- 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)
Pennsylvania School District Threatens Foster Care Placement Over Lunch Debt
- A Pennsylvania school district sent letters to over three dozen parents who had accumulated a school meal debt of $10 or more, warning them to pay the balance or risk having their child placed in foster care.
- The local social services agency criticized the school for “weaponizing” the foster care system to scare families into paying lunch bills.
- The president of the district’s board of education said the letters may have been strong, but they worked.
- Meanwhile, the vice president of the school board said the letters were not approved by the superintendent and is calling a meeting to discuss the issue, but said future letters will be less threatening.
Debt Letter Sent
A Pennsylvania school district faced backlash for sending letters to parents this month, warning them to pay off their children’s school lunch debt otherwise they may face consequences that could result in their child being placed in foster care.
“Your child has been sent to school every day without money and without a breakfast and/or lunch,” the letter from Joseph Muth, director of federal programs for the Wyoming Valley West School District, read.
“This is a failure to provide your child with proper nutrition and you can be sent to Dependency Court for neglecting your child’s right to food. If you are taken to Dependency court, the result may be your child being removed from your home and placed in foster care.” the letter continued.
The letters were sent out to those with a balance of at least $10 or more.
Outrage Over Foster Care Threat
Parents in Luzerne County did not respond well to the threat from the school district and the letter soon made national headlines. But the mention of foster care also pulled Luzerne County Children and Youth Services into the issue.
“The Luzerne County Children and Youth Foster Care System is NOT utilized to scare families into paying school lunch bills,” Joanne Van Saun, director of the local agency, wrote in a letter to the district’s superintendent.
“We exist to protect and preserve families. The only time a child is taken out is when they cannot be maintained safely in their home,” she later told CNN. “Our agency has helped many children and families with paying rent and buying clothes. We know children do better when they’re with their families.”
Van Saun added that she felt “blindsided” by the district’s letter, especially since the district and the agency have had a good relationship with one another in the past. “The way they handled it was totally inappropriate, unnecessary and could’ve easily been resolved through so many different avenues.” she said.
C. David Pedri, Luzerne county manager, also wrote the district a letter complaining about the notice.“It weaponizes Luzerne County’s foster care system,” Pedri said on Saturday in a statement to The New York Times. “It’s exactly what we’re not here to do. The foster care system is here to help kids who are abused.”
“Taking a kid out of a house is one of the most extreme things that a foster care system has ever tried to do,” he added. “So you don’t do it lightly. We would never take a kid out of a house for failing to pay a school lunch bill.”
Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey even called the letters “callous,” adding, “No child should have to imagine the horror of being ripped away from their parents because their family is struggling economically.”
Mixed Responses From Officials
According to CNN, Wyoming Valley’s Cafeteria Purchase Charging and Insufficient Funds Policy says nothing about parents potentially going to court or losing their children. However, it does state that families with a student account that reaches negative $10 or more will receive “an automated call every Friday” until the remaining balance is paid.
After being identified by WNEP as the person who penned the letter, Joseph Muth told the news station that it was a “last resort” effort to deal with the roughly $22,000 in debt that the district had accumulated.
Joseph Mazur, the president of the district’s board of education, told NPR that the district had tried contacting parents by mail, email, robocalls, and personal calls, before the notice, but nothing worked.
Mazur then defended the letter saying: “I think you have to pay your bills. I mean, I’ve been paying my bills all my life. So has everybody else. I mean sometimes you have to do without something for yourself if you want to raise your kids and see that they’re taken care of.”
“We are in the process of trying to save money wherever we can. We have laid off some employees. We have reduced some of our curriculum. And we’re looking anywhere we can save,” Mazur said. “I don’t care if it’s $1,000 or $20,000.”
Mazur did note that all students in the district received a meal. “Every poor kid got a meal,” Mazur said. “If the Board of Directors was mean and cruel they’d just honestly say, ‘stop the lunches,’ but we didn’t.”
“Was the letter a little strong? Maybe yes,” Mazur added. “But it did work, because they’re paid now.”
However, David Usavage, vice president of the school board, told the Times on Saturday that he received about six phone calls complaining about the letter. He also added that when he first read the notice, he thought it was a “joke.”
