In an action that’s been called a “public health power move” and a “step in the right direction,” the federal agency responsible for regulating food safety and drugs is taking on smoking addiction.

Scott Gottlieb, commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, announced the agency’s comprehensive plan to reduce nicotine in cigarettes to non-addictive levels. Citing smoking’s yearly death toll of 480,000, Gottlieb, appointed by President Donald Trump, said the FDA is “ready to do its share” in preventing smoking addiction in future generations.

“Unless we change course, 5.6 million children alive today will die prematurely later in life from tobacco use,” Gottlieb said in his July 28 remarks. “A renewed focus on nicotine can help us to achieve a world where cigarettes no longer addict future generations of our kids.”

This is the widest use of the FDA’s tobacco regulation power as granted by the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. The act, passed in 2009 under President Barack Obama, gave the FDA regulatory power over tobacco–until now that power has not been used.

The FDA’s announcement comes as more state governments are hopping on the bandwagon to combat teen smoking addiction. New Jersey recently joined Hawaii and California in raising the legal smoking age to 21.

Though the opioid addiction crisis has been a major priority for the government in recent years, Gottlieb said he views the FDA’s opportunity to confront nicotine addiction with the same obligation.

“I’ve pledged a deep commitment to taking aggressive steps to address the epidemic of addiction to opioids,” Gottlieb said. “I’ll pursue efforts to reduce addiction to nicotine with the same vigor.”

We commend @SGottliebFDA & @US_FDA for adopting a common sense, balanced approach to tobacco & nicotine regulation. https://t.co/hOWUntQLhA pic.twitter.com/adf3MabZJx

— Tom Price, M.D. (@SecPriceMD) July 31, 2017

The agency’s next steps include seeking the public’s input on several tobacco and e-cigarette related topics, such as the prevalence of kid-friendly flavors in vaping products.

“Public input on these complex issues will help ensure the agency has the proper science-based policies in place to meaningfully reduce the harms caused by tobacco use,” said Mitch Zeller, director of the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products.

The nicotine-reduction plan overshadowed the FDA’s announcement of several compromises on e-cigarette regulations, including the decision to postpone the deadline for companies to submit applications for new products by five years, to 2022.

These revised timelines will give the agency time to evaluate how new products and a changing tobacco market best fit into the agency’s wider goal of fighting smoking addiction, according to an FDA release.

“This action will afford the agency time to explore clear and meaningful measures to make tobacco products less toxic, appealing and addictive,” the release reads.

Anti-smoking advocates have criticized this move, saying Gottlieb’s nicotine-reduction plan was announced to detract from the potential consequences of postponing regulations on products that children and teenagers are using more.

In a statement, Matthew Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, called the delay a “serious error.”

“This long delay will allow egregious, kid-friendly e-cigarettes and cigars, in flavors like gummy bear, cherry crush and banana smash, to stay on the market with little public health oversight,” Myers said. “There is no reason to allow these products to stay on the market while developing and implementing the comprehensive strategy Dr. Gottlieb outlined today.”

The Los Angeles Times Editorial Board published a response to Gottlieb’s announcement, calling it “troubling,” and questioning the commissioner’s intentions.

“We want to believe Gottlieb is sincere about regulation limiting nicotine,” the piece reads. “It would be one of the most important accomplishments of the Trump administration, though it would take years to implement. The damage caused by delaying the regulations on other tobacco products, however, will be immediate.”

Avery Anapol

Avery Anapol is a blogger and freelancer for Law Street Media. She holds a BA in journalism and mass communication from the George Washington University. When she’s not writing, Avery enjoys traveling, reading fiction, cooking, and waking up early. Contact Avery at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post FDA Announces Groundbreaking Plan to Curb Smoking Addiction appeared first on Law Street.

ICYMI–New Jersey raised its legal smoking age to 21. For more on that story, check out Law Street’s best of the week below!

Top 10 Law Schools for Business Law

In 2014, Law Street Media released its first set of law school rankings, in response to the changing legal education industry. Law Street Specialty Rankings are a detailed resource for prospective law students as they consider the many law schools across the country. Check out our top 10 law school picks for business law.

RIP Stubbs: Cat Mayor Dies at 20

Political polarization in the U.S. feels like it is at an all-time high, and it’s hard to find a single politician that both sides of the aisle can agree is absolutely purr-fect. And that designation may become even harder to come by, as sad news just broke that Stubbs, the (honorary) cat mayor of Talkeetna, Alaska, has passed away.

New Jersey Becomes the Third State to Raise Smoking Age to 21

On Friday, Governor Chris Christie signed a bill into law raising the smoking age in the state to 21. New Jersey joins Hawaii and California in setting the legal smoking age at 21. The New Jersey bill raised the smoking age from 19 to 21. Smoking ages vary, with the set age at 18 in most places throughout the country. But campaigns to raise the minimum age have been successful in some places–while New Jersey now joins Hawaii and California at the state level, some cities and counties have chosen to up the age to 21 as well.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Festivals and fraternities–the life source of the average college-bound American teenager–hounded the first family as Malia Obama challenged the roles of acceptable teenage behavior.

President Barack Obama’s 18-year-old daughter graduated from the prestigious Sidwell Friends School earlier this year and unexpectedly decided to take a gap year before attending Harvard. In recent months, Malia’s achievements have been overshadowed by a slew of leaks depicting the recent graduate playing beer pong and smoking at festivals.

In July, Malia skipped the Democratic National Convention to enjoy numerous artists and setlists at the Lollapalooza music festival in Chicago. Concert-goers photographed and filmed Malia dancing against the tide of crowds–her secret service in tow. Unfortunately, the extra security couldn’t stop the national spotlight from pointing directly at the teen, after cameras caught her allegedly smoking pot and twerking during the concert lineup.

Radar Online released the viral snapshot and in minutes, numerous online outlets exploded criticizing the partying teen’s behavior.

