Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by amending Chapters 5.81 and 8.68, relating to electronic cigarettes and similar devices, read and adopted as read.  (Citywide)
Declare an ordinance, and many of them is municipal code relating to electronic cigarets and similar devices read and adopted as read. I'm going to turn this over to Councilmember Andrews. Yes. Thank you very much, Vice Mayor. You know, we've had two council meetings where we have deliberated on this issue. The facts have been entered into the records. Dr. Cushing is here with questions by the council. And I would like to make the motion to move forward to approve the ordinance as written. Thank you very much. Okay. There's been a motion any second. Go ahead. See, there's some people from public comment. So, Gordon, if you have a comment, please come forward and identify yourself for the record. My name is Dr. Fred. Grandy, and I'm a. Surgeon at City of Hope who's been treating disease caused by tobacco products. For. 45 years. I would urge the Council to follow the rule that electronic cigarets have to be treated as tobacco products. They're advertised as a harm reduction device, but it's very dangerous to accept that without proof. One of the previous harm direction harm alleviation devices was the light cigaret. That light cigaret started in the city of Long Beach with with Billie Jean King and the Virginia Slims campaign and resulted in the death of a couple of hundred thousand American women. So that's an example of how that is not a good idea. The second problem with with electronic cigarets is that they're not intended to help people quit smoking. Otherwise, why would they be selling gooey butter cake flavor, snickerdoodle flavor, licorice flavor, juicy butterscotch flavor, candy cane and gummy bear flavors. The answer is that they're intended for sale to children. They have the potential to undo the good work that's been done in the state of California for the past 30, 30 years, including by the excellent tobacco control people in the city of Long Beach, and create a whole new generation of. People at risk for tobacco. Products. So please, in your deliberations, please make sure that all regulations treat this product as a tobacco product rather than. As a medical device. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Vice Mayor Garcia, city council members in this city. What a controversial issue you have before you. I've been doing some research and I find all kinds of different information. And what I find of interest in an article dated February six, 2014, making me and those she wrote. Tom Bryant, executive director and legal counsel at the National Association of Tobacco Outlets, Inc., stated, quote, We see electronic cigarets as a new product segment for the industry, and if there are regulations, they should be reasonable, workable and acknowledge that e-cigarettes are a very different kind of product than traditional tobacco products like Cigarets. And then Mitchell Zeller, director of the FDA's Center for Tobacco Products on November 19, 2013, stated, quote, Until now, the agency has been sorting out jurisdictional questions Should it be regulated as a tobacco product, drug or a device that this decision remains pending? Now, it's my understanding you don't have to wait for the FDA. Its decision, the state and the cities have the jurisdiction to come forward to write an ordinance. I feel that's an issue that, you know, has to be addressed. And I am not going to say that I don't support the ordinance. I'm not going to say that I do support the ordinance. What I want to say, if you go forward on the ordinance, please keep in mind that if the FDA does come back with their ruling and it's different than what you have in your ordinance that please consider amending what may be in the ordinance. And I know people that have quit smoking. I'm not going to get into all the flavors, but the nicotine level, that's a separate vapor. And you buy it if you want to have a nicotine level. And it comes in different levels. Now, Councilmember Andrews made mention about the youth, and I wholeheartedly believe that we need to look out for the youth. And the e-cigarettes are getting in the hands of the youth. I believe that e-cigarette retail business should be allowed to have vaping within their walls. And I believe that that you have to be responsible and you need to consider the public the effect on the public. And if you want to go forward and say you have to use it in a certain fashion, and so that the rights of the public being espoused, you know, that's in consideration, I approve wholeheartedly on that . But, you know, I feel that if there's too many restrictions for at least the companies, the businesses that sell it can't have the vaping lounges and be able to let people tested products in their walls that people are going to go to online buying. And that's going to be catastrophic for the use. People are going to no longer be going in the stores. They're going to go online. Then they can just get all this and online products. You don't know what sent them. It can be very catastrophic. Their contents. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker, please. My name's Ken. Attorney. Long Beach. Born and raised. I like to keep this discussion relevant. We're not here to ban e-cigarettes, okay? We're here to discuss regulation of e-cigarettes as a tobacco product and throwing them in the same category. Anyone speaking about children smoking e-cigarettes or drug use or any any other fact or flavor or this. It's all irrelevant because we're not fighting or banning e-cigarettes. We. The baby company, are not against regulation of e-cigarettes, okay? We are against regulating e-cigarettes as cigarets and wrongfully applying laws that should be definitely treated as two separate entities. Appearance is the only thing that links cigarets to e-cigarettes, just to parents. It is wrong to judge by appearance alone in any situation. Cigaret smoke releases 4800 plus chemicals into the air. These chemicals have been scientifically proven to harm smokers and secondhand smokers justifying their regulations. E-cigarettes release water vapor into the air. There are no scientifically proven studies proving electronic cigarets emit any harmful chemicals to vapors or second hand vapors or into the environment. So science can't prove anything yet. It all comes down to discrimination by appearance alone. And that is wrong. Public is public health is a concern. And thank you all for questioning e-cigarettes. But let's not base our decision on discrimination, false facts. Please don't jump the gun and jump to conclusions and make decisions on lies or misinformation. One point that I'd like to bring up is Long Beach is a beach city. Cigaret butts pollute our streets and get washed into the ocean. And it's a huge problem. And the city spends a lot of money cleaning up beaches and stuff like that. And it is a health risk. E-cigarettes help eliminate that. There are so many things that e-cigarettes help alleviate public health. But the general public, I think, is prematurely jumping judgment of electronic cigaret cigarets without really realizing all the benefits. We are not smokers, we are ex-smokers. We started vaping to better our health and to be less and less insulting to nonsmokers. If this regulation is passed, we ex-smokers will be forced to vape alongside with smokers endangering our health, which defeats the whole purpose of vaping. We smokers are suspect susceptible to relapse, just like recovering addicts being forced to smoke in designated areas with smokers puts us at a vulnerable situation and endangering. And thank you for relapse. