Financial Services Committee. “By dismantling ED, President Trump is implementing his own philosophy on education, which can be summed up in his own words, ‘I love the poorly educated.’ I am adamantly opposed to this reckless action, said Rep. Bobby Scott who is the most senior Democrat on the House Education and Workforce Committee.
Morgan State University President Dr. David Wilson chimed in saying “I’m deeply concerned about efforts to shift federal oversight in education back to the states, particularly regarding equity, justice, and fairness. History has shown us what happens when states are left unchecked—Black and poor children are too often denied access to the high-quality education they deserve. In 1979 then President Jimmy Carter signed a law creating the Department of Education. Arne Duncan, former Obama Education Secretary, reminds us that both Democratic and Republican presidents have kept education a non-political issue until now. However, Duncan stressed Republican presidents have contributed greatly to moving education forward in this country.
During a CNN interview this week Duncan said during the Civil War President Abraham “Lincoln created the land grant system” for colleges like Tennessee State University. “President Ford brought in IDEA.” And “Nixon signed Pell Grants into law.” In 2001, the No Child Left Behind Act was signed into law by President George W. Bush which increased federal oversight of schools through standardized testing. Meanwhile, the new Education EO jeopardizes funding for students seeking higher education. Duncan states, PellGrants are in jeopardy after servicing “6.5 million people” giving them a chance to go to college. Wilson details, “that 40 percent of all college students rely on Pell Grants and student loans.”
Rep. Alma Adams (D-NC) says this Trump action “impacts students pursuing higher education and threatens 26 million students across the country, taking billions away from their educational futures. Meanwhile, During the president’s speech in the East Room of the White House Thursday, Trump criticized Baltimore City, and its math test scores with critical words. Governor West Moore, who is opposed to the EO action, said about dismantling the Department of Education, “Leadership means lifting people up, not punching them down.”
-
#NNPA BlackPress4 weeks ago
Target Takes a Hit: $12.4 Billion Wiped Out as Boycotts Grow
-
Activism3 weeks ago
Undocumented Workers Are Struggling to Feed Themselves. Slashed Budgets and New Immigration Policies Bring Fresh Challenges
-
#NNPA BlackPress4 weeks ago
BREAKING Groundbreaking Singer Angie Stone Dies in Car Accident at 63
-
Activism4 weeks ago
Oakland Post: Week of February 26 – March 4, 2025
-
Arts and Culture3 weeks ago
Beverly Lorraine Greene: A Pioneering Architect and Symbol of Possibility and Progress
-
#NNPA BlackPress4 weeks ago
NAACP Legend and Freedom Fighter Hazel Dukes Passes
-
#NNPA BlackPress4 weeks ago
Trump Kicks the Ukrainian President Out of the White House
-
#NNPA BlackPress4 weeks ago
Apple Shareholders Reject Effort to Dismantle DEI Initiatives, Approve $500 Billion U.S. Investment Plan