Vapers in Los Angeles, California may no longer purchase flavored vaping products. The L.A. city council unanimously voted to ask city attorneys Wednesday to start drafting a bill banning businesses from selling many flavored vaping and tobacco products. The council has said the move was meant to stop teens from getting hooked on nicotine.
Credit: Tierney
A coalition of youth and public health advocates backing the ban argued that flavored products have lured more teens to use tobacco, including by vaping with electronic cigarettes. The council decided against considering an exemption for menthol.
No one from the vaping industry argued against the proposed bill. Hookah lounges, however, may have been spared after arguing the law could destroy a cherished tradition among Armenians, Arabs and other communities in which hookah has been a centerpiece of gatherings and celebrations.
The last time the issue was heard at City Hall over a year ago, council members suggested allowing some sales of flavored tobacco for consumption on site at lounges, but hookah sellers said the plan was too restrictive and would not allow lounges to be passed down to future generations, according to the L.A. Times. Nor would it allow people to buy hookah tobacco to smoke at home.
In 2018, San Francisco voters overwhelmingly approved a ballot measure banning the sale of flavored vaping products. Public health advocates celebrated the law that supporters say was justified because flavors attract youth to vaping. A new study suggests that law may have backfired and driven more kids to try combustible cigarettes.
Credit: YSPH
According to a new study from the Yale School of Public Health (YSPH), researchers say that after the ban’s implementation, high school students’ odds of smoking conventional cigarettes doubled in San Francisco’s school district relative to trends in districts without the ban, even when adjusting for individual demographics and other tobacco policies, according to press release.
The study, published in JAMA Pediatrics on May 24, is believed to be the first to assess how complete flavor bans affect youth smoking habits. “These findings suggest a need for caution,” said Abigail Friedman, the study’s author and an assistant professor of health policy at YSPH. “While neither smoking cigarettes nor vaping nicotine are safe per se, the bulk of current evidence indicates substantially greater harms from smoking, which is responsible for nearly one in five adult deaths annually. Even if it is well-intentioned, a law that increases youth smoking could pose a threat to public health.”
Friedman used data on high school students under 18 years of age from the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System’s 2011-2019 school district surveys. Prior to the ban’s implementation, past-30-day smoking rates in San Francisco and the comparison school districts were similar and declining. Yet once the flavor ban was fully implemented in 2019, San Francisco’s smoking rates diverged from trends observed elsewhere, increasing as the comparison districts’ rates continued to fall.
To explain these results, Friedman noted that electronic nicotine-delivery systems (ENDS) have been the most popular tobacco product among U.S. youth since at least 2014, with flavored options largely preferred. “Think about youth preferences: some kids who vape choose e-cigarettes over combustible tobacco products because of the flavors,” she said. “For these individuals as well as would-be vapers with similar preferences, banning flavors may remove their primary motivation for choosing vaping over smoking, pushing some of them back toward conventional cigarettes.”
The San Francisco study does have limitations. Because there has been only a short time since the ban was implemented, the trend may differ in coming years. San Francisco is also just one of several localities and states that have implemented restrictions on flavored tobacco sales, with extensive differences between these laws. Thus, effects may differ in other places, Friedman wrote.
Still, as similar restrictions continue to appear across the country, the findings suggest that policymakers should be careful not to indirectly push minors toward cigarettes in their quest to reduce vaping, she said.
The Philippines House of Representatives passed today on second reading a bill that would lower the minimum age to buy and use e-cigarettes and other vapor products from 21 to 18 years old. This is after the country’s Congress previously passed Republic Act No. 11467, which imposed taxes on vapes and e-cigarettes and set the age to purchase at 21. Less than two years ago, the country banned vaping entirely.
Credit: Carsten Reisinger
The previously passed law also banned the sale of vapes and e-cigarettes to nonsmokers and prohibited flavorings, according to philstar.com. The new proposal, which is just a step away from clearing the House, largely loosens the restrictions put in place by the current law. While all but tobacco flavorings are currently banned, the new bill allows for “plain fruit flavors, nuts, coffee, tea, vanilla, caramel, tobacco, menthol and mint.”