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Next, be complete. Good evening, Vice Mayor and Honorable City Council. My name is Teresa moreno. I'm retired from the city of Long Beach. I have resided in Long Beach for almost 40 years and I reside in the second district. Next month marks the 20th anniversary of the passage of Proposition K by 68% of the voters. Proposition K became Ordinance 8.68 of the municipal code, the no smoking ordinance. We were the strongest smoking ordinance in public places, workplaces and restaurants and bars in the whole United States and for that matter, the world. I was the tobacco education coordinator for the city from 1994 to 2000. We were called. By cities and counties all over the nation and from countries like Canada, England, Australia and other countries to ask us, how did we do this? We are not number one anymore. And we just received a C from the American Lung Association for some of our our tobacco and our are smoking no smoking ordinance. I'm here in support of the e-cig ordinance. L.A. City just passed theirs today, their e-cig ordinance with a vote of 14 to 0. L.A. has over 8 million persons. We are surrounded by other cities that have passed similar e-cigarette ordinances. This ordinance is not bad for business. We are not saying don't sell e-cigarettes. We just don't want to allow the vaping of them indoors. It's about alignment. Aligning it with our ordinance. Aligning it with what other cities are doing. These e-cigarettes are called. Nicotine delivery. Devices. If you look up the word nicotine in the dictionary, the first definition is a noun and it is an insecticide. I don't know about you, but I don't want to breathe secondhand vaporized insecticide. Nicotine is a known addictive, highly addictive substance. In fact, former heroin addicts have said that it was harder to quit nicotine than it was to quit heroin. Also, it's been determined that at least ten chemicals identified in e-cigarette aerosol are listed among the 65 carcinogens as carcinogens. The tobacco industry and the opposition will say that it hurts business. If this don't if this doesn't pass. You're going to have a lot of people like myself and others don't want to go into businesses where there will be people vaping. And so we need to we need to understand that while our opponents or the businesses that sell e-cigarettes are saying that they'll lose business. Other businesses will lose it. For people who don't want to go in. So I say please support it. And thank you so much. Thank you so much. Next speaker. Good evening. Mayor and Council. I am Patricia ETIM and I'm a resident of the third district. I have a background in public health and have been involved in many public health initiatives. Currently, I am the governor's appointee to the state tobacco. It's called Track Tobacco, Education and Research Oversight Committee. It's legislatively mandated, and our charge is to create the master plan for tobacco control for California every other year. And the three agencies that report to the body are the State Department of Public Health Tobacco Control Section, the State Department of Education, Office of Statewide School Safety and the University of California, which administers the research in tobacco control. I come actually as a as a resident of Long Beach today, but as a component of the master plan, we are certainly focusing on e-cigarettes and making sure that they are regulated as nicotine delivery devices. You know, the I'll just focus my comments since other people have spoken. Just about. Many different issues related to e-cigarettes. But the CDC has put out an advisory in a report on the use of e-cigarettes among middle school and high school students. And it is shocking. So this really it is an issue because they are the gateway age for tobacco use. So it is really the office of Statewide School Safety has really requested that all. Districts. Utilize the letter that they have issued to really have policies in place at their school level and to work with cities and counties to really make sure that e-cigarettes are regulated. The youth are not just using the e-cigarettes for nicotine as well. There are all manner. Of. Things that are put in the e-cigarettes. So it's really a huge concern. There's a lot of dual use. You can read the CDC report, but there's a lot of dual use among youth so that they aren't just smoking e-cigarettes. They also are smoking. Regular. Cigarets. And so I will I will leave it there. But UC Irvine, also here, quite close to us, has done quite a bit of research into what is what are the chemicals and other components in e-cigarettes, among them tin and nickel. And, you know, it's not regulated by the FDA. So it's really a hazard and I hope and encourage that you to support the ordinance as written. Thank you. Thank you, Speaker. Good evening. My name's Melinda Cotton. I live on Park Avenue in Belmont. Sure. And I thank the council for bringing this ordinance this far. And we hope that tonight you will, in fact, pass it. You've heard testimony that I can't match about the problems of e-cigarettes. The doctor spoken to Patti Theresa marino with long experience. So we ask that you pass this ordinance that will both allow people who want to vape to vape in their own homes or in a place where it's safe for them to do so and safe for other people to do so. And then the rest of us can be protected from the second hand vapors and from we know not totally what is in these devices beyond nicotine, a lot of chemicals and everything as well. And also to bring them under our city permit regulations so that we have a better knowledge of what's going on. So thank you. And we encourage you to please support this in tonight. Thank you so much. Thank you, Nick Speaker. Good evening. I'm Ron Johnson, resident of Third District. And I just want to say, as humans, we tend to ban things that we don't quite understand are even when it's probably beneficial. I believe that the ban on