Wednesday, April 29, 2015

Montgomery Co., MD - Oppose a 30% wholesale tax on vapor products (Local Call to Action)

Montgomery Co., MD

Bill 15-15 would establish a 30% wholesale tax on electronic cigarettes sold in Montgomery County.  Moreover, the county council will be granted the authority to raise the tax rate each year simply by passing a resolution.

Please take action NOW by sending an email to County Councilmembers.  We have also provided phone numbers below.


Please make plans to attend this hearing:

-
Council Hearing Room

Even if you are not planning to testify, your presence is encouraged as it demonstrates the large number of people affected by and engaged in this issue.  Although the indoor vaping ban in Montgomery County has not yet become law, as a sign of respect, please refrain from vaping in the county office building.  Please also dress accordingly -- no sweatpants and t-shirts.


Montgomery Co., MD - Council Members
1
Roger Berliner
240-777-7828
2
Craig Rice
240-777-7955
3
Sidney Katz
240-777-7906
4
Nancy Navarro
240-777-7968
5
Tom Hucker
(sponsor)
240-777-7960
At large
Marc Elrich
240-777-7966
At large
Nancy Floreen
240-777-7959
At large
George Leventhal
240-777-7811
At large
Hans Riemer
240-777-7964
Email sent to this address is included in the daily mail log, which is available to all Councilmembers and staff, and becomes part of the official public record:
- county.council@montgomerycountymd.gov



(Writing Tip #1) If you have a lot to say, please craft your email in a separate word doc and then copy/paste it into the field provided.  If you take too long, they system will time out and you will lose your work.
(Writing Tip #2) Although we've provided a prewritten email with compelling talking points, we would strongly encourage you to edit the email because personalized communications to legislators are far more persuasive than form letters.  At a minimum, PLEASE INSERT YOUR PERSONAL STORY (just a few sentences) in the text of your email.




Montgomery County Council Proposes E-Cigarette Tax:

Proposed Tax on E-Cigs, Vaping in Montgomery Co. Would Mirror Tobacco Tax

Montgomery County considers ban on e-cigarettes:


Monday, April 27, 2015

CASAA Podcast Update April 27, 2015

CASAA's Jan Johnson and Alex Clark discuss legislative- and advocacy-related matters of current interest to CASAA members and THR (tobacco harm reduction) advocates.

Methuen, MA - Local Alert: Flavor Ban and Indoor Use Ban - Board of Health Hearing 04.28.15

Methuen, MA

The Board of Health will be taking public comment on proposed tobacco regulations that will alter Methuen’s definition of “tobacco products” to include e-cigarettes.  Moreover, Item “O” of the proposal would prohibit vaping in the same places smoking is currently banned (including vape shops)

Of particular interest is item “G” which would prohibit the sale of flavored e-cigarettes.  Although there is an exemption that would apply to vapor shops (“Smoking bars and retail tobacco stores”), this provision would act as a de facto ban on sales of vapor products at any other retail shop (convenience stores, gas stations, etc.).

The Board of Health will hold a public hearing on this proposal

6:00 PM
Searles Building
Second Floor Conference Room

Please send comments to:

We have included contact information for the Methuen City Council as well as the rest of the Methuen Board of Health if you feel inclined to share your comments with all Methuen decision makers.  We have provided talking points below as well.


Methuen, MA - City Council
Ronald Marsan
rmarsan@ci.methuen.ma.us
978-689-3676
Thomas Ciulla
tciulla@ci.methuen.ma.us
617-894-4680
James Atkinson
jatkinson@ci.methuen.ma.us
978-918-5300
Lisa J. Yarid-Ferry
ljyarid-ferry@ci.methuen.ma.us
978-376-9891
Daniel Grayton
dgrayton@ci.methuen.ma.us
978-835-6993
Joyce C. Campagnone
jpjajuga@ci.methuen.ma.us
978-682-0105
James P. Jajuga
jpjajuga@ci.methuen.ma.us
978-689-8711
George J. Kazanjian
gjkazanjian@ci.methuen.ma.us
978-686-8084
Sean J. Fountain
sjfountain@ci.methuen.ma.us
978-804-1748
Linda Gagnon
lgagnon@ci.methuen.ma.us
978-983-8511


