In a recent ruling, an Ohio judge has declared a state law prohibiting cities from implementing bans on the sale of flavored tobacco products as unconstitutional. The ruling, issued by Franklin County Common Pleas Court Judge Mark Serrott, is expected to be appealed by the state.

The law, which had become effective in January after the Republican Legislature overrode Governor Mike DeWine's veto, aimed to place regulatory powers regarding tobacco and alternative nicotine products solely in the hands of the state, barring municipalities from enacting their own restrictions. However, more than a dozen cities, including Columbus and Cincinnati, filed a lawsuit challenging the law.

Judge Serrott had previously issued a temporary restraining order in April, effectively preventing the law from being enforced. His recent decision affirms that the bans implemented by these cities will remain in effect. It is important to note that this ruling is specific to the cities involved and does not establish a statewide injunction.

Opponents of the law argued, in part, that it violated Ohio's home rule provision, which allows local governments to create their own ordinances as long as they do not interfere with state laws. Judge Serrott agreed with this standpoint, stating that the law was specifically aimed at limiting cities' exercise of home rule.

The override of Governor DeWine's veto was heavily criticized by anti-tobacco advocates, including the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, as it was seen as a victory for the tobacco industry. They argued that flavored tobacco products, particularly those with fruity or candy-like flavors, were enticing to children and increased the risk of addiction.

Supporters of the law, on the other hand, maintain that it promotes uniformity in tobacco regulations across the state and eliminates confusion for Ohio residents. They argue that the state should have control over such regulations, as restrictions on these products could impact statewide income.

Governor DeWine, who had opposed the law, has consistently advocated for a statewide ban on flavored tobacco as a means to ensure uniformity in tobacco regulations throughout Ohio.

The ruling in this case is likely to have broader implications in the ongoing debate over the division of regulatory powers between state and local governments in Ohio. As the state prepares to appeal the ruling, the outcome will be watched closely by both supporters and opponents of the law.