e-cigs is the primary example of banning something that we don't understand. I have a friend named Darren that surely would disagree with the ban. Darren came up in a house with a smoking mom, a smoking dad, and contracted a smoking addiction by the time he was 15 years old. So bad that he would have cigarets behind both ears and one in his mouth. Darren came across electronic cigarets or vaporizers and immediately quit smoking and has in turn backed for over 18 months. The fundamental the fundamental reason that cigarets are banned do not apply to vaporizers. You have two different technologies. You have combustion, you have burning, and then you have battery powered heating. Would you send a Tesla do a smoke test? Probably not. The technology is different. What I just wanted to say was. We shouldn't ignore the study that was done by Drexel University that actually accounted for 9000 people who use vaporizers and concluded that the effects were so un harmful that there was no there was no evidence for it. There is nothing they could even attach it to. So I just want to say not to ban e-cigarettes. To think it through. I feel that we're doing something without even understanding the full benefit. I think. Thank you. Next speaker, actually, conservatorships typically want to make a quick clarification. Yes. Mr. Perkins, can you clarify that this ordinance does not ban the sale or possession of e-cigarettes? That is correct. When you make that clear, nobody is banning banning these as devices. You're free to buy them in stores. And and I understand that they would be covered under the lounge act. This if they if they have a lounge like we do with Cigarets and I mean Cigarets. But with. Cigars. With cigars, it would be that is the same limitations or the same restrictions would. Apply. But they could do it with inside the store. Correct? They cannot do it inside the store. That is. Not correct. Well, I thought they were going to have the same provisions as the cigar places. That is not correct. These are regulated similar to Cigarets. And so we were not asked or we did not carve out an exception for consumption of the product within the store. I wasn't aware of that. Okay. Next speaker, please. Okay. Well, having heard that, I hope you rethink this ordinance so that you do allow. I am. My name is Donna Coats, and I am against the ordinance as it is currently written. First of all, I wanted to address the issue of selling to children. Kids will have the same difficulty buying vape devices as they do now buying cigarets. And the argument that the flavors are meant to appeal to kids is about as ridiculous as saying Wine's called Star Trek. Layer Cake and cherry pie are made to get young kids drinking. I have a basically a thesis here in three pages, and I'm not going to bore you with all statistics. But just briefly, a 2011 study on addiction delivered in Amsterdam showed that 96% of e-cigarette smokers said it helped them to quit smoking. Dr. Joel Natkin, who has testified on tobacco harm reduction strategies across America and has previously worked as a local health director, a state health director and leader of two national public health groups called the E-cigs a tool in tobacco harm reduction. While he was co-chair of the Tobacco Control Taskforce of the American Association of Public Health Physicians, he studied options for reducing tobacco related illness. He concludes that e-cigarettes are currently the most prominent and promising tobacco harm reduction option. In addition, in the Oxford journals Nicotine and Tobacco Research study of second hand exposure to vapors from electronic cigaret. The results show that nicotine resulting from smoking tobacco cigarets was ten times higher than from e-cigarettes. In fact, intoxicant levels, toxic levels from e-cigarettes were 450 times lower than in cigaret smoke. Electronic cigarets contain no tobacco and leave behind no tar. So the main carcinogenic components are not even present to create a problem like research, like cigaret smoke. But mostly I'd like to stress Dr. Michael Segal, a hard charging public health researcher at Boston University, argues that e-cigarettes could be the beginning of the end of smoking in America . He sees them as a disruptive innovation that could make Cigarets obsolete, like the computer did to the typewriter. That's all I have to say. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Vice mayor and councilman. My name is Pete Flores. I am a co-chair for the Smoke Free Coalition in Long Beach. And I go. To every other. Coalition meeting L.A., Orange County, San Diego. And I'm a project coordinator for Project Greater Southern Cal. So what I do is that I educate youth. I know that this is an ongoing battle between cigarets and e-cigarettes, vapors and all that. I am not going to bore. You with all the formalities about it, but I would just like to say that. We we would like the council. To think. Think thoroughly through it and hopefully make a decision tonight. Hopefully for the best. And I'll be going on a trip to Sacramento in April to go meet the legislators. So I hope that I can bring good news to them. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi. My name is James Patterson from the fifth District. I operate a store and I live in that area. First of all, I wanted to thank the mayor's office, the city council, for opening discussion on this topic. Let me preface this by saying We are not against regulation. We are against regulating the electronic cigaret device the same as other tobacco products. I think we're part of the downfall as people keep relating e-cigarette to tobacco. It's a nicotine extract. It's not tobacco. It's not like light cigarets. It's not a perforated filter. You're still going into combustion with light cigarets. That's where the flavors, you know, they're flavored because for the same reason they still eat Lucky Charms. But like, you know, we like the flavors, too. Just to kind of clarify. Like somebody mentioned earlier, there's like 4600 ingredients in the cigaret 4000 when burned. There's four in an e-cigarette and one of them is propylene glycol. It's been approved by the FDA since the 1940s and it's vaporize form for use inside hospitals, restaurants and schools. As a germicidal agent, some safe for human consumption. The next ingredient is vegetable glycerin. They use it in large public events or smoke machines also. So the flavoring typically comes from perfumers. So a lot of it's some of the favorites from flavor houses, some are from perfumery. So it's a lot of it is designed to actually be inhaled. And the nicotine, all the juices start off at zero. Every shop that I know around here carries zero nicotine available. The nicotine that we sell is upon customer request. The effects of nicotine itself is comparable to caffeine. In a study of 20 different juices, they found only one to have any sort of cytotoxicity. And that was a coffee flavor. It was only found in the highest concentration and they actually presumed it was to be linked to the process of processing coffee beans themselves. So and to compare even at that level, they found that the concentrate pulled from cigaret smoke was 795% higher at the cytotoxic levels. So as you can see, the e-cig is comprised of completely different ingredients than the traditional cigaret and that's that should be regulated separately. We believe regulation should grow with the industry and welcome open discussion with how they should move forward. Thank you again for your time. