- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 67
For those who are testifying tomorrow and/or are submitting written comments, following are some talking points regarding Boston Public Health Commission's proposed regulations.
Proposed Reg to ban e-cig use wherever smoking is banned.
- Boston PHC has grossly misrepresented health risks of e-cigarettes and nicotine in deceitful attempt to demonize and restrict product usage.
- PHC proposal primarily protects cigarette markets (and to a lesser degree NRT markets) at expense of public health.
- E-cigs emit no smoke, and nonusers don't obtain nicotine from e-cigarettes, so there is no public health justification for PHC to ban their usage in hundreds of thousands of workplaces and public places.
- No evidence e-cigs have ever harmed any of the estimated million consumers, nor anyone else.
- E-cigs have helped about a million smokers quit smoking or significantly reduce cigarette consumption.
- E-cigarettes have replaced nearly a billion packs of cigarettes (that would have otherwise been purchased/smoked by smokers who switched to e-cigarettes).
- Proposed regulation would deceive public to inaccurately believe that e-cigarettes are as hazardous as cigarettes.
- Proposed regultion would keep smokers smoking by discouraging many from switching to e-cigarettes.
- Proposed regulation cannot be enforced since e-cigarettes can be used discreetly (i.e. without anyone else knowing) by covering up LED light (or by using an e-cig without an LED light) and by waiting several seconds before exhaling (as vapor is only visible if exhaled within two seconds after inhaling).
- In contrast to claims by the PHC, e-cigarettes are easily distinguishable from a burning cigarette.
Proposed Reg to ban tobacco and e-cig sales to youth, require tobacco retail permits for all tobacco and e-cig vendors, require face-to-face sales transactions for all tobacco and e-cig sales, require asking all tobacco and e-cig customers for govt picture ID if they appear under 27 years of age.
Youth Access to Tobacco
- Two federal laws (i.e. Synar Amendment and FSPTCA) and MA state law already ban tobacco sales to minors under 18 and also require/fund compliance checks/stings of retailers (so is a third local law necessary?).
- Youth cigarette consumption in MA and the US has declined sharply since 1998 (with 8th grade prevalence decling 75%, 10th grade prevalence declining 66%, and 12th grade prevalence declining 50%).
- Illegal tobacco sales to youth have declined sharply in past 20 years, as federally mandated Synar compliance checks have found that only about 10% of retailers don't ask for ID from youth tobacco consumers (down from 75% of retailers two decades ago).
- The FSPTCA also prohibits cigarette and smokeless sales to youth, and the FDA is contracting with States to fund enforcement (including compliance stings against tobacco retailers).
- Since nearly all 12th graders are 18, and since many/most underage smokers now primarily obtain cigarettes from friends or relatives (who are 18 or older), the proposed regulation would do very little to further reduce youth smoking or youth access to cigarettes. The most effective way to reduce youth access to cigarettes would be to increase MA's mininum age for cigarette sales to 19 years.
- The proposed regulation allows the PHC Exec Director to establish an annual tobacco retailer permit fee, which might be so high (e.g. $2,500) as to discourage many e-cigarette vendors and tobacco retailers from selling in Boston. Any proposed regulation should include a proposed annual permit fee (instead of allowing the PHC exec dir sole discretion to establish the fee).
E-cigarettes
- There is no evidence (despite many false allegations) that youth use e-cigarettes or that e-cigs are marketed to youth, rendering mandatory tobacco retailer permits and face-to-face sales for e-cigs unjustified and regulatory overkill.
- Banning internet and mail order sales of e-cigs in Boston would force e-cig vendors to relocate outside of city, and could result in lawsuit by e-cigarette vendor(s) against city (as city probably doesn't have legal authority to ban internet or mail order sales).
- Boston PHC cannot enforce ban on internet and mail order e-cig vendors who are located outside of Boston and sell to consumers in Boston, which account for some/many/most e-cig sales to Boston consumers).
- If nicotine was a hazardous as PHC claims, the proposed ordinance should also included NRT products, which have nearly identical health risk/benefit profiles as e-cigarettes and smokeless tobacco.
Smokeless tobacco
-Virtually no Boston youth (or adults) use smokeless tobacco products, rendering their inclusion in the proposed retailer permit requirement (like e-cigarettes) as excessive.
Cigars
- Cigars aren't nearly as hazardous as cigarettes (as vast majority of cigar smokers don't inhale the smoke, and don't smoke daily).
- Requiring cigars costing less than $2 to be sold in packages of 5 won't reduce cigar consumption by youth, and may be challenged in court by cigar companies.
- While some people (primarily urban blacks) use cigars/wrappers to smoke pot, criticizing and regulating cigar companies won't reduce pot smoking.
Also, note that on December 11, 2008, the Boston Public Health Commission promulgated a regulation that banned tobacco sales at all pharmacies and healthcare institutions at
http://www.bphc.org/boardofhealth/r...egs_TobaccoRestrictionRegulation_12-11-08.pdf
I believe there was a lawsuit filed against Boston PHC challenging that ordinance, but I'm not sure of its legal statuts.
