4 20-0338 Subject: Flavored Tobacco Loophole Municipal Code Amendments
From: Vice Mayor Reid, Pro Tem Kalb, Councilmembers Taylor And Thao
Recommendation: Adopt An Ordinance Changing Local Rules For The Sale Of Tobacco Products By: (A) Amending Oakland Municipal Code Chapter 5.91 To: (1) Eliminate The "Tobacco Store" Exception To The City's General Prohibition On The Sale Of Flavored Tobacco Products; (2) Prohibit Pharmacies From Selling Tobacco Products; (3) Impose A Minimum Price And Package Size For Cigars And Cigarettes; (4) Require The On-Site Purchase Of Tobacco Products; (5) Change Definitions Of Terms; (6) Make Administrative Changes For The Licensure Of Tobacco Retailers; And (B) Repealing Oakland Municipal Code Chapter 8.34, Which Prohibits Tobacco Product Vending Machines In Areas Accessible To People Under Twenty One (21) Years Of Age
I work for The American Heart Association and am also an Oakland resident and I work heavily in the east Oakland community.
We know flavored tobacco is used to hook kids. We support the removal of the problematic exemption for adult-only tobacco retailers. The current exemption shows that retailers are keen to find loopholes to continue to sell these products. I want to emphasize to you how important it is that retailers have regular compliance checks and the ordinance states how frequently they will be checked and rechecked within specified time frames. Policy is only as strong as its implementation. Thank you for your strength and commitment to protecting the health of all Oakland residents and passing this necessary update. Don’t make Oakland the go to place for flavors. Thank you!
I am a responsible small business owner. Imposing bans doesn’t work. Other cities are selling it. People should be given a right to choose for themselves. City shouldn’t decide for residents what to smoke. People will go to other cities to buy or get it from the black market and it takes away the sales tax revenue that we create for the city by selling products here in the city of Oakland. I still have to see the great benefits created by the sugar tax law. People are still drinking sodas they buy from Other cities that don’t charge it . So I think it’s bad idea it will only harm small businesses. Please don’t pass this law.
This is outrageous and unconstitutional, the City of Oakland and other City’s around are trying to control the people, when that is Unacceptable. You can only Advice. The city of Oakland will cause a lot of businesses to shutdown and cause a lot of families to suffer because of this new law. The city will ignite the black market already existing and will cost millions and millions of dollars to fight, witch us the people will end up paying for. Due to COVID 19 and the higher taxes we already pay, thousands and thousands of dollars every month our businesses are suffering and We can barely sustain our lives. So please consider the people’s votes and go after the huge companies instead of the middle class people. Thank you.
Prohibiting the sales of lower risk nicotine products is like prohibiting the use of face masks during the COVID19 pandemic. Why? Both are products of harm reduction. Lower risk nicotine products work to reduce the harm of cigarettes while face mask is worn to reduce one’s exposure to the novel coronavirus. It is illogical to support one form of harm reduction while rejecting the other.
Prohibition doesn't work, and this will create a black market (it already has in San Francisco). Kids are buying these illegally (somehow), and the black market doesn't check IDs, so this will solve no problems whatsoever except taking away adult (21+) freedoms. Prohibitions and taking away adult rights is a slippery slope. Every true American who cares about their freedoms should oppose this ordinance. Don't let a bunch of irresponsible parents ruin adult choices because they can't handle parenting their own kids and need the government to be their nannies.
I oppose the ban in this form. Adults should have the right to make choices (good or bad), which includes drinking, smoking combustible cigarettes, or perhaps vaping. I support making all of these options 21+ and restricting access to places where these items can be purchased, but that is not the legislation on the table. Furthermore, I find it frustrating that this will still allow vaping to go on - most of the "flavors" sold are often sold by small businesses, which Oakland supposedly likes. It seems foolish to restrict the sale and creation of vaping products to...products like juul, which is owned by Phillip Morris. This is what we call "being in the pocket of big tobacco". Also - I'm sorry but kids are going to do thinks because ADULTS don't want them to. I'd rather my child vape than smoke a combustible cigarette. I would obviously prefer they do none of these things, but I remember what I did as a teenager...do you?