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, vice mayor and council members. I'm Jeff Miller. I live in Long Beach. I wanted to say a little bit about the comparison here that people have been making. Proponents of these devices are saying they're not cigarets, so we shouldn't treat them like that. Well, please remember, cigarets have been regulated for a long time because of the fact that they are dangerous. They contain nicotine and other harmful substances. So they've been regulated. These devices, they want you to say vaporizers, but it's there. E-cigarettes is the other term. They also contain nicotine and other dangerous substances. Now, some of the people have made the comparison that the cigarets contain ten times more dangerous substances or 400 times more. But they they aren't saying because they can't say that these other devices have zero danger. They still contain nicotine. If the customer asks for it, they still contain other harmful substances. And I don't want to be exposed to that in aerosol form or in a burned form. Either way, we don't need to do that. So these regulations make a lot of sense and I urge you to support this ordinance. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, this is. Is there anybody else going to chew up the speaker macchiatos speaking off here? If you're going to speak, please queue up and then we're going to end this and the speaker's list. Okay. Please. Hello. How you doing? My name is Richard Gardenhire, and recently I was eaten outside of a restaurant and a car drove past, and I smelled the exhaust. So I know for a fact the exhaust is way more than the vaporize that you can. I'm actually a testimony as far as smoking cigarets. I smoked for about 5 to 7 years and I went to a e-cig not to quit, but more of a more a better alternative way to do it as healthy. Because I do play basketball and cigarets are not good. So when I went. I actually got a e-cig was it actually. Looked like this. Now this right here is 0% basically meaning I went and I got 6% milligrams and end up with 0%. So I am a testimony as far as smoking to not smoking. So with this deal is by me being around my parents, even though they did smoke, I had an alternative to do something other than grab the cigaret and puff because I have something else. So as far as the e-cig. It is helping in actually how I got turned on as I was walking into a Starbucks and I seen an older lady. So I asked, I was like, What is that? And before that I said. Actually, how old are you? And she was like, Oh, I'm 85. And she had it easy. So that's how I realized that it's a good thing. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi. Good evening. My name is Gina Celso. I am here representing Philippine USA. I do work at a local e-cigarette shop. So if the Long Beach Tobacco Ordinance is amended to include e-cigarettes and vaping, it would be devastating to our business for several reasons. One, folks who smoke tobacco cigarets and who are trying to quit or convert to vaping are most times unfamiliar with e-cigarettes and vaping. Our store and the vast majority of other vape shops allow customers to sample e-liquids and different devices that are used to vape. The proposed ordinance would prohibit this and therefore would be detrimental to our business. Secondly, a vape shop is a place where people who vape can congregate to use their own devices with other enthusiasts, as well as sample the variety of new flavors that are being continually introduced. Again, if the ordinance passes with the current language, this practice would not be allowed. In one fell swoop, the current vaping culture in Long Beach would be seriously jeopardized by the passage of this ordinance. Criminalizing e-cigarettes and vaping in light of empirical scientific evidence that it is a far safer alternative to tobacco is exactly what is not needed in Long Beach. Some would even be glad to argue that the vaping industry was not founded by Big Tobacco. It even threatens tobacco sales and future tobacco business. Finally, this is a trending technology which allows people to wean off the habit of smoking tobacco. Meanwhile, Long Beach has incorrectly categorized vaping and e-cigarettes into the same unhealthy category as smoking tobacco. This forces e-cigarette users who. Are trying to quit into the same unhealthy spaces as traditional cigaret smokers. It is a shame many other states are taking the necessary time to consider a more enlightened approach and creating ordinances in a positive and objective manner by looking for intelligent solutions. One example recently the state of Wisconsin has excluded e-cigs and vaping from their clean air and anti-tobacco legislation. I have here 692 signatures on a petition created by people in Long Beach who are really hoping that we won't classify e-cigarettes as a tobacco product. Thank you. If you want to give me the petition, you're able you're welcome to to the city clerk. Thank you. Next speaker, please. I am Rodney Johnson, owner of Beat City Vapers, which is in District four, actually live in Signal Hill. I'm actually actually two thoughts right out of my mouth, but I would like to say that we as vape store owners, we all work together. We understand that ordinances, ordinances are important. Just like the gentleman back here said, we're not completely against them. But as she said, you know, not allowing them in the stores would be really bad for business. I can't even begin to go into detail on how how much better I feel after smoking cigarets for 25 years and I'm only 43. And the amount of praise that we seem to get from customers that come in, you know, every single day happy that they stop cigarets we have a little area on the wall where we have packs of cigarets empty packs. Minder Where we pinned them to the wall. People sign their names and the date that they quit. I'm extremely happy about it. So I'm completely against the ordinance being put through as is. If it is, you know, put through. I would ask that you guys at least exempt the vape stores just like Los Angeles did, so that we can at least continue business as usual and then we can all work together to fix this later. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi. My name is Nels Hansen. I live in Long Beach. I also own a e-cig store lounge here in Long Beach. I'd like to say out of the hundreds and hundreds of people that come into my store every month that are struggling to quit smoking and struggling for a better lifestyle and to be healthier, to to think that we are going to make it harder for those people that want to quit smoking. Cigarets Which is the goal here, is to quit smoking. Cigarets. I don't want to fight for the rest of my life. I'm trying to cut down on cigaret smoking. The levels of difference of different the juices. We teach people every day when they walk in how to cut themselves down, how to work down to that 0% nicotine to be able to quit. You know, I just heard just now that the banning of the regulation was going to stop us from letting people experience in trying. These these. Flavors in the store, which, mind you, in my store, it's 0% nicotine. So all the flavor trials, everything that's going on in my store has zero nicotine, unless they brought that in themselves. It's it's outrageous. It's it's unbelievable to think that. We are going to put all these people that are trying to get away from the cigarets right next to him outside smoking. That is crazy talk. I mean, everybody's going to quit. They're going to go right back to smoking. And I guarantee you, I promise you, in the outrun and out in the in the long run here, we are going to see that e-cigarettes. Might save all of us. Who are potentially in risk of being around the secondhand smoke and smoking cigarets. And that's really all I have to say. I really hope you guys could just take a little more time. On this and really do a little bit more research. I hear a lot of people talking about all the dangerous. Chemicals they've named nothing but nicotine and that nothing. Not one has ever been caused has ever been brought up. Vegetable glycerin and propylene glycol and the food flavoring extracts. That's all that's in these things. Not one person has brought up any dangerous chemical besides nicotine. Which I. It's just wrong. There's none of the facts here for you guys to ban this or regulate it like this. It's not fair. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. All right. My name is Matt Jo-Jo in the second district. I just think the way that the thing this ordinance is written as is is not right. Taking vaping away from being able to do it inside shops not only hurts the shops, but it hurts all the vendors that sell there, all the juice companies, the you know , the people that actually manufacture these e-cigarettes, all these people are going to be hurting because they won't be able to try the products. They won't be able to try the flavors that are being offered. Why not leave it to the discretion of the owners? You know, I know Carson has there been they let that go and they're letting it still be. You're able to still vape inside their vape shops to be able to try all the flavors and products that they have. I mean, I see a lot of people when they're complaining, they're talking about, you know, I don't want this smoke or vapor in my face. And a lot of it is it's such a new product that it it needs etiquette still. I mean, like when you're going bowling, you know, and you're getting ready to bowl and this guy just throws the ball next to you, you know, you get all mad because you can't you know, you can't set yourself up. But it's such a new thing that it just needs etiquette, you know, like it shouldn't be in in movie theaters or restaurants. But at that point, you know, leave it to the discretion of the owner. I mean, that's pretty much all I had to say. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Go ahead, sir. Good evening. My name is Michael Schacht, image owner, operator of E-Cig City. And I live in too and operate my business out of a district. And everybody has said everything I've already said here at city council and what we want to get across. I opened my doors on November 16th and I now have six people working for me who are unemployed. Before they came to my shop and found a job. The electronic cigaret industry is set to employ another 100,000 people. Something to consider. Something else it considers. Have you guys been to any of these shops? They took vacant shops and made them look beautiful. And I will say that my shop, it looks pretty good. Do we have any statistics about what kind of business was was done in the city of Long Beach when Victoria Toll happened? People came from all over the place to be together with other enthusiasts, other people that enjoy e-cigarettes vaporizers. And if anything else that we are small business owners trying to make it and that being able to vape in our shops, it's the blood of our business, being able for the consumers to taste what they're going to get . You don't trade on a T-shirt after you leave Ross or Nordstrom's. You try them in the store. And one more thing. If you're going to do anything, follow suit like L.A. City Council did and make an amendment to this current legislation and allow us to sample our product endorse. Thank you. Thank you. What kind of unclosed public testimony are going to take it behind the rail? There is a motion on the floor as well. Councilmember Lipski. I'd like to ask Mr. Parkin, is there a possibility that there could be a carve out, just as you do for cigar? I know you said you're treating him like a cigaret, but we allow cigar bars. I voted against it. We allow cigar bars in this town. And I know the concern is about the age so that if they did check I.D. and that that would be a requirement, they check I.D., but that they in the shop could allow what they're asking for, which is a sampling. Vice Mayor members of the council I think you're referring to we do allow or have. Smoking lounges which are defined as cigar. Lounges, hookah lounges or tobacco clubs. Those currently exist and are allowed under the ordinance. The ordinance that, as it is before you tonight, does not allow for sampling of the product within the store. The your question is, could the ordinance be amended to carve that out or to allow that? The answer is yes. We could not do that tonight. What we would have to do is take the ordinance back, redraft the ordinance, and bring it back to the council for first reading and have then a second reading after that, because this would be a material change to the ordinance as presented to council tonight. And in order to give the public an opportunity to weigh. In on this material. Change, you have to go back to first reading. With and but also could be and there are very strict provisions that it would have to be checked before they allow the sampling of the product. Well, we haven't drafted or we haven't written the exemption, but certainly that could