Friday, March 25, 2016

Local Alert - South Bend, IN - Take action to oppose an indoor #vaping ban

South Bend, IN





A public hearing will be held on an ordinance (Bill no. 11-16) which would enact a ban on smoking AND vaping in all public indoor places and some outdoor places in South Bend. There is no exemption in this proposal for specialty vapor or tobacco stores.


The hearing will be on
7:00 PM
County-City Building,
Council Chambers, 4th floor


Please make plans to attend this hearing. Even if you do not plan to speak, your presence is important as it demonstrates the large numbers of people affected by and engaged in this issue. Please dress appropriately and defer to the decorum of council chambers. Do not vape inside the County-City Building.


Take this opportunity, over the long weekend, to send emails to city council members urging them to oppose this ordinance. We have provided talking points and contact information below. Even though this weekend is a holiday, you can still make calls and leave a voicemail.


You can use this tool provided by the city to find your council district.


You can also participate by providing feedback on this survey from Councilwoman Regina Williams-Preston:


South Bend, IN - City Council
Dist
Council Member
Voice Mail
Email
1
Tim Scott
574.235.5980
tscott@southbendin.gov
2
Regina Williams-Preston
574.235.5983
rpreston@southbendin.gov
3
Randy Kelly
--
rkelly@southbendin.gov
4
Jo M. Broden
574.235.5978
jbroden@southbendin.gov
5
Dr. David Varner
574.235.5984
dvarner@southbendin.gov
6
Oliver Davis
574.235.5986
odavis@southbendin.gov
At Large
John Voorde
574.235.5982
jvoorde@southbendin.gov
At Large
Gavin Ferlic
574.235.5979
gferlic@southbendin.gov
At Large
Karen L. White
574.235.5985
kwhite@southbendin.gov


Comma delimited email list:
tscott@southbendin.gov, rpreston@southbendin.gov, rkelly@southbendin.gov, jbroden@southbendin.gov, dvarner@southbendin.gov, odavis@southbendin.gov, jvoorde@southbendin.gov, gferlic@southbendin.gov, kwhite@southbendin.gov


Suggested Talking Points - Place Ban
  • (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. Other governments are taking exactly the opposite approach; Public Health England (the government public health agency) recently explicitly endorsed a policy of encouraging smokers to switch to e-cigarettes and vapor products (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/e-cigarettes-an-evidence-update).


  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.

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

Wednesday, March 23, 2016

AK - Take action to oppose an indoor vaping ban (HB 328)



AK - HB 328 - Smoking.jpg


Public comment on HB 328 (the companion to SB 1), which would prohibit vaping in the same places where smoking is banned, will be continued on


3:00 PM
Capitol 106
(Teleconferenced)


Public testimony will be taken. However, a time limit may be set. This hearing will be via teleconference in the House Health and Social Services Committee.


The teleconference number that has been provided to us is 844-586-9085.


You can contact your Legislative Information Office for details.


Please make plans to attend this hearing either by phone or in person.


You can take action TODAY by sending an email to members of the committee and your representative urging them to oppose this bill.


Take Action - Send an Email




(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 INCLUDE YOUR PERSONAL STORY (just a few sentences) in the text of your email.

Monday, March 21, 2016

Local Alert - Orange Co., NC - Take action to oppose an indoor vaping ban

Orange Co., NC

Orange County’s unelected Board of Health (BOH) is considering a rule that would prohibit vaping in “indoor areas of bars and restaurants.” The board discussed the matter (item “V”) at its February 24th meeting and unanimously resolved to draft a rule. As one might imagine, the discussion was one-sided, riddled with facts out of context, and innuendo.

The next opportunity residents will have to offer input on this rule will be

7:00 PM

Please see item II on the agenda for instructions on signing up to speak.

The proposed rule is not listed on this week’s agenda. This is a perfect time for residents to start engaging with BOH members and urging them to rethink this proposal. Please take a moment now to email members of the BOH. We have provided talking points and contact information below.


Orange Co., NC - Board of Health
Barbara Chavious
boc.chavious46@gmail.com
Dan Dewitya, Pharm. D.
dan.dewitya@gmail.com
Jessica Frega, MPH
jessicalois@gmail.com
Liska Lackey, RN
llackey@email.unc.edu
Mia Burroughs
mburroughs@orangecountync.gov
Nick Galvez, PT, MBA, CMA
ngalvez1234@gmail.com
Paul Chelminski, MD, MPH
paul_chelminski@med.unc.edu
Reena Mehta, OD
reenagupta429@gmail.com
Sam Lasris, DDS
samlasris@hotmail.com
Susan Elmore, DVM
elmore@niehs.nih.gov
Timothy Smith
tsmith@pennoni.com

Comma delimited email list:
boc.chavious46@gmail.com, dan.dewitya@gmail.com, jessicalois@gmail.com, llackey@email.unc.edu, mburroughs@orangecountync.gov, ngalvez1234@gmail.com, paul_chelminski@med.unc.edu, reenagupta429@gmail.com, samlasris@hotmail.com, elmore@niehs.nih.gov, tsmith@pennoni.com

Suggested Talking Points - Place Ban
  • (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. Other governments are taking exactly the opposite approach; Public Health England (the government public health agency) recently explicitly endorsed a policy of encouraging smokers to switch to e-cigarettes and vapor products (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/e-cigarettes-an-evidence-update).

  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.

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