The latest bill would also take away from the Philippine Food and Drug Administration the power to regulate e-cigarettes and vapor products and transfers it to the Department of Trade and Industry, as proponents argued that these are not health products. The bill also allows the sale of vapes and e-cigarettes online, provided that the website will restrict access to those below 18 years old and will display signages required by the proposal.
The latest bill also includes language to allow the advertisement of vapes and e-cigarettes in retail establishments, through direct marketing and on the internet, although it qualified that these ads must not be targeted to minors, must not undermine quit-smoking messages and should not encourage non-smokers to use them.
The new measure also prohibits the sale of vapes and e-cigarettes within 100 meters from a school, playground or other facility frequented by minors and bans the use of vapor products and e-cigarettes in all enclosed public places except in designated vaping areas.
Montana vape shop owner Ron Marshall is taking the right to vape to a whole new level.
By Maria Verven
Ron Marshall, who owns Freedom Vapes with three vape shops in Montana, is taking the right to vape to the people’s house. Marshall ran for election to the Montana House of Representatives and won in the general election last November. A Republican, Marshall assumed office in January and will represent District 87—a section in the far western region of the state—for the next two years.
Even before he took office, Marshall worked on two pro-vaping bills—B106, which seeks to prohibit expansion of the Montana Clean Indoor Air Act, and HB137, which seeks to revise the laws around vaping and alternative nicotine products. “Writing laws should be done in this house—the people’s house,” Ron Marshall told members of the House Human Services Committee during a hearing at the state capitol in January.
Making a Difference at the State Level
Although the U.S. Food and Drug Administration classifies vapor devices as tobacco products, Marshall’s bill HB137 seeks to differentiate the two. If passed, the bill would cancel bans on indoor vaping and on the sale of flavored nicotine solutions as well as previous anti-vaping regulations enacted by various counties and cities in Montana.
In short, the bill would prevent the state of Montana from regulating the sale, manufacture, flavoring, marketing, product display, public exposure and access to “alternative nicotine products or vapor products.” Opponents said the bill would prevent individual communities from deciding what is best for them and that enacting the legislation would result in increased use of the addictive flavored nicotine products by young people.
Vapers and vape shop owners gave passionate testimony in favor of the bill, asserting that the state legislature should adopt rules for businesses that ensure reliable access to vapor devices, which are primarily used by smokers to help them quit combustible cigarettes. “Everyone that owns vape shops share the same mission as myself and my family—to help people whom everyone has forgot[ten] about—the daily smokers,” testified Keith Bowman, part owner and general manager of six e-cigarette vape stores in Montana.
Fighting an Uphill Battle
In 2019, the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services enacted an emergency rule prohibiting the sale of flavored e-cigarettes. Last November, the city of Missoula became the first in the state to permanently ban the sale of flavored e-cigarettes. The state health department also proposed a permanent statewide ban on flavors but ultimately backed down after facing pushback from legislators. Nearly a dozen counties in Montana prohibit indoor vaping.
Ron Marshall / Credit: State of Montana
These anti-vape policies have harmed vape businesses across the state, Marshall said. “During the 2019 session, we defended against eight anti-vaping bills around taxes and clean indoor air. It was out of control,” he said. “We have no problem with sales to customers 18 years or older. The shops had already been doing that without being told. We wrote our own bill to curb youth access through store purchases. It didn’t make it out of committee, but the seeds had been sown.
“Our problem is being called a tobacco product. We are not. Our bill separates tobacco products from alternative nicotine products. We aren’t the same by law in Montana,” he said, explaining that they pay $5 each year to the Department of Revenue for a license to sell alternative nicotine products.
Marshall finally decided to take the fight to the people’s house and ran for the House of Representatives in his district.
“Our current representative termed out, and the seat was open. After a three-way primary and general election, we won! It was a great feeling and a sobering experience,” he said. “The experience you have in everyday life is transmitted to how I look at legislation. If it sounds fishy, it probably is. Ask tough questions. Every time you vote on a bill, it will change someone’s life.”
The Joy of Helping Others Quit Smoking
The Marshalls started their vape business in 2014 after Ron’s wife Deanna suffered from a bad respiratory infection. “She used a disposable V-2 device that someone had recommended, and it worked great for her. After about 10 days, the infection healed. She tried to smoke a cigarette, but it was so disgusting, she couldn’t do it.