be included in an exemption if there was a carve out asked for by the council. Well, because of the rest of the ordinance, Mr. Perkin assumes that these are similar to Cigarets. Then my understanding would be they would have to follow the law in terms of you can't sell that. That's correct. It's prohibited sales to under the age of 18. That's correct. Okay. Currently. Okay. Councilmember Austin. Thank you. And I do have a couple of questions for the city attorney as well. I noticed in this ordinance that in the terminology used by the industry folks, vaping is not necessarily defined here. Is there a specific reason as to why that is the case? Most members of the Council we defined. Electronic cigarets to mean an electronic and or battery operated device, the use of which may resemble smoking, which can be used to deliver an inhaled dose of nicotine or other substances. It includes such devices and manufactured distributed. It goes on and on. So it would include the vaping, but it's a very broad definition. I think it is a very broad definition. And I think the the what I'm hearing is the real, I guess, rub here is the fact that, number one, these these things are being marketed as electronic cigarets, which I think is counter to the the the industry argument because, you know, they shouldn't be called cigaret electronic cigarets if they don't want to be treated or viewed as cigarets. But at the same time, they are also vapor and not smoke. And I think there needs to be a distinction or some sort of definition to to distinguish the difference between vapor and smoke. You know, and I'm not seeing. The councilman or I believe that our current definition was drafted broad enough to cover all electronic smoking and vaping devices, regardless of whether or not they're used to deliver nicotine or other substances. That was the direction that we were asked to prepare on the ordinance. So I believe as written, it is a very broad definition that we believe and we've looked at other cities on how they find it. It captures the vaping activity and and then regulates it as it would as a tobacco product. And that's what we've been asked to craft. And that's what's before you this evening. Well, we could if you'd like. I mean, if there's a direction, we could further define it to to make it clear that vaping is included in the regulation. If that was your desire. Well, I'm not an attorney, but it just seems to me that to follow up on Councilmember Schiff's key question, and I think the I know the question was raised for me as well, if if we were to allow or somehow move forward with allowing this these vaping devices to be smoked inside of lounges, we're going to have to somehow distinguish the difference to be able to do that and not have them fall under a cigar lounge ordinance or a or as is. So to me, it just seems that would be in our best interests to have that more defined. And and I like to just command out Councilmember Andrews for bringing this issue forward. I think it is it's it's something that needs to be regulated that we don't know enough about this this product. The fact that, you know, he works on a on a school campus and has seen these devices in the possession of young people who don't know exactly what they're doing. And we don't know what they're doing with these things. So to to to set an ordinance that that prohibits these from from these devices, from being in the possession of kids or being sold to kids. And then preventing the secondhand exposure is, is what I'd like to see done here. But at the same time, I don't want to see us being harmful to a business. And I do think that there is some some merit to the fact that people are getting off of cigarets. And and there's probably more this is more probably more healthy for them and the smoking and the nicotine involved in that. I'm going to reserve my comments and hear from the rest of my colleagues. A Council membership scheme. Mr. Parkin is correct that the L.A. City Council put in place the regulations we're talking about classifying cigarets. However, they did allow the the sampling of product in what they called labeling lounges, provided the. Vice mayor. Remembers the council. I'm aware that the city of Los Angeles, I. Believe, today adopted an ordinance, but I have not read that order. That's what the L.A. Times said. It said that they. I believe that's accurate, but I haven't read the ordinance. So I would like to if I can make a motion that, well, how can we do this? Because there's a second reading of the ordinance. I know that we can direct him to go back to the first. That's correct. You can make a motion to amend this ordinance at this time, and we would it's a material change to the ordinance. So we would go back. And if the motion was. Successful, we would recraft the ordinance for consideration by the council at a future date. Well, I'd like to make the motion that we do similar to what the city of Los Angeles. This would be a substitute motion. There is a motion on the floor. I don't know if he wants it. Do you want to first ask if Mr. Andrews wants to accept that before we do a substitute as a as a friendly amendment? You know, really only thing that really kind of bothers me about this whole situation is because, you know, we've taken two weeks on this. You know, we can have an up or down vote either way. You guys want to do it. But I just think now is the time for us to either make a decision or not make a decision. And my decision is to continue to go along with the ordinance it's already written. Well, I'll make a substitute. I'm making a substitute motion. Okay. So there's a there's a substitute motion and one of we council worships you if you want to go ahead and read the substitute. The substitute would be that we would direct the city attorney to come back, keeping all the ordinance in place, with the exception, as in the city of Los Angeles, to allow the use in vaping lounges provided that it is checked and that the users are of sufficient age to do that. I mean, we've got pressure on the city attorney who wants to cue and they're going to go back to the Q and get Mr. Andrews and Mr. Adams, Mr. City Attorney. On the substitute motion is the exception. And I'll obviously we'll look at the Los Angeles ordinance, but does that allow the sampling of products within the store that contain nicotine? I'm I'm not going to craft it on the floor. I would leave it to you. To is it your desire to have it allow for nicotine or not? I'm not sure what it is that you're asking us to craft. I don't believe that they are allowing nicotine, but I may be incorrect. Jerry. Hold on here. We're. Give us. Give us just that. 10 seconds to an audience. We don't even know what it says. Okay, so let me actually. You don't know if this is done for 1/2. Actually, the jury actually still has the floor. What