I am a college student from LPC and I have been working closely as part of a group to ban flavored tobacco products in my city (Dublin) and my campus. As someone who has seen my teenage friend's health deteriorating because of these addictive products, I fully support the ban and I believe it is not the parent's fault but the tobacco companies' strategy to lure in teenagers with their targetted advertisements. Business owners will not suffer for not selling to teenagers but teenagers and their future will continue to suffer from nicotine addiction present in these products. Not only these products are harmful to those who use them but also to the people around them who do not smoke. Second-hand smoking of juuls and e-cigarettes can cause allergic reactions and even more health problems. These products are still new and there is not enough information on them but we should be even more afraid because there is not enough studies done to see the actual negative effects of these products.
It’s hilarious when people only speak on protecting youth when it comes to tobacco. Where are the parents? Parents need to start paying attention to their youth. Adults like myself love flavors, and I know how to teach my children. I keep my habits away from them. I’m definitely not forcing it on those who doesn’t partake. So stop forcing your opinion on everyone else like only you non tobacco people matter. The best solution for both parties would be, only tobacco stores can sell tobacco products. Tobacco stores should change to only 21+. I agree with no window decals so no promotion to anyone at that point. Revisit a year later to see the progress. In terms of health reasons, that’s up to each individual. Don’t force your views on anyone but yourself. I have never forced anyone to smoke tobacco. Mind your own businesses and mind your own children. If you have alcohol, will you give some to your youth? Same applies to tobacco. Stop taking from others and do your job as a parent.
I am a mother of two teens in Alameda County and member of the Alameda County Tobacco Control Coalition. I have seen first-hand the devastation and heartbreak wrought by the easy accessibility of these products in our community. Adults can find other means of obtaining these products. We need to take them out of the reach of children. We are in the midst of a pandemic that is particularly harmful to those with compromised lungs. This is absolutely the time to send a strong message to our community of the importance of safeguarding their health. It is time to close this loophole and put the health of our children ahead of adult convenience and retailer profits.
Thank you for protecting Oakland youth by closing up this loophole.
Many cities around the Bay have already ended the sale of all flavored tobacco products for good. I hope the council will vote to strengthen the current ordinance to align with nearby cities, and get the attractive candy flavors off store shelves. Flavors such as grape, menthol, mint, cotton candy, bubble gum and gummy bear, mask the harsh taste of tobacco and are highly appealing to youth, creating the next generation of tobacco users. We know that flavors attract kids; 4 out of 5 kids who have used tobacco started with a flavored product.
Tobacco companies have everything to gain from addicting young people, given research showing that the earlier a person starts using tobacco, the higher the risk of addiction, and the harder it becomes to quit. And I also support the provision to make pharmacies tobacco-free. I hope you will side with Oakland's kids over the tobacco industry. Thank you.
As an Oakland resident and former chair of the Alameda County Tobacco Control Coalition, I strongly support this policy. Flavored tobacco products are appealing to youth and we need to create a level playing field by applying the same restrictions to all retailers. Additionally, price is one of the most effective ways to reduce tobacco use. Finally, pharmacies are in the business of promoting health and should not be selling a deadly product. Especially in this time of COVID we want to do everything we can to discourage youth tobacco use and encourage adults to quit.
The ban will only hurt business owners. Minors are not allowed to buy tobacco products. A solution will be to enforce strict restrictions on age restrictions. Not force business owners to go out of business. Marijuana dispensaries and liquor stores all sell items that are addictive. Why are smoke shops targeted? Why are local business owners are targeted? Who will pay for the losses that small business will face. These laws are unjust and unfair to business owners.
