| Course | MPH 503 Health Policy and Ethical Issues in Public Health |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 8 |
| Paper type | Public health policy brief |
| Length | About 1,031 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Aspen University |
| Program | Master of Public Health |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for MPH 503 Module 8
Policy Brief: Ending Flavored Tobacco Sales to Protect Young People and Close Health Gaps
Student Name
Master of Public Health Program, Aspen University
MPH 503: Health Policy and Ethical Issues in Public Health
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Policy Brief: Ending Flavored Tobacco Sales to Protect Young People and Close Health Gaps
To: State Senate Health and Human Services Committee. From: MPH student analyst. Re: Senate Bill 214, ending retail sales of flavored tobacco products including menthol cigarettes. This brief summarizes the problem, compares options and recommends enacting the bill with amendments on enforcement and cessation funding.
Recommendation in Brief
The committee should advance Senate Bill 214, amended to limit penalties to retailers and wholesalers, to dedicate part of tobacco tax revenue to free cessation services and to require annual reporting on outcomes by race, income and region.
The Problem
Tobacco remains the leading cause of preventable disease and death. In 2021, about 46 million US adults, or 18.7%, used a tobacco product, and use was concentrated among adults with lower incomes, Medicaid coverage and serious psychological distress (Cornelius et al., 2023). Flavors, including menthol, make products more appealing to young people who try them. Among African Americans, menthol smoking was estimated to account for 157,000 premature deaths between 1980 and 2018 (Mendez & Le, 2022). In the composite state, adult cigarette smoking stands above the national figure, and school surveys show that most students who use tobacco choose flavored products.
Options Considered
The brief compared three options against four criteria.
| Option | Effectiveness | Equity | Feasibility | Legal risk |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Status quo with local ordinances | Low; patchwork allows cross-city sales | Leaves gaps in rural and low-income areas | High | Low |
| 2. Ban flavored e-cigarettes only | Moderate for youth vaping; misses menthol cigarettes | Does little for Black adults harmed by menthol | Moderate | Low |
| 3. Ban all flavored tobacco including menthol (SB 214) | Highest; removes the most appealing products statewide | Addresses the largest disparity if paired with cessation | Moderate; retailer opposition | Low to moderate; states may regulate sales |
Why Option 3
A statewide ban on all flavored products removes the products most associated with starting use and the product linked to the largest racial disparity in harm. Limiting the ban to e-cigarettes would leave menthol cigarettes, the most harmful flavored product, on shelves. Local ordinances protect only some residents, often not those in rural or low-income areas.
Ethical Grounding
The recommendation aligns with the public health code of ethics, which asks practitioners to promote health and safety, pursue health justice and equity, respect human rights and act with transparency and accountability (American Public Health Association, 2019). The amendments on enforcement and cessation serve justice and respect for people who currently smoke.
Legal Authority
States have long regulated the sale of tobacco products under their police power. Federal law reserves product standards to the Food and Drug Administration but leaves states room to restrict sales. Public health law scholarship notes that sales restrictions are a traditional and generally durable tool when grounded in health evidence (Gostin & Wiley, 2016). Legislative counsel should review preemption questions before a floor vote.
Stakeholders
Supporters include pediatric and cancer organizations, Black health advocacy groups, school nurses and parent groups. Opponents include convenience store associations, tobacco companies and some civil rights advocates concerned about enforcement. The amendment penalizing sellers only is designed to address the last group's concerns, and a six-month transition period responds to retailers. Meetings with each group before the hearing, rather than during it, would let the sponsors address objections in the bill text instead of in floor debate.
Fiscal Notes
The state would lose some tobacco tax revenue as sales fall, which is the intended health effect. Savings in health care costs accrue over years. Dedicating part of remaining tobacco revenue to cessation, about $6 million annually in the composite state, would fund free medication and quitline counseling for an estimated 20,000 additional people.
Implementation
The health department and revenue agency would notify all 7,400 licensed retailers, provide signage and training, conduct compliance checks and publish results. Retailers violating the law would face escalating fines and possible license suspension. Individuals would face no penalty. Compliance checks would use trained youth and adult buyers, the same method the state already uses for age-of-sale enforcement, so no new inspection system is needed.
Evaluation Plan
The state should report annually on youth and adult tobacco use by flavor, race, income and region, quit attempts and quitline use, retailer compliance, cross-border sales and any enforcement complaints. A five-year review would assess whether disparities narrowed. An independent university team, funded through the cessation appropriation, should conduct the review so that findings carry weight with supporters and skeptics alike.
Anticipated Questions
Committee members may ask whether people will simply buy flavored products across state lines or online. Some will, which is why the state should coordinate with neighboring states, enforce existing restrictions on remote sales and track cross-border purchases. Partial displacement does not erase the health gains from making the products harder to obtain for young people.
Addressing Retailer Concerns
Small store owners worry about lost sales. The brief suggests a small business transition grant to help stores shift shelf space to other products, joint messaging with retailer associations explaining the rules and a compliance period before fines begin. These steps reduce opposition and signal that the state is regulating products, not punishing merchants who follow the law.
Lessons From Other States
Massachusetts ended sales of flavored tobacco products including menthol in 2020, the first state to do so. Early analyses reported declines in flavored product sales within the state, alongside some increase in purchases in neighboring states. The committee can learn from that experience by planning regional cooperation and monitoring from the outset.