Twitter users strongly opposed online outlets overanalyzing Malia’s actions, and the children of politicians followed suit by showing support. Meghan McCain, daughter of U.S. Sen. John McCain, lashed out against the media for its portrayal of the teen with a tweet reading: “leave Malia Obama alone!”

.@connortryan @PageSix leave Malia Obama alone!

— Meghan McCain (@MeghanMcCain) August 10, 2016

If Malia was in fact smoking marijuana, her behavior wouldn’t be atypical. In fact, one in every 17 college students is smoking marijuana on a daily or near-daily basis, defined as use on 20 or more occasions in the prior 30 days, according to a 2015 study from the University of Michigan.

“It’s clear that for the past seven or eight years there has been an increase in marijuana use among the nation’s college students,” said Lloyd Johnston, the principal investigator of the study.

Malia’s alleged marijuana use isn’t the only thing she’s been criticized for. She once again made headlines after a snapchat depicting her playing beer pong at a party in Maryland on August 23 surfaced. The picture released by the Daily Mail shows Malia surrounded by a patriotic table covered in red, white, and blue confetti and a sprawl of Bud Light and Miller Lights cans. The infamous red solo cup was also fully present.

The president’s daughter helps contribute to the number of students her age who drink underage. A Villanova study shows, nationally, about 80 percent of college students consume alcohol. 

This is not the first time presidential kids and the children of candidates have made headlines due to their antics–from Bristol Palin’s teenage pregnancy out of wedlock to George W. Bush’s 19-year-old twins Barbara and Jenna underage drinking in Texas–and it surely won’t be the last.

The White House has opted to remain silent in the wake of the media firestorm surrounding Malia. The eldest Obama daughter, however, subtly responded to her critics at Philadelphia’s Labor Day weekend Made In America Music Festival. Malia was caught sporting a Harvard cap and a tee with the befitting hand-written words “Smoking Kills” scrawled across.

Bryan White

Bryan is an editorial intern at Law Street Media from Stratford, NJ. He is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Broadcast Journalism. When he is not reading up on the news, you can find him curled up with an iced chai and a good book. Contact Bryan at BWhite@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Malia Obama: A Wallflower Under Public Scrutiny appeared first on Law Street.

It’s been less than a week since Donald Trump announced that his running mate is going to be Indiana Governor Mike Pence. But not a ton is known about Pence–according to CBS News, 86 percent of voters are undecided on him or don’t have enough information on him to form an opinion. But as reporters, pundits, and commenters dig into Pence’s past, some weird revelations are coming to light. Check out the top 5 weirdest revelations about Mike Pence, his life, and his family so far.

He Really Doesn’t Like Mulan

Mike Pence had a long history of commenting on politics before he ever ran for office. He wrote an op-ed on “Mulan” back when the Disney movie came out in the late 1990s. Pence dubbed the movie propaganda that was designed to change people’s hearts and minds when it comes to women in the military.  He wrote:

I suspect that some mischievous liberal at Disney assumes that Mulan’s story will cause a quiet change in the next generation’s attitude about women in combat and they just might be right.

via GIPHY

 But he Has Weird Views on Smoking

Mike Pence apparently has never sat through a high school D.A.R.E. class. He wrote an op-ed entitled the “Great American Smoke Out,” in which he proclaimed: “Despite the hysteria from the political class and the media, smoking doesn’t kill.” While he gracefully recognized that “smoking is not good for you” his narrative runs contrary to recognized fact.

via GIPHY

Pence’s Daughter May be a Vampire

The evidence is in a tweet posted by Pence a few days ago. He’s at a Chili’s with his family, enjoying a nice meal. There’s clearly a mirror next to them, and while both Pence and his wife Karen have reflections, his daughter Charlotte doesn’t.

Busy weekend in NY! Enjoying a quick dinner with the family at @Chilis. Looking forward to getting back to Indiana. pic.twitter.com/SUFjYcvQpH

— Mike Pence (@mike_pence) July 16, 2016

Apparently the weird optical illusion has to do with where the photo was taken from, but I’m going to need real proof that Charlotte Pence isn’t a vampire.

He Thinks George Washington was a Republican

In George Washington’s famous farewell address, he warned against exactly what’s happening in the United States right now–an entrenched two party system. And Washington was expressly not a Republican.

Yet Pence wrote in an op-ed that stated: “Republicans, from George Washington to George W. Bush just have better ideas.” Not all Georges are Republicans, Pence!

via GIPHY

His Wife Helen has a Hard Time Keeping her Towels Straight

Helen Pence just shut down her towel charm business. What is a towel charm? Well, it’s a small metal charm that fixes that pesky problem when you can’t figure out which towel is yours.

if karen pence doesn’t give everybody @ #RNCinCLE a towel charm she’s failed https://t.co/xjRo3JUCe3 (via @TonyRomm) pic.twitter.com/v9McPn1No4

— Nick Andersen (@nicktheandersen) July 14, 2016

CLAM TOWEL CHARM. #pencehttps://t.co/oky2ngn67Dpic.twitter.com/1Fjg2jRbGV

— Max Freeman (@maxmfreeman) July 17, 2016

In case you wanted any, unfortunately, it looks like Helen’s towel charm business has been put on hold while we finish the election. 

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 5 Weirdest Revelations About Mike Pence So Far appeared first on Law Street.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) just conducted the annual National Youth Tobacco Survey and discovered that e-cigarettes are being heavily marketed to American teens.

The study, which was released Tuesday, concluded that seven out of 10 middle and high school students are being reached by e-cigarette companies through advertising. The concepts and themes being used by the companies mirror those used in cigarette advertising in the past. The CDC report stated:

E-cigarette ads use many of the same themes — independence, rebellion, and sex — used to sell cigarettes and other conventional tobacco products.

Right now, there aren’t a lot of regulations dictating how e-cigarettes can or can’t be marketed. For example, e-cigarette producers can advertise on TV, which traditional cigarette manufacturers haven’t been able to do since laws were passed to prevent exactly those practices four decades ago. According to CDC Director Tom Frieden,

The e-cigarette advertising we’re seeing is like the old-time Wild West…No rules, no regulations and heavy spending advertising the products.

However, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is working on finalizing rules to govern sales to minors–it first proposed them in April of 2014, but they haven’t gone into place yet.

At the same time that more American teens and pre-teens are seeing e-cigarette ads, their use of e-cigarettes is also steadily climbing. More U.S. teenagers are using e-cigarettes than traditional cigarettes–13.4 percent reported e-cigarette use in 2014, but only 9.2 percent reported using traditional cigarettes. While e-cigarettes are believed to be less dangerous than traditional cigarettes, there’s a pretty serious concern that they could become a gateway to traditional cigarette use for young people. A study that was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in August 2015 concluded that freshmen in high school who used e-cigarettes were 2.5 times more likely to try traditional cigarettes down the road.

This news from the CDC comes at a time when many parts of the United States are trying even harder to keep young people away from cigarettes. For example, the state of Hawaii just made history by becoming the first state to raise the legal smoking age to 21. Yet some serious work needs to be done if e-cigarettes are also going to be kept from teenagers.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post CDC: E-Cigarette Companies Targeting Teens Through Advertising appeared first on Law Street.

The ways in which the law interacts with marijuana is, in many ways, still in its infancy. Most glaringly, there a lot of legal issues that come with the use of marijuana that still need to be solved. However, the latest weed legal question was just answered by an Oregon appeals court: does the smell of marijuana smoke constitute an “olfactory assault?” The Oregon court didn’t think so, possibly setting a precedent for how to deal with particularly smelly weed smoke moving forward.

The particulars of the case are bit confusing, but here’s the breakdown: in 2012, Jared William Lang lived in an apartment building in Philomath, Oregon. His neighbors believed he had been smoking weed. Given that there were other people in the apartment complex, they could smell it, and finally had had enough. One of them called the police, who came to check it out. Keep in mind at this point that while weed was decriminalized in Oregon, it wasn’t legal yet.

So, the police officer showed up and talked to Lang’s neighbors–some of whom had some pretty serious complaints about the weed smell. One mentioned that he was a recovering drug addict, and smelling weed constantly acted as a sort of “trigger.” Given this concerning context, the police officer went to get a warrant to search Lang’s apartment. While the officer likely finding weed wouldn’t have been a big deal, given the drug’s decriminalization in Oregon, the officer did find spray paint and stencils in Lang’s apartment that he believed had been used to create nearby graffiti. It was at that point that Lang was charged and later convicted on three counts of criminal mischief for the graffiti.

While that seems like an open-and-shut case, there was one part of the story in particular that Lang based his appeal on–the grounds on which the police officer acquired the search warrant. The officer based it on the fact that the smell of weed constituted a “hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which the person is not licensed or privileged to do.” So amazingly, that became the crux of the legal question–does weed smell so bad that it can be considered “hazardous” or “physically offensive?” Is it an “olfactory assault?”

Those terms in and of themselves are ambiguous. The appeals court tasked with weighing the question ended up defining “physically offensive” as “must be more than minimally unpleasant but need not be dangerous or harmful.” While that’s still a vague parameter, the court decided that in case, the smell wasn’t offensive enough for the officer to obtain the warrant, rendering the charges against Lang invalid.

So, can you get in trouble with the smell police for smoking weed? Maybe–as Judge Erika L. Hadlock put it:

We are not prepared to declare, as the state would have us, that the odor of marijuana smoke is equivalent to the odor of garbage. Nor can we say, however, that the odor is inoffensive as a matter of law. We could perhaps say with confidence that a fleeting whiff of marijuana smoke would not offend a reasonable person, but as the intensity, duration or frequency of the odor increases, it stands to reason that it would become objectively offensive at some point, particularly depending on the location in which it is smelled.

So there you have it, the smell of weed probably isn’t “olfactory assault” but as it continues to become more popular (and legal), we will most likely need to constantly re-examine these boundaries.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Oregon Court Answers the Time-Old Question: Is Weed Too Smelly? appeared first on Law Street.

When it comes to smoking cigarettes, public support for the known cancer-causers has consistently dwindled in recent decades thanks mainly to national “quit smoking” campaigns. In an attempt to help further curtail tobacco consumption, one state is poised to take further action by changing its minimum legal smoking age.

Last Friday, the Hawaii legislature passed a bill, that if signed into law by Governor David Ige, will make it the first state in the nation to raise its minimum legal smoking age from 18 to 21. The bill would ban individuals under the age of 21 from buying tobacco products, including e-cigarettes.

Some communities, counties, and cities, including New York City, have already approved initiatives to raise the smoking age. But if this bill is signed into law, it will make Hawaii the first state to entirely do so.

However, when it comes to enforcing the new legal smoking age, the punishment for underage violators is almost laughable. According to the Associated Press, first-time offenders will be fined a measly $10, which is roughly 50 cents more than the cost of a pack of cigarettes in the state. Any later violations would lead to a $50 fine or mandatory community service.

In a statement from the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids commending the bill’s passage, the nonprofit asserts that currently more than 10 percent of Hawaii’s high school students smoke, and tobacco use overall in the state claims 1,400 lives and costs $526 million in health care bills each year. Therefore supporters of the measure say that raising the legal smoking age will help reduce smoking among young people who will probably use tobacco products as adults.

Democratic state Senator Rosalyn Baker who introduced the bill told the AP:

Today we have the opportunity to change the paradigm…

While the industry is not allowed to directly market to children, it is still developing packaging and advertising products in ways that appeal to children,

Some of the advertising she’s referring to are candy flavored e-cigarettes that are increasingly gaining popularity with youths. According to Baker, the favorite flavors among teens who use electronic cigarettes are sweet tart and “unicorn puke”, which has been described by some as a combination of every flavor of Skittle in one.

Interestingly enough, the AP also reports that projections for raising the minimum smoking age to 21, from a report conducted by the Institute of Medicine, predict smoking prevalence would fall an estimated 12 percent.

