Monday, October 17, 2016

Local Alert - Philadelphia, PA - City Council is considering imposing a moratorium on new vapor shops.

The Philadelphia Board of Health has “provisionally approved” a regulation regarding tobacco retailing within the city. This regulation would limit the number of “tobacco retailer” licenses to 1 per 1000 residents in a district. The city’s definition of “tobacco retailer” includes vapor shops. Approval of this regulation will effectively impose a moratorium on new vapor shops opening in over 3/4th of the city.

A public hearing will be held on:

Municipal Services Building

Please take action NOW by sending a message to City Council members urging them to oppose this regulation!

Take Action - Send a Message

Existing retailers in the city of Philadelphia should be aware that even if you believe this regulation is a good thing because it will limit your competition, other municipalities have adopted similar ordinances that are later used to reduce the number of licences issued by the city -- there is no distinction between a vapor shop and a bodega that sells cigarettes.

Please make plans to attend this hearing.

We have provided talking points for you to develop your presentation to the board.
Suggested Talking Points - Tobacco Retail License

  1. Because this ordinance will prohibit new vapor shops from opening, it will actually have the effect of protecting the sales of traditional cigarettes as they will still be allowed to be sold in hundreds of locations throughout the city.
  2. Including low-risk, smoke-free products like e-cigarettes in tobacco regulations sends a confusing message to existing smokers that these products are just as harmful as continuing to smoke. We know from a growing body of science that:
    1. these products are 99% less risky than traditional cigarettes,
    2. they are helping more than several million people worldwide to eliminate or reduce their smoking habit
    3. adult awareness of these low-risk, smoke-free alternatives is declining due to confusing laws and misinformation campaigns.
  3. If “licensing” or “registration” is the only way the city feels they can enforce a ban on sales to minors, vapor retailers should be regulated under a separate vapor retailer regulatory scheme. Regulations for tobacco retailers are notably more restrictive due to the risks associated with smoking.



(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.

Saturday, October 15, 2016

Local Alert - Itasca Co., MN - Take action to oppose an indoor vaping ban!

An ordinance that would prohibit vaping in the same places where smoking is currently banned has been approved by the Itasca County Board of Health. This ordinance is moving to a work session with the Board of Commissioners. The work session is scheduled for Tuesday, October 18th, 2016.


This work session is for the purpose of moving this ordinance to a public hearing. CASAA will update this alert when the time and date for public comment is announced.


In the meantime, please take this opportunity to contact your Itasca County Commissioners and urge them to oppose this ordinance.


Take Action - Send a Message


Please also call the main courthouse number to leave a message for all county commissioners:


(218) 327-2847


(For direct numbers to each board member,
please see the county’s contact page here.)

Suggested Talking Points for Your Call
  • (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) and The Royal College of Physicians (a 500 year old association of 32,000 medical professionals in the UK) 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) (https://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/projects/outputs/nicotine-without-smoke-tobacco-harm-reduction-0).


  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, what IS being 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.