From city councils, to State Houses and federal agencies, there is growing recognition that manufacturers and distributors of illegal flavored vapes, most made in China, are undermining significant progress made to reduce youth vaping in Massachusetts.

In 2019, almost one-third of Bay State high schoolers reported vaping over the past 30 days. That is a problem because, as Dr. Mohammad Abu-Hishmeh of Massachusetts’ Baystate Medical Center noted, vaping is linked to issues ranging from asthma attacks to weakened immune systems. That is why the Massachusetts legislature banned the sale of illegal flavored vapes in 2019. Manufacturers marketed those products, in flavors such as bubble gum and raspberry, to appeal to teenagers, fueling most of Massachusetts’ underage use of these products.

Youth use of tobacco products in any form – including e-cigarettes – is unsafe.  Nicotine poses unique dangers to young people. In addition to being highly addictive, nicotine can harm the developing adolescent brain, which continues to develop until about age 25, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).  Young people who use nicotine may also be at risk for addiction to other drugs.

As a former Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, I am well versed in the multifaceted efforts taken by multiple local, state, and federal government agencies to stem the flow of these harmful products. Much like the fentanyl crisis, these vapes represent a serious public health threat. They often have dangerous, undisclosed chemicals and manufacturing practices that ignore U.S. safety standards. Reports have also shown that many Chinese-made vaping devices contain harmful toxins, including heavy metals and carcinogens, that can severely harm users.

Unfortunately, China’s e-cigarette industry has experienced significant growth even though both the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) prohibit their sale. In 2021, the market size reached approximately 116 billion yuan, a more than 500% increase over the past few years. Projections indicate that this figure may have doubled this year.

What’s more, the vape lobby — hungry for more profits — is working overtime to reverse this ban. As such, in September, Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell led over 20 other state attorneys general to file a Supreme Court amicus brief with her urging the justices to uphold the FDA’s ban on the sale of these illegal flavored vapes.

The FDA has taken steps to protect American users by approving a very few specific, American-made devices for sale to U.S. adults. However, rather than maintain these safeguards for the citizenry, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) is now considering banning most of these products from the market, effectively handing the multi-billion-dollar industry over to unregulated Chinese manufacturers.

That would be tantamount to ordering the closure of American-made pharmaceutical companies, allowing China to create a monopoly for its illegally trafficked fentanyl. It makes no sense. Should the ITC decide to move in this direction, Massachusetts residents would lose healthier smoking alternatives that have helped them quit nicotine, and Massachusetts local, state, and federal law enforcement officials will have a far more challenging time keeping dangerous illegal vaping products off Massachusetts store shelves. An ITC ban on said U.S. vaping products could have serious ramifications.

Luckily for the people of Massachusetts, Democratic Rep. Richard Neal has not only been an outspoken advocate for families who have suffered from the fentanyl crisis but also supports protecting children from unregulated e-cigarettes. He also serves as the ranking member of the House Ways and Means Committee, which has jurisdiction over trade issues. The ITC falls immediately under his authority.

The stakes could not be higher. From fentanyl to unregulated vaping products, the American people are already paying the price for China’s reckless disregard for health and safety. They don’t need this problem to get worse with a shortsighted ban on U.S.-made, FDA-approved products.

Now is the time for leaders like Neal to step forward and ensure that American-made products vetted for safety are protected from unfair competition. Neal’s leadership could help turn the tide, safeguard Massachusetts’ families and strike a blow against China’s dangerous trade practices. His leadership is needed now more than ever.

Michael McCall is an Adjunct Professor of Forensic Accounting, Boston College, Bridgewater State University, and Stonehill College, and a Former Special Agent, FBI

A national think tank says the ACLU of Massachusetts is “grasping for relevance” with a settlement it secured in an argument that certain illegal immigrants should be granted temporary relief while working to obtain legal status.

Originally Published: January 18, 2025 at 4:03 PM EST

A bipartisan group of good-government advocates is pushing to overhaul the Massachusetts Legislature’s generous stipend system, which currently provides additional “leadership pay” to roughly three-quarters of the state’s 200 lawmakers, including some committee leaders whose panels do not consider bills or hold hearings.

A proposal filed this week by the Coalition to Reform our Legislature would drastically reduce the number of stipends on offer for legislators, and also link pay to performance, ensuring lawmakers receive additional pay only for positions that “involve significant work,” according to a summary proponents provided. It would reduce the amount spent on lawmaker pay by more than $500,000 a year, the summary said.

Currently, the Democratic leaders of the state House and Senate each have about $2 million in extra leadership pay to dole out among their party members for roles as high-profile as majority leader and as modest as vice chair of a committee. Critics of the system say it centralizes power in the hands of the Senate president and House speaker; those leaders effectively control the salaries of their colleagues, a power structure that discourages dissent.

Not all of those paid legislative leadership positions require much legislating. The Globe found last year that 12 of the Legislature’s committees — more than 20 percent — had not held a single hearing or considered a single bill during the legislative session. Committee leaders defended their records, arguing their panels were meant to support and advise.

No other full-time state legislature relied so heavily on leadership stipends to compensate its members or gave out as many stipends of such generous size, a Globe investigation found last year.

The amount of additional pay for leaders ranges widely, from $7,776 for committee vice chairs to $119,632 for top legislative leaders. The stipends come on top of legislators base pay of $82,044 and a stipend for travel and expenses that every lawmaker gets. That travel subsidy ranges from $22,431 and $29,908, depending on how far a lawmaker lives from the State House.

Jeanne Kempthorne, a former state ethics commissioner and federal prosecutor who is advocating for the measure, said the stipend system is “probably the most important feature of control of rank and file by leadership.”

“It makes it very, very hard for legislators to stand up to leadership, even when their constituents are super clear about what they want,” she said.

The proposal faces a steep uphill battle in a Legislature where the vast majority of lawmakers benefit from the leadership pay system — and where leadership would seem to have few incentives to change it either. For one thing, as of now, not a single lawmaker has agreed to put their name on the measure. Under the Massachusetts Constitution, citizens are empowered to file their own proposals with the Legislature, but those measures are not assigned to committees or considered at legislative hearings unless a current member of the Legislature is willing to take them up. Lawmakers can do that through a process known as filing a bill “by request,” which allows lawmakers to put forward a constituent’s idea for consideration without sponsoring it, which could signal a stronger endorsement.

Lawmakers traditionally sign and file those measures on behalf of constituents who ask, according to a state guide on the process. In this case, though, no one has been willing to put their name on the measure yet.

Jonathan Hecht, a former Democratic state representative from Watertown who is pushing for the change, said his group asked a handful of Democrats to put the measure forward so that it could get a hearing, but they declined.

The measure deserves “a careful look,” he argued.

“The fact that legislators are too scared to take the small step of helping a serious idea to get a public hearing tells you how undemocratic and frankly toxic a place the Legislature is,” Hecht said.

House and Senate leaders launched the current legislative session by promising greater transparency, Hecht noted. “My hope is that leadership will step up and send a signal of openness, saying, ‘Hey, let’s take a look at this.‘”

In response to inquiries from the Globe, neither the Senate President nor the House Speaker took a position on the measure or even whether it merits a hearing.

Separately, the coalition is also pushing a measure to create offices of legislative research and fiscal analysis. That proposal has been filed by State Representative Tricia Farley-Bouvier, a Pittsfield Democrat, at the request of the coalition.

Emma Platoff can be reached at emma.platoff@globe.com. Follow her @emmaplatoff.