House Bill 561, the “Youth End Nicotine Dependence Act,” creates a new Tobacco Use Prevention Fund within the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and directs $17 million annually from the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement reserve to that fund. The bill is aimed at preventing youth use of tobacco products, especially electronic cigarettes, and at reducing nicotine dependence among young people and people of childbearing age. It also states legislative findings about the rise in youth vaping and the public health harms associated with nicotine use.
The bill specifies a range of allowable uses for the new fund, including grants to local health departments, community education and training, media campaigns, tobacco-use tracking, technical assistance, independent evaluation, and grants to community colleges for tobacco-free campuses. It also includes a military-readiness component tied to tobacco prevention and cessation efforts for active-duty service members, the National Guard, and reserve components. DHHS would administer the fund, may use up to 10% for administrative purposes, and must report annually to legislative oversight and fiscal staff on expenditures.
In addition to creating the new fund, the bill amends the existing settlement reserve appropriation statute to earmark the annual $17 million transfer for tobacco prevention, while leaving the remainder of the settlement reserve to the General Fund. The act would take effect July 1, 2025. Because the bill changes how Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement dollars are allocated, it affects state budget law and the distribution of tobacco settlement revenues rather than creating a new regulatory restriction on tobacco sales.
The general sentiment reflected in the bill text is strongly supportive of tobacco prevention, particularly youth vaping prevention, and it frames the measure as a public health investment that could reduce future medical costs. There is no recorded committee testimony or vote history in the provided materials, so no direct opposition or support from legislators is shown. The main likely point of contention is fiscal: the bill diverts $17 million annually from settlement reserve funds that would otherwise flow to the General Fund, and it also sets aside up to 10% for administration, which could draw scrutiny from budget-focused lawmakers.
HB561 would amend North Carolina budget and appropriations law by directing $17 million each year from the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement Settlement Reserve Fund into a newly created Tobacco Use Prevention Fund housed in DHHS. It would authorize spending on youth tobacco prevention, cessation, education, surveillance, evaluation, and related public health programs, while requiring annual reporting and allowing up to 10% for administration. The bill would therefore affect state fiscal policy, DHHS program administration, local health departments, community colleges, and other recipients of tobacco-prevention grants.
The bill is presented in a strongly pro-public-health, anti-youth-nicotine frame, with legislative findings emphasizing rising youth vaping rates and the need for prevention funding. The available record contains no committee transcript or vote data, so there is no documented floor or committee debate to indicate organized support or opposition. Based on the text alone, the measure appears designed to appeal to public health advocates and youth-focused prevention interests, while potentially raising concern among fiscal conservatives because it redirects settlement revenue away from the General Fund.
The most likely point of contention is the use of Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement funds: HB561 dedicates $17 million annually to prevention programs instead of allowing those dollars to remain available for general state spending. Related concerns could include whether the proposed funding level is justified, whether the administrative cap is appropriate, and whether the bill’s program priorities—such as media campaigns, grants, and evaluation—are the best use of settlement dollars. No specific opposition or amendment disputes are documented in the provided materials, so these concerns are inferred from the bill’s fiscal structure rather than from recorded debate.