Methuen, MA - Board of Health
William Buckley
wjbuckley@ci.methuen.ma.us
(978) 983-8565
Brian Lagrasse
bjlagrasse@ci.methuen.ma.us
(978) 983-8664
Maria Alava
malava@ci.methuen.ma.us
(978) 983-8655
Heidi Conlon
hconlon@ci.methuen.ma.us
(978) 983-8659
Bill DePardo
bdepardo@ci.methuen.ma.us
(978) 983-8662
John Bonanno
jbonanno@ci.methuen.ma.us
(978) 983-8663
Amy Ewing
aewing@ci.methuen.ma.us
(978) 983-8661



Suggested Talking Points - Flavor Ban

1). We know from a recent surveys that adults prefer flavors other than traditional tobacco and menthol (http://vaping.com/data/big-survey-2014-initial-findings-eliquid), (http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/10/12/7272)

2). Flavors are an important aspect of vapor products as they help former smokers disassociate nicotine consumption from inhaling smoke.

3).  Prohibiting flavor options creates a barrier to becoming smoke free and, as a result many, adult residents will actually be encouraged to continue smoking instead of making the switch to a product that is estimated to be 99% less hazardous than smoking.

Suggested Talking Points - Indoor Use
  • (Please choose a few of the points below -- topics you are most comfortable discussing.)

  1. You are a resident and you oppose banning e-cigarette use where smoking is prohibited. (If you are responding to a Call to Action or Local Alert for a city or state in which you are not a resident, please mention any connection you have to the area, for example, you travel there on vacation or have friends/family in the area.)

  1. Tell your story on how switching to an e-cigarette has changed your life. (Avoid using slang terms such as "juice.")

  1. Clarify that:
    1. Smoking bans are ostensibly enacted to protect the public from the harm of secondhand smoke, but e-cigarettes have not been found to pose a risk to bystanders. In fact, all evidence to date shows that the low health risks associated with e-cigarettes are comparable to other smokeless nicotine products.
    2. The low risks of e-cigarettes is supported by research done by Dr. Siegel of Boston University, Dr. Eissenberg of Virginia Commonwealth, Dr Maciej L Goniewicz of the Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Dr. Laugesen of Health New Zealand, Dr. Igor Burstyn of Drexel University, and by the fact that the FDA testing, in spite of its press statement, failed to find harmful levels of carcinogens or toxic levels of any chemical in the vapor.
    3. A comprehensive review conducted by Dr. Igor Burstyn of Drexel University School of Public Health based on over 9,000 observations of e-cigarette liquid and vapor found "no apparent concern" for bystanders exposed to e-cigarette vapor, even under "worst case" assumptions about exposure.
    4. Electronic cigarette use is easy to distinguish from actual smoking. Although some e-cigarettes resemble real cigarettes, many do not. It is easy to tell when someone lights a cigarette from the smell of smoke. E-cigarette vapor is often practically odorless, and generally any detectable odor is not unpleasant and smells nothing like smoke. Additionally, e-cigarette users can decide whether to release any vapor ("discreet vaping").  With so little evidence of use, enforcing use bans on electronic cigarettes would be nearly impossible.
    5. The ability to use electronic cigarettes in public spaces will actually improve public health by inspiring other smokers to switch and reduce their health risks by an estimated 99%.
    6. Losing the ability to test e-liquids before purchasing will have a significant and negative impact on your ability to purchase/sell e-liquids.
    7. Many smokers first try e-cigarettes because they can use them where they cannot smoke, however, they often become "accidental quitters." This is a documented phenomenon unique to e-cigarettes. It may take a few months or only a few days, but they inevitably stop smoking conventional cigarettes. This is why including e-cigarettes in smoking bans could have serious unintended consequences!
    8. By making e-cigarette users go outdoors, the City will also be sending a strong message to traditional smokers that e-cigarettes are no safer than smoking. This will actually maintain the number of smokers, rather than help reduce smoking. This is a far more realistic risk to public health than any unfounded concerns about possible youth or non-smoker use uptake. In fact, the most recent report by the CDC showed that the dramatic increase in e-cigarette use over that past 3 years has not led to an increase in youth smoking. Youth smoking of traditional cigarettes continues to decline to record low levels.
    9. The children of smoking parents are far more likely to become smokers than the children of non-smoking parents who see smoking behaviors in public. The children of smoking parents who quit aren't any more likely to smoke than those of non-smoking parents. Prohibiting vapor products in public does little to protect the children of non-smoking parents from becoming smokers, but significantly increases the likelihood that many smoking parents won't switch to e-cigarettes. This only serves to keep the highest-risk children at risk.
    10. E-cigarette use does not promote the smoking of traditional cigarettes, nor does it threaten the gains of tobacco control over the past few decades. In fact, by normalizing e-cigarette use over traditional smoking, the efforts of tobacco control are being supported. If anything, e-cigarette use denormalizes conventional smoking by setting the example of smokers choosing a far less harmful alternative to traditional smoking. The CDC surveys clearly show that there has been no "gateway effect" causing non-smokers to start smoking. As e-cigarettes have become more popular, all available evidence is showing that more and more smokers are quitting traditional cigarettes, including youth smokers.
    11. Important Note: A typical and frequent lawmaker response to e-cigarette users who object to public use bans is "We aren't banning all use or sales, just use where smoking is also prohibited." Don't give them the opportunity to counter you in that way! Make it very clear that you understand that this is not a ban of e-cigarette sales or a ban of e-cigarette use where smoking is allowed, but that what IS proposed is still a step backward in public health, not a step forward.