If signed into law, the new minimum age probably won’t be welcomed by all. Critics may use the old argument that “if you’re old enough to enlist you should be old enough to smoke.” But given that lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths in America, laws like this may become more common.

The post Hawaii May Raise the Legal Smoking Age to 21 appeared first on Law Street.

E-cigarettes are one of America’s latest trends. Since entering the United States over the last ten years, they have taken the smoking community by storm. To many of us however, they are still somewhat of a mystery. Generally, we have a sense that they are less harmful than cigarettes, but how much less harmful exactly? With any new product, it is hard to foresee long-term health effects. But what do we know so far? Should e-cigarettes and their advertisements be regulated similarly to conventional cigarettes? Read on for a breakdown on what e-cigarettes are, the debates over them, and what regulation is being discussed.

What are electronic cigarettes?

E-cigarettes, also known as e-cigs and vaporizer cigarettes, are used as an alternate method to smoking tobacco via cigarettes, pipes, or cigars. They are battery operated and don’t involve smoke inhalation. The idea is that they bypass tobacco smoke, which can include more than 7,000 different harmful chemicals, many of which are known to cause cancer, heart disease, and lung disease. Some of the more well-known poisonous chemicals are cyanide, methanol, and ammonia. In addition, tobacco smoke includes tar, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen oxide.

Many e-cigs are designed to look like cigarettes and create a similar experience for those who are smoking them. A Chinese pharmacist perfected them in 2003-2004 and they were quickly brought to the international market in 2005-2006. In the current, automatic versions, a user sucks on an end piece to activate a sensor that allows a heating element to vaporize a liquid solution held in the mouthpiece.

Components

E-cigarettes are generally reusable and come in three parts: the Mouthpiece, the Atomizer, and the Battery.

• Mouthpiece (Cartridge): The mouthpiece holds the liquid solution, also known as e-liquid and e-juice. This solution can contain different grades of nicotine and come in a variety of flavors. Some are meant to imitate established cigarette brands, while others are more exotic. The nicotine is most often dissolved in propylene glycol, a food additive. The FDA has labeled propylene glycol as a “Generally Recognized as Safe” (GRAS) substance.
• Atomizer: This is the heating element that allows for vaporization. It requires replacement every three to six months.
• Battery: The battery is the largest piece of the e-cigarette. It is usually lithium-ion and rechargeable. It catalyzes the heating element and often contains an LED light to showcase activation.

Nicotine 

This product eliminates the inhalation of tobacco smoke, however it is important to note that nicotine itself isn’t very healthy. Although it is not the element of cigarettes that causes cancer, the U.S. Surgeon General has linked nicotine to negative impacts on fetal and adolescent brain development, premature birth, and low birth weight. In rare cases, nicotine can even cause abnormal heart rhythm and atrial fibrillation. It is also known to cause mouth irritation, mouth and throat pain, high blood pressure, and canker sores.

In 2014, a study found that “e-cigarettes with a higher voltage level have higher amounts of formaldehyde, a carcinogen.” This is under debate however due to the methods and nature of the study.

How are conventional cigarettes regulated?

We already know that smoking tobacco is awful for your health. It is to blame for 30 percent of all cancer deaths in the U.S., and accounts for 87 percent of lung cancer deaths in men and 70 percent in women. As a result of these health concerns, cigarettes and their advertisements are heavily controlled. To ascertain whether e-cigarettes should be similarly regulated, we need to understand established cigarette regulations. Here are some recent highlights.

The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act

The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, passed in 2009, authorized the FDC to regulate the manufacture, distribution, and marketing of tobacco products. It requires prominent warning graphic labels for cigarettes and larger text warnings on smokeless tobacco products. It regulates describing tobacco products as “light, low, or mild.” Tobacco companies must yield research on health, toxicological, behavioral, or physiologic effects of tobacco use. The FDA can conduct compliance check inspections of any establishment selling tobacco products and fine any establishments not adhering to set regulations. It also requires tobacco manufactures to receive an order or exemption from the FDA before it can introduce new tobacco products.

Other parts of the law are focused on preventing advertisements aimed at America’s youth. Cigarettes cannot be flavored. The packaging design and color must be muted. It prohibits tobacco brands from sponsoring “sporting, entertainment, or other cultural events.” It prohibits free samples of cigarettes. And lastly, it prohibits tobacco branding on non-tobacco products.

E-Cigarette Regulation

Currently, there aren’t any regulations concerning the manufacture, distribution, and marketing of e-cigarettes. The only type of e-cigarettes subject to regulation are those designed for therapeutic purposes, as the FDA has authority to oversee those.

Only three states in the U.S. ban e-cigarettes in designated 100 percent smoke-free venues: Utah, New Jersey, and North Dakota. Only 15 states restrict the use of e-cigarettes in other venues. There are 162 local laws that restrict e-cigarettes in various venues, but those appear to be few and far between.

Are e-cigarettes dangerous?

The question remains: should we be worried about e-cigarettes? That’s a debate that’s happening across the country. They do eliminate deadly smoke inhalation, the most detrimental part of smoking cigarettes. However, there are still concerning aspects of e-cigarettes that need to be taken into account.

E-Cigs as a Gateway to Smoking for Young Adults

The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) published a 2014 study entitled, “Electronic Cigarettes and Conventional Cigarette Use Among US Adolescents.” The study was conducted out of a concern over the increasing use of unregulated e-cigarettes by today’s youth. The results came from a sample of U.S. middle and high school students who participated in the 2011 and 212 National Youth Tobacco Survey. It found:

Use of e-cigarettes was associated with higher odds of ever or current cigarette smoking, higher odds of established smoking, higher odds of planning to quit smoking among current smokers, and, among experimenters, lower odds of abstinence from conventional cigarettes. Use of e-cigarettes does not discourage, and may encourage, conventional cigarette use among US adolescents.