I had no idea human rights can be violated to this extent. Next, sugar tax on water. Tobacco companies are not tricking children into nic addiction. Parents need to do their job. My friend emailed rkaplan about rent information during this pandemic and never got a reply. Residents having concerns apparently isn’t important, adult rights to tobacco is though. Tobacco is more urgent than infrastructure improvement. The purpose of council members is to listen to the people you represent, not just yourself. The ones that don’t like tobacco, don’t partake. Many don’t agree with high rents in Oakland, are you going to stop landlords from charging high rent? Some don’t like parks, should we ban parks? Some don’t like dogs, should we ban pets? Some don’t like alcohol, should we ban it? Some don’t like reading, should we ban it? The point is, everyone has a preference, we need to respect each other’s preferences instead of just taking one side over another. Represent everyone, not just a few!!!
As long as a person is 21 they should be allowed flavors other than tobacco. Nothing should be sold to anyone that is not 21. The law is no tobacco products to anyone under 21, the same should hold true for adults that enjoy flavors other than tobacco.
I specifically oppose the flavor ban, but not this entire proposal. I don't believe minors use tobacco/nicotine products because of the flavors; they do it because they know it's "bad" and that seems cool. If flavors are banned, minors will just go back to smoking regular cigarettes like we did when I was a kid. On the other hand, a flavor ban would likely induce many adult vapers to go back to smoking. Although I'm yet to see thorough research on the true safety of vapor products (some claim they are useful cessation devices and less harmful to the lungs than smoking, while others claim they are more harmful), smoking tobacco IS known to be a leading cause of death in the US. In the event that vaping turns out to be less harmful than smoking, then by inducing adult vapers to go back to smoking, the flavor ban will have had a harmful and possibly lethal effect on many people. The potential risks of a flavor ban outweigh the scant potential benefits, and I thus oppose any flavor ban.
Why do everyday ordinary people believe they can tell other adult everyday ordinary people what to do? If you're an adult, you have choices. I oppose the flavor tobacco ban. Find something better to propose...better services for homelessness, poverty, food disparities, abuse (all) etc...next
as an originally middle eastern and as an Oakland resident i oppose this tobacco flavor ban
using the law to pass something like this it is an act of racism towards the minority communities in Oakland
for us first of all we have been smoking hookah for hundreds of years it is always comes in flavors
second most of the tobacco shop owners in Oakland are middle eastern people and this step will close them down and put them of business and maybe are of the city is that your goal behind this at the right time when they can’t come to the city and speak against it .
instead of working to lower the crime high rates and the high rent and the other serious problems you are planning to take the adult american freedom of choice away and creating a big black market in the city plus creating more hate issues by arresting the black / middle eastern / latinos for smoking and selling the products you are planning to ban it .
please think twice of the bad consequences for this bad decision .
First this is a bad time to ban tobacco because people are already stressing off of bills right now. Also, people can’t even attend the meeting which is easier for residents especially older ones. Everyone has been waiting to attend the meeting but by zoom? I feel like this is an opportunistic meeting. The whole state of California has any other priorities that needs to attend to. Oakland itself is dirty. I can’t even walk my dog without seeing syringes. So it’s ok for people of all ages to see other drugs that are much worse? Commercials showing toddlers surrounded by flavored swishers? How often do you think that actually happens? 1 time, when they did that commercial. I use tobacco and my children doesn’t see it. Everyone has a niche, some is tobacco, food, hiking, etc. I like smoking but I don’t like fast food. Should fast food be banned too? No, because there’s plenty that likes it. Council members, get your priorities straight. Find a real solution to our rent and mortgage issue.
