WARNING: This product contains nicotine. Nicotine is an addictive chemical.

Home >> News >> Regulations >> The Flavor War: Ohio Cities Fight State Law on Vape and Tobacco Restrictions

The Flavor War: Ohio Cities Fight State Law on Vape and Tobacco Restrictions


In this thrilling installment of “As the Smoke Clears,” the drama intensifies as Ohio cities stand their ground against a state law that threatens to sweep away their local tobacco regulations. Thanks to the decisive action of a Franklin County judge, the myriad flavors of vape that might have vanished from local shelves are hanging around a bit longer. This temporary reprieve keeps the flavored vapors swirling, giving city leaders and anti-vape advocates a moment to regroup and steel themselves for the legal battles ahead. With the stakes higher than a plume of vape smoke, the ongoing saga between local autonomy and state supremacy continues to captivate and divide communities across Ohio.

Judge Throws a Temporary Wrench in the Gears

Judge Mark Serote’s decision to issue a temporary restraining order came just in the nick of time, as the contentious state law was on the cusp of reshaping the landscape of tobacco control within Ohio’s municipal boundaries. This law, if enacted, would strip local governments of the power to enact any regulations on flavored tobacco and vape products that go beyond state standards. Advocates for local bans argue that these restrictions are crucial for curbing the rise of vaping among teens, who are often drawn to the enticing array of flavors. The judge’s intervention thus serves as a crucial hold, maintaining the autonomy of cities to protect their younger residents from potential harm.

The atmosphere leading up to the preliminary injunction hearing promises to be charged with tension as both sides prepare their arguments. On one side, the state insists on uniformity in tobacco regulation, aiming to simplify the legal landscape and perhaps preserve the economic benefits associated with the sale of flavored tobacco products. On the other, local governments, supported by public health advocates, champion their right to impose stricter measures, reflecting their communities’ preferences and health priorities. As the date approaches, all eyes are on Judge Serote, whose upcoming decision could set a significant precedent for how power is balanced between state authority and local governance in the realm of public health.


Cities Rally for Their Right to Rule

In an assertive display of local governance, a group of 14 Ohio cities, under the leadership of Columbus’s own Zach Klein, took legal action against a state law they perceive as a direct overreach into their municipal authority. The lawsuit highlights a fierce battle over home rule—a principle enshrined in the Ohio Constitution that empowers cities to regulate themselves without excessive state interference. Klein and his cohort argue that this new state law, which bars cities from imposing their own bans on flavored vapes and tobacco, effectively undermines this autonomy, treating it almost as if someone from outside is dictating how to decorate their homes.

These cities, including Ohio’s most populous—Columbus, Cleveland, and Cincinnati—stand united in their belief that local ordinances, like Columbus’s upcoming flavored vape ban, are not merely administrative but vital public health measures. They argue these bans are essential tools in their efforts to combat the rising tide of vaping among teens, attracted by flavors that mask the harsh taste of tobacco. By enforcing their own standards, these municipalities aim to directly address the health concerns specific to their communities, rather than adhering to broader, perhaps less stringent state mandates. This lawsuit is not just about policy but is a significant stand for the principle that local communities should have the final say in matters directly affecting their well-being.

Legal Smoke Rings: The Restraining Order Explained

In this high-stakes legal boxing match, local Ohio municipalities have come out swinging, signaling their distress through legal channels, opposing a state law they see as a threat to their autonomy. The law, poised to enforce uniformity across Ohio, would prevent cities from enacting their own, potentially stricter, regulations on flavored tobacco and vape products. The scene is set with Judge Mark Serote in the middle, acting less like a traditional referee and more like a guardian of municipal rights, at least temporarily. By granting a temporary restraining order, he has acknowledged the weight of the cities’ arguments and the potential overreach of state powers, allowing the local bans to stand as the court prepares for a more definitive ruling.

The outcome of this preliminary injunction, scheduled for mid-May, is eagerly anticipated by both sides. For now, the restraining order serves as a critical shield, allowing municipalities to maintain their individual health measures against the homogenizing pressure of state legislation. This legal victory, though temporary, highlights the ongoing tension between state authority and local governance, especially when it comes to matters of public health and safety. As both camps regroup and refine their strategies, the upcoming court date looms large, promising to be the ultimate test of whether Ohio’s cities can continue to tailor their tobacco and vape regulations to best suit their communities’ needs.

Why This Matters: The Heart of the Matter

The controversy surrounding flavored vapes and tobacco products boils down to a clash between public health initiatives and economic interests, layered with the complexities of regulatory enforcement. On one side, health advocates and local governments point to the allure of flavors like mango and mint, which can make vaping seem more palatable and less intimidating, particularly to younger demographics. This accessibility is precisely why cities like Columbus have moved to ban these products—aiming to nip a potentially harmful habit in the bud by making vapes less appealing to teenagers, thus preventing early addiction to nicotine.

Conversely, the state’s argument for uniformity presents a practical perspective on regulation. By implementing a standardized set of rules across all municipalities, Ohio seeks to eliminate a “regulatory patchwork quilt” that could create enforcement headaches and confuse both consumers and businesses. This approach not only aims to streamline compliance but also addresses economic concerns. Flavored vapes are not just popular; they are a significant revenue stream for local businesses. From vape shops to convenience stores, many retailers rely on the sales of these products. The state contends that banning these items could lead to a sharp decline in business profits, hitting local economies hard. This economic argument, coupled with the logistical benefits of uniform regulations, frames the state’s resistance to localized bans, setting the stage for a complex debate over the best path forward.


In Franklin County, Ohio, a legal battle is brewing over a state law that would override local bans on flavored vapes and tobacco products. Judge Mark Serote of the County Civil Pleas has issued a temporary restraining order to halt the implementation of this law, setting the stage for a preliminary injunction hearing on May 17. This move comes after 14 Ohio cities, including Columbus, Cleveland, and Cincinnati, filed a lawsuit challenging the state’s attempt to standardize tobacco regulations, arguing it infringes on their home rule rights guaranteed by the Ohio Constitution. The cities contend that their bans on flavored tobacco are crucial public health measures designed to prevent youth from starting to vape, while the state argues that uniform regulations are necessary to avoid enforcement confusion and protect local businesses economically. This legal standoff highlights a significant clash between public health priorities and economic interests, with the upcoming court decision poised to have wide-reaching implications on how tobacco products are regulated across Ohio.

If you want to know more, please refer to this article:


KEYSTONE Products contain nicotine and are unsuitable for minors.
Please confirm your age to proceed.