Technically, when reading the new and somewhat improved position statement, you could easily argue that ACS will support your quit attempts using e-cigarettes while they ensure they are taxed to the point of industry destruction, only available to those 21 years or over, are only available in tobacco flavors, and may require you to go through extreme lengths to obtain one. Furthermore, the new position and encouragement for the FDA to continue regulations to the fullest extent imply that ACS supports products that were available before the predicate date of 2007 while still funding and engaging on fear mongering in public regarding the product category in an attempt to dissuade smokers from trying electronic cigarettes.
It has been brought to our attention that several of you out there have contributed to third party fundraising efforts that implied your hard earned dollars would go to fight flavor bans (i.e. prohibition efforts on the sales of flavored "tobacco products").
Here is a quick update on the flavor ban "study session" in Richmond which was held on January 30th, 2018. Kari Hess and I were there earlier tonight. Parts of the hearing were typical. Some parts were a little less so since it was meant to get indications on positions of various city council members.
As you can read from a piece that was just published, titled "Supervisor hits hold button on flavored cigarette ban" the County of San Mateo has temporarily postponed the agenda item on the prohibition of the sales of flavored tobacco, including vapor products and electronic cigarettes.
Today at the Health & Safety Commission meeting in Beverly Hills CA the decision was made to instruct the city staff to start writing a flavor ban ordinance and to engage with local retailers and community on the issue and seek public input at a next hearing (February) at which a draft of the ordinance to prohibit the sales of flavored tobacco products will likely be presented.
Last week the Appropriations committee took up AB1097 (introduced in early 2017) which prohibits the use of tobacco products (under CA law that includes vapor products) on state beaches and and in state parks. The vote was 12-5 along typical party lines (all D's in favor, all R's opposed). The bill has been referred to the suspense file (a temporary holding place to determine and weigh the cost involved). We do expect it'll come out of the suspense file and head into the next committee from there.
Mayor Trish Herrera Spencer may be a good target to engage with since she believes a ban may cause unintended consequences and wants to make database based decisions and wants to know where these minors are getting their flavored tobacco products and whether it really is from the retail stores or from family members or other means.
Second time in a row, at the hearing tonight in Alameda the flavor ban item did NOT get addressed. They just took a vote to not deal with it due to time limitations on council meetings so 17 speakers who wanted to speak on the flavor ban issue can go home now.
Not Blowing Smoke's submission of our comments in support of the MRTP application by PMI for its IQOS system has just been published by the FDA. You can find the four page comment on the FDA website or directly via this link. Note our strong case on the reduced risks inherent to vapor products.
That said the meeting was just a formality and I don't think they cared much for what we had to say. Vice Mayor Gold is clearly anti tobacco of all kinds. Even urged chew should be added and "every other form of tobacco regardless of how it's ingested". He also claimed vapor is just as bad as smoking. I think a few tens of thousands of his medical peers would disagree.
San Jose Update. On October 17th 2017 the city held a regular city council meeting where item 3.6 was the "Priority Setting Session". It would take a long time to explain what that is since it's sort of a multi-stage voting process for them to prioritize items for consideration so let's just leave it at "they're figuring out what awful things to add to their upcoming agendas".
Below is a joint filing of comments to the FDA in support of PMI's IQOS MRTP application by TechFreedom, Taxpayers Protection Alliance, CEI, CASAA, Citizens Against Government Waste, Log Cabin Republicans, National Center for Public Policy Research, and Not Blowing Smoke.