In accordance, a 2013 study published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) concluded that:

Youth who had never smoked conventional cigarettes but who used e-cigarettes were almost twice as likely to have intentions to smoke conventional cigarettes as those who had never used e-cigarettes.  Among non-smoking youth who had ever used e-cigarettes, 43.9 percent said they have intentions* to smoke conventional cigarettes within the next year, compared with 21.5 percent of those who had never used e-cigarettes.

Additionally, the CDC found that more than 250,000 young adults who have never smoked a cigarette have tried an e-cigarette. That is a triple increase from 2011.

Targeting youth?

If these studies are indicative of reality, then it’s scary to think of how e-cigarette companies are targeting the youth demographic. According to a study published in Pediatrics, “electronic cigarette advertisements increased by 256 percent from 2011 to 2013 and young adult exposure to e-cigarette ads jumped 321 percent in the same time period.“ It found that 75 percent of youth exposure to e-cigarette ads happened through the medium of cable networks like AMC, Comedy Central, and VH1. E-cigarette ads appear on programs like “The Bachelor,” “Big Brother,” and “Survivor,” which were rated amid the 100 highest-rated youth programs in 2012-13.

Other tactics accused of being aimed at young adults include free giveaway samples at music and sporting events, candy flavors, and the glamorization of packaging. All of these actions have been banned for traditional cigarettes companies because of their appeal to the youth.

 Do e-cigs help people quit smoking?

It’s difficult to determine. Studies indicate that they don’t necessarily help stop smoking.

JAMA Study Findings

As previously discussed, the 2014 study published by JAMA found that e-cigarettes do not help smokers quit. Specifically with regard to quitting smoking, 88 (out of 949) smokers claimed to start using e-cigarettes at the beginning of the study. In the next year, 13.5 percent of those 88 quit smoking traditional cigarettes. Almost equal percentages of e-cigarette users and solely traditional smokers quit smoking traditional cigarettes within the year. The difference was so slight, it fell within the study’s margin of error.

There are also testimonials, easily found online, that share success stories of smokers that quit with the help of e-cigarettes. These findings and interviews are not to say that it never happens, but it does not seem to be the norm.

Discussions for Future Regulation

The FDA has the authority to regulate cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, roll-your-own tobacco, and smokeless tobacco. The FDA proposed the “deeming rule” on April 24, 2014 to extend tobacco products to include e-cigarettes. If approved, e-cigarettes would be regulated in the same manner as traditional cigarettes. This includes federal prohibition on free sampling, federal warning label requirements, and age verification requirements for retailers. It is still uncertain when and to what extent the FDA will be empowered to regulate e-cigarettes.

Conclusion

Studies looking into e-cigarette health concerns and their position as a gateway product for America’s youth are still new. The product only reached the U.S. in the last ten years and nothing is 100 percent conclusive. On one hand, smoking an e-cigarette is less harmful to your health than smoking a traditional cigarette. If a traditional smoker quits cigarettes and manages to only smoke e-cigarettes for the rest of his or her lifetime, that is a good thing. In the same respect, if a young adult who would have developed a smoking habit only ever uses e-cigarettes because of their availability, that is also a good thing. On the other hand, e-cigarettes aren’t necessarily safe for your health just because they are safer than cigarettes. And we could eventually find that they definitively promote cigarette smoking. The government and FDA can revisit the subject when there is more conclusive information available.

Resources

Primary

JAMA Pediatrics: Electronic Cigarette and Conventional Cigarette Use Among U.S. Adolescents

FDA: Deeming Tobacco Products to Be Subject to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act

FDA: E-Cigarettes

Additional

BeTobaccoFree.gov: Law/Policies

American Cancer Society: Tobacco-Related Cancers Fact Sheet

American Lung Association: General Smoking Facts

American Nonsmokers’ Rights Foundation: U.S. State and Local Laws Regulating Use of Electronic Cigarettes

E-Cigarette Research: The Deception of Measuring Formaldehyde in E-Cigarette Aerosol

American Lung Association: Statement on E-Cigarettes

Medical News Today: What Are E-cigarettes?

RTI International: E-Cigarette TV Ads Targeting Youth Increased 256 Percent in Past Two Years

Science News: E-Cigarettes Don’t Help Smokers Quit

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post E-Cigarettes: Should We Treat Them Like Traditional Cigarettes? appeared first on Law Street.

California legislators are currently mulling legislation that would change the minimum smoking age in the state from 18 to 21. The bill was filed this week in the California Senate, and in addition to raising the minimum age, it would allow the State Department of Public Health to conduct random inspections of cigarette retailers.

This bill was filed by Democratic State Senator Ed Hernandez, who represents a part of Los Angeles County. His bill is supported by many prominent health advocacy organizations, including the American Cancer Society, the Cancer Action Network, and the American Lung Association.

Although the bill would legalize alcohol and cigarettes at the same age for young people–21–the motivations seem to be different. While alcohol-restriction laws are mostly based on developmental health and public safety, the attempt to restrict cigarettes to only those over 21 seems to be more focused on preventing teens from smoking young and getting addicted. President of the California Medical Association Luther Cobb explained “that increasing the age at which people can purchase tobacco from 18 to 21 will help reduce tobacco use in young people, hence reducing the number of preventable diseases.”

Although this would be a great step toward reducing the prevalence of teenagers beginning smoking habits at younger ages, Hernandez realizes that his bill means standing up to the powerful tobacco companies–and their lobbying forces. Hernandez said in a statement:

Tobacco companies know that people are more likely to become addicted to smoking if they start at a young age. We can no longer afford to sit on the sidelines while Big Tobacco markets to our kids and gets another generation of young people hooked on a product that will ultimately kill them.

