San Francisco’s extreme ban of flavored vaping liquids and flavored tobacco sales is the wrong choice
San Francisco is known for lots of things, such as The Golden Gate Bridge and terrific sourdough bread.
Now, we can add onto that list of notables the dubious distinction of being the first U.S. city to have among the most restrictive law against the selling of flavored tobacco products. Included in the sale ban are vaping liquids and menthol cigarettes.
The restriction, outlined in a measure placed on the ballot as Proposition E and passed by the people of San Francisco, is said to address a concern about how these flavored tobacco and flavored vaping liquids are allegedly enticing to teens.
Sorry, San Francisco … but passing Proposition E makes no sense.
If we followed that logic, there should be a ban on sales of flavored alcohols and alcoholic beverages. Or, is that next? OK, let’s get back to San Francisco’s ban on flavored tobacco and flavored vaping liquids.
Sure, the Proposition E proponents probably had good intentions to keep from the hands of children and under-aged teens items meant for sound-minded adults who want (and are entitled to) the freedom of choice. But somewhere along the way, they forgot about the sound-minded adults and their right to choose for themselves whether to flavored vaping products — such as vaping liquids — and flavored tobacco products.
Sure, some of the people who vape may be uninformed about the products they use. Then, the vaping industry can make information more readily available. That’s not hard to do. And, that makes more sense to do instead of getting rid of the option of vaping for everyone – including those individuals who make an informed choice to vape. Vapor Authority, a leader in this area, has made an effort to keep the public informed with links to legitimate research that shows, for example, “second-hand vaping” does not cause the same potential harm as second-hand smoking; that vaping is cleaner than smoking; and that vaping is often used as a means of smoking cessation.
Just as we haven’t completely prohibited the sale of all cigarettes and tobacco products, there shouldn’t be a ban on the flavored versions of these productions. That includes flavored vaping items.
Let’s not forget that vaping has helped lots of tobacco users wean themselves off of tobacco products, particularly cigarettes. Perhaps they turn to flavored vaping liquids to rid themselves of the smell of burning tobacco.
Why not restrict the sales of flavored vaping items to children and teens younger than the legal age for tobacco use (which is 18 in most U.S. states)? Then, enforce those laws.
When do we stop curbing adults’ freedom of choice? It may not be a guaranteed freedom listed in the U.S. Constitution. But it’s hard to argue that America’s founding fathers would be okay with any government (local or federal) making these sort of decisions for its adult population.
Let’s talk about this research from which some people have drawn the not-well-proven conclusion that vaping and e-cigarettes may be a gateway to tobacco cigarette smoking among teens. What’s missing is a study that suggests teens would turn to tobacco cigarettes if e-cigarettes and vaping were available alternatives.
Furthermore, what about other research which refutes this not-well-proven theory. For example, two public health researchers from the University at Buffalo and the University of Michigan who published a paper in the journal Drug and Alcohol Dependence.
Lynn Kozlowski, the lead author of that paper — also a professor of community health and health behavior at the School of Public Health and Health Professions at the University of Buffalo — has said the following: “The national trends in vaping and cigarette smoking do not support the argument that vaping is leading to smoking.”
Kozlowski also said that we are seeing a decrease in overall smoking while seeing an increase in vaping.
In light of all of this, what is likely a show of good intentions by lawmakers in San Francisco will have a chilling effect on an adult’s opportunity to choose what’s right for him or her.
There is one way to keep the choice available for grown-ups able to make such decisions, while addressing concerns (albeit, unfounded concerns) that these flavored products could be enticing to teens: Replace this extremely restrictive ban with a prohibition against the sale of the flavored tobacco products and vaping liquids to minors — just as there is a minimum age set for the legal purchase of tobacco cigarettes.
It’s the only thing that makes sense. Sorry, San Francisco … but passing Proposition E makes no sense.
