A retailer’s perspective on Burlingame’s tobacco ordinance

One of the primary concerns raised by me and fellow retailers is the issue of inadequate notification. It is essential that businesses are properly informed and provided with the opportunity to participate in hearings that directly impact our operations. The acknowledgment of this issue during the last hearing and the subsequent postponement of the first reading was a step in the right direction.

Moving forward, it is imperative that the council maintains transparency and ensures active participation from all stakeholders in the formulation of legislation.

The city of Burlingame, like many others, strives to protect its youth from harmful substances and this is one of the arguments shared by proponents of the new tobacco policies. However, it’s vital to acknowledge the varying appeal of vapor products to teens. Surveys indicate a decline in youth tobacco use, a trend supported by responsible retail practices upheld by businesses like mine in Burlingame.

Yet, studies reveal that flavored disposable vapes remain accessible to young people, with enticing fruit and candy flavors. These products lack FDA approval for marketing and shouldn’t be available in stores. Despite being illegal, enforcement challenges persist.

While the intention to outlaw the sale of flavored tobacco products, including vapor products, is understandable, the blanket ban proposed in the ordinance may be overly restrictive. Senate Bill 793 already prohibits the retail sale of flavored tobacco products statewide, rendering a local law redundant and potentially burdensome for compliant retailers. Moreover, a total ban on vapor products fails to acknowledge their role as a harm reduction tool for adult nicotine consumers and may inadvertently drive consumers toward illicit sources, undermining the overarching goal of promoting public health.

Another point of contention is the lack of transferability of permits between locations. This provision diminishes the value of established businesses without effectively addressing the underlying issues of youth tobacco use and public health. If the city deems it necessary to implement retail licensing, it is imperative that enforcement efforts prioritize targeting illicit sources and noncompliant businesses, rather than penalizing legally-licensed establishments.

I propose that the city explore alternative solutions that achieve regulatory goals while minimizing adverse impacts on local businesses. For example, instead of a blanket ban on all vapor products, consider restricting the sale of single-use disposable vapor products while exempting FDA-approved alternatives, as seen in similar policies implemented in neighboring jurisdictions like San Francisco.

A collaborative approach is paramount in navigating the complexities of tobacco regulation in Burlingame. By fostering dialogue and considering alternative measures, we can develop a comprehensive ordinance that effectively balances regulatory objectives with the needs of our local business community.

Rajinder Kumar is the owner of Kwik & Convenient Market in Burlingame.