just happened now is Councilmember Andrews is going to accept that as a friendly amendment. Okay. So that is the with only councilman shift gears pulled her substitute from the floor and we now have a motion on the floor, from what I understand, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, but there's a motion on the floor to essentially adopt the ordinance we have in front of us with with the carve out that you would be you would be able to have within the stores have vaping with a 18 and over provision that I get that correct. Mr. CITY. That's. Correct. But I guess my my question still is, are you allowing the testing of vaping with nicotine. Or without nicotine or both? I would I would say without nicotine. I'm just asking so I can come back. And get you what you'd like. Because obviously, if you utilize nicotine that they get, then it goes back to the classification of a cigaret. Okay. And that's that's I'm just just saying that. So I would say without nicotine. Okay. So that's the motion that would have been accepted by Councilmember Andrews. I do have a speaker's list, so why don't we get through some of these? Did you have a comment first, Mr. Andrews? This should be. I want everybody back next week. Okay. And Mr.. Mr. Andrews would want that want this brought back next week. Mr. City Attorney. We can do that. We can bring it back for first reading next week. So I think he wants it to be on the. Agenda for coming out on Friday. So he would want it on consecutive week. So there's no one week after the other. Is that correct, Liz? Okay. It'd be based on the council schedule. Yes. Okay. Councilman O'Donnell? Yeah? Why don't we go over the motion and let's not reference Los Angeles? That's all we've been told is they did something today and we don't have any evidence of what they did. So let's let's decide what we want to do here tonight. Could I have a reiteration of the motion, please? Mr. City? Attorney. Vice Mayor, members of the Council, my understanding is that tonight it's recommended that the city attorney amend the previously considered ordinance to create an exception of sampling of the product and those only those products without nicotine within the stores, and that the remainder of the motion would remain as written. Okay. And Mr. Andrews, you're okay with that? Yes. You are. Okay. Definitely. Okay. JOHNSON Bravo. Anthony Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor. I am wondering if staff can let me know how many of these establishments do we have currently in the city? Do we know? Do we have a report from staff on this? We'll see if Dr. Kirshner knows. As Mayor and council, to my understanding. And of course, these businesses are opening up regularly. But the last count there were at least. 18. Vape shops within the city of Long Beach. At the last reading. It was okay. Councilmember Lowenthal. Thank you. I'm wondering from the city attorney, in terms of enforcement of this newly amended motion, how would we enforce that other than other than incurring additional costs from our health department staff? And I see them. Mr. Kushner and Dr. Kushner can attest to that. Vice Premier Members of the Council. Councilmember Lowenthal. You're correct. This will create. An enforcement issue. Because in just observing a product being sampled, we will not know whether there's nicotine in that product or not. So from a practical standpoint, it's going to create, I believe, an enforcement issue for the council. We would have to rely on the operators to for their compliance and I guess, testing of that product at some point. Thank you, Mr. City Attorney. I just want to caution all of us. I it's while well-intentioned, I do think it sets up a challenge when it comes to enforcement and projecting that we aim to do something, but not really being able to do it, I think is problematic and not really the best direction for us to take if we're acknowledging that we're not able to really enforce it without throwing resources at it. And I don't know that we've committed here to throw resources at it. Thank you. To go back to Councilmember Andrews. You know, I. Can't. I hear you totally on that because of the fact that we I don't see us having that form of resources at this point, because if it's 18, it could be way more. It could be much more than that. And trying to have the resources to be able to enforce those. You know, I think it's going to be very, very hard to do. And I just. I. You know, I think this is going to be something that we're really going to have to take some more time on this because I just don't see us getting through this. I but I want to do it. And I think we want to do it right. I just want to come back. What I don't want to have to hear here are these individuals, you know, the people who got up and gave their you know, but I think that we have a doctor over here. We're not doctors. We're just giving our opinions. And when a doctor tells you certain things and I hate to come back and at the end says, Well, look, I told you so, you guys, this is a very important issue. And we talk about vaping. What do we know? Okay, what is vaping? We know what smoking is. We wouldn't know what nicotine as we know tobacco is. But this is a situation I don't think we should get ourselves caught in saying, oh, okay, because the public says, oh, this is that and about business, we're going to have to do it. I think we have to do it right and only way to do it right. I think we're going to have to listen to what the professional people are talking about and the doctors at attorneys based things. I just think we have to kind of take more time, look at what we're going to do here. And and if we do, we just have to do it and do it right. And that's the only way I think we're going to do it is get more information from this. So I don't know what we are at this point. So I think I think where we are right now is we do have we do have a motion on the floor. I have two other speakers. So let me get to these speakers and then count and then we'll go back. Councilmember O'Donnell. So the the vape shops would be the number of vape shops along which would be uncapped. Right. Yet we've capped cigar lounges. Mr.. Mr.. West. You're, you were adamant that we cap the number of those. Right. So I'm wondering why tonight we're now going to see these uncapped. There's nothing in the world this evening, right? I get it. I got some Boston. Your first time. I'd like to. I think we've had a good, good discussion here. This is this issue has been before us for at least a couple of weeks now. I think we are all a little bit more informed about the issue than when we first started. This is one of those evolving issues that we don't necessarily know all the answers to. And I think that's pretty clear. I think Mr. Andrews or Councilmember Andrews was right on point in his