“Being a smoker myself, I gave it a try,” Marshall said. “It was good, but not great. Deanna searched the internet looking for something better and found it in the form of SMOK Ego pens. We gave them a try, and it was perfect for both of us. It took me about 10 days to quit smoking completely.
“After that, several people asked us how we did it. The answer was simple. The hard part was accessibility. There were no vape shops in Montana.”
So, in February 2014, the Marshalls opened their own vape shop. “It was slow at first. Deanna put all her time and energy into it. I was only able to be in the shop two days a week,” Marshall said. “But after it took off, it was great. The joy of helping others get away from smoking and improving their lives was a reward that cannot easily be explained.”
Freedom Vapes now has 10 employees with stores in three locations—Hamilton, Missoula and Belgrade. The Marshalls said most of their customers vape as a way to wean themselves off combustible tobacco products. While they and other vape shops refuse to sell products to anyone under age 18, young people can still buy products online, Marshall said.
And while all of Freedom Vape’s flavorings are water-based, online products can potentially contain harmful contaminants. Still, other vapers may resort to mixing their own vape juice if a ban goes into effect.
“That’s very dangerous,” Marshall said. “If they don’t get the right flavoring or use oil-based materials, they can harm themselves. We tell our customers not to buy anything off the street or use any product if they don’t know its source. This ban won’t make the problem go away. It will make it more of a problem.”
Perspective From the ‘Inside’
Marshall said it’s totally different being on the “inside.” “It’s a whole different outlook. I spend lots of time in committee hearings on lots of issues. Plus, you need to draft your own legislation and get it through the system.”
Marshall had worked on his bill HB137 even before he was elected. After the election, a legislative drafter contacted him to ask what section of the Montana code the bill dealt with. A rough draft was sent back to him for input and adjustments before going through legal and other reviews.
“Once it was done, I signed the bill, and then it was off to committee assignments. The committee’s job is to look at the intent of the bill. The intent of HB137 is simply to prevent local cities, counties or state bureaucrats from banning a legal product. It defines and categorizes flavors and definitions of alternative nicotine products and vapor products.”
HB137 then made its way out of committee and on to the floor of the House. When the hearing was held in the House Health and Human Services committee, it was loaded with all the ANTZ (anti-vaping) groups. “It was easier for them to load the hearing with opponents—most of whom were from out of state—because they had to use Zoom during this Covid stuff. We have heard this all before. Nothing new here,” Marshall said.
Montana’s 100 lawmakers then debated it on the floor. “It was tough, but it made it,” Marshall said. The vote was 62 in favor and 37 opposed. “Some of the opposed injected their own personal beliefs into the vote. That is bad policy. You should not dictate your lifestyle on others.
“As a representative of the people, it is their—the people you represent—decision. If HB137 makes it through the Senate and to the Governor’s desk, it will make sure that the people of Montana have access to a product they want.
“It will ensure that small businesses won’t be shut down and closed. Montana will be a vape-friendly state for both consumers and business owners.”
The original “Vaping Vamp,” Maria Verven owns Verve Communications, a PR and marketing firm specializing in the vapor industry.
The state of Connecticut was facing a potential loss of nearly $200 million over the next two years if the state banned all flavored tobacco products. The state’s General Assembly’s tax-writing committee on Monday decided to drastically amended legislation to prohibit the sale of only flavored vaping materials and electronic cigarettes, excluding combustible products from the flavor ban.
Under the bill that passed with mainly Democratic support, Connecticut would join New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Rhode Island in banning flavored vapes, starting Jan. 1, 2022, according to the CTPost. California also adopted a ban, which is temporarily on hold.
The legislative Public Health Committee had previously recommended that all flavored tobacco products be prohibited, in attempt to discourage young smokers.
But the Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee’s co-chairmen, Rep. Sean Scanlon of Guilford and Sen. John Fonfara of Hartford, amended the bill, kicking off a 40-minute debate in which more-conservative Republicans charged that the state is attempting to interfere with personal freedom. Liberal Democrats argued that it was a way to discourage young people, even those under-21 who are prohibited under current law from purchasing tobacco products.
