Tag: flavor ban

  • Tempe, Arizona Considering Flavored Vaping Ban

    Tempe, Arizona Considering Flavored Vaping Ban

    Credit: Ongala

    If a new ordinance in Tempe, Arizona is approved, it would ban businesses from selling flavored vape products in city limits.

    Those in favor of the move told the media that they want to cut down on the number of young people vaping or smoking, according to ABC15 news.

    However, local businesses said they don’t sell to anyone underage. “We won’t sell to kids, we won’t sell to anyone without an ID,” said Ted Kaercher, owner of HQ Smoke and Vape in Tempe.

    Kaercher said he’s been open for about 30 years and is against the banning of flavored products. “They will be legal to possess and consume here in Tempe, it’ll just force me to not carry those products,” he said.

    According to Kaercher, a ban would force adults to drive to other parts of the Valley to buy flavored products.

    Rex Williamson, a vape distributor in Tempe, agreed. “All vape stores card people, this is our livelihood,” he said. “It’s not making a dent in anybody’s bottom line, and nobody is willing to risk their business to try to sale to underage people.”

    In Tempe, part of creating a new ordinance includes reaching out to the public. According to city documents, the proposal would ban “selling or offering for sale any flavored tobacco product with delivers aerosolized or vaporized nicotine through the use of an electronic cigarette.”

    The city said it’s working on scheduling dates to discuss the potential ban but those dates have not been finalized.

  • Foster City, California Holds Back E-Cig Flavor Ban

    Foster City, California Holds Back E-Cig Flavor Ban

    Credit: MMollaretti

    The city council for Foster City, California has tabled an ordinance prohibiting sales of flavored e-cigarettes and other tobacco products over potential litigation concerns and a desire to see what actions the state takes in November.

    The council voted 2-2 on the proposed ordinance ban. Councilmember Sam Hindi recused himself because his business sells tobacco products, according to The Daily Journal.

    Councilmember Patrick Sullivan wanted to table the item over litigation concerns because some tobacco retailers have sued cities like Palo Alto for ordinances. However, Forest City staff said no litigation has successfully overturned the ordinances.

    “I’m not comfortable with moving forward,” Sullivan said.

    San Mateo County and cities like Half Moon Bay, South San Francisco, Burlingame, San Carlos, San Mateo and Redwood City have prohibited selling flavored tobacco, with several others considering bans.

    The state has also weighed in with Senate Bill 793, signed into law in 2020, which calls for tobacco retailers not to sell flavored tobacco products.

    However, implementation has been halted due to a referendum calling for its repeal, stalling a decision.

    California voters in the November election will vote to enact or repeal SB 793.

  • California: San Benito County Readies to Ban Flavors

    California: San Benito County Readies to Ban Flavors

    As a statewide ballot question in November’s election about whether flavored e-cigarettes and other tobacco products should be banned approaches, San Benito County has decided to take the first step towards banning the products.

    At its Aug. 9 meeting, the county’s Board of Supervisors approved the first reading of an ordinance that will ban the sale of flavored tobacco products in all areas in the county, including the cities of Hollister and San Juan Bautista, reports Halfwheel. The approval was unanimous among the five supervisors.

    The ordinance, which also includes a ban on the sale of single-use or disposable e-cigarettes, will get a second reading at the board’s August 23 meeting. If it passes as written, the ban would go into place 30 days after is adopted.

    San Benito County has approximately 64,000 residents, and is located southeast of San Jose.

  • Total Ban on Sales of Vaping Products Constitutional

    Total Ban on Sales of Vaping Products Constitutional

    Credit: Kraken Images.

    A group of merchants brought a Federal Lawsuit against the Town of Eastchester, New York alleging that the town’s new anti-vaping law was unconstitutional. The law was upheld by a Federal Court in the Southern District of New York.

    At the September 3rd, 2019 Town Board meeting, Eastchester was one of the first Towns to adopt a local law to prevent the sale of electronic nicotine-delivery system (ENDS) products within the Town.

    The law which is known as “Electronic Nicotine Delivery Product Law” prohibits the sale of tobacco substitutes containing nicotine from being sold in the town, according to a local news source. This includes, but is not limited to: e-cigarettes, vapes, vaporizers, vape pens, lozenges or other candy, drinks, liquid nicotine or other e-liquids or inhalers.

    Town Supervisor Anthony Colavita and the Town Board were also the first to opt out of participating in the New York State Marijuana Retail Sales Program as well.

    Supervisor Colavita stated, “Keeping our citizens, especially our youth, safe by limiting accessibility to the products specified in our law is our top priority. I am glad the Town of Eastchester prevailed.”

  • City Council in Bangor, Maine Bans Flavored Vapes, Again

    City Council in Bangor, Maine Bans Flavored Vapes, Again

    Credit: Ianm35

    The Bangor City Council, in the U.S. state of Maine, met Monday evening and decided in a 6 to 1 vote to instate an ordinance to ban the sale of flavored tobacco products for a second time.

    The ordinance will prevent the sale of all flavored tobacco products, including e-cigarettes and menthol-flavored products, citywide. According to the city council’s meeting agenda, the ordinance will prevent the sale, display, marketing, and advertising of flavored tobacco products, according to News Center Maine.