Proposed Reg to ban e-cig use wherever smoking is banned.
- Boston PHC has grossly misrepresented health risks of e-cigarettes and nicotine in deceitful attempt to demonize and restrict product usage.
- PHC proposal primarily protects cigarette markets (and to a lesser degree NRT markets) at expense of public health.
- E-cigs emit no smoke, and nonusers don't obtain nicotine from e-cigarettes, so there is no public health justification for PHC to ban their usage in hundreds of thousands of workplaces and public places.
- No evidence e-cigs have ever harmed any of the estimated million consumers, nor anyone else.
- E-cigs have helped about a million smokers quit smoking or significantly reduce cigarette consumption.
- E-cigarettes have replaced nearly a billion packs of cigarettes (that would have otherwise been purchased/smoked by smokers who switched to e-cigarettes).
- Proposed regulation would deceive public to inaccurately believe that e-cigarettes are as hazardous as cigarettes.
- Proposed regultion would keep smokers smoking by discouraging many from switching to e-cigarettes.
- Proposed regulation cannot be enforced since e-cigarettes can be used discreetly (i.e. without anyone else knowing) by covering up LED light (or by using an e-cig without an LED light) and by waiting several seconds before exhaling (as vapor is only visible if exhaled within two seconds after inhaling).
- In contrast to claims by the PHC, e-cigarettes are easily distinguishable from a burning cigarette.
Proposed Reg to ban tobacco and e-cig sales to youth, require tobacco retail permits for all tobacco and e-cig vendors, require face-to-face sales transactions for all tobacco and e-cig sales, require asking all tobacco and e-cig customers for govt picture ID if they appear under 27 years of age.
Youth Access to Tobacco
- Two federal laws (i.e. Synar Amendment and FSPTCA) and MA state law already ban tobacco sales to minors under 18 and also require/fund compliance checks/stings of retailers (so is a third local law necessary?).
- Youth cigarette consumption in MA and the US has declined sharply since 1998 (with 8th grade prevalence decling 75%, 10th grade prevalence declining 66%, and 12th grade prevalence declining 50%).
- Illegal tobacco sales to youth have declined sharply in past 20 years, as federally mandated Synar compliance checks have found that only about 10% of retailers don't ask for ID from youth tobacco consumers (down from 75% of retailers two decades ago).
- The FSPTCA also prohibits cigarette and smokeless sales to youth, and the FDA is contracting with States to fund enforcement (including compliance stings against tobacco retailers).
- Since nearly all 12th graders are 18, and since many/most underage smokers now primarily obtain cigarettes from friends or relatives (who are 18 or older), the proposed regulation would do very little to further reduce youth smoking or youth access to cigarettes. The most effective way to reduce youth access to cigarettes would be to increase MA's mininum age for cigarette sales to 19 years.
- The proposed regulation allows the PHC Exec Director to establish an annual tobacco retailer permit fee, which might be so high (e.g. $2,500) as to discourage many e-cigarette vendors and tobacco retailers from selling in Boston. Any proposed regulation should include a proposed annual permit fee (instead of allowing the PHC exec dir sole discretion to establish the fee).
E-cigarettes
- There is no evidence (despite many false allegations) that youth use e-cigarettes or that e-cigs are marketed to youth, rendering mandatory tobacco retailer permits and face-to-face sales for e-cigs unjustified and regulatory overkill.
- Banning internet and mail order sales of e-cigs in Boston would force e-cig vendors to relocate outside of city, and could result in lawsuit by e-cigarette vendor(s) against city (as city probably doesn't have legal authority to ban internet or mail order sales).
- Boston PHC cannot enforce ban on internet and mail order e-cig vendors who are located outside of Boston and sell to consumers in Boston, which account for some/many/most e-cig sales to Boston consumers).
- If nicotine was a hazardous as PHC claims, the proposed ordinance should also included NRT products, which have nearly identical health risk/benefit profiles as e-cigarettes and smokeless tobacco.
Smokeless tobacco
-Virtually no Boston youth (or adults) use smokeless tobacco products, rendering their inclusion in the proposed retailer permit requirement (like e-cigarettes) as excessive.
Cigars
- Cigars aren't nearly as hazardous as cigarettes (as vast majority of cigar smokers don't inhale the smoke, and don't smoke daily).
- Requiring cigars costing less than $2 to be sold in packages of 5 won't reduce cigar consumption by youth, and may be challenged in court by cigar companies.
- While some people (primarily urban blacks) use cigars/wrappers to smoke pot, criticizing and regulating cigar companies won't reduce pot smoking.
Also, note that on December 11, 2008, the Boston Public Health Commission promulgated a regulation that banned tobacco sales at all pharmacies and healthcare institutions at
http://www.bphc.org/boardofhealth/r...egs_TobaccoRestrictionRegulation_12-11-08.pdf
I believe there was a lawsuit filed against Boston PHC challenging that ordinance, but I'm not sure of its legal statuts.
Last edited:
