June 1, 2019
My colleagues at UCSF, Stanford and Georgia State University have submitted this public comment to the FDA. The Regulations.gov tracking number is 1k3-9a7v-3arc. A PDF of the comment is here and the four attachments are here (1, 2,
June 1, 2019
I got the following email from a friend at the convention:
"I was at the convention yesterday (May 31) and someone mentioned to me that Juul was one of the top contributors. I did notice that other contributors included some cannabis companies like Weedmap, but JUUL was at the top of the list."
I suppose Juul gave all that money as part of their ongoing effort to protect public health.
May 30, 2019
As I described on May 16, 2019, Juul filed a cleverly worded initiative to overturn San Francisco’s ban on flavored tobacco products (at least as they apply to e-cigarettes) and generally roll back enforcement of a wide range of laws against e-cigarettes.
The first step in this process is for the City Attorney to write a “ballot title and summary” that will appear on the petitions that Juul will circulate to collect signatures to put the measure on the ballot. The ballot title and summary is meant to inform voters so that they know what they are signing without being lawyers.
The City Attorney has a responsiblity to be neutral in the way that he descrbes the initiative to be fair to all parties.
The City Attorney completely abrogated his responsibility in this matter.
May 24, 2019
Here is a summary of what happened from CalMatters:
Legislation to curb e-cigarettes favored by teenagers died Thursday after a Senate committee agreed to industry-backed amendments that all but gutted the measure.
CALmatters’ Elizabeth Aguilera delved into the intense lobbying by tobacco and e-cigarette companies over the measure earlier this week.
May 21, 2019
California Senator Jerry Hill, a public health advocate, has sponsored a state law, SB 38, modeled on San Francisco’s comprehensive ban on the sale of flavored tobacco products.
The tobacco industry has been fighting this bill tooth and nail. Along the way, two bad amendments got attached, one exempting flavored hookah and another strange one that said:
“Tobacco product” means a product that meets both of the following requirements: The product either does not have a patent issued prior to January 1, 2000, or is a menthol flavored product.”
The patent language has the kind of specificity that only a lobbyist with a lot of specialized knowledge could push. That leaves the question open as to who had the muscle to get such an exemption.
While I don’t know the origin of the amendment, I do know that Philip Morris had developed a functioning e-cigarette by 1996 and patented the “capillary aerosol generator” technology.
Philip Morris also has several pre-2000 patents on the technology for its heated tobacco product IQOS, which is kind of like an e-cigarette that uses a solid tobacco plug instead of a liquid.