EDITORIAL: A proposed vaping ban in San Francisco and the First Amendment

Doctors and health professionals continue to investigate the recent epidemic of vaping-related illnesses. The outbreak, which has hospitalized more than 525 people and led to eight deaths, is believed to be related to chemical exposure to the lungs. “Most of the victims,” The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday, “were vaping a marijuana ingredient called THC, while some were vaping only nicotine products.”

Despite the health benefits associated with a large decrease in smoking among young people, thanks in part to the recent rise of vaping, anti-tobacco zealots have been looking for an opening to cripple the nascent e-cigarette industry. And some of these activists are willing to dismantle the First Amendment to implement their agenda.

Take San Francisco. The once-beautiful City by the Bay is fast becoming synonymous with homelessness, junkies and streets covered with human waste and drug needles. Rather than deal with those issues, the city’s progressive braintrust has moved to ban e-cigarettes — all while sanctioning the use of marijuana, no doubt. But not only do San Francisco supervisors want to outlaw vaping, they seek to silence those who would disagree.

The e-cigarette giant Juul is attempting to overturn the pending ban through Proposition C, a November ballot question. But Supervisor Shamann Walton — arguing that the campaign violates federal restrictions on commercial claims about vaping — has written the FDA urging the agency to take action against issue ads supporting the proposition. Among other things, Mr. Walton complains that one of the ads features a Proposition C advocate arguing that vaping offers “a legitimate off-ramp” for smokers trying to kick the habit.

As Reason’s Jacob Sullum points out, never mind that the statement is true. Several studies have found vaping to be less toxic to health than traditional cigarettes. Some experts have also acknowledged that e-cigarettes could be a godsend in terms of public health by potentially reducing the massive costs associated with smoking-related illnesses.

Beyond that, however, Mr. Walton is “urging the federal government to censor statements by his political opponents,” Mr. Sullum notes.

Indeed, the speech to which Mr. Walton objects was delivered in the context of a political campaign involving a ballot measure. Proponents of Proposition C have an obvious constitutional right to make their case to the voters. To advocate that the state act to suppress arguments in favor of an important public policy question is to show a deep disdain for the democratic process and for free speech protections enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

Mr. Walton is free to make the case that vaping is a scourge and must be stopped. But it says plenty about the legitimacy of his arguments that he would simultaneously ask federal regulators to muzzle his opponents.