May 24, 2018
In the battle over the future of San Francisco’s law ending the sale of flavored tobacco products (no all tobacco products, as the RJ Reynolds tobacco company campaign claims), RJR’s NO on Prop E campaign continues to talk about freedom and the health groups’ Yes on Prop E campaign talks about flavors attracting kids.
May 23, 2018
My colleagues and I just submitted this public comment to the FDA. The tracking number on Regulations.gov is 1k2-93bc-raaf and a PDF of the comment (which has all the footnotes) is available here.
FDA should implement its proposed rule that manufacturers must present scientific evidence demonstrating that any flavored tobacco product is appropriate for the protection of the public health before receiving marketing authorization to use that flavor
May 10, 2018
We have published research (study 1, study 2, study 3) describing how existing laws legalizing recreational marijuana – including California Proposition 64 -- do not prioritize public health. Several people have pointed out to me that, to date, most of the legislation has been drafted by marijuana legalization advocates who were prioritizing business interests over public health and that they have been dominating the discussion because there have not been analyses and models of how to write marijuana legislation that prioritized health.
Dan Orenstein and I have tried to contribute to this discussion with our new report, Public Health Language for Recreational Cannabis Laws, which lays out the evidence basis for regulations based on public health best practices from tobacco and alcohol and provides some specific implementing language. The full report is available on the University of California eScholarship site at https://escholarship.org/uc/item/05d5g5db .
May 10, 2018
A key element to winning public health legislation is to hold legislators accountable.
The American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network here in California has been working to do just that by urging politicans to pledge not to take money from the tobacco industry since 2014.
Now California Assemblymember Jim Cooper has welched on his promise. When pursuing his first run for state office in 2014, Cooper accepted a challenge from ACS CAN to publicly forgo campaign contributions from tobacco companies. But, on March 14, 2018, he accepted a $4,400 contribution from Philip Morris. ACS CAN contacted him and he told ACS CAN that he decided to reverse course and start accepting donations from tobacco companies.
ACS CAN is publicising this reversal in a press release, which you can read here. Good for them.
Cooper is the first candidate to rescind his commitment not to accept tobacco contributions in the four-year history of the “Snuff Tobacco Money Out of California Politics” campaign.
May 9, 2018
Yesterday I received this mailer -- they are coming just about every day now -- from RJ Reynolds arguing that voters should not support San Francisco's law prohibiting the sale of flavored cigarettes because it still allows the sale of unflavored tobacco products.
Of course, that is the point of the law. People who want tobacco would still be able to buy tobacco products, just not in the kid-friendly flavors.
At least Reynolds admits that if voters uphold the law people will not be able to buy menthol cigarettes, the main economic interest RJR, makers of Newport menthol cigarettes, is probably trying to protect. (RJR could keep selling Camel regular cigarettes under the law.)
This argument is a lot like the argument that the tobacco companies unsuccessfully made against the tobacco tax (Proposition 56) that it did not put enough money into anti-smoking activities. Voters saw through that hypocracy and overwhelmingly passed the tobacco tax, which is helping rapidly reduce smoking here in California.