Daily Management Review

No More Sales Of E-Cigarettes In San Francisco?


San Francisco could be counted among the first of the cities on the U.S. to vote in favour of banning Juul and other vaporizers sale. The city awaits a signed ordinance to see the legislation take effect.

Source: flickr.com; (CC BY-ND 2.0); ©Vaping360.com (http://vaping360.com/juul/juul-vapor-review/)
Source: flickr.com; (CC BY-ND 2.0); ©Vaping360.com (http://vaping360.com/juul/juul-vapor-review/)
Ithough San Frani makes the “most popular e-cigarette brand” in America, while the officials of the city are showing signals that are not in favour of Juul. As per a vote conducted last week, the city voted in favour of imposing a ban on e-cigarettes sales, whereby selling “nicotine vaporizer products” either in stores or online retail platforms that would ship to San Francisco become illegal consequently.
The ban is going to be the first one of this kind across the United States to come into effect. This order needs to be approved by the mayor for turning the same into a signed regulation. However, sale of other tobacco products and cigarettes as well as “recreational marijuana” will not come under the purview of this change.
With declining use of cigarette across the U.S. the tobacco industry has tried other options for “revenue growth”. Likewise, the Altria Group Inc. selling “Marlboro cigarettes in the U.S.” has purchased a “35% stake in Juul Labs Inc. last year”. As per reports from Juul, its revenue in Q1 has gone up “$528 million”. Yet another “Indonesian retail chain” that sells iPhones informed that it might start “carrying Juul products”. The news sent its stocks surging high.
The law of e-cigarettes in San Francisco will be applicable on all e-cigarette units, although Juul comes at the fore front. As per reports the startup based out of San Francisco is “the biggest target for vaping critics” that claimed of roping kids “on nicotine” which could result in a “new generation of addicts”.
On the other hand, Juul informed that it has made a commitment of stopping people below the age of twenty one from purchasing and “using its products”, while it wishes to keep the option of an alternative vaporizers smoking option available for adults. Following the voting session, an email from a spokesperson of Juul, Ted Kwong read:
“This full prohibition will drive former adult smokers who successfully switched to vapor products back to deadly cigarettes, deny the opportunity to switch for current adult smokers and create a thriving black market instead of addressing the actual causes of underage access and use”.
Depending on the signing of Mayor London Breed, the ban will come into effect as a legislation after seven months’ period, whereby declaring the end of “Juul and similar products” sale in the city.
However, Juul seems to be equipped with a backup plan, whereby it has reached out to the voters and has managed to collect “the required number of signatures to add a measure to the November ballot” for continuing to sell “e-cigarettes” in the city to adults above twenty one years of age.
Moreover, the supervisors of the city have already taken out an ordinance that blocks “sale, manufacture and distribution of e-cigarettes on city property”. Attorney Dennis Herrera from the city has been co-sponsoring the ban on the sale as he thinks “the U.S. Food and Drug Administration failed to require e-cigarette companies to go through a pre-market approval process before they were allowed to sell their products”, writes Ellen Huet.
In Herrera’s words:
“We’ve seen a tremendous increase in use of e-cigarettes, which has led to increased rates of nicotine addiction among young people. I don’t think San Francisco is any different from any nicotine addiction other city.”
With the sweeping ban announced in Beverly Hills California on “tobacco sales, including e-cigarettes, starting in 2021”, Herrera further added:
“This is groundbreaking legislation that shows local governments are prepared to step up. What you will see in the aftermath of this legislation is other jurisdictions looking at what they might be prepared to do to protect their young people.”