California isn’t the only state to move toward changing the rules when it comes to smoking. Earlier this month, Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson proposed legislation that would raise the minimum smoking age to 21 in that state as well. Ferguson cited the fact that 90 percent of those who are smokers began the practice in their teens as his reasoning for pushing this bill. In addition to preventing teenagers from smoking, Ferguson pointed out that it would save Washington money in healthcare costs. Two Washington state legislators, Republican Senator Mark Miloscia and Democratic Representative Tina Orwall, stood with Ferguson in a bipartisan effort, although like in California, it’s expected that getting such legislation passed will require a fight against tobacco companies and the politicians they fund.

While Washington and California are certainly getting in on this movement earlier, they aren’t alone. Most states require that residents be 18 to smoke, though some have set the age at 19. Utah, New Jersey, Alabama, and Alaska, as well as the District of Columbia, all have minimum smoking ages of 19.

There are also cities and counties that have made the move. For example, Hawaii County, also known as the “Big Island” of Hawaii, has raised its smoking age to 21, as well as select counties in other states such as Massachusetts. Even more notably, New York City raised its legal smoking age to 21 at the beginning of 2014.

While it will certainly be an uphill battle given the money in Big Tobacco’s coffers, the moves to up the smoking age in California and Washington are encourging. While the percentage of young smokers has fallen dramatically in the last 50-odd years, hopefully bills like these will continue to drop that number even further.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post California, Washington Aim to Raise Smoking Age to 21 appeared first on Law Street.

It seems as though the fake tanning trend is finally nearing its expiration date. Or at the very least, its legal limits. In recent months, multiple states have moved to restrict the ability of minors to access tanning beds. Teens under 18 in the states that have moved to legislate may need parents’ permission before indulging in the fake-UV rays, or be banned altogether.

Just a few years ago, tanning beds seemed ubiquitous for high school students looking to get a little more orange, despite that the dangers of tanning beds have been well known for years. Laws have always varied, but more states are moving toward banning minors outright, or requiring parental consent for those under 18. The American Cancer Society (ACS) tends to recommend the latter, highlighting the danger of tanning beds for young people. ACS South Dakota’s grassroots manager Carmyn Egge recently pointed out, “what we have found is that a person under the age of 35, who uses an indoor tanning device, their likelihood of getting a melanoma diagnosis [increases] by 59 percent.” Cindy Caneveri, of the American Cancer Society’s Cancer Action Network has cited similar statistics to the press, explaining:

Melanoma is now the second most common cancer for ages 15 to 29, and most common for ages 25 to 29. Melanoma is cumulative, so if you start out using a tanning bed [in your teens], you’re not seeing cancer until your late 20s.

States that have banned tanning completely for those under 18 include: California, Texas, Vermont, Illinois, Oregon, Nevada, Washington, Minnesota, Hawaii, and Louisiana. Delaware just recently passed a bill as well, although it won’t go into effect until 2015.

While the states above have banned teen tanning outright, some states are settling for restricting the ways in which teens can tan. This summer, a new law went into effect in Pennsylvania making tanning tougher on minors. The Indoor Tanning Regulation Act took place last month, and banned anyone under 16 years old from using a tanning bed. It also required that 17 year olds have parental consent. A recently passed Missouri law is also cracking down on the ways in which teenagers can tan indoors. The state now requires that anyone under the age of 17 provide written permission from a parent before using tanning facilities.

The Indoor Tanning Association disagrees with the bans on younger people, pointing out that 16 year olds can drive, own guns, and in certain cases get married, so they should not be limited in their choices to engage in indoor tanning.

The laws, however, do make a lot of sense. Tanning can be a harmful alteration to your body, and it’s logical to leave the ability to consent up to adults. Cigarettes, for example, are illegal until an individual turns 18 and is no longer a minor. Skin cancer is actually more frequent at this point than lung cancer. Each year in the United States, approximately 420,000 new cases of skin cancer are diagnosed that can be traced back to indoor tanning. In comparison, a total of about 225,000 new lung cancer diagnoses were expected in the U.S. in 2014. While cigarettes and tanning beds carry very different types of carcinogens, the move toward restricting harmful activities for those underage is a traditional practice.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post States Saying No to Teen Tanning appeared first on Law Street.

Fewer burglars and robbers lurk in the streets of Colorado, and not because of a Batman-style, crime-fighting vigilante. After Colorado’s legalization of recreational marijuana, skeptics believed the rate of crime would elevate if not skyrocket; however, the opposite appears to be true. Since January 2014, when recreational marijuana sales began, robberies and burglaries have decreased in Colorado.

Although a causal link between legalized recreational marijuana and the decrease in crime cannot be determined, the correlation remains. Other factors such as weather and the economy most likely influenced the lower crime rate. One of the main reasons it is important to observe these rates is that they can act as a crystal ball for other states hoping to follow Colorado’s lead. As the first state to legalize recreational marijuana, it became a guinea pig for demonstrating the effects of this legislation.

Many lawmakers and analysts predicted that the legalization of marijuana would lead to increased crime rates. For example, prior to its legalization Denver District Attorney Mitch Morrissey made the case that robbers would prey on marijuana businesses and their customers because they carry lots of cash and pot. This is because they are unable to open bank accounts and therefore need to keep their income in cash.

None of these fears have panned out, at least not yet.

Have we forgotten about Washington, the other state in which citizens voted to allow the purchase and use of recreational marijuana? Has the new law in the Evergreen state (potential for plenty of jokes there, along with the Mile-High city of Denver) mirrored a decrease in crime as well? The simple answer is no, because despite its new legal standing, not one Washingtonian has purchased a joint nor lone bud of Mary Jane.

For more than a year, the sale and use of recreational marijuana in Washington has been legal under Initiative 502; however, Washington residents still wait with bated breath to purchase recreational pot. Colorado residents have spoken: they voted to get high legally, and now they can. Perhaps the encouraging statistics demonstrating its decrease in crime will finally cause Washington lawmakers to speed up the enactment their law.

Why the difference between the two states? Whereas Colorado simply opened up the state’s existing medical cannabis system to recreational customers, the initiative passed in Washington required that the recreational pot business start from scratch. Although marijuana is legal to possess, there’s no way to acquire it until the state issues licenses for what the state calls its “seed-to-sale” system. Currently, this system does not exist. Would-be marijuana sellers filled out and handed in applications to acquire these licenses last November. The Washington State Liquor Control Board, the legal authority in charge of distributing these licenses, has not handed out a single one.

