Board of Aldermen 05-14-2019 Page 28
Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja
To Attorney Bolton, that same paragraph, if we inserted “no person 21 or older or business”.
Attorney Bolton
You could do that.
Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja
And that would get rid of ....
Attorney Bolton
That would get rid of the liability for one 16 year old providing it to another 16 year old.
Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja
Or an 18 year old providing it to a 15 year old.
President Wilshire
So are you making that an amendment.
Alderman Lopez
May | ask a question first? Would that contradict any existing State Law about having tobacco on
school property or anything like that?
Attorney Bolton
| don’t think so but | don’t know every single State Law there is. But it’s quite clear that the current
State Law gives municipalities to have stricter rules governing the sale and distribution of nicotine
products. So | would say that the suggestion by Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja is unlikely to contradict any
existing State Law.
Alderwoman Kelly
In terms of the amendment that was just brought up, part of this legislation was talking about making
sure that there wasn’t access for people who are not legal and shouldn’t have it. If we take out “sell,
distribute, or provide” that would still allow people to then pass it on. | know that someone in the
chamber was talking about 61.5% of high schoolers get it from someone who is legal other than a
parent. So | worries that this just cuts it off at its knees even more so than it already has already.
Alderman Klee
Yes | think it’s a gallant effort for everybody to try to get this passed with the minimum pain to the youth
of the City but with each one you are doing, | have been hearing over and over again that it’s the 18
year olds that are getting it to the 16 year olds and it’s this and that and so on and in the school. Every
change that you make you are just watering it down more and more so | have to ask what the sincerity
of this is, other than just to get it passed. | don’t know, enough said, | am sorry.
