presence of toxins. but if you look critically at the concentration of those toxins in the emitted vapor and the secondhand vapor and compare to cigarette smoke, you will see that they are light years apart. they are completely separate. so, i'd just ask you -- >> but you admit they are harmful. i think that's what the research has shown ~. there have been harmful compounds identified in certain brands of products and that very small levels. >> but your product doesn't have harmful compounds? unfortunately i'm not allowed to comment on the composition. i can't. we encourage people to study our products and other products -- >> can you show us what your product looks like? sure, thank you. yes, so, on behalf of -- again, on behalf of my company and myself and smokers seeking viable alternatives to smoking, we he oppose this ordinance. >> thank you. thank you. >> next speaker. my name is michael barger.

i am a medical marijuana patient for chronic pain condition for which there is no other remedy. i also suffer from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. and my physician at the va medical center recommended i try e-cigarettes to stop smoking. within three weeks i stopped, and now this is my vaporizer. i want to recommend to the committee that they not recommend this legislation to the full board of supervisors because there are too many unresolved questions like the marijuana issue, and whether the restrictions apply to vaporizers that do not look like cigarettes as i was assured by victor lent it did not. until those things are corrected and the [speaker not understood] of the legislation, i do not think it is an issue to go before the full board of supervisors. thank you. >> thank you.

next speaker. hi, my name is lawrence tam and i quit smoking cigarettes for about a year now and i have not felt any withdrawal that was stated earlier to the ucsf doctors. as a smoker for 14 years, i know the bad smells of traditional cigarettes. and to label me as a traditional smoker with those people, i get headaches. so, i just want to say -- go through a few marketing strategies [speaker not understood] earlier, how many alcohol companies such as budweiser, [speaker not understood] attractive women trying to sell their line to make sales and to have a good time. i just wanted to say that alcohol is a lot more accessible than electronic cigarettes. >> thank you. if there is anyone else that

would like to speak that hasn't been called, please come forward now. we're going to probably close public comment in a minute. next speaker. hi, my name is [speaker not understood] and i am here to oppose the ordinance against electronic cigarettes when it comes to categorizing them as tobacco products. trust, i know what tobacco is. i started smoking when i was 14. i was smoking two packs a week and i felt like thats was okay because my father smoked cigarettes all his life. i am 23 right now and this month is my [speaker not understood] of being cigarette free. [speaker not understood]. we have a strict 18 and over policy no sales to minors at all. i have met so many people that have shared their studies with me about vaping and how it changed their life and their health. smoking and vaping are not the same thing. i decided to quit for my health and my future, not to be like my father who smoked 40 plus years. i am young but i am proof electronic cigarettes has

fought my [speaker not understood]. >> where is [speaker not understood] city? >> broken pine and nob hill. >> you're an employee of [speaker not understood] and at san francisco state? yes. >> thank you. next speaker. my name is dan kerrigan and i live in the outer richmond in san francisco. i'm here today to speak in support of making the same rules apply to electronic cigarettes as the rules that currently apply to tobacco products. i don't want to be exposed to secondhand air pollution from these electronic devices. san francisco has been smoke-free for decades, but i've seen the commercials for these unregulated products and they all say the same thing. that it's okay to expose others to the toxic discharge from your nicotine addiction and that it's okay to disregard the intent of smoke-free laws. whose goal is to protect everyone's right to breathe clean air. the board of supervisors can protect us right now from these secondhand aerosols and protect

us from the marketing tactics used by those profiting from pushing an addictive product. i urge you to vote to pass this bill and pro he text our right to breathe clean air. thank you, supervisor mar. >> thank you, am kerrigan. next speaker. ~ mr. kerry began my name is ted gugenheim and i'm a resident of the upper haight. as more and more people are using e-cigarettes, more waste is accumulating. batteries, cartridges and atomizers. even refillable cartridgeseses need to be discarded at sometime. proper cartridge disposal involve the following steps. number one, remove the filler material from the cartridge. two, wash it thoroughly in running water until all nicotine residue is gone. [speaker not understood]. four, wash the plastic cartridge under running water. five, plug it with the original plug. 6, dispose of it as you would any other plastic waste. i wonder how many people will

actually go through the various steps to deacon thatvth nate their e-cigarette parts prior to disposing of them. by not allowing e-cigarette use in the locations that currently prohibit cigarette use, we will be able to protect many sensitive areas such as parks and recreational areas from dangerous e-waste. i therefore request you please pass this common sense measure. >> thank you. next speaker. if there is anyone else na would like to speak, plea come forward. we're going to close public comment soon. hi, my name is kevin brown, [speaker not understood] medical cannabis organization. and we believe that this legislation unfairly targets publicly housed medical cannabis patients and we believe that if their right to consume cannabis in the privacy of their own home, whether it be public or private or own or not, and i believe it's unfair and uncivil to deny them what their doctor recommends for them. thank you.