If and when the aspiring pot shop owners finally do get their licenses, they still must go through the tedious process of securing business permits from local authorities who are often against legal pot. Good luck to them.

If they decide to take a page from Colorado’s legislative notebook, Washington may be able to get the sale of legal marijuana up and running. Sometimes it is hard for lawmakers to move past the fear that naturally comes with enacting a new law, especially when they are the first to do so. The lower crime rate in Colorado since the legalization of marijuana should hopefully put them at ease.

—

Marisa Mostek (@MarisaJ44) loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured Image Courtesy of [United States Fish and Wildlife Service via Wikipedia]

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Colorado Crime Down Since Pot Legalization; is Washington to Follow? appeared first on Law Street.

Three years ago, the Food and Drug Administration said it would regulate e-cigarettes.

Although it took longer than expected, the FDA kept its promise.

While certain states and cities across the country have already taken steps to ban the increasingly popular battery-powered devices, the FDA proposed restrictions for the first time Thursday.

Similar to the way it currently regulates traditional cigarettes, the FDA is planning to take the following steps against their electronic counterparts:

• Banning the sale of e-cigarettes to minors.
• Prohibiting the distribution of free samples.
• Banning the sale of e-cigarettes in vending machines – unless the vending machines are located in places where young people aren’t admitted.
• Requiring e-cigarettes to include warning labels, making it clear they contain the addictive chemical nicotine.
• Requiring e-cigarette companies to publicly disclose their products’ ingredients.

Additionally, the proposal would require FDA approval before any new e-cigarettes can be sold. Current products would have to “provide a justification for remaining on the market.”

Despite the urging of many tobacco critics, the FDA’s regulations fall short of broader restrictions. No action will be taken regarding online sale of e-cigarettes, TV advertisements, and the use of various flavorings and sweeteners – all deemed by critics as a way of attracting young smokers.

Pegged as a safer alternative to traditional smoking, e-cigarettes are marketed as a way to not only draw people away from traditional cigarettes but also as a means of helping smokers kick the habit completely.

While it’s generally accepted that e-cigarettes are safer than traditional cigarettes, many point to the lack of substantial research into possible health risks as a serious concern.

“Right now, for something like e-cigarettes, there are far more questions than answers,” Mitch Zeller, director of the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products, told NPR.

One of the most pressing questions is how safe are electronic cigarettes really? One FDA study found that e-cigarettes “potentially release carcinogens and toxic chemicals.” Further research is needed to confirm the FDA’s findings, but supporters of e-cigarettes point to the fact that electronic cigarettes, unlike traditional cigarettes, do not emit tar, carbon monoxide, or hydrogen cyanide.

Still, the main concern is that the e-cigarette industry has been rapidly evolving without any form of regulation. According to Zeller, the goal of the proposed restrictions is to “create a framework.” “We’re calling this the first step,” he said and continued that “for the first time, there will be a science-based, independent regulatory agency playing a vital gate-keeping function.”

As Zeller puts it, the proposal puts the FDA in “a position to ensure that the products are as safe as they could possibly be.”

Safety, as it turns out, is one area where the FDA and e-cigarette industry have found common ground.

“We are extremely relieved that all e-cigarette companies will be regulated, and forced to achieve and maintain the same high standards that Vapor Corp., and several of our responsible competitors, have been imposing on ourselves for years,” said Jeffrey Holman, president and director of Vapor Corp, in an interview with NPR.

Other players in the industry patted the FDA on the back as well, commending the agency for committing to a science-based regulatory process.

“What they did today was very encouraging. […] We’ve already done many things to prepare ourselves and act responsibly,” Miguel Martin, president of the e-cigarette company Logic Technology Development, told The Washington Post. He went further to say that “at least speaking for my company, this will not be the tobacco wars of the 80s and 90s.”

Despite a largely positive reception, there are those – on both sides of this issue – who are not happy with the FDA’s new proposal.

“This is worse than I expected,” said American Vaping Association board member Greg Conley in an interview with the Post. Conley said he agreed with the age restrictions but had hoped existing products would be grandfathered in. Instead, existing e-cigarette companies will have to file applications for their products to remain on the market. “A lot of these companies, they are supporting several employees, investing any profits back into their business. They can’t afford this, and it’s going to lead to a whole lot of consolidation and increased prices for consumers,” he said.

Some public health advocates, while accepting of the proposed regulations, are upset the FDA was not more aggressive when e-cigarettes first hit the shelves.

Matthew Myer, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, says the FDA’s action is long overdue. “It is inexcusable that it has taken the FDA and the administration so long to act,” Myers told NPR, and “this delay has had serious health consequences as these unregulated tobacco products have been marketed using tactics and sweet flavors that appeal to kids.”

As far as immediate change goes, don’t expect anything too soon. Before the new regulations can be made official, there will be a 75 day period where the public will be able to comment on the FDA’s proposal. Once the restrictions are finalized, e-cigarette companies will be required to comply with the age and ID restrictions almost immediately. Although their products will be able to stay on the shelves, companies will have to submit applications for approval of their products within two years.

[NPR] [The Washington Post] [USA Today]

—

Matt DiCenso

Featured image courtesy of [Michael Dorausch via Flickr]

Matt DiCenso

Matt DiCenso is a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post FDA Regulations: The Future of E-Cigarettes appeared first on Law Street.

Colleges all over the country are banning smoking on campus. Many students feel as though such measures are a challenge to their rights, while others are strongly campaigning for the smoking bans. As schools continue to deliberate on whether they will follow the national trend, they must answer another difficult question: should electronic smoking devices be included? E-Cigarettes are becoming more popular, especially with youths, and is now a 1.5 billion dollar industry based on 2013 estimates.