The letter “was not approved by anyone,” Usavage said. “We have a policy that says everything should go through the superintendent.”
It is not uncommon for the district to mail letters to parents, asking them to pay debts, but the language has always been “softer,” he said.
Usavage explained that the notice was written by Muth and the district’s lawyer, Charles R Coslett. Usavage said Muth has since apologized over the notice, but did not release any information about potential consequences for the two.
Usavage also provided the Times with more information about the district’s debt, saying that the district, which is made up of seven different schools, serves school meals that cost between $1 to $2.70 to about 5,000 children.
“We have never denied anyone because they don’t have money,” he said. “We would never, ever allow a child to go hungry.”
However, Usavage said that 960 students had accumulated a debt of five cents up to $9.99. Parents of 40 children owed $10 or more and parents of four students owed more than $440.
For now, Usavage said he would call a special meeting with the school board to discuss the issue, but said future letters will be less threatening.
“I don’t want the people who live in the Wyoming Valley West School District to think we are so classless as to send out a letter threatening parents,” he said. “I can assure you we will not take one child or one parent to any kind of court to get back the money.”
For the coming school year, the district will qualify for funding to provide free lunches to all students. regardless of their family’s financial need.
See what others are saying: (The New York Times) (CNN) (NPR)
NJ Judge Who Spared Teen Accused of Rape Because He Was From a “Good Family” Steps Down
- New Jersey Judge James Troiano has resigned after facing criticism for ruling that a teenage boy accused of rape should not be tried as an adult because he was from a “good family” and had good grades.
- An appellate court overturned the ruling and made the decision public, prompting widespread outrage, protests, and numerous lawmakers to call for Troiano’s resignation. It was also reported that Troiano and his family received threats of violence.
- Troiano’s resignation was announced by the state’s Supreme Court, which also said that they were starting the proceedings to remove Judge John Russo, who asked a woman if she had closed her legs to try to prevent an alleged sexual assault.
- The state’s Supreme Court has ordered a new initiative to enhance the training of judges in the areas of sexual assault, implicit bias, and more.
Judge Troiano Steps Down
A New Jersey judge who recommended that a 16-year-old boy accused of rape get leniency because he was from a “good family” resigned, according to an order from the New Jersey Supreme Court issued Wednesday.
In 2018, Monmouth County Judge James Troiano denied a waiver that would have allowed the teenage boy to be tried as an adult.
The teenager was accused of raping an intoxicated girl at a party, recording it, and then sending the recording to multiple people with the caption “when your first time is rape.”
Troiano argued that the defendant should not be tried as an adult because he had good grades and was from a good family.
He also said he did not think the incident was a “traditional case of rape,” which he defined as “two or more generally males involved, either at gunpoint or weapon, clearly manhandling a person.”
Troiano’s decision was later overturned by an appellate court, which made the ruling public in June.
Troiano has already been retired since 2012, but had continued to hear cases part-time. According to the order from the New Jersey Supreme Court, Troiano requested to step down effective immediately, and the court agreed.
Protests & Calls for Resignation
After Troiano’s decision was made public, he was met with widespread criticism and condemnation.
Numerous elected officials in New Jersey called for Troiano to resign or be removed from the bench, and petitions calling for his impeachment were circulated.
It was also reported that Troiano and his family had received phone calls and emails threatening violence. According to The New York Times, Troiano also received death threats.
On July 11, protestors gathered outside the Monmouth County Courthouse to call for the resignation of Troiano and Judge Marcia Silva, who ruled that a 16-year-old boy accused of assaulting a 12-year-old girl should not be tried as an adult because the “offense is not an especially heinous or cruel offense.”
Silva’s decision was overturned by the same appellate court.
Judge John Russo
The state’s Supreme Court also announced that it was beginning proceedings to remove Judge John Russo, who asked an alleged victim if she had closed her legs to try to prevent being sexually assaulted.
“Because of the seriousness of the ethical violations here, it is appropriate for the Court to consider the full range of potential discipline, up to and including removal from office,” Justice Stuart Rabner, the chief justice of the Supreme Court of New Jersey wrote in the order.