Timeline
If enacted in the current session, the law would take effect six months after signature. Retailer notification would occur in the first month, training and signage in months two through four, and compliance checks would begin in month seven. The first annual report to the legislature would follow a year after the effective date.
Conclusion
Senate Bill 214, amended as recommended, offers the most effective and equitable option for reducing tobacco harm in the state. It targets the products that draw young people in and the one linked to the greatest racial disparity, protects individuals from enforcement, funds help for those who want to quit and commits the state to measuring results. The committee should advance it.
References
American Public Health Association. (2019). Public health code of ethics. https://www.apha.org
Cornelius, M. E., Loretan, C. G., Jamal, A., Davis Lynn, B. C., Mayer, M., Alcantara, I. C., & Neff, L. (2023). Tobacco product use among adults: United States, 2021. MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 72(18), 475-483. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7218a1
Gostin, L. O., & Wiley, L. F. (2016). Public health law: Power, duty, restraint (3rd ed.). University of California Press.
Mendez, D., & Le, T. T. T. (2022). Consequences of a match made in hell: The harm caused by menthol smoking to the African American population over 1980-2018. Tobacco Control, 31(4), 569-571. https://doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2021-056748
Reading the MPH 503 Module 8 assignment instructions
MPH 503's catalog description centers on health policy, and since the closing module's instructions are posted only in the classroom, the sample below takes the form of a brief to lawmakers. Policy brief assignments usually ask you to identify a problem, compare options, recommend one and explain how to implement and evaluate it, all in a short, direct document for decision-makers. Confirm your audience, length and required sections. Lead with the recommendation. Keep background brief and use two or three key numbers. Compare options against explicit criteria. Include costs, legal authority and stakeholders, which decision-makers always ask about. Write in plain language and avoid academic hedging. Where your instructor allows it, add a one-page appendix for data that would clutter the main text.
Inside the MPH 503 Module 8 example
At about 1,000 words, this brief uses a memo header and a five-column options table. After the recommendation in brief and the problem statement, it compares three options, explains why the third is preferred and grounds it in ethics and law. Stakeholders, fiscal notes, implementation, evaluation and anticipated questions follow, along with retailer concerns, lessons from other states and a timeline. The margin note by the problem section explains that a brief states the burden in a few figures and saves detail for an appendix. The conclusion restates the recommendation and asks the committee to advance the bill. Each option in the table is judged on the same four criteria so the comparison stays fair.
Reading the MPH 503 Module 8 grading rubric
Policy briefs are generally judged on a clear recommendation, a concise problem statement, fair comparison of options against criteria, feasibility, attention to stakeholders and costs, and professional format. This brief cites national tobacco data, a peer-reviewed menthol harm study, the APHA code and a standard legal treatise, each referenced in APA format. The options table makes the comparison explicit. Feasibility is addressed through implementation steps, a timeline and retailer measures. Stakeholder and fiscal sections answer the questions legislators raise. The memo format and plain wording suit the audience. The best briefs make it easy for a busy reader to act. Accurate statute references and realistic cost figures add credibility with a legislative reader.
Common MPH 503 Module 8 mistakes, and how to avoid them
The most common weakness is writing a research paper and calling it a brief, with long background and a recommendation buried at the end. Students also compare options without stating criteria, or ignore cost and opposition. Put the recommendation first and keep each section tight. Use tables for comparisons. Check the brief's legal claims, especially preemption, with reliable sources. Ask one of our tutors to read the draft as a legislator would and flag anything a committee member might question. Close with a one-sentence request for action. Two pages is a common upper limit, so trim background before you trim the options comparison. Read the brief aloud once to catch long sentences.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Aspen University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More MPH 503 and Master of Public Health sample papers
- MPH 503 Module 1: Sources of Public Health Law
- MPH 503 Module 2: How a Public Health Bill Becomes Law
- MPH 503 Module 3: Regulation and Rulemaking
- MPH 503 Module 4: The Courts and Public Health Powers
- MPH 503 Module 5: Applying a Public Health Code of Ethics
- MPH 503 Module 6: Individual Liberty Versus the Common Good
- MPH 503 Module 7: Health Equity and Tobacco Policy
- MPH 540 Module 4: Workforce and Human Resources
- MPH 520 Module 7: Recovery and Disaster Mental Health
- MPH 530 Module 6: Radon and the Indoor Environment
- MPH 510 Module 6: Bias and Confounding
MPH 503 Module 8 questions, answered
What does MPH 503 Module 8 usually ask for?
Aspen's MPH 503 ends with health policy applied, so a policy brief to decision-makers is a typical final assignment. Check your classroom prompt for format.
How long should a public health policy brief be?
Briefs are short and direct, leading with the recommendation, then the problem, options and rationale; follow your assignment's length requirement.
What criteria are used to compare policy options?
Common criteria include effectiveness, equity, feasibility, cost and legal risk.
Where can I find a free MPH 503 Module 8 sample paper?
The flavored tobacco policy brief is published above with its options table. It is the last of the eight MPH 503 examples.
How is a public health policy brief structured in MPH 503 Module 8?
It opens with a recommendation, states the problem briefly, compares options against criteria, explains the rationale and covers stakeholders, costs, implementation and evaluation.