“We have been working over the weekend to try to get the place we’re at today on this bill,” Scanlon said, stressing that the compromise legislation would revert to what the governor proposed in his budget.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has stated its intent to ban menthol as a characterizing flavor in cigarettes and all characterizing flavors (including menthol) in cigars. In a statement released today, the agency said it is working toward issuing proposed product standards within the next year. The plan does not include noncombustible products, such as e-cigarettes.
“This decision is based on clear science and evidence establishing the addictiveness and harm of these products and builds on important previous actions that banned other flavored cigarettes in 2009,” the FDA wrote in its press release.
“Banning menthol—the last allowable flavor—in cigarettes and banning all flavors in cigars will help save lives, particularly among those disproportionately affected by these deadly products,” said acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock.
“With these actions, the FDA will help significantly reduce youth initiation, increase the chances of smoking cessation among current smokers and address health disparities experienced by communities of color, low-income populations and LGBTQ+ individuals, all of whom are far more likely to use these tobacco products.”
According to the FDA, there is strong evidence that a menthol ban will help people quit. “Studies show that menthol increases the appeal of tobacco and facilitates progression to regular smoking, particularly among youth and young adults,” the agency stated. “Menthol masks unpleasant flavors and harshness of tobacco products, making them easier to start using. Tobacco products with menthol can also be more addictive and harder to quit by enhancing the effects of nicotine.”
One study cited by the FDA suggests that banning menthol cigarettes in the U.S. would lead an additional 923,000 smokers to quit, including 230,000 Black Americans in the first 13 to 17 months after a ban goes into effect. An earlier study projected that about 633,000 deaths would be averted, including about 237,000 deaths of Black Americans.
These flavor standards would reduce cigarette and cigar initiation and use, reduce health disparities and promote health equity by addressing a significant and disparate source of harm.
“For far too long, certain populations, including African Americans, have been targeted and disproportionately impacted by tobacco use. Despite the tremendous progress we’ve made in getting people to stop smoking over the past 55 years, that progress hasn’t been experienced by everyone equally,” said Mitch Zeller, director of the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products.
“These flavor standards would reduce cigarette and cigar initiation and use, reduce health disparities and promote health equity by addressing a significant and disparate source of harm. Taken together, these policies will help save lives and improve the public health of our country as we confront the leading cause of preventable disease and death.”
The FDA stressed that, if implemented, enforcement of any ban on menthol cigarettes and all flavored cigars will address only manufacturers, distributors, wholesalers, importers and retailers. “The FDA cannot and will not enforce against individual consumer possession or use of menthol cigarettes or any tobacco product,” the agency stated.
Racial justice groups have expressed concern that by outlawing menthols, the FDA would set the stage for more negative interactions between law enforcement and people of color, who smoke a disproportionate share of menthol cigarettes.
Earlier this week, the National Newspaper Publishers Association (NNPA), representing more than 200 African American-owned community newspapers from around the United States, and leading Black and Hispanic law enforcement executives, too, sent a letter urging the FDA to keep menthol cigarettes legal.
In acting on menthol, the FDA granted a citizen’s petition requesting that the agency pursue rulemaking to prohibit menthol in cigarettes, affirming its commitment to proposing such a product standard.
The 2009 Tobacco Control Act (TCA) did not include menthol in its ban on characterizing flavors in cigarettes, leaving menthol cigarettes as the only flavored combusted cigarettes still marketed in the U.S. The law instructed the FDA to further consider the issue of menthol in cigarettes.
Since then, the FDA sought input from an independent advisory committee as required by the TCA, and further demonstrated its interest by issuing an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, undertaking an independent evaluation and supporting broader research efforts—all to better understand the differences between menthol and nonmenthol cigarettes and the impact of menthol on population health.
In the U.S., it is estimated that there are nearly 18.6 million current smokers of menthol cigarettes. But use of menthol cigarettes among smokers is not uniform: Out of all Black smokers, nearly 85 percent smoke menthol cigarettes compared to 30 percent of white smokers who smoke menthols. In addition, among youth, from 2011 to 2018, declines in menthol cigarette use were observed among non-Hispanic white youth but not among non-Hispanic Black or Hispanic youth.