According to NBC News, the state’s Supreme Court is seeking a harsher punishment for Russo after a judicial ethics commission recommended three-month unpaid suspension earlier this year.
Russo has said he was just trying to get more information from the alleged victim.
NBC also reported that Russo had been reassigned to another county court in December, and will have until next month to contest his removal in front of a panel of state Supreme Court judges.
He will be suspended without pay during the process.
New Jersey Gov. Philip Murphy released a statement on Wednesday applauding the state Supreme Court’s decision.
“Unfortunately, the inexcusable actions of several judges over recent months have threatened this reputation for thoughtful and reasoned opinion, and common decency,” Murphy said. “I am gratified that Judge Troiano will no longer sit on the bench and that removal proceedings will begin against Judge Russo.”
However, last week, New Jersey’s top public defender, Joseph Krakora, defended Troiano and Silva in a rare public statement.
“Vilifying or seeking the removal of judges who make unpopular or even erroneous decisions threatens the independence of the judiciary,” he said. “Judges are simply lawyers entrusted with the responsibility of deciding difficult cases.”
“Litigants sometimes feel that their decisions are incorrect or unfair. That is why we have appellate courts,” he continued.
The New Jersey Supreme Court also ordered a new initiative Wednesday to improve how judges are trained to address sexual assault and domestic violence, as well as diversity and implicit bias.
See what others are saying: (The New York Times) (NBC News) (USA Today)
Berkeley To Remove Gendered Language From City Code
- The City Council voted unanimously to replace more than two dozen terms often used in the city’s municipal code with gender-neutral words.
- Along with changing “he” and “she” pronouns to “they” and “them,” the move will also swap words like “manholes” with “maintenance holes,” and tiles like “firemen” with “firefighters.”
- Local officials say the move is necessary to make “the environment of City Hall and the language of city legislation consistent with the principles of inclusion.“
The Berkeley City Council unanimously passed a measure on Tuesday that would replace more than two dozen gender-specific words from its municipal code in a move towards improving nonbinary gender inclusivity.
The ordinance on gender-neutral language will replace words like “he” an “she” to “they” and “them” in the city code. But it will also do away words like “manholes,” “manmade,” and “manpower.” Instead, “manholes” will be changed to “maintenance holes” and other references to “manmade” will be changed to “artificial.” Terms like “human effort” or “workforce” will replace “manpower.”
Other terms that will be changed include “pregnant women”, which will be switched to “pregnant employees.” “Brother” and “sister” will be switched to a “sibling.”
Job titles like “bondsman” will be “bonds-person,” “firemen” and “firewomen” will now be “firefighters.”
“Fraternity” and “sorority” soon be changed to “collegiate Greek system residence,” along with several other changes.
Berkeley city councilmember Rigel Robinson, a 23-year-old recent graduate of the University of California at Berkeley, sponsored the ordinance in March. “In recent years, broadening societal awareness of transgender and gendernonconforming identities has brought to light the importance of non-binary gender inclusivity,” Robinson’s ordinance reads.
“Therefore, it is both timely and necessary to make the environment of City Hall and the language of city legislation consistent with the principles of inclusion.”
The move still requires a second reading at the council for the proposal to become official. That will then be followed by a 30-day waiting period. However, based on Tuesday’s unanimous vote, the language change is expected to easily pass through the remainder of the process.
“There is power in language. This is a small move, but it matters,” Robinson tweeted after the ordinance was approved.
Robinson’s office estimates that it will cost about $600 to implement the change to the municipal code.
The move is not surprising for Berkeley. The city has implemented similar changes in the past in an effort to make the community more inclusive. In February, the city began giving all employees the option to receive a name badge with a preferred pronoun printed alongside their professional title.
Other efforts to improve inclusivity have also made waves across the state. In 2014, then-Governor Jerry Brown approved a measure that replaced “husband” or “wife” in state law with “spouse.”
Then in 2017, California became the first state to provide a third gender option on state driver’s licenses, identification cards, and birth certificates with the passage of Senate Bill 179.
California is not alone in that move. Maine and Washington D.C. have also made efforts to recognize gender-neutral individuals on drivers licenses.