- San Francisco’s board of supervisors voted to ban the sale and distribution of e-cigarettes in the city, unless they have been premarket approved by the FDA.
- The FDA does not currently regulate any e-cigarettes on the market, which has been a source of frustration for many who are concerned by the rise in e-cig use among teens.
- City officials say this ordinance was created to prevent teens from using the products.
- However, Juul, the biggest e-cigarette producer in the nation, says the legislation will only hurt adult users who could now turn back to traditional cigarettes.
Board Of Supervisors Vote on Ordinance
San Francisco is poised to be the first U.S. city to ban electronic cigarettes.
On Tuesday, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted in favor of an ordinance that bans the sale and distribution of the product in the city, unless it has been premarket reviewed and approved by the FDA. Currently, no products of this kind have been.
The ordinance would also ban products from being shipped to an address in San Francisco through online orders.
The ordinance will now head next to Mayor London Breed, who is expected to sign it. Breed released a statement following the vote saying she believes this will benefit the health of young people in the city.
“There is so much we don’t know about the health impacts of these products, but we do know that e-cigarette companies are targeting our kids in their advertising and getting them hooked on addictive nicotine products,” Breed said. “We need to take action to protect the health of San Francisco’s youth and prevent the next generation of San Franciscans from becoming addicted to these products.”
Problems with FDA Regulation
Under the Tobacco Control Act, the FDA should have a role in reviewing e-cigarettes. The ordinance says that all new nicotine products, specifically those that entered the market after 2007, “must be authorized by the FDA for sale in the United States before it may enter the marketplace.”
“Virtually all electronic cigarettes that are sold today entered the market after 2007, but have not been reviewed by the FDA to determine if they are appropriate for the public health,” the ordinance continues.
San Fransisco City Attorney, Dennis Herrera, also released a statement on Tuesday about the vote, saying that San Francisco is taking action because the FDA has not.
“E-cigarettes are a product that, by law, are not allowed on the market without FDA review,” he said. “For some reason, the FDA has so far refused to follow the law. If the federal government is not going to act, San Francisco will.”
Currently, the FDA does have a plan to conduct reviews for these products. According to their site, e-cigarettes must be submitted for review by August 8, 2022. However, San Fransisco officials do not want to wait that long.
In the ordinance, officials wrote that the products will have been on the market for 15 years by that point. Between now and 2022, they estimate that six million more youths will have used e-cigarettes.
“San Francisco is not content to wait until then before addressing, for its residents, what appears from the evidence to be a major public health crisis that is going unattended,” the ordinance says.
The city of San Francisco is not alone in expressing frustrations with the FDA when it comes to their regulation of nicotine products and e-cigarettes. Several health organizations sued the FDA, saying that their inaction has lead to increased use of vaping products among teens.
In May, a federal judge sided with those organizations and said that the FDA needs to review e-cigarettes.
Youth and E-Cigarette Use
According to the CDC, one in five high school students uses e-cigarettes, while one in twenty middle schoolers use the product.
E-cigarette use in highschoolers increased from 1.5 percent in 2011 to 20.8 percent in 2018. The CDC also says that teens often become dependant on nicotine at a quicker rate than adults.
Criticism of Ordinance
San Fransisco’s ordinance has received criticism. Juul, the leader in the e-cigarette industry in the U.S., is based in San Fransisco. Their spokesperson Ted Kwong released a media statement saying that this decision could cause problems for adult users.
“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,” the statement said.
According to CNN, Juul supports stricter regulation, but not prohibition. The company says they want to include electronic age verification technology and limit how much can be purchased at once.
They are not the only critics. Dr. Steven A. Schroeder, a health professor at the University of California, San Francisco, told the New York Times he does not think the law makes sense.
“On the face of it, it’s ludicrous that we would ban e-cigarettes, but permit the sale of tobacco and cannabis.” he said. “It’s really smart politics but dubious public health.”
The ordinance will not become an effective policy until 30 days after the mayor signs it. After that, it has six months to be fully implemented.
See what others are saying: (CNN) (Esquire) (New York Times)
Katie Couric Says She Edited Ruth Bader Ginsburg Quote About Athletes Kneeling During National Anthem
Couric said she omitted part of a 2016 interview in order to “protect” the justice.
Kate Couric Edited Quote From Justice Ginsburg
In her upcoming book, journalist Katie Couric admitted to editing a quote from Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg in 2016 in order to “protect” Ginsberg from potential criticism.
Couric interviewed the late justice for an article in Yahoo News. During their discussion, she asked Ginsburg about her thoughts on athletes like Colin Kaepernick kneeling for the national anthem to protest racial inequality.
“I think it’s really dumb of them,” Ginsburg is quoted saying in the piece. “Would I arrest them for doing it? No. I think it’s dumb and disrespectful. I would have the same answer if you asked me about flag burning. I think it’s a terrible thing to do, but I wouldn’t lock a person up for doing it. I would point out how ridiculous it seems to me to do such an act.”
According to The Daily Mail and The New York Post, which obtained advance copies of Couric’s book “Going There,” there was more to Ginsburg’s response. Couric wrote that she omitted a portion where Ginsburg said the form of protest showed a “contempt for a government that has made it possible for their parents and grandparents to live a decent life…Which they probably could not have lived in the places they came from.“
Couric Says She Lost Sleep Making Choice
“As they became older they realize that this was youthful folly,” Ginsberg reportedly continued. “And that’s why education is important.“
According to The Daily Mail, Couric wrote that the Supreme Court’s head of public affairs sent an email asking to remove comments about kneeling because Ginsburg had misspoken. Couric reportedly added that she felt a need to “protect” the justice, thinking she may not have understood the question. Couric reached out to her friend, New York Times reporter David Brooks, regarding the matter and he allegedly likewise believed she may have been confused by the subject.