>> actually, i want to say it does not ban people's homes. you could still smoke in your own home. but in public housing, i believe it was banning them in all public housing which is still i believe a violation of civil rights. renting, paying for their home. >> i don't think so. let me just defer to jon givner, our city attorney. >> deputy city attorney jon givner. so, what this ordinance does is it applies to e-cigarettes the same restriction as they currently apply under the existing smoking bans in the health code. there is a provision regarding smoking in common areas in public housing. in existing law it prohibits smoking in those common areas and, so, i imagine that's what you're referring to. there is an exception for -- in existing law for smoking in one's own private home. >> thank you. thank you for the testimony.

is there anyone else that would like to speak? then through chair yee, i'd like to ask if we can close public comment. >> i guess public comment is now closed. [gavel] >> so, did you want to say something? >> i just wanted to say thank you so much to everybody that's come out. it's really been an educational experience. i would strongly urge support for the resolution or for the ordinance. but i did want to say on the medical marijuana issues, it's not targeting anyone, it's about protecting the health and the air. and it's many of us within the tobacco free coalition have been working for years with different policies, policies that are common sense, policies trying to stop the normalization of smoking. i think there is a real different look of a simulation of a cigarette like this is, versus vaporizers whether it's the vaporizer that looks nothing like a cigarette and it

is not simulating smoking or others like the vapor, but many vaporizers do not try to simulate cigarettes. and my understanding is that our measure is going after a new industry that's big tobacco from the lord alards to the blue 6 and $8 products targeting and hooking, whether it's hipsters who are younger from colleges to middle coolers like my 13 year old, and i would just ask that the applicants from the medical marijuana community to know that it's not targeted at you. it's about protecting the public's health and stopping the big tobacco companies from hooking a new generation of smokers. with that, i'd like to thank the department of public health and many of the researchers that have come out, the community-based organizationses and youth groups that have been really empowering themselves by educating themselves and getting out there. and i would like to urge --

support for my colleagues -- i would like to urge my colleagues to support the ordinance. >> supervisor tang? >> thank you, supervisor mar. i just want to thank everyone who came out and took the time to share your thoughts on this particular piece of legislation. i certainly want to acknowledge that potentially e-cigarettes have helped some people who have needed it to be able to stop their addiction, but also want to acknowledge that, yes, there are people who may be potentially in schools who may be gravitating towards eventual tobacco products as a result. so, again, i just want to recognize that i have taken in both viewpoints there. regarding the tobacco sales permit requirements, i just had a question about that. i wanted to know that currently in terms of requirements for those establishments selling e-cigarettes, do they just qualify or are they only classified as retail right now? >> maybe derek might have an answer to that.

derek smith and the department of public health. >> the question is simply what permit would they be required to obtain? >> currently right now for establishments selling e-cigarettes. >> there is no requirement at all. at either the state or local level and this would require them to obtain a tobacco retail permit. it's an existing program. we found that -- we think about 95% of the tobacco retailers already have -- i'm sorry, the e-cigarette retailers already have a permit. so, 95%, this is why we presented this at the small business commission and they thought it was a pretty straightforward issue because there's just a handful of kind of cigarette only retailers who we would have to bring up to speed and require to obtain a tobacco retail permit. >> so, then, in terms of -- because i do understand that our laws cannot be retroactive and, so, then for that sell e-cigarettes and don't already have a tobacco permit, at what juncture would they be required to obtain a permit? so, for example, upon renewal

of a business registration? how would that work? >> great question. that's an annual process. so, it would be -- it's kind of rolled into the business application as i understand it. so, it would be a -- they do annually renew or in this case they would be required to submit an application. we certainly would be doing education from the department of public health to all retailers on that particular, particularly on the permitting as well as education to get the word out to a variety of other places, office buildings, placeses where this would apply and make a difference in how they're running their operations. >> um-hm. and i apologize if i didn't catch this earlier, but in terms of the landscape in san francisco, how many establishments are there out there in our city that actually carry e-cigarettes? whether through both selling tobacco products and e-cigarettes or solely e-cigarettes? >> we know as youth advocates mentioned there's a thousand tobacco retailers. we know [speaker not understood] and we found at

least 350 that are selling e-cigarettes. it's a convenient add-on on product. particularly you notice some of the product are owned by the tobacco companies. since they already have a distribution network, a couple of the tobacco companies aren't really in the game yet. they have test marketing in other states so we really anticipate in the next couple years we will probably see a dwindling of independent and smaller brand and a huge overwhelming force of the tobacco industry which already has a distribution network in every 7-eleven, every corner store, every gas station they would be putting their own brand in which is the blue brand connected to loralard. [speaker not understood] at least 350. since there is no permitting requirement, we don't actually have -- there is no one list for us to find other than calling all of them. >> i did want to emphasize the equity issue, aside from the youth leadership institute raised, where we looked at the