4) Direct them to the CASAA.org website, as well as the CASAA Research Library, for more information.

Orange City, FL - Local Alert: Indoor Vape Ban ordinance - 1st Read - 04.28.15

Updated 5-5-15: Ordinance defeated! There was so much opposition to the ordinance that the City Council declined to set ordinance for a second reading. Local Alert concluded successfully.

Orange City, FL


Ordinance No. 526 would prohibit vaping in the same places that smoking is currently banned.  According to the Florida Statutes tobacco retailers would be exempt from the indoor use prohibition, however, no such exemption exists for vapor shops nor is one established by this ordinance.


This ordinance will be read for the first time on


7:00 P.M
City Council Chambers


Please make plans to attend this hearing.  If you wish to speak at the hearing you must complete a speaker request form.


Please take a moment to call and email the mayor and council members to urge them to oppose this ordinance.  We have provided contact information and talking points below.


Orange City, FL - City Council
Tom Laputka
(Mayor)
tlaputka@ourorangecity.com
386-775-5403
Gary Blair
(Vice Mayor)
gblair@ourorangecity.com
386-775-5403
Michael Wright
mwright@ourorangecity.com
386-775-5403
Bill Crippen
bcrippen@ourorangecity.com
386-775-5403
Tom Abraham
tabraham@ourorangecity.com
386-775-5403
Ron Saylor
rsaylor@ourorangecity.com
386-775-5403
Anthony Pupello
apupello@ourorangecity.com



Comma delimited email list:
tlaputka@ourorangecity.com, gblair@ourorangecity.com, mwright@ourorangecity.com, bcrippen@ourorangecity.com, tabraham@ourorangecity.com, rsaylor@ourorangecity.com, apupello@ourorangecity.com


Suggested Talking Points - Indoor Use
  • (Please choose a few of the points below -- topics you are most comfortable discussing.)


  1. You are a resident and you oppose banning e-cigarette use where smoking is prohibited. (If you are responding to a Call to Action or Local Alert for a city or state in which you are not a resident, please mention any connection you have to the area, for example, you travel there on vacation or have friends/family in the area.)