Couric also wrote that she was a “big RBG fan” and felt her comments were “unworthy of a crusader for equality.” Because she knew the remarks could land Ginsburg in hot water, she said she “lost a lot of sleep” and felt “conflicted” about whether or not to edit them out.
Couric was trending on Twitter Wednesday and Thursday as people questioned the ethics behind her choice to ultimately cut part of the quote. Some thought the move showed a lack of journalistic integrity while others thought revealing the story now harmed Ginsburg’s legacy.
See what others are saying: (New York Post) (The Daily Mail) (Insider)
Biden Administration Orders ICE To Halt Workplace Raids
The Department of Homeland Security will now focus on targeting employers who exploit undocumented workers, instead of carrying out raids that dissuade those workers from reporting labor violations.
DHS Reverses Worksite Raid Policy
The Biden administration announced Tuesday that it was ordering Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to stop workplace raids.
The move marks a reversal from Trump administration policies that have been strongly criticized by immigration activists who argue the efforts created fear in immigrant communities and dissuaded them from reporting labor violations or exploitative employment practices.
In addition to stopping the raids, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said in a memo that the administration will refocus enforcement efforts to instead target “employers who exploit unauthorized workers, conduct illegal activities or impose unsafe working conditions.”
Mayorkas added that the immigration agencies housed in DHS will have the next 60 days to identify harmful existing policies and come up with new ones that provide better deportation protections for workers who report their employers.
In the Tuesday memo, the secretary argued that shift of focus will “reduce the demand for illegal employment by delivering more severe consequences to exploitative employers” and “increase the willingness of workers to report violations of law by exploitative employers and cooperate in employment and labor standards investigation.”
Labor Market Implications
The new policy comes at a time when the U.S. is experiencing a critical labor shortage, including in many sectors that rely on immigrant labor.
Some companies that use undocumented workers pay them wages that are far below the market rate, which is not only exploitative but also undercuts competitors.
According to Mayorkas, the pivot to employer-based enforcement will help protect American businesses.
“By exploiting undocumented workers and paying them substandard wages, the unscrupulous employers create an unfair labor market,” he said in the memo. “They also unfairly drive down their costs and disadvantage their business competitors who abide by the law.”
It is currently unclear how effective the new efforts will be, but historical precedent does not paint an optimistic picture.
The Biden administration’s efforts closely mirror a similar move by the Obama administration, which attempted to reverse workplace raids authorized under President George W. Bush by targetting those who employ undocumented workers rather than the workers themselves.
That effort, however, still led to thousands of undocumented workers being fired.
See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (The New York Times) (ABC News)
Mom Charged for Hosting Secret Teen Parties, Pressuring Kids To Drink and Engage in Sex Acts
Investigators said some of the sex acts between teens were non-consensual and at times took place while the mother stood by laughing.
Mother Hit With Dozens of Charges
A California mother is facing 39 criminal charges after hosting a series of illegal parties for her teenage son and his mostly 14- and 15-year-old friends that regularly led to dangerous accidents and sexual assaults.
The mother, 47-year-old Shannon O’Connor, also known as Shannon Bruga, is currently awaiting extradition to Santa Clara County. According to The Mercury News, she was arrested Saturday in Ada County, Idaho, where she has a home in addition to her property in Los Gatos that is currently on the market.
Her criminal charges include 12 felony counts and 10 misdemeanor counts of child endangerment, one count of misdemeanor sexual battery, three counts of misdemeanor child molestation, and 13 misdemeanor counts of providing alcohol to minors.
“It took a lot of brave children to come forward and to untangle this deeply disturbing case,” Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen said in a press release regarding the case. “As a parent, I’m shocked. As the DA, I’m determined to hold those adults who endanger children fully accountable to the law and our community.”
What Happened During the Parties?
Investigators claim O’Connor organized the functions, attended by as many as 20 teens, via text message and Snapchat. She would then allegedly supply the teens with alcohol and push them to binge drink, often to the point of illness or unconsciousness.
The harm that resulted from their intoxication included one teen breaking a finger and another almost drowning in a hot tub, among other serious situations.
In another instance, O’Connor let an unlicensed drunk teen drive her car. Her son and another one of his friends then hung off the back while it was moving, which caused the friend to fall, hit his head, and become unconscious for 30 seconds. He was later diagnosed with a concussion after spending the night vomiting.
O’Connor is additionally accused of manipulating and encouraging drunk teens to participate in sex acts with one another, which were sometimes non-consensual or carried out while she watched. In some cases, she allegedly laughed while the sexual acts happened or when assault victims asked her why she didn’t step in to help.
Investigators added that O’Connor required teens who attended her parties to keep them a secret. She’s even accused of helping them sneak out of their homes so she could drive them to her events. Authorities said she was found to have bullied at least one teen who she suspected of breaking the secret.
“Everyone should feel relieved this woman’s not on the street,” the parents of one assault victim told The Mercury News. “She was grooming these kids, setting them up for sexual acts, and she’s a mother and doing this to her own child. … I’ve been racking my brain trying to think what was in it for her.“