After the 2009 statutory ban on flavors in cigarettes other than menthol, use of flavored cigars increased dramatically, suggesting that the public health goals of the flavored cigarette ban may have been undermined by continued availability of these flavored cigars, according to the FDA.
Flavored mass-produced cigars and cigarillos can closely resemble cigarettes, pose many of the same public health problems and are disproportionately popular among youth and other populations. In 2020, non-Hispanic Black high school students reported past 30-day cigar smoking at levels twice as high as their white counterparts.
Nearly 74 percent of youth aged 12 to 17 who use cigars say they smoke cigars because they come in flavors they enjoy, according to the FDA. Among youth who have ever tried a cigar, 68 percent of cigarillo users and 56 percent of filtered cigar users report that their first cigar was a flavored product. Moreover, in 2020, more young people tried a cigar every day than the number of young people who tried a cigarette.
Pamela Kaufman
Pamela Kaufman and Sanath Sudarsan of Morgan Stanley said that while the absence of a proposed rule in today’s statement was “somewhat better than the market had feared,” the FDA’s plan is likely to remain an overhang for the sector. They also noted the agency did not indicate plans to ban menthol in noncombustible products such as e-cigarettes, heat-not-burn products and nicotine pouches, which could help incentivize smokers to move away from cigarettes and toward reduced-risk alternatives.
Menthol regulation will have to follow the FDA’s multi-step/multi-year rulemaking process. The next step is a preliminary rule that would be subject to a comment and review period, typically lasting 90 days. The FDA would then review stakeholder responses and publish a final rule, which would require review from the Department of Health and Human Services and the Office of Management and Budget. Once a rule is finalized, the industry would have additional time to implement the change.
Kaufman and Sudarsan expect the tobacco industry to challenge a final rule, questioning its scientific basis and stressing the risk of creating an illicit market for menthol cigarettes.
The governor of Florida is expected to sign a bill that would ban local communities from enacting laws regulating e-cigarettes. The Florida House on Wednesday gave its final approval with a 103-13 and sent the bill (SB 1080) to Governor Rick DeSantis for a signature. The bill passed the Senate on Monday.
Credit: Aleksandr Kondratov
House sponsor Jackie Toledo told the Tallahassee Democrat that the bill is aimed at preventing minors from using electronic cigarettes. “This bill is necessary to stop youth vaping,” Toledo said.
The bill would raises the state’s legal age to smoke and vape to 21, a threshold already established in federal law. It also would create a state regulatory framework for the sale of vapor products. The bill would ban vaping or smoking tobacco within 1,000 feet of a school and makes it illegal for local communities to create any regulations impacting the “marketing, sale, or delivery of, tobacco products.” It would also require retailers to obtain a “tobacco” permit.
“Years of continued inaction by the state to regulate tobacco products, including e-cigarettes, demands strong, local laws that truly protect our children from a lifetime of addiction,” the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network said in a statement this week. “Florida kids deserve effective protections, not to be left even more vulnerable to the industry and its predatory practices. And our localities have the right, freedom and responsibility to protect them, especially when the state won’t.”
Backers of the proposals, however, have said they would help with enforcement of tobacco and vaping laws and that preemption of local regulations is needed because retailers could have multiple stores in different areas, which would make it hard to follow varying regulations and do business.
The Montana legislature on Monday passed a bill that would block local governments from banning the sale of flavored vaping products. The legislation has been sent to the governor’s desk. Senate Bill 398 was carried by Sen. Jason Ellsworth, a Republican from Hamilton. It cleared a final vote in the House, 59-40.
Credit: Katherine Welles
The bill says local governments may not adopt or enforce any ordinances or resolution that prohibit the sale of vaping products. Under the bill, a local government could enact a “reasonable” ordinance or resolution related to the sale of vaping products, according to helenaire.com. While the bill does not define “reasonable,” Ellsworth said to his thinking that could mean something like keeping products out of reach of children in stores or not allowing vaping in restaurants.
Carrying the bill in the House on Monday, Missoula Republican Rep. Mike Hopkins said local governments shouldn’t have the authority to ban the sale of a legal product. “What they seek to do is make illegal what is a completely legal (product) and in the process of doing so smash the economic and financial lives of Montanans who are running businesses,” Hopkins said.
