2025 Youth End Nicotine Dependence Act
House Bill 561, the 2025 Youth End Nicotine Dependence Act, creates a dedicated Tobacco Use Prevention Fund within the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to support youth-focused tobacco prevention and cessation efforts. The bill is built around the finding that youth vaping and tobacco use remain significant public health concerns in North Carolina, and it directs annual funding from the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement into prevention programs rather than leaving all settlement proceeds to flow to the General Fund.
The bill amends state budget law to appropriate $17 million each year from the Settlement Reserve Fund to the new Tobacco Use Prevention Fund, while preserving the existing $25 million annual appropriation to The Golden L.E.A.F., Inc. The new fund would be housed in DHHS’s Division of Public Health, Chronic Disease and Injury Section and would be used for community-based education, media campaigns, tobacco cessation and prevention programming, tracking youth tobacco exposure, technical assistance, grants for tobacco-free community college campuses, and independent evaluation of program effectiveness. DHHS could use up to 10% of the annual appropriation for administration, and it would have to report annually on expenditures.
In practical terms, the bill would change how a portion of North Carolina’s tobacco settlement money is allocated by earmarking it for prevention activities and creating a continuing special fund with carryforward authority. It would affect DHHS, local health departments, schools, community colleges, youth-serving organizations, and public health contractors that could receive funding or support under the program. The bill also explicitly includes e-cigarettes and other emerging tobacco products within the scope of prevention efforts, reflecting a focus on nicotine dependence among youth and people of childbearing age.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is strongly supportive of public health intervention and youth nicotine prevention. The findings section emphasizes alarming youth vaping trends, the harms of nicotine use, and the long-term cost savings of prevention, suggesting a consensus-oriented public health framing. No committee debate or recorded votes were provided, so there is no additional evidence of opposition or support from legislative discussion beyond the bill’s stated purpose.
The main point of potential contention is fiscal: the bill redirects a fixed annual amount from settlement revenues into a new dedicated program, which may raise questions about budget priorities, the use of tobacco settlement funds, and the balance between prevention spending and other state needs. Another possible issue is administrative discretion, since DHHS would control the fund and could spend up to 10% on administration, though the bill also requires annual reporting and limits spending to specified prevention-related purposes.
The bill would amend G.S. 143C-9-3 and add new G.S. 143C-9-3.1 to establish the Tobacco Use Prevention Fund in DHHS and require a $17 million annual appropriation from the Settlement Reserve Fund for tobacco prevention activities. It would create a restricted special fund with carryforward authority, define allowable uses, cap administrative spending at 10%, and require annual reporting to legislative oversight and fiscal staff. The measure would not directly regulate tobacco sales or use, but it would materially change state fiscal law and the distribution of tobacco settlement revenues, while expanding state-supported prevention and cessation infrastructure.
The bill’s tone and findings are strongly pro-prevention and pro-public-health, with a clear emphasis on protecting youth from nicotine dependence and using settlement dollars to reduce future health costs. Because no committee transcript or vote history was provided, there is no recorded legislative debate to show formal support or opposition. Based on the text alone, the bill appears designed to appeal to public health advocates, educators, and local health agencies, while likely drawing scrutiny from budget-focused lawmakers concerned about earmarking settlement funds.
The most likely area of contention is whether $17 million per year should be carved out of the Settlement Reserve Fund for a dedicated prevention program rather than left available for the General Fund or other priorities. Legislators may also differ on the effectiveness of state-run prevention campaigns, the proper role of DHHS in administering the fund, and whether the bill’s restrictions on spending are sufficiently specific. Supporters are likely to include public health advocates, youth anti-vaping groups, and health agencies; skeptics may focus on fiscal tradeoffs, administrative overhead, and the use of settlement revenues.