assessment, but I think the meat of the ordinance is still intact. I mean, this this provision prevents vaping in public places. It keeps it keeps vaporizing devices and it prohibits the sale of vaporizing devices to to children and underage. I mean, we I think we're accomplishing most of what we're setting out to do by allowing these vaporizing devices to be used inside of the places where they're sold. I don't think that we are doing anything to harm public health because the individuals that are in there are have made the individual choice to use vapor in vaping devices. And so there's no there's no secondhand exposure. There's no anybody that that is going to go inside of one of these these establishments knows exactly what they're going in there for. And so, like I said, I think the meat of your ordinance is is is intact. I think you're right. We do need to take some time. And it looks like we're going to do that, hopefully, if we support this amendment this evening to take a little bit more time to get it right. And so I commend you for for bringing this forth. And I think a lot of it is going to be better for it. You have a couple more speakers. Councilmember Lowenthal. Actually, I can wait until Councilmember Andrew speaks. To Councilor Lipski. You know, I understand we're all concerned about enforcement, but, you know, it is illegal to sell cigarets to minors. It happens all the time in Long Beach. It's not right. We don't enforce that to the fullest. In fact, the report just came out that we're a little bit short of how we go out and enforce on that . So recognizing there's difficulties in enforcement for everything. My concern is that we do actually. Mr. Ralston, I think you just are taking it very well. I just think that this gives an opportunity to regulate where we need to, but to acknowledge that this is a different type of product and that we don't want to take adults from being able to have their business and do it in a responsive, wise, responsible way, particularly if they do it for anyone over 18. Councilmember Andrews You. Know, I think actually kind of going through this tonight and listening to the, you know, the doctor on this, I'm going to reject the friendly motion. I'm going to go back to the original motion and and just leave it at that because it's the way I came in with and this is the way I'm going to deal with it. And we can vote either up or down on it and let it be like that. And that's the way I'm going to deal with it. Okay. So there the friendly was not accepted. So we're back to the original motion and your substitute was withdrawn. So what it was. So that's where we are right now. So, Councilman Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor. And I wanted to thank Councilmember Andrews for reverting back to the original motion. I certainly support that. I think the difference initially we had this conversation about cigar lounges. The difference is there is a limit to the number of these lounges, and that could change at any time with the new council, certainly . But for now there is a limit, whereas with these establishments there is not. And I appreciate if anyone is able to quit smoking as a result of it. I think that does happen. But if the intent is to quit smoking, I don't know that sampling is necessary. That's a conviction that someone has is to quit smoking. And I don't know that they require a sample to do that. That's a personal conviction. It's a health oriented conviction. Therefore, it's I'm not convinced that samples are necessary to promote that. And so I all in support of anyone attempting to quit smoking through whatever methodology. But certainly I am in support of this item. And I thank Mr. Andrews, Councilmember Anders, for bringing this forward. Okay. There no other motion on the floor. So we have the main motion. And the main motion just to repeat it is to approve on a second reading the the approval on the second reading the ordinance that's in front of us was presented. Correct. Mr. City Attorney. That's the motion on the floor at this. Time. Okay. I have one more counts in Boston. Well, I like to offer a substitute motion, and that will go back to the original. The amendment. I'd like to have that at least voted on. And that would be to allow for. Can you read me what that original. The original. Substitute motion as made. By council memberships key was to adopt the to direct the city attorney to amend the ordinance before you this evening and bring it back for first reading next week with the ordinance in a to create an exception for the testing of product within the stores with testing within stores of the products, without nicotine with an ID check . Wound care. There's been a motion and a second. Councilman Lowenthal. That's okay. I'd just like to urge my colleagues to vote no on that substitute. Substitute? Cancel Boston. And then I just want to just go back to the the inconsistency of this council, because we talk about this enforcement issue, and it was the same same argument was made regarding another issue, fireworks just a few weeks ago in terms of the lack of enforcement over something that we can't deal with. And so this is the same same issue. When we deal with the nicotine issue, we're creating an enforcement issue. And you guys articulated that very well. I just wanted to bring that to your attention. Okay. We're about to get to a very last comment that will go to a vote, just as a reminder to everyone that like every ordinance that we pass, there's always information that's coming in and all ordinances can be changed or adapted as we move forward. And so on. Any given Tuesday ordinances can be can be moved forward. So we have the substitute motion on the floor, which is by Councilmember Austin, and then then we'll take a vote on that item first. Motion fails. Four votes to no. Five votes no. Main motion, please. It's the second. Just a minute, please. Sorry about that. Okay. Main motion in motion, please. Please cast your vote. Larry, could you check that vote again, please? These were councilman chips key. I think you're looking at the wrong screen. Steve. That Garcia's on the bottom. Councilmember asked that they change that. Yeah. Mayor and Councilmember Neal. Oh, no, no, no. You're fine. Yes. He voted yes. Okay. Okay. Okay. We're on the main motion right now. Please cast your vote. It's easier. Passage nine vote. Yes. Motion carries. Next item, please. We are done and we're not. I'm sorry. New business. Sorry about that. Sorry about. That. Not your new. Business. That's right. Item 23 is a report from the Office of Councilmember Patrick O'Donnell, Councilwoman Geri Sheepskin Councilmember Stephen Neil with a recommendation to request city manager to prepare a letter of support for Assembly Bill 1839, also known as the California Film and Television Job Retention and Promotion Act.