I don't agree with you guys trying to make the decision for us adult residents who can make their own decision to smoke flavored tobacco. If the reasoning is teenage usage, make every tobacco store 21+ store so they can't enter. You can't delegate a parents' responsibility away to a tobacco company. Parents need to monitor their youth on not just tobacco use but even school work. I feel that what Oakland is doing with age restricted tobacco stores is the best way to navigate through this without taking an adults' rights away. I'm over 40 and I like my flavored tobacco. It's my choice and my decision. I know the consequences of smoking and I continue to use per my choice. All tobacco is bad so why only flavored is ruled out. I feel it's unfair. I know all races that use flavored tobacco and we all enjoy it. We know alcohol is bad too, but we still continue because we enjoy it. There are more important things the city needs to focus on like homelessness and potholes that are priority!!!!
I work for The American Heart Association and am also an Oakland resident and I work heavily in the east Oakland community.
We know flavored tobacco is used to hook kids. We support the removal of the problematic exemption for adult-only tobacco retailers. The current exemption shows that retailers are keen to find loopholes to continue to sell these products. I want to emphasize to you how important it is that retailers have regular compliance checks and the ordinance states how frequently they will be checked and rechecked within specified time frames. Policy is only as strong as its implementation. Thank you for your strength and commitment to protecting the health of all Oakland residents and passing this necessary update. Don’t make Oakland the go to place for flavors. Thank you!
I am a responsible small business owner. Imposing bans doesn’t work. Other cities are selling it. People should be given a right to choose for themselves. City shouldn’t decide for residents what to smoke. People will go to other cities to buy or get it from the black market and it takes away the sales tax revenue that we create for the city by selling products here in the city of Oakland. I still have to see the great benefits created by the sugar tax law. People are still drinking sodas they buy from Other cities that don’t charge it . So I think it’s bad idea it will only harm small businesses. Please don’t pass this law.
This is outrageous and unconstitutional, the City of Oakland and other City’s around are trying to control the people, when that is Unacceptable. You can only Advice. The city of Oakland will cause a lot of businesses to shutdown and cause a lot of families to suffer because of this new law. The city will ignite the black market already existing and will cost millions and millions of dollars to fight, witch us the people will end up paying for. Due to COVID 19 and the higher taxes we already pay, thousands and thousands of dollars every month our businesses are suffering and We can barely sustain our lives. So please consider the people’s votes and go after the huge companies instead of the middle class people. Thank you.
Prohibiting the sales of lower risk nicotine products is like prohibiting the use of face masks during the COVID19 pandemic. Why? Both are products of harm reduction. Lower risk nicotine products work to reduce the harm of cigarettes while face mask is worn to reduce one’s exposure to the novel coronavirus. It is illogical to support one form of harm reduction while rejecting the other.
Prohibition doesn't work, and this will create a black market (it already has in San Francisco). Kids are buying these illegally (somehow), and the black market doesn't check IDs, so this will solve no problems whatsoever except taking away adult (21+) freedoms. Prohibitions and taking away adult rights is a slippery slope. Every true American who cares about their freedoms should oppose this ordinance. Don't let a bunch of irresponsible parents ruin adult choices because they can't handle parenting their own kids and need the government to be their nannies.
I oppose the ban in this form. Adults should have the right to make choices (good or bad), which includes drinking, smoking combustible cigarettes, or perhaps vaping. I support making all of these options 21+ and restricting access to places where these items can be purchased, but that is not the legislation on the table. Furthermore, I find it frustrating that this will still allow vaping to go on - most of the "flavors" sold are often sold by small businesses, which Oakland supposedly likes. It seems foolish to restrict the sale and creation of vaping products to...products like juul, which is owned by Phillip Morris. This is what we call "being in the pocket of big tobacco". Also - I'm sorry but kids are going to do thinks because ADULTS don't want them to. I'd rather my child vape than smoke a combustible cigarette. I would obviously prefer they do none of these things, but I remember what I did as a teenager...do you?
