Colorado Politics

Citywide ban on flavored tobacco again postponed by Denver committee

The proposed ban against the sale of flavored tobacco products in Denver was again postponed by the City Council on Wednesday, with the safety committee voting to push consideration to next month.

The unanimous vote came after more than an hour of discussion among council members, including the suggestion of several amendments to the ban. The committee will now vote on the amendments on Nov. 17.

As is, the ban would apply to all flavored tobacco products sold in all establishments in Denver, with exemptions for harm-reduction tools approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

That means flavored hookah, menthol cigarettes, chewing tobacco, cigars and vaping products could not be sold – the last of which is the main target of the ban to try to reduce youth tobacco use.

“The youth smoking and vaping epidemic is what we are trying to solve for here,” said Councilwoman Amanda Sawyer, who co-sponsored the proposal. “Two million youth across the country use e-cigarettes and a majority of those site flavors as the reason that they do that.”

In 2020, approximately 1 in 5 high school students and 1 in 20 middle school students used e-cigarettes, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Of tobacco users between 12 and 17 years old, 81% said they started by using flavored products and 79% said they use a product because it comes in flavors they like, according to a study by the FDA and National Institute of Health.

Three of the amendments proposed Wednesday would establish exemptions in the ban for certain tobacco products, including hookah, flavored cigars, pipe tobacco and menthol cigarettes. The council members who proposed the amendments argued that children and teens don’t use these tobacco products.

“We want to keep these products out of the hands of kids, but this approach tries to do that by keeping them out of the hands of everybody,” said Councilman Kevin Flynn.

Councilwoman Kendra Black proposed two amendments that would cancel the ban, replacing it with ordinances to increase ID verification requirements at tobacco-selling establishments or to increase the penalty for selling tobacco to minors.

In 2019, around 22% of tobacco retail stores in Denver were found to be violating age mandates – meaning retailers were not checking IDs or were knowingly selling to people under the age of 21, said Tristan Sanders, Denver’s director of community and behavioral health.

These checks were suspended during the COVID-19 pandemic, but since they restarted more than a month ago, the rate of retailers violating age mandates is up to 40% for the 20% of stores checked so far, Sanders said.

Black argued the ban would hurt local tobacco-selling businesses and result in young tobacco users buying products online or in neighboring cities, in addition to inconveniencing tobacco-using adults.

“This is not being done with a scalpel, it’s being done with a sledgehammer,” Black said. “We are going to impact adults and prevent them from being adults and buying products that they want, but it’s not going to prevent kids from getting their hands on tobacco products. … Prohibition does not work.”

Councilwoman Robin Kniech argued that Black’s proposals may not curb youth tobacco use since many minors get tobacco products from older friends or relatives, but a flavor ban could reduce the availability of where youth can get the flavored products they desire.

Dozens of community members packed into the council chambers Wednesday to speak on the ban, including many wearing “flavors hook kids” shirts. No public comment was offered this week, though several people signed up to speak on unrelated proposals to try to comment on the ban. Those speakers were turned down by the committee.

“I want to thank the folks who showed up. I’m looking into the faces and hearts and minds of everyone here, and I don’t think anyone here wants kids to get their hands on tobacco,” said Councilman Paul Kashmann. “All we’re talking about is some different viewpoint on how we get there.”

The safety committee approved a different tobacco-related proposal Wednesday that would prohibit Hookah lounges from operating between midnight and 7 a.m.

Currently, there are no regulations for hookah lounge operating hours in Denver, which allows them to stay open past the mandatory 2 a.m. last call for bars, with many not closing until 4 a.m. or 5 a.m. This has resulted in drunk bar patrons continuing to party in hookah lounges after the bars close, said Councilman Jolon Clark.

“This allows responsible owners to have a pathway to continue operation without the city looking at what other cities have done … which is to close the establishments because of late-night issues,” said Clark, who sponsored the proposal. “I think we can do better to eliminate the issues without getting rid of everybody.”

A representative with the National Hookah Association and multiple hookah business owners spoke during the meeting, saying they support the regulation but request the close time be pushed back to 2 a.m. to align with bars.

The proposal was unanimously approved to move to the full council without the time change. It will need to pass two final votes before implementation.

Vaping among US teenagers drops roughly 40% during pandemic
Getty Images.
Tags denver

PREV

PREVIOUS

Tax panel scraps proposal on short-term rentals, advances five other measures

An interim panel charged with reviewing the state’s tax policy voted to advance a package of five bills, opting in the process to axe a proposal from a Denver Democrat  that sought a statewide increase on taxes on short-term rentals. Heading into the Wednesday meeting, the Legislative Oversight Committee Concerning Tax Policy appeared poised to […]

NEXT

NEXT UP

Judge declines to block CU Anschutz's policy for religious exemptions to vaccines

A federal judge has declined to block the University of Colorado from enforcing its vaccination policy against a Roman Catholic physician and a Buddhist medical student who unsuccessfully sought religious exemptions, while cautioning that a recent revision to the mandate may bring about new arguments in the case.  The plaintiffs, identified as Jane Doe, M.D. […]


Welcome Back.

Streak: 9 days i

Stories you've missed since your last login:

Stories you've saved for later:

Recommended stories based on your interests:

Edit my interests