1,000 permitted tobacco sellers, they are largely concentrated in district 6. let me try to remember. district 3 which is in the tenderloin, south of market, and the southeast parts of the city. so, i think what we're doing in many ways is to try to stop the selling of harmful products, especially in low-income neighborhoods and their over concentration of tobacco permits in those areas as well. that's what other legislation we'll be proposing with much of the tobacco free coalition in the future, but i think this is a part of it, too. >> so, there were a few speakers that came up in regards to the medical cannabis issue. and i looked and i doubled back to look at the legislation -- the ordinance. in reading and looking at it, it didn't seem like it was targeted that at all. in fact, it seemed kind of clear to me.

but, however, i'm just wondering if we could add some language just to really be clear about that piece. i don't know what you would add. we certainly don't need it today, but a commitment to add some language to that. >> so, just on page 6 of the legislation line 3 under section 199.8, it does add under section c this article shall not affect any laws or regulation regarding medical cannabis. but if somebody is using a vaporizer that is shaped like a cigarette, if ~ in my communicationses with the city attorney, that would be seen under the definition of an e-cigarette. ~ 19(9) [speaker not understood] or

e-cigarettes, battery operated devices that may resemble cigarettes, although they do not contain tobacco leaf, people will use electronic smoking deviceses to inhale vaporized liquid nicotine extracted from tobacco or inhale other vaporized liquids created by heat through an electronic ignition system and exhale the vapor in a way that mimics smoking. so, if it's a big vaporize error something that doesn't look like a cigarette, according to my ~ consultation with the city attorney, that would be allowed. what's not allowed is something that's going to make you think somebody is smoking in the bar that the gentleman gave the example of whether it's inside or outside, but that's mailed understanding of the city attorney's reading of this. >> thank you for clarification. for those that have credited

these e-cigarettes for helping them stop smoking, evidently it seems like this legislation is not saying that you can't buy it to help you stop smoking regular cigarettes. so, for them, if that's what they need, then they could do exactly what it is, buy it and smoke it somewhere where you can smoke it. >> smoke it in their homes, away from the curb or 15 feet away from doorways. but i should say that i just gave the definition of vaporizer if a person has a medical marijuana card and its use for legitimate medical use, not just any vaporizing of something with a big noncigarette looking vaporizer, but it's legitimate medical marijuana use in a non-cigarette simulating device. that's my understanding. >> so, i'm glad to hear that

l.a. has passed a similar ordinance. and since my daughter lives in l.a., i'm glad for her. she's hopeful that she will be moving back here in san francisco soon. certainly i wouldn't want her to move from one place where they actually have a better erin ~ air indoors than san francisco. i don't want the zombies to come back. whether you're on one side or the other side of this issue, whether it's toxic or not toxic, i'm hearing enough that seems like it would be toxic. and for those that say maybe it's not toxic, well, then that's not good enough for me as an argument. the whole issue of advertising and targeting children, we he know other industries have done

that. it doesn't surprise you that this is just another attempt to target children to get themselves into smoking cigarettes. it's true. we've done so much, not really in this city, but in california, and now throughout most of the united states, that you could go to public placeses and not feel like you're getting contaminated by things that you don't want on your clothes or your lungs and so forth. i mean, people can still do whatever they want if it's not affecting me. so, i not only would like to pass this ordinance with a positive recommendation. i would also like to put my name on there as a coauthor. >> thank you. so, i'd like to move --

>> supervisor tang. >> no, i just want to thank you for that and thank you for the comments and questions today. i think that today i really feel comfortable with supporting this legislation, mostly because it's not a ban entirely on e-cigarettes. it's really just saying, as supervisor yee mentioned, you can do it, you can buy it, r do it in the comfort of your home. with that i would like to support supervisor mar in this and make the motion. >> so, i'll move positive recommendation from this committee. >> okay. without any objection? this motion passes. [gavel] >> thank you. (applause) ~ >> so, i'll be continuing the meeting. if you would like to leave quietly, i would appreciate it. madam clerk, can you please call items 5 through 10.

excuse me, everybody. i need to clear the room. we still have other items we have to hear. so, can we entertain a motion to convene in closed session. is there any member of the that wishes to speak on items a5 through 10? seeing none public comment is now closed. [gavel]. >> colleagues, is there a motion to convene in closed session? >> motion to convene in closed session.

>> no objection? closed session. [gavel] >>please stand by - meeting in closed session

>> without any objection, the motion is passed. [gavel] >> madam clerk, are there any other items? >> that concludes our business for today. >> if there is nothing further, this meeting is adjourned. [gavel] >> thank you.