Rep. Mark Thane, a Missoula Democrat, said flavored vaping products are meant to entice youth to take up vaping and that local ordinances are essential to public health. “We have a choice with this bill. We can side with Montana communities and allow them to retain a tool which they can use to help tackle this epidemic or we can prohibit local communities from taking that initiative,” Thane said.
Earlier this session, Rep. Ron Marshall, R-Hamilton, brought a bill that would have barred a local government or the state Department of Public Health and Human Services from creating or continuing a regulation, ordinance or restriction related to vaping products. That bill passed the House in February but later was voted down in the Senate Business, Labor and Economic Affairs Committee. Marshall is a co-owner of a vaping shop.
An attempt by the Montana legislature to stop local governments from enacting ordinances to ban the sale of flavored vaping products was shot down by the state’s Senate on Tuesday. Senate Bill 398, from Sen. Jason Ellsworth was voted down on a second reading by a 21-29 margin. It was then indefinitely postponed on a 31-18 vote.
In opposition to the bill, Sen. Carlie Boland, D-Great Falls, said the state is dealing with a vaping epidemic and that companies make flavors to target children. Boland said taking away the ability to enact regulations to counter vaping among children was harmful, according to an article in the Montana Standard.
“It has to be a community working together to achieve this. We need to address this problem and it should start at our homes and at the local level,” Boland said. Ellsworth argued vaping products are legal and their sale should not be restricted. He also said owners of vape shops testified that local ordinances dramatically hurt their businesses and that shops aren’t allowed to sell to underage minors.
“We should not be enacting laws on a local level. Just think about that for a second. We’ve seen that happen. We’ve seen how that has had repercussions and we’ve had to come back here as a body to rein in these local governments trying to restrict our freedoms,” Ellsworth said
Earlier this session, Rep. Ron Marshall, R-Hamilton, brought a bill that would have barred a local government or the state Department of Public Health and Human Services from creating or continuing a regulation, ordinance or restriction related to vaping products. That bill passed the House in February but later was voted down in the Senate Business, Labor and Economic Affairs Committee. Marshall is a co-owner of a vaping shop.
At the state level, the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services proposed to ban flavored vaping products in 2020 over concern that flavors targeted children. Ellsworth was a leader in a push from GOP lawmakers to oppose the ban, which the department eventually dropped. Missoula had passed a ban on flavored vaping products, but delayed enforcement until May after it was sued.
Ellsworth’s bill would have said local governments could not enact ordinances that prohibited the sale of vaping products or alternative nicotine products. It did allow the enactment of “reasonable” ordinances or resolutions related to the sale of vaping products, but did not define reasonable.
A bill winding its way through the Connecticut General Assembly would ban the sale of flavored e-cigarettes and tobacco products in the state. Lawmakers who sponsored the bill say the bill is needed to reduce nicotine addiction, which disproportionately affects young adults and people of color.
Credit: Ethan Parsa
The ban would target vape products with fruit and dessert flavors, while allowing for tobacco flavored vapes. The bill would also prevent the sale of all menthol flavored products. “For many years I have watched my community suffer from the long-standing results of having this habit of smoking that they can’t seem to break; and we watch them suffer and lose their lives,” NAACP Bridgeport Chapter President Rev. D. Stanley Lord said during a press conference, as reported by wshu.com. “Families lose loved one’s because they have targeted the Black and Brown community.”
Critics say that the ban would drive former smokers back to combustible cigarettes. Traditional tobacco use is a major contributor to heart disease, cancer and strokes, which are the three leading causes of death among African Americans, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The bill advanced from the state’s public health committee to the full Legislature on March 5. Senate Committee Chair Mary Daugherty Abrams said during the press conference that she thinks that there is a “strong” chance that the bill passes through the legislature. If the bill is enacted, the ban would go into effect in October.
“I don’t think we here at the state of Connecticut can wait indefinitely for the federal government to take action,” Steinberg said. “So we’re following through, on what we promised we would do, which would be to end flavors which we view as an unfortunate temptation into the world of addiction.”