I am a college student from LPC and I have been working closely as part of a group to ban flavored tobacco products in my city (Dublin) and my campus. As someone who has seen my teenage friend's health deteriorating because of these addictive products, I fully support the ban and I believe it is not the parent's fault but the tobacco companies' strategy to lure in teenagers with their targetted advertisements. Business owners will not suffer for not selling to teenagers but teenagers and their future will continue to suffer from nicotine addiction present in these products. Not only these products are harmful to those who use them but also to the people around them who do not smoke. Second-hand smoking of juuls and e-cigarettes can cause allergic reactions and even more health problems. These products are still new and there is not enough information on them but we should be even more afraid because there is not enough studies done to see the actual negative effects of these products.
It’s hilarious when people only speak on protecting youth when it comes to tobacco. Where are the parents? Parents need to start paying attention to their youth. Adults like myself love flavors, and I know how to teach my children. I keep my habits away from them. I’m definitely not forcing it on those who doesn’t partake. So stop forcing your opinion on everyone else like only you non tobacco people matter. The best solution for both parties would be, only tobacco stores can sell tobacco products. Tobacco stores should change to only 21+. I agree with no window decals so no promotion to anyone at that point. Revisit a year later to see the progress. In terms of health reasons, that’s up to each individual. Don’t force your views on anyone but yourself. I have never forced anyone to smoke tobacco. Mind your own businesses and mind your own children. If you have alcohol, will you give some to your youth? Same applies to tobacco. Stop taking from others and do your job as a parent.
I am a mother of two teens in Alameda County and member of the Alameda County Tobacco Control Coalition. I have seen first-hand the devastation and heartbreak wrought by the easy accessibility of these products in our community. Adults can find other means of obtaining these products. We need to take them out of the reach of children. We are in the midst of a pandemic that is particularly harmful to those with compromised lungs. This is absolutely the time to send a strong message to our community of the importance of safeguarding their health. It is time to close this loophole and put the health of our children ahead of adult convenience and retailer profits.
Thank you for protecting Oakland youth by closing up this loophole.
Many cities around the Bay have already ended the sale of all flavored tobacco products for good. I hope the council will vote to strengthen the current ordinance to align with nearby cities, and get the attractive candy flavors off store shelves. Flavors such as grape, menthol, mint, cotton candy, bubble gum and gummy bear, mask the harsh taste of tobacco and are highly appealing to youth, creating the next generation of tobacco users. We know that flavors attract kids; 4 out of 5 kids who have used tobacco started with a flavored product.
Tobacco companies have everything to gain from addicting young people, given research showing that the earlier a person starts using tobacco, the higher the risk of addiction, and the harder it becomes to quit. And I also support the provision to make pharmacies tobacco-free. I hope you will side with Oakland's kids over the tobacco industry. Thank you.
As an Oakland resident and former chair of the Alameda County Tobacco Control Coalition, I strongly support this policy. Flavored tobacco products are appealing to youth and we need to create a level playing field by applying the same restrictions to all retailers. Additionally, price is one of the most effective ways to reduce tobacco use. Finally, pharmacies are in the business of promoting health and should not be selling a deadly product. Especially in this time of COVID we want to do everything we can to discourage youth tobacco use and encourage adults to quit.
The ban will only hurt business owners. Minors are not allowed to buy tobacco products. A solution will be to enforce strict restrictions on age restrictions. Not force business owners to go out of business. Marijuana dispensaries and liquor stores all sell items that are addictive. Why are smoke shops targeted? Why are local business owners are targeted? Who will pay for the losses that small business will face. These laws are unjust and unfair to business owners.
I had no idea human rights can be violated to this extent. Next, sugar tax on water. Tobacco companies are not tricking children into nic addiction. Parents need to do their job. My friend emailed rkaplan about rent information during this pandemic and never got a reply. Residents having concerns apparently isn’t important, adult rights to tobacco is though. Tobacco is more urgent than infrastructure improvement. The purpose of council members is to listen to the people you represent, not just yourself. The ones that don’t like tobacco, don’t partake. Many don’t agree with high rents in Oakland, are you going to stop landlords from charging high rent? Some don’t like parks, should we ban parks? Some don’t like dogs, should we ban pets? Some don’t like alcohol, should we ban it? Some don’t like reading, should we ban it? The point is, everyone has a preference, we need to respect each other’s preferences instead of just taking one side over another. Represent everyone, not just a few!!!