Some universities have already taken a proactive stance on this issue. The University of Illionis and Ohio State University, in addition to many others, plan to ban e-cigarettes along with the smoking of all tobacco products. Is it possible that such action against e-cigarettes is just a knee-jerk reaction to a misunderstood piece of technology? It seems that a brief investigation into the potential dangers of e-cigarettes and tobacco will help shape our ethical intuition on whether they should be included in the bans.

Most people align electronic smoking devices with traditional tobacco products because intuitively it makes sense to lump them all together. Thus, a ban on smoking tobacco ‘should’ entail a ban on using electronic smoking devices. I think it is fair to say that this ‘lumping together’ may be a hasty action. There are noticeable differences between such products, and further research will only continue to confirm this. Those who want to ban smoking tobacco from college campuses have a justification for wishing to do so. The question is, do e-cigarettes meet the justifications that support banning smoking of tobacco? If they do, then maybe it is intelligible to lump them together with tobacco products. If not, then maybe it is an unfair move to prohibit such devices on campuses.

What is the justification for sweeping bans against tobacco smoking?

The most powerful argument for ‘legislation’ that supports the banning of smoking would be the harmful effects of Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS). There have been many studies such as the 1997 Californian Environmental Protection Agency that report on the health effects of exposure to ETS. They “concluded that chronic, cumulative exposure—such as experienced by those living for years with smokers or who work in indoor environments where smoking is permitted—can increase the probability of dying from lung cancer by 20 percent, from heart disease by 30 percent, and can exacerbate asthma in children by 60 to 100 percent.” However, these documented health concerns, and many others, arise from exposure to second hand smoke while indoors. We find that the risks involved with second-hand smoke and the threat of ETS changes quite significantly when smoking occurs outside. This has to do with the fact that smoke can dissipate at a much greater rate because “unlike indoor tobacco smoke, which can persist for hours, researchers found that outdoor smoke disappears rapidly,” says Neil Klepeis, assistant professor (consulting) of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford.

In fact, research published in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene documented the presence of ETS on college campuses in the outdoors. They found that exposure to ETS is highly relative to the proximity of the smoker. Once you are more than six feet away from the source of the ETS, the risks greatly diminish to the point where no threat is present. In a six week experiment by researchers at the University of Georgia, “students spent periods of six hours at a time seated in outdoor areas—including a bar, restaurant, and open area on the school’s campus—where smoking was permitted.” Interestingly, they found that, students sitting in an open-air part of campus experienced negligible levels of tobacco exposure.

Does this mean anybody should be able to smoke anywhere outside? Probably not. Researchers have discovered that when you are in close proximity to a smoker outdoors, you are exposed to high concentrations of toxic ETS. However, there seems to be good evidence to support the safety of designated smoking areas. The data indicates that there is no risk of exposure to the negative effects correlated with ETS when one is a safe distance away (usually more than six feet). It appears that the justification for campus wide bans on traditional tobacco products may stand on shaky ground and is ethically questionable.

What does this mean for electronic smoking devices?

It is clear that banning devices such as e-cigarettes is simply a convenience policy and one that lacks substantial justification. This is for two reasons. First, e-cigarettes do not release nearly the same amount of toxins into the air associated with tobacco products. I will say that there is still more research that needs to be done on e-cigarettes, and that my claim could be proven false with more research. However, preliminary studies have shown these devices to be much less dangerous than tobacco. In a recent study published in Nicotine and Tobacco Research, change in air quality was measured as people and machines generated vapor in an enclosed space. (Vapor is produced from e-cigarettes, as opposed to smoke.) There were two important discoveries from the study. The first is the significantly smaller levels of nicotine in the air. Reuters reports,

the researchers measured nicotine levels of 2.5 micrograms per cubic meter of air in the first study. Nicotine levels from e-cigarettes in the second study were slightly higher at about 3.3 micrograms per cubic meter. But tobacco cigarette smoking resulted in nicotine levels ten times higher at almost 32 micrograms per cubic meter. 

Compared to tobacco, electronic smoking devices release twelve times less nicotine into the air. It is also important to note that nicotine is not as dangerous as some may believe. Maciej Goniewicz, a cancer researcher in the Department of Health Behavior at the Roswell Park Cancer Institute, says “the exposure to nicotine is lower when compared to exposure from tobacco smoke. And we also know that nicotine is relatively safer when compared to other dangerous toxicants in tobacco smoke.”

Another important finding from the study was that the presence of toxins was also significantly less. The researchers found that “E-cigarettes also produced some particulate matter, but regular cigarettes produced about seven times more. E-cigarettes didn’t change the amount of carbon monoxide or other gases in the air.” The distinction between the level toxins and nicotine released into the air from electronic cigarettes and tobacco should give cause for universities to cease from lumping them together. There really is a difference.

Second, banning e-cigarettes lacks substantial justification is that all of the stated harms associated with e-cigarettes have been discovered from studies conducted indoors, in enclosed spaces. There has yet to be any research into the effects of e-cigarettes on air quality when it occurs outside. However, I think we can make some assumptions what the research will yield, based on the findings from traditional tobacco smoke. We see a significant drop in the threat of ETS when smoking occurs outside. It seems plausible to conclude that e-cigarettes, when smoked in the outdoors, will not present a serious threat to others around them. We also know that indoors, electronic smoking devices produce much smaller amounts of nicotine and particulate matter. At the very least, designated smoking areas seems to be more than enough precaution. Universities should halt their hasty, and unsubstantiated, movements to rid these devices from campus. They need to justify their case for such actions, as it appears to be ethically and scientifically questionable.

 [NY Daily News] [Tobacco Control] [Stanford] [Time] [BusinessWeek] [The Lantern]

—

Bo Donoghue

Featured image courtesy of [Lindsay Fox via Flickr]

Bo Donoghue

Bo Donoghue is a student at The George Washington University. Contact Bo at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Banning E-Cigarettes on College Campuses is a Questionable Policy appeared first on Law Street.