SF Chronicle urges No on Juul's Proposition C

In a strongly worded editorial, "No on Prop. C: Don’t let Juul write San Francisco’s vaping laws," the San Francisco Chronicle came out foursquare against the Juul initiative, Proposition C.

This position was something of a surprise since the Chronicle had also come out strongly against Supervisor Walton's ordinance putting a moratorium on sales of e-cigs that had not won FDA approval. (As of a couple months ago, none had even applied. We don't know if any have since then because FDA keeps such applications secret.)

As the Chronicle pointed out at the beginning and end of the editorial,

Don’t look here for a defense of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors’ vote to ban the sale of e-cigarettes in the city. It was a classic case of selective outrage and political convenience. This is the city that believes in the concept of harm reduction when it comes to heroin addiction — offering clean needles and proposing safe injection centers — but not for cigarette smokers who are struggling to break their lethal habit. This is the city that justifies a ban on vaping products because their health effects have not been assessed by the government and they are popular with youth ... yet somehow seems to overlook that those same arguments could be applied to cannabis.

But the absurd contradiction of a precipitous e-cigarette ban is not the issue on the Nov. 5 ballot.

This is not just about allowing adult San Franciscans to decide for themselves whether they want to take the risk of inhaling a heated liquid formula containing nicotine salts, glycerol, propylene glycol, benzoic acid and assorted flavorings.

Proposition C goes much further than that. It proposes to “comprehensively authorize and regulate the retail sale, availability and marketing of vapor products in the city and county of San Francisco.” The measure was crafted and is being pitched in a multimillion-dollar campaign by Juul Labs, the San Francisco company whose sleek USB-drive design, subtle vapor plume and high nicotine levels have made it No. 1 in the fledgling market.

In other words, Prop. C represents the effort of the dominant brand of a highly addictive and undoubtedly unhealthy product to dictate the terms of how it should be regulated.

...

We disagree with the ban, but we dislike even more the idea of a regulated company commandeering the terms of its regulation.

It's too bad that a few public health voices, notably Ken Warner, David Abrams, Ray Niaura, Neil McKeganey, Michael Siegel, do not make the same distinctions that the Chronicle has. Instead, they publicly endorsed the Juul initiative, a fact that Juul is actively promoting in its paid advertising.

Two UCSF colleagues have not endorsed Juul's Prop C, but continue allow their displeasure with the Walton ordinance to be promoted in Yes on C advertising, generally just identifying themselves as "UCSF faculty." It would be nice if they told Juul to cut it out.