As long as a person is 21 they should be allowed flavors other than tobacco. Nothing should be sold to anyone that is not 21. The law is no tobacco products to anyone under 21, the same should hold true for adults that enjoy flavors other than tobacco.
Thank you for crafting and supporting policy that protects young people from being tricked into nicotine addiction by sweet flavors.
I specifically oppose the flavor ban, but not this entire proposal. I don't believe minors use tobacco/nicotine products because of the flavors; they do it because they know it's "bad" and that seems cool. If flavors are banned, minors will just go back to smoking regular cigarettes like we did when I was a kid. On the other hand, a flavor ban would likely induce many adult vapers to go back to smoking. Although I'm yet to see thorough research on the true safety of vapor products (some claim they are useful cessation devices and less harmful to the lungs than smoking, while others claim they are more harmful), smoking tobacco IS known to be a leading cause of death in the US. In the event that vaping turns out to be less harmful than smoking, then by inducing adult vapers to go back to smoking, the flavor ban will have had a harmful and possibly lethal effect on many people. The potential risks of a flavor ban outweigh the scant potential benefits, and I thus oppose any flavor ban.
Why do everyday ordinary people believe they can tell other adult everyday ordinary people what to do? If you're an adult, you have choices. I oppose the flavor tobacco ban. Find something better to propose...better services for homelessness, poverty, food disparities, abuse (all) etc...next
as an originally middle eastern and as an Oakland resident i oppose this tobacco flavor ban
using the law to pass something like this it is an act of racism towards the minority communities in Oakland
for us first of all we have been smoking hookah for hundreds of years it is always comes in flavors
second most of the tobacco shop owners in Oakland are middle eastern people and this step will close them down and put them of business and maybe are of the city is that your goal behind this at the right time when they can’t come to the city and speak against it .
instead of working to lower the crime high rates and the high rent and the other serious problems you are planning to take the adult american freedom of choice away and creating a big black market in the city plus creating more hate issues by arresting the black / middle eastern / latinos for smoking and selling the products you are planning to ban it .
please think twice of the bad consequences for this bad decision .
First this is a bad time to ban tobacco because people are already stressing off of bills right now. Also, people can’t even attend the meeting which is easier for residents especially older ones. Everyone has been waiting to attend the meeting but by zoom? I feel like this is an opportunistic meeting. The whole state of California has any other priorities that needs to attend to. Oakland itself is dirty. I can’t even walk my dog without seeing syringes. So it’s ok for people of all ages to see other drugs that are much worse? Commercials showing toddlers surrounded by flavored swishers? How often do you think that actually happens? 1 time, when they did that commercial. I use tobacco and my children doesn’t see it. Everyone has a niche, some is tobacco, food, hiking, etc. I like smoking but I don’t like fast food. Should fast food be banned too? No, because there’s plenty that likes it. Council members, get your priorities straight. Find a real solution to our rent and mortgage issue.
I don't agree with you guys trying to make the decision for us adult residents who can make their own decision to smoke flavored tobacco. If the reasoning is teenage usage, make every tobacco store 21+ store so they can't enter. You can't delegate a parents' responsibility away to a tobacco company. Parents need to monitor their youth on not just tobacco use but even school work. I feel that what Oakland is doing with age restricted tobacco stores is the best way to navigate through this without taking an adults' rights away. I'm over 40 and I like my flavored tobacco. It's my choice and my decision. I know the consequences of smoking and I continue to use per my choice. All tobacco is bad so why only flavored is ruled out. I feel it's unfair. I know all races that use flavored tobacco and we all enjoy it. We know alcohol is bad too, but we still continue because we enjoy it. There are more important things the city needs to focus on like homelessness and potholes that are priority!!!!