The New York City Council on Sept. 10, 2026 took up Intro. 813A, a bill by Council Member Harvey Epstein that would let the Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (DCWP) refuse to renew, suspend, or revoke tobacco and electronic-cigarette retailer licenses if a license holder is found to be selling cannabis without a New York State registration or permit — a measure sponsors say targets an illegal market that generated more than 4,000 complaints since September 2025 and an estimated 8,000 unlicensed smoke shops. Source: https://youtu.be/tUuJxLkV834&t=692
# What’s happening
– Intro. 813A would empower DCWP to act against licensed tobacco and e-cigarette retailers.
– Council Member Harvey Epstein sponsored and presented the bill on Sept. 10, 2026.
– The bill would take effect if and when the Council passes and the mayor signs it.
# Why it matters
– Licensed tobacco and vape retailers face new licensing penalties tied to illegal cannabis sales.
– The city aims to curb unlicensed smoke shops that neighbors and officials report across NYC.
# Key details
– Intro. 813A: local bill authorizing DCWP to refuse, suspend, or revoke tobacco and e-cigarette retailer licenses.
– Sponsor: Council Member Harvey Epstein.
– Complaint totals cited: more than 4,000 complaints about illegal cannabis sales since September 2025.
– Estimate cited: roughly 8,000 unlicensed smoke shops in the city.
– DCWP currently enforces tobacco and electronic cigarette licensing; it does not directly enforce State cannabis licensing.
– Related Council measures (earlier work by other members) include new 311 complaint categories and expanded reporting on unlicensed cannabis retail activity.
Harvey Epstein
– Role or jurisdiction: New York City Council Member; sponsor of Intro. 813A.
– Action taken or responsibility: Introduced Intro. 813A to give DCWP authority over tobacco/e-cigarette licenses tied to illegal cannabis sales.
– Relevant numbers or dates: Cited more than 4,000 complaints since September 2025 and an estimate of about 8,000 unlicensed smoke shops. Source: https://youtu.be/tUuJxLkV834&t=692
Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (DCWP)
– Role or jurisdiction: City agency that licenses and enforces rules for tobacco and electronic cigarette retailers.
– Action taken or responsibility: Conducts inspections, issues violations, seals businesses, and collects civil penalties under city licensing laws.
– Relevant numbers or dates: DCWP enforcement accounts in earlier hearings note shutting down dozens to hundreds of illegal tobacco locations, sealing businesses, and collecting penalties in 2025. (This detail is from earlier Council oversight hearings, external to the Sept. 10, 2026 meeting.) Source: https://youtu.be/w26d24z4sf0&t=4027 ; https://youtu.be/p0zqCs4f7Gk&t=7591
Intro. 813A and what it authorizes
Intro. 813A would allow the Department of Consumer and Worker Protection to refuse to renew, suspend, or revoke a tobacco retailer dealer license or an electronic cigarette retailer dealer license when DCWP finds a licensee sold cannabis or cannabis products without the appropriate New York State registration or permit. Source: https://youtu.be/tUuJxLkV834&t=611
What the bill says about proof and process
The bill language presented in the Council meeting uses the phrase “upon a finding” by DCWP that the holder distributed cannabis without a State registration or permit. The transcript of the Sept. 10 discussion does not define the legal evidence standard, administrative procedures, or appeal process that DCWP would use to reach such a finding. Source: https://youtu.be/tUuJxLkV834&t=611
How enforcement is likely to be carried out (based on prior DCWP practice)
In earlier Council hearings (external to the Sept. 10 meeting), DCWP described its enforcement tools and how it has acted against unlicensed tobacco shops: inspectors visit businesses, issue violations, work with the Sheriff’s interagency task force on coordinated closures, seal repeat violators, and collect civil penalties. DCWP has reported shutting down dozens to hundreds of illegal tobacco locations and has recovered civil penalties in past years. Those prior enforcement practices are the operational model DCWP would likely use alongside the new licensing authority. Source (external to this meeting): https://youtu.be/w26d24z4sf0&t=4027 ; https://youtu.be/p0zqCs4f7Gk&t=7591
Limits and legal questions flagged in oversight hearings
DCWP and City officials have said in earlier hearings that the city’s authority is focused on tobacco and e-cigarette licensing; the agency stated it does not have direct enforcement authority over State cannabis licensing, and that court decisions about hemp sales have constrained enforcement in some locations. Officials have said the city is exploring legal avenues and coordinating across agencies to address those constraints. Those legal limits and ongoing challenges were discussed in separate Council oversight hearings prior to Sept. 10, 2026. Source (external to this meeting): https://youtu.be/p0zqCs4f7Gk&t=7889 ; https://youtu.be/TZPg3fz5e2A&t=2426
Penalties and remedies available now
Under existing city enforcement described in earlier hearings, DCWP-issued violations for unlicensed tobacco activity have civil penalties (examples discussed in oversight hearings include a $100-per-day figure for unlicensed tobacco retail activity), and DCWP has used sealing and monetary penalties against repeat unlicensed operators. Intro. 813A would add an additional licensing consequence (refusal, suspension, or revocation of a tobacco or e‑cigarette license) tied to illicit cannabis sales. Source (external to this meeting): https://youtu.be/p0zqCs4f7Gk&t=7889 ; https://youtu.be/p0zqCs4f7Gk&t=7591
Timeline and expected impact
The Sept. 10, 2026 meeting transcript does not set a timeline for roll‑out or for measurable reductions in unlicensed smoke shops. Sponsors argued the additional licensing leverage would help disrupt the illegal market; the meeting record does not quantify how quickly or by what percentage unlicensed shops would fall. DCWP’s prior enforcement history shows it can close dozens to hundreds of locations over months and years when agencies coordinate, but those past closures were achieved using existing authority and task‑force actions rather than the specific licensing sanction proposed in Intro. 813A. Source: https://youtu.be/tUuJxLkV834&t=692 ; https://youtu.be/w26d24z4sf0&t=4027
Related Council work to support enforcement (external)
Council members have advanced companion measures in earlier sessions to improve reporting and public complaints: creating a 311 complaint category for unlicensed cannabis retailers and expanding agency reporting on inspections and outcomes are examples of actions intended to feed enforcement work with better data. Those proposals were discussed in earlier Council meetings and hearings separate from the Sept. 10 stated meeting. Source (external to this meeting): https://youtu.be/g_piA3alRpg&t=1048 ; https://youtu.be/IdBma70oM2A&t=509
What remains unspecified
The Sept. 10 discussion leaves several implementation details open: the administrative evidence standard DCWP would use to make a “finding”; whether the bill would require notice, a hearing, or other due‑process steps before a suspension or revocation; how DCWP will coordinate with State cannabis regulators; and how DCWP will handle sites selling hemp products where court rulings have limited enforcement. Those items were not specified in the meeting record. Source: https://youtu.be/tUuJxLkV834&t=611
Next steps
The Council took up Intro. 813A in the Sept. 10 stated meeting and sponsors urged colleagues to pass the measure; subsequent votes, implementing rules, and agency guidance would determine the practical enforcement process and any timeline for impact. Source: https://youtu.be/tUuJxLkV834&t=692
(If you want, I can extract the exact bill text and note where the legislation uses “finding,” or pull the earlier Council oversight clips that detail DCWP’s enforcement outcomes and the court rulings limiting hemp enforcement.)
GetLocalPost 
Leave a comment