## Facts

- Philadelphia enacted an ordinance amending its code to restrict retail sales of certain tobacco-related items described as commonly used as drug paraphernalia, including “blunts,” “loosies,” and certain flavored cigars.
- The ordinance limited sales based on quantity (e.g., fewer than three) and location (e.g., within 500 feet of schools, recreation centers, daycare facilities, churches, and community centers).
- The ordinance’s stated purpose was to curb a practice of purchasing cigars, removing tobacco, and substituting marijuana or other illegal drugs into the cigar wrapper.
- The ordinance imposed penalties for prohibited sales without requiring proof of intent; violations could result in fines up to $2,000 and possible revocation of a business-privilege license.
- Tobacco companies and trade associations challenged the ordinance, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief on the ground that it was preempted by Pennsylvania’s Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act (Controlled Substance Act).
- The trial court permanently enjoined enforcement and declared the ordinance preempted; the Commonwealth Court largely affirmed; the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether Philadelphia’s ordinance restricting sales of certain tobacco items and items allegedly used as drug paraphernalia is preempted as inconsistent with the Controlled Substance Act’s statewide regulation of drug paraphernalia.

## Decision

- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held the ordinance was inconsistent with, and therefore preempted by, the Controlled Substance Act.
- The Court treated the ordinance as an effort to regulate drug-paraphernalia-related conduct indirectly through tobacco-sale restrictions.
- The Court concluded the Controlled Substance Act establishes a comprehensive statewide scheme governing drug paraphernalia, leaving no room for municipalities to impose divergent prohibitions and penalties targeting the same subject matter.
- The Court sustained declaratory and injunctive relief barring enforcement of the ordinance.

## Legal Principles

- Municipal enactments may not conflict with statutes enacted by the General Assembly; local regulation is invalid when it is inconsistent with state law.
- A local law is preempted when the legislature has adopted a comprehensive regulatory scheme and the ordinance supplements, contradicts, or conflicts with that scheme.
- Where state law defines and regulates drug paraphernalia using intent- and circumstance-based criteria and sets statewide penalties, a municipality may not replace that framework with per se prohibitions, strict-liability enforcement, or added sanctions (including licensing consequences) aimed at the same conduct.

## Conclusion

The court invalidated Philadelphia’s tobacco-sales ordinance because, in purpose and operation, it functioned as a local drug-paraphernalia control measure that conflicted with the legislature’s comprehensive, uniform statewide framework in the Controlled Substance Act.


Holt’s Cigar Co. v. City of Philadelphia, 10 A.3d 902 (Pa. 2011)