August 6, 2019

Stanton A. Glantz, PhD

San Francisco Ballot Simplification Committee punts on summary of Juul Initiative

The San Francisco Ballot Simplification Committee has the important task of writing a plain English summary of what ballot measures do so voters don’t need to be lawyers to figure out what they are voting for.

In their summary of the Juul initiative, they ducked their responsibility when they did not clearly state whether or not the Juul initiative would repeal San Francisco’s ban on the sale of flavored e-cigarettes (as part of its overall ban on the sale of flavored tobacco products).  Rather than accepting former City Attorney Louise Rennie and the health advocates reading of the initiative (and mine) that the initiative would repeal the flavor ban (Proposition E, endorsed by 68% of voters) or siding with Juul that the Juul initiative did not repeal the flavor ban, the Committee said it “may” overturn the ban.

Even if one swallows this waffling, the Committee could have made it clear that a “no” vote would unequivocally keep flavored e-cigs out of San Franciso (current law).

So much for Ballot Simplification.

You can read the approved summary and my comments and what changes should be made to give voters a clear view of what they are voting on here.



The BSC also misrepresented the FDA

The BSC's statement that the FDA hasn't authorized the sale of any e-cigs is true, but the reason is because no e-cig company, including Juul, has bothered to apply.  Juul could have applied 3 years ago.

The way the statement is worded makes it sound like the problem is with the FDA, not the e-cig companies.

Add new comment

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.