  1. Tell your story on how switching to an e-cigarette has changed your life. (Avoid using slang terms such as "juice.")


  1. Clarify that:
    1. Smoking bans are ostensibly enacted to protect the public from the harm of secondhand smoke, but e-cigarettes have not been found to pose a risk to bystanders. In fact, all evidence to date shows that the low health risks associated with e-cigarettes are comparable to other smokeless nicotine products.
    2. The low risks of e-cigarettes is supported by research done by Dr. Siegel of Boston University, Dr. Eissenberg of Virginia Commonwealth, Dr Maciej L Goniewicz of the Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Dr. Laugesen of Health New Zealand, Dr. Igor Burstyn of Drexel University, and by the fact that the FDA testing, in spite of its press statement, failed to find harmful levels of carcinogens or toxic levels of any chemical in the vapor.
    3. A comprehensive review conducted by Dr. Igor Burstyn of Drexel University School of Public Health based on over 9,000 observations of e-cigarette liquid and vapor found "no apparent concern" for bystanders exposed to e-cigarette vapor, even under "worst case" assumptions about exposure.
    4. Electronic cigarette use is easy to distinguish from actual smoking. Although some e-cigarettes resemble real cigarettes, many do not. It is easy to tell when someone lights a cigarette from the smell of smoke. E-cigarette vapor is often practically odorless, and generally any detectable odor is not unpleasant and smells nothing like smoke. Additionally, e-cigarette users can decide whether to release any vapor ("discreet vaping").  With so little evidence of use, enforcing use bans on electronic cigarettes would be nearly impossible.
    5. The ability to use electronic cigarettes in public spaces will actually improve public health by inspiring other smokers to switch and reduce their health risks by an estimated 99%.
    6. Losing the ability to test e-liquids before purchasing will have a significant and negative impact on your ability to purchase/sell e-liquids.
    7. Many smokers first try e-cigarettes because they can use them where they cannot smoke, however, they often become "accidental quitters." This is a documented phenomenon unique to e-cigarettes. It may take a few months or only a few days, but they inevitably stop smoking conventional cigarettes. This is why including e-cigarettes in smoking bans could have serious unintended consequences!
    8. By making e-cigarette users go outdoors, the City will also be sending a strong message to traditional smokers that e-cigarettes are no safer than smoking. This will actually maintain the number of smokers, rather than help reduce smoking. This is a far more realistic risk to public health than any unfounded concerns about possible youth or non-smoker use uptake. In fact, the most recent report by the CDC showed that the dramatic increase in e-cigarette use over that past 3 years has not led to an increase in youth smoking. Youth smoking of traditional cigarettes continues to decline to record low levels.
    9. The children of smoking parents are far more likely to become smokers than the children of non-smoking parents who see smoking behaviors in public. The children of smoking parents who quit aren't any more likely to smoke than those of non-smoking parents. Prohibiting vapor products in public does little to protect the children of non-smoking parents from becoming smokers, but significantly increases the likelihood that many smoking parents won't switch to e-cigarettes. This only serves to keep the highest-risk children at risk.
    10. E-cigarette use does not promote the smoking of traditional cigarettes, nor does it threaten the gains of tobacco control over the past few decades. In fact, by normalizing e-cigarette use over traditional smoking, the efforts of tobacco control are being supported. If anything, e-cigarette use denormalizes conventional smoking by setting the example of smokers choosing a far less harmful alternative to traditional smoking. The CDC surveys clearly show that there has been no "gateway effect" causing non-smokers to start smoking. As e-cigarettes have become more popular, all available evidence is showing that more and more smokers are quitting traditional cigarettes, including youth smokers.
    11. Important Note: A typical and frequent lawmaker response to e-cigarette users who object to public use bans is "We aren't banning all use or sales, just use where smoking is also prohibited." Don't give them the opportunity to counter you in that way! Make it very clear that you understand that this is not a ban of e-cigarette sales or a ban of e-cigarette use where smoking is allowed, but that what IS proposed is still a step backward in public health, not a step forward.

4) Direct them to the CASAA.org website, as well as the CASAA Research Library, for more information.