Local call to actioN
Spread the word!
Windsor, CA – [Concluded] Stop a Total Vaping Sales Ban!
08/04/21 – Public Hearing. This is a second first-reading and public hearing for the proposed prohibition on sales of vapor products and flavored smoke-free tobacco products.
07/21/21 – Council voted to direct staff to make changes to the current proposal. This bill will return to the council, possibly in August, for a second “first reading” and public hearing.
07/21/21 – Public Hearing Scheduled for 6:00 PM
The Windsor City Council is considering an ordinance that would ban the sale of vapor products and other flavored, low-risk tobacco products. This proposal is likely being amended and the date for a public hearing is pending.
(For further information please call Town Hall: (707) 838-1000)
Please make plans to attend the next hearing. CASAA is providing talking points below to help you prepare your comments.
Members of the public can participate in the meeting in person or on Zoom: https://zoom.us/j/95215419306 or by dialing 877-853-5247 and Enter Webinar ID: 952 1541 9306
Civic Center Council Chambers
9291 Old Redwood Highway, Bldg. 400
Windsor, California 95492
The public is encouraged to submit written comments to the council by 12:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting by sending them in an email to: email@example.com.
Include “Tobacco Retail Ordinance” in the subject line.
CASAA is providing a sample message you can edit and use for your comments, if you wish. (Please add your story about switching to vaping and any role that flavors play in helping you live smoke free.)
(Note: Speaking time may be limited, so plan for 3 minutes or less.)
- Urge your council member to reject the ban on vapor products, which would restrict your ability to use low-risk alternatives to smoking.
- Briefly, share your story about switching to vaping and what role that flavors play in helping you live smoke free.
- Note any health changes you’ve experienced.
- Briefly, discuss what losing access to a local supply of vapor products will mean for you (Will you shop out-of-state, in neighboring cities, or online? Will you make your own e-liquid at home or purchase products on an underground market?).
Be brief, be kind, and say thank you 🙂
For those new to vaping or just generally unfamiliar with federal regulations, the premarket tobacco application (or PMTA) deadline was September 9, 2020. This application is required to keep or bring new tobacco/nicotine products on the market. It is estimated that 95% to 98% of vapor manufacturers will not be able to afford this process and will not be capable of filing on time.
But 98% is not 100% (as the antis are fond of saying).
The FDA has already approved some new tobacco products that are being sold in flavors other than tobacco (specifically mint, menthol, and wintergreen). In the weeks prior to the September deadline, the FDA accepted for review several applications for bottled e-liquid in flavors ranging from tobacco to cereal to fruit. Despite the rhetoric from certain members of congress and the incessant pro-drug war drum beat of tobacco prohibitionists, FDA is still capable of approving flavored smoke-free nicotine products for market. Moreover, FDA may even allow manufactures of these products to market them as safer than cigarettes, if they apply for a modified risk order.
Windsor’s flavor ban would undermine any decision by FDA to allow low-risk flavored tobacco products on the market after having met the “appropriate for the protection of public health” standard. Even without involving the FDA, flavor bans are being enacted without thorough consideration of the negative consequences. Sales data from Massachusetts and New York and a published study on San Francisco suggest that many people who were vaping prior to the flavor bans simply returned to smoking. While a prohibition on sales may be an inconvenience for teens trying to get their hands on nicotine, it is actively harming parents who are trying to quit smoking.
Take Action Now!
Sample Message to send to: firstname.lastname@example.org
(Be sure to edit this letter with your personal experience)
I am writing as a voter and taxpayer in Windsor urging you to reject the proposed ban sales of vapor products and flavored, low-risk alternatives to smoking. FDA is currently accepting market applications for a range of new nicotine products, including products in flavors other than tobacco. FDA has already provisionally authorized several flavored products for sale while the agency reviews applications in more detail. FDA has stated publicly and argued in federal court that mass removal of flavored vapor products risks sending millions of people back to smoking. The proposed flavor ban is the exact opposite of what FDA is doing and despite the claim that banning flavored products is intended to protect young people, it will only result in fewer people quitting smoking.
In addition to the public health benefits of switching to smoke-free products, the London Fire Brigade promotes vaping as a way for people who smoke to reduce the risk of starting an accidental fire in their home. With more people working from home as a result of COVID-19, allowing people who smoke to access safer alternatives is vital. Not only is there an increased fire risk due to an increase of people smoking at home, but people are smoking more as a means to cope with stress related to the pandemic.
At best, prohibition on vapor products merely adds a layer of inconvenience for young people who are experimenting with nicotine and other drugs. But instead of supporting a retail environment where sales can be monitored and laws enforced, Windsor will be pressuring people to buy products on an informal, unaccountable market. As a consequence of making interesting smoke-free products more difficult to purchase, the city of Windsor will also be discouraging people from quitting smoking.
For the protection of my neighbors and their children, I urge you to reject the ban on vapor products and other flavored smoke-free alternatives. I and my fellow CASAA members thank you for considering my comments on this issue and I look forward to your opposition to this ordinance.