Literature DB >> 33476232

Defeating JUUL's Effort to Rewrite San Francisco's E-Cigarette Regulations.

Neiloy R Sircar1, Stanton A Glantz1.   

Abstract

In 2019, San Francisco, California, prohibited the sale of electronic cigarettes lacking US Food and Drug Administration authorization. JUUL then promoted a ballot initiative (Proposition C) to replace San Francisco's e-cigarette legislation with legislation JUUL wrote that required future legislation to be approved by the voters. JUUL promoted Proposition C as a way to reduce youth e-cigarette use while allowing adult choice.Health groups argued that JUUL's measure could nullify San Francisco's prohibition on selling flavored tobacco products. Health groups benefitted from having an established campaign network that recently defended the flavor ban. They successfully framed Proposition C as a tobacco industry ploy to undo San Francisco's e-cigarette regulations, particularly the prohibition on selling flavored tobacco products. JUUL ended its campaign on September 30, 2019, and the measure failed on election day, with 82% voting against it.Lessons learned from the campaign include the importance of framing an industry initiative as a threat to local public health lawmaking and the potential for the e-cigarette issue to attract parents as new leaders and engage a powerful constituency to support tobacco control measures.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33476232      PMCID: PMC7893333          DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2020.305993

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Public Health        ISSN: 0090-0036            Impact factor:   9.308


  17 in total

1.  State Preemption: Impacts on Advances in Tobacco Control.

Authors:  Joann Yoon Kang; Brandon Kenemer; Margaret Mahoney; Michael A Tynan
Journal:  J Public Health Manag Pract       Date:  2020 Mar/Apr

2.  E-cigarette Policymaking by Local and State Governments: 2009-2014.

Authors:  Elizabeth Cox; Rachel Ann Barry; Stanton Glantz
Journal:  Milbank Q       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 4.911

3.  When tobacco targets direct democracy.

Authors:  Elizabeth Laposata; Allison P Kennedy; Stanton A Glantz
Journal:  J Health Polit Policy Law       Date:  2014-03-06       Impact factor: 2.265

4.  Electronic cigarette sales to minors via the internet.

Authors:  Rebecca S Williams; Jason Derrick; Kurt M Ribisl
Journal:  JAMA Pediatr       Date:  2015-03-02       Impact factor: 16.193

5.  The importance of product definitions in US e-cigarette laws and regulations.

Authors:  Lauren K Lempert; Rachel Grana; Stanton A Glantz
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2014-12-14       Impact factor: 7.552

6.  Competing initiatives: a new tobacco industry strategy to oppose statewide clean indoor air ballot measures.

Authors:  Gregory J Tung; Yogi H Hendlin; Stanton A Glantz
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2009-01-15       Impact factor: 9.308

7.  Preemption in Tobacco Control: A Framework for Other Areas of Public Health.

Authors:  Eric Crosbie; Laura A Schmidt
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2020-01-16       Impact factor: 9.308

8.  Enacting tobacco taxes by direct popular vote in the United States: lessons from 20 years of experience.

Authors:  K L Lum; R L Barnes; S A Glantz
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2009-06-25       Impact factor: 7.552

9.  Anticipating and Defeating Preemption Across Public Health.

Authors:  Jennifer L Pomeranz
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2020-03       Impact factor: 9.308

10.  A baseline understanding of state laws governing e-cigarettes.

Authors:  C K Gourdet; J F Chriqui; F J Chaloupka
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 7.552

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.