San Francisco Chief Economist: Vaping Ban Means More Smokers

San Francisco's extreme ban on e-cigarettes has drawn international attention and even became a global headline, followed by various opinions and voices.

Amid the clamor and confusion from public health officials, practitioners, and professionals from various fields, few have focused on an earlier interview by the "San Francisco Chronicle" with the city's chief economist, Ted Egan.

Earlier, San Francisco's chief economist Ted Egan confirmed that with the disappearance of e-cigarettes, the population of e-cigarette users may turn to combustible cigarettes. The ban may not only fail to reduce the number of smokers but could actually increase it.
 
According to reports, Egan's office is primarily responsible for analyzing the economic impact of San Francisco's legislation. The results will be sent to the Board of Supervisors and published on the website of the Financial Director's office. If it is found that the legislation has no impact on the local economy, no further analysis will be conducted.

It is precisely because Egan's office concluded that the ban on e-cigarette sales has no substantial impact on the city's economy that no further research is deemed necessary.
 
Egan explained to the "San Francisco Chronicle" why his office reached this conclusion. Egan and his colleagues found that the ban does not harm businesses because the money spent on products will still be used on other nicotine products, such as traditional cigarettes.

When asked whether they were aware of Egan's assessment before the legislation was passed, all regulatory agencies and the mayor's office declined to comment.

For San Francisco, tax revenue is not a consideration, as the city will not suffer any losses due to the increase in cigarette sales. Therefore, while e-cigarette manufacturers and stores in San Francisco face difficulties, it is a happy day for traditional cigarette manufacturers like Marlboro and Camel.
 
"This must be one of the craziest public health recommendations I've ever seen," wrote Dr. Michael Siegel, a doctor and professor at Boston University School of Public Health, in March. "This legislation basically says: 'We care very much about our children's health, and we cannot allow e-cigarettes to remain on the market until they complete safety reviews. However, we are very happy to allow traditional cigarettes, which kill hundreds of thousands of Americans every year, to remain on the market.'"

Earlier, the "San Francisco Chronicle" published an editorial stating: "The attitude towards e-cigarettes should not be a short-sighted demonization, as it does not contribute to changing the overall situation of tobacco abuse."

Currently, opposition to the e-cigarette ban is rapidly increasing. The anti-ban organization "Rational Clean Alliance," supported by Juul, has already collected and submitted the necessary signatures to put the ban to a vote in November.