Utah planning to add use of eCigs to definition of smoking

[wfx]

. And what is the proper collective noun for a group of baboons?

Believe it or not ....... a Congress!

awesome. v2 had better rethink that parliament brand analog. baboons that can do insider trading!

 

[LibertariaNate]

There are a lot more non-smoked "tobacco products" than there are smoked ones and NONE of those are included in smoking bans. But if we let legislation ban something because it's "intended to circumvent" smoking bans, it leaves the door wide open to ban public use of ALL tobacco and nicotine products that they could accuse us of using for the same purpose.

E-cigarettes are not "smoked," as they do not burn anything nor do they create smoke. E-cigarettes have only 2 things in common with traditional cigarettes - "cigarette" in the name and the user inhales nicotine. that is not enough reason to treat them in the same vein as traditional cigarettes. Consider that root beer is not regulated/legislated the same as alcoholic beverages just because it has "beer" in the name and you drink it.

The fact is - e-cigarettes are SMOKELESS tobacco and should be treated the same way in public unless they can be shown to be a health hazard to bystanders.

Just to play devil's advocate...

You're arguing semantics. I say tə-mā-tō, you say tə-mä-tō. Vapor looks like smoke therefore, to the ignorant, it is smoke.

In all seriousness though...

Problem is, other "smokeless" tobacco products are far less visible then e-cigs. It's fairly easy to see/smell someone smoking a cigarette or vaping an e-cig. Not so easy to see from a distance if someone is using chew or just has a mint or gum in their mouth. Enforcing the ban on other smokeless products would be a nightmare; It would be TSA Part Deux.

 

[Creniker]

I live in UT. I want to help, and help rally people together to help fight this. I didnt spend this much on vaping to have it become outlawed. Where should I start.

 

[Striker911]

I happen to live in an apartment building that was recently purchased by the local state college. As such, my apartment is now officially recognized as a state building. That means that I can't even sit on my own couch, watch TV, and drink a beer. With this legislation, I won't be able to vape in my own home, either.

Sure, it's fine if I can't vape while walking through WalMart. But this reaches further than that.

I know this was an older one but it brings something into question for me. Is it a bad thing that I vape in walmart? It has kept me from going crazy due to being assaulted by old woman with carts and blocking the entire isle while looking at things on the shelf. My wife is also guilty of looking at something for what seems like 10 minutes to set it down and finally walk away. Whats up with that crap anyways?

 

[Striker911]

awesome. v2 had better rethink that parliament brand analog. baboons that can do insider trading!

Hope they did for everyone's sake. I bought one 5 pack and they where all defective. Same with the Sahara.

 

[kristin]

Just to play devil's advocate...

You're arguing semantics. I say tə-mā-tō, you say tə-mä-tō. Vapor looks like smoke therefore, to the ignorant, it is smoke.

In all seriousness though...

Problem is, other "smokeless" tobacco products are far less visible then e-cigs. It's fairly easy to see/smell someone smoking a cigarette or vaping an e-cig. Not so easy to see from a distance if someone is using chew or just has a mint or gum in their mouth. Enforcing the ban on other smokeless products would be a nightmare; It would be TSA Part Deux.

I'm not arguing semantics, Nate, but that is what they are trying to make it. (I know I'm preaching to the choir with you, but I'm going to say it anyhow for those who may not see the larger issue.)

Vapor is not smoke and the law was intended to protect people from SMOKE. This is not "most people" we are talking about - these are legislators who are supposed to know the law and are trying to twist and corrupt it. What the law SAYS is very significant and not just semantics. You cannot ignore the intent of a law (which is based on reported scientific evidence of potential harm to bystanders) by claiming it's "just semantics" that the law says smoke and not vapor. If they can twist it to include vapor, then it is not far fetched that they could twist it to include ALL tobacco, based on the language they are trying to pass. Putting those two little words in there - "intended to" - completely changes the game, too. It's attempting to define e-cigarettes purely as devices intended to circumvent smoking bans, when that is not even how they are largely used. How can they possibly know WHY I use them? Imagine if they passed a law prohibiting owning a gun, because they are "intended to" kill people. Maybe it's a rifle for deer hunting and you have no intention of killing someone whatsoever!

Because one can stealth vape, enforcing a vaping ban would be a nightmare, as well. I stealth vape in restaurants all of the time (not because it's illegal here but to avoid alarming people) and no one is the wiser. They have already banned all tobacco product use at some colleges and hospitals and I cannot imagine how they think they can possibly enforce it for smokeless users. It also shows that it's not far fetched that the ANTZ could go after smokeless use in other places, as well. The language in this bill would make that all the more easier.