    The city previously banned flavored tobacco products back in October but repealed its decision earlier this year after a procedural error.

    If broken, the ordinance also imposes a fine between $50 and $100 for the first violation within a 24-month period and $300 and $1,000 for each subsequent offense within those 24 months.

  • Judge Blocks Washington, Oregon Flavored Vape Ban

    Judge Blocks Washington, Oregon Flavored Vape Ban

    A voter-approved ban on flavored tobacco in Washington County, Oregon, has yet to go into effect after a judge issued an injunction, saying the county wasn’t prepared to enforce it anyway.

    County health officials say that’s not exactly the case. But they concede they’ll have to allow sales of the flavored products to continue for now.

    It’s just the latest in a series of setbacks for the county’s first-in-the-state ban on flavored tobacco products, according to Oregon Live.

    The original ban was put into place by the Washington County Commission in November of 2021 and enforcement was set to begin in January of this year.

    But opponents of the ban, spearheaded by Plaid Pantry CEO Jonathan Polonsky, gathered enough signatures to put it on the ballot and let voters decide in May.

    Opponents realized the ballot language would cause confusion for many voters over what a “yes” vote really meant, however, so they stopped campaigning on behalf of their own measure.

    Proponents of the ban, meanwhile, spent more than $1 million to defend it, and, in the end, Washington County voters overwhelmingly opted to keep the ban.

    In February, before that vote, several Washington County businesses filed a lawsuit challenging the ordinance. Serenity Vapors, King’s Hookah Lounge and Torched Illusions, represented by attorney Tony Aiello, contended in their suit that they are legal businesses and would be unfairly harmed by the county’s ordinance.

    Last week, Washington County Circuit Court Judge Andrew Erwin agreed to pause the ban, which had yet to be enforced. According to Erwin, the county’s arguments for keeping the ban in place while the law was challenged weren’t “compelling,” because he said the county’s lawyer said it had zero plans to enforce it “in the foreseeable future.”

    On the other hand, Erwin reasoned, the businesses would “imminently and irreparably harmed” by following the law.

    In his injunction, Erwin wrote: “Defendant argues that the public’s interest in Ordinance 878 overwhelmingly trumps plaintiffs’ interests. But defendant concedes they have no plans to further the public’s interest as they do not anticipate enforcing the ordinance in the foreseeable future.”

    Supporters of the ban find this logic a bit circular — the ban only went into effect on June 13 and the apparatus for enforcement is not yet in place.

    “Enforcement was to start along with the state inspections for the tobacco retail licensing law,” Mary Sawyer, a county health spokesperson explained. “Businesses are inspected annually by the state to make sure they have a license and are following new state law, and then if inspectors find that businesses in Washington County are selling flavored products, they would let us know.”

    After the county is notified, it would start by educating the business about the flavored products law and only write a ticket if the business then failed to comply.

    “None of this happened yet,” Sawyer said, “as the state was just starting their inspections this summer and they haven’t referred any businesses to us yet.”

    The county has already filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. But as of now, flavored tobacco and vape products are available in Washington County.

    Jordan Schwartz is the owner of Serenity Vapors, one of the plaintiffs in the case, which has three Washington County locations. Schwartz contends that his company has helped thousands of people quit smoking.

    Now, he said, customers are coming in telling him, “I guess I am going to go back to cigarettes. That’s what they’re forcing us to do.”

    According to Schwartz, Serenity Vapors sells mainly vape liquid or “vape juice.”

    “North of 80 percent of our business comes from some type of flavored product,” he said.

  • FDA Showered with Opposition to Vaping Flavor Bans

    FDA Showered with Opposition to Vaping Flavor Bans

    Image: nosyrevy

    The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has received more than 110,000 comments on the proposed rule that would end the sale of menthol cigarettes and nearly 60,000 comments on the proposed rule that would prohibit characterizing flavors in cigars.

    Many wrote to oppose the ban, including business owners who said it would force them to cut jobs.

    “If implemented, this proposal could hurt retailers and wholesalers in the U.S. and directly impact my bottom line,” wrote a tobacco retailer in Florida. “This ban targets a significant portion of my revenue; menthol cigarettes alone make up 36 percent of all cigarette sales in the United States. Additionally, adult customers who purchase menthol cigarettes also purchase gas, food and other items that my store depends on.”

    Thousands of letters submitted online came from menthol cigarette smokers who perceived the proposed restrictions as an unfair attack on personal liberty.

    “This regulation far beyond overreaches the authority that the government should have over the American people,” wrote one respondent. “We have age restrictions for a reason, and once you reach that age you should be able to make the choice to use any legal product that you wish.”

    Others supported the proposal, saying removing menthol and other flavors would improve health and help rectify racial injustices.

    “The ban on menthol in cigarettes is a necessary step toward health equity and health promotion,” wrote Kaelor Gordon. “This substance unjustly and unfortunately places the burden of tobacco use and death on Black individuals and communities of color at higher and disproportionate rates, so to ban menthol would be in tune with the anti-racist and health equitable culture we are strongly cultivating today.”

    The FDA recently extended the comment period from July 5 to Aug. 2, 2022.

  • EU Lawmakers Propose Flavor Ban for Heated Tobacco

    EU Lawmakers Propose Flavor Ban for Heated Tobacco

    Credit: DMF87

    The European Commission on June 29 proposed a ban on the sale of flavored heated tobacco products.

    Contrary to other media reports, the proposal does not include e-cigarettes or vaping products that use an e-liquid that contains a liquid nicotine. The ban only applies to heated tobacco products, such as Glo or IQOS.

    The move is part of Europe’s “beating cancer plan,” which envisions less than 5 percent of the EU population using tobacco by 2040.

    “With nine out of 10 lung cancers caused by tobacco, we want to make smoking as unattractive as possible to protect the health of our citizens and save lives,” said EU health commissioner Stella Kyriakides.

    According to EU figures, cancer is the second-leading cause of death in the bloc of 450 million residents. There are about 1.3 million cancer deaths and 3.5 million new cases per year in the EU.

    Kyriakides said that regulators need to “keep pace” with new developments to “address the endless flow of new products entering the market.”

    A recent report showed a 10 percent increase in sales volumes of flavored heated tobacco products in more than five EU countries between 2018 and 2020. Overall in the EU, these products exceeded 2.5 percent of total tobacco product sales in 2020.

    The Council and the Parliament will debate the Commission’s proposal before it enters into force 20 days after the publication in the Official Journal. EU countries will have eight months to transpose the directive into national law, and a further three months before the provisions will apply.

  • San Jose, California Flavor Ban Begins on July 1

    San Jose, California Flavor Ban Begins on July 1

    Credit: Andriano_cz

    The San José City Council’s unanimous action last fall to ban flavored vaping and other tobacco product sales will soon take effect. Starting July 1, 2022, the sale of flavored tobacco within the City of San José, California is prohibited, as outlined in the city’s Tobacco Retail Ordinance.

    “The ban applies to any tobacco products with an artificial flavor, natural flavor, aroma, herb or spice, including — but not limited to — cherry, chocolate, cinnamon, clove, cocoa, coconut, coffee, grape, licorice, menthol, mint, orange, pineapple, strawberry, vanilla, and other flavors,” according to press release. “This includes products where such flavors characterize the smoke or vapor produced by the tobacco product.”

    Certain products are exempted from the ban, including shisha, hookah, and premium cigars.

    The City’s Code Enforcement Division, which oversees tobacco retailers in San José, will enforce the ban. Sellers of the banned products, after June 30, 2022, could be fined up to $2,500 per day and/or have their tobacco license revoked.

    “The tobacco industry has targeted youth with these colorful, flavored tobacco products, leading to an alarming rise in tobacco use among youth. We are proud to put the health of our youth first with these prohibitions,” said Mayor Sam Liccardo.

    “Studies show that more than 80 percent of minors and young adults report that flavored tobacco was their first use of a tobacco product,” said Chris Burton, director of the Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Department. “This ordinance update to ban the sale of flavored tobacco and other steps can greatly help minimize access to tobacco by youth.”

    The City Council’s action and ordinance update in Fall 2021 included the steps of prohibiting the location of new tobacco retailers locating within 1,000 feet of facilities that serve youth and within 500 feet of an existing tobacco retailer. That requirement went into effect on November 18, 2021.

    The Code Enforcement Division facilitated the Tobacco Retail Ordinance update with a grant from the County of Santa Clara, which is coordinating with cities throughout the county on flavored tobacco prohibitions.

    San José and other cities proceeded with local bans after California Senate Bill 793, which banned the sale of flavored tobacco statewide in 2020, was placed on hold for a voter referendum in November 2022 that could potentially repeal the measure.

    The American Nonsmokers’ Rights Foundation reports that as of April 1, 2022, 235 municipalities (predominantly in California) have banned or restricted the sale of flavored tobacco.

    trilingual brochure produced by the Code Enforcement Division explains the ban and other rules for tobacco retailers in English, Spanish and Vietnamese.

  • Sweden: Lawmakers Reject Vapor Flavor Ban

    Sweden: Lawmakers Reject Vapor Flavor Ban

    Photo: WDnet Studio

    Sweden’s Parliament, the Riksdag, rejected a ban on sales of flavored vaping products, with 177 lawmakers voting against the proposal and 126 lawmakers voting in favor, reports Vaping360.

    Introduced by the government’s Ministry of Social Affairs in late February, the new rules would have taken effect next January, and would have prohibited flavors other than tobacco in all e-liquid, including zero-nicotine vape juice.

    In rejecting the proposal, lawmakers heeded the advice of the Riksdag’s social affairs committee, which had recommended adopting proposed regulations for nicotine pouches and synthetic nicotine but eliminating the flavor ban.

    Seven other European countries have banned non-tobacco vape flavors. In Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Hungary and Ukraine, flavored vape restrictions are currently in place. Lithuania’s flavor ban will take effect July 1. In the Netherlands, the flavor prohibition scheduled to begin in July has been postponed until January 2023.

    No European country has banned vaping products outright.