 

[kristin]

Agreed. The state of Utah is amending their "Clean Air" act to include the hookah language because hookah bars have already been banned. I'm sure this is their attempt at trying to make the ban stick. IIRC, the ban is currently being contested.

Actually, so people know, the ban on hookahs was effectively blocked back in September. So this is yet another attempt to add them back in and they decided to toss e-cigarettes in for good measure.

Utah lawmakers: Smoking hookah OK in bars and clubs | The Salt Lake Tribune

A legislative committee Tuesday requested that public health officials not enforce a controversial new rule that would have banned hookahs containing tobacco from indoor public spaces.

Utah Department of Health spokesman Tom Hudachko said the health department would comply with the request. It will have to work with lawmakers to decide whether the law should be changed to ban hookah smoking in public places, he said.

Note that, according to the same article, they provided "evidence" as a reason to ban hookah use, but did no such thing regarding e-cigarettes.

The health department presented peer-reviewed studies showing the amount of toxins emitted in secondhand smoke from a hookah was worse than cigarette smoking.​

“We believe tobacco smoke is tobacco smoke,” said Gary Edwards, director of the Salt Lake Valley Health Department.​

Like e-cigarette research, the ANTZ are being accused of cherry-picking the research (by hookah users and businesses) and only disclosing that which supports their claims.

I bet a lot of people don't realize that modern hookah utilizes glycerin to produce the vapor which is inhaled by the user.

This is a quote from one of the "peer-reviewed studies" they cherry-picked:

Hookah (Shisha, Narghile) Smoking and Environmental
Tobacco Smoke (ETS). A Critical Review of the Relevant
Literature and the Public Health Consequences
Kamal Chaouachi
DIU Tabacologie, Université Paris XI / Paris, France; E-Mail: kamcha@gmail.com; Tel.: +33-1-4928-
9860; Fax: +33-1-4238-0702
Received: 4 January 2009 / Accepted: 11 February 2009 / Published: 23 February 2009

In fact, the smoke of hookah is chemically much less complex than that of cigarettes. This is due to
the much lower temperatures to which the tobacco-molasses mixture is subjected: actually hundreds of
degrees below that of cigarettes. Notably, and in striking contrast with ordinary cigarettes, a great part
of the smoke is made up of water and glycerol when moassel is used [8]. It had been previously found
that the water-soluble portion of cigarette smoke represented 38% of the particulate matter [24].
Interestingly, Middle East researchers have subsequently estimated the overall shisha water-filtration
rate to be 38%, and concluded that shisha smoke, with only 142 compounds detected in a pipe filled
with jurak (a mixture of 15% of tobacco leaves and 47% carbohydrates (glucose)), is actually far less
complex than cigarette smoke [25]. This figure can be compared with the 4,700 substances identified
so far in cigarette smoke [26].

Another example is a report by the American Lung Association whose cover shows, once again, a
small-size hookah generating SSS on its own (Figure 3). Unfortunately, what the tobacco experts who
prepared both reports ignored is that, in contrast with cigarettes (Figures 1 and 4), a hookah does not
generate such a side-stream smoke.

Yet, researchers had pointed out that “one of the only articulated benefits to this tobacco alternative
is the minimal release of side-stream smoke, which would ultimately place by-standers at risk for ETS
exposure” [27].

Conclusions
In situations where individuals are exposed to the clouds of ETS exhaled by modern hookah
smokers (using moassel/tobamel), it appears, using cigarette smoke retention models and rates from
studies reviewed in the present work, that:
1. hookah smoke is made up of a large amount of glycerol and water (probably around 80% or
more) and that these two substances are harmless;
2. exposed non-smokers to hookah smoke would retain in their respiratory tract 11-59% of the
remaining (EMSS) particulate matter and 71–81% of nicotine;
3. exhaled CO measured in non-smokers exposed to hookah ETS in different settings (cafes,
hookah lounges) and countries does not vary;
4. the respiratory tract of active hookah smokers would retain up to 95% of the main aldehydes
which are known to be water soluble and, consequently, also stopped to an unknown
proportion in the water vessel of the hookah.


Furthermore, it should be emphasised once again that there is a lack of sound epidemiological
research on the health risks of hookah active smoking as far as long-term complications are concerned.
No conclusion can be drawn from the existing studies (on pathologies like oral, gastric and bladder
cancer, contact eczema, tuberculosis or aspergillosis, etc.) because of striking confusion factors such as
the simultaneous use of other products [e.g. qat, cigarettes, bidis, etc. ] or a strongly neglected hygiene
(hose, water not changed, etc.). Most of the time, the remote and recent career of smokers (former
cigarette smokers having quit for a long time and suddenly indulging in hookah smoking; or cigarette
smokers having “switched” to hookah smoking; etc.) were not given any detail [1]. All these facts and
others lead to the conclusion that hookah ETS (not MSS) hazards will remain unwarranted until a
study shows that minute amounts of toxicants present in hookah EMSS may cause serious diseases as
some researchers state about cigarette ETS [129]. Most recently, an interesting study showed that,
given that there would be no safe level of exposure to tobacco smoke, ThirdHand Smoke (defined as
residual tobacco smoke contamination that remains after the cigarette is extinguished) may be
extremely hazardous, particularly for children at home [130]. It is also noted that in the case of
cigarette smoking, where, unlike hookah, SSS is generated, exposed non-smokers do not breathe deeply, particularly when they are exposed to tobacco smoke. This fact is of utmost importance as
many statements about ETS cigarette assume a similarity of inhalation patterns between active and
passive cigarette smokers. Perhaps the only problem regarding hookah ETS might be odours. Experts
had once noted that “although many people dislike the smell of burning tobacco, there are some who
enjoy it” and added that “this is especially true of cigar or pipe smoke, which nevertheless contain
higher concentrations of irritants than cigarette smoke” [74]. In the case of heated flavoured (apple,
strawberry, rose, etc.) tobacco-molasses mixture (moassel/tobamel), it is noteworthy that non-smokers
do not feel bothered by the smoke [2]. The only problems reported so far are social nuisances caused
by the smell of flavours, particularly in urban settings.


Citing a report of the Institute of Medicine (2001), a recent paper concludes that: "While prevention
and cessation is the most effective way to eliminate the health risks of cigarette smoking, the use of
cigarettes and other tobacco products will continue. In spite of stringent smoking restrictions in the
United States, it is expected that, in 2010, approximately 10–15% of the adult population in this
country will not be willing or able to give up tobacco consumption (Institute of Medicine, 2001). For
these people it is most important to develop products of harm reduction" [26]. Informing on the
hazards of active smoking (cigarette or hookah), on which there is a wide consensus, is important and
accepted by the smokers themselves around the world. However, hyping ETS hazards may have
backlash effects. A smokeless product of the Swedish SNUS type is probably the best and universal
harm reduction tool [8]. Two decades ago, a harm reduction cigarette which heats tobacco instead of
burning it, and which generates no SSS, had appeared under successive forms and names and was
positively assessed by prominent world experts [121,131]. However, it met a wide opposition. Today,
the market is displaying a multitude of new alternatives to cigarette and hookah smoking. For instance,
recent research by the Tobacco Industry has been done on the Electrically Heated Cigarette Smoking
System (EHCSS) in which tobacco is only heated during each puff and no SSS is generated. Gasvapour phase ETS markers would be reduced by 97% and total RSP by 90% [132]. Also, switching
from conventional cigarette smoking to the EHCSS would result in substantial reductions in
concentrations of several ETS markers [133]. Recently, the Chinese have made their way in this open
market by offering electronic cigarettes, cigars and pipes. These products contain no tobacco but
vaporise nicotine and flavours. It is noteworthy that all these inventions more or less mimic the
narghile principle. An E-narghile is also in project.


The scientific evidence about CO hazards connected with the hard use of hookah smoking,
particularly in ill-ventilated places, was sufficient and the best public health message. Amazingly, it
was dismissed and aggressive public health plans were favoured as against cigarette ETS. They may
have gone too far, not realising that a confrontational approach to prevention is generating a growing
reaction that psycho-sociologists explain as an attack on the very individual identity in the case of
cigarette smokers [13]. In the case of hookah smoking, there is also a collective identity because of its
important sociological, anthropological and historical dimensions. Perhaps it is time to put all
environmental health risks in perspective as a timely book suggests [134]. Cigarette or hookah ETS is
certainly a problem but not a public health one, as alcoholism is.

 

[cba191]

I sent an email to the governor through his site, but I don't know if that's worth anything. I hate Utah!

 

[Placebo Effect]

Committee hearing on the bill was today -- they decided to hold it over.

Bill to ban e-cigarettte, hookah use in public places put on hold pending clarifications | Deseret News

But some lawmakers said they had reservations about a bill that would effectively put hookah bars out of business when the data over health risks is unclear. Representatives of the Huka Bar and Grill in Murray said the bill would put 90 people out of work.

Other lawmakers said they needed more time to study the proposal.

Some opponents took issue with the bill treating e-cigarettes the same as hookah pipes.

Jecinda Ross, of West Jordan, said she was a cigarette smoker for many years but has quit thanks to e-cigarettes. "I've been smoke free since August 2010. I have no desire to smoke any more," Ross said.

 

[AttyPops]

OK, getting way too long to read... I skimmed.

Basically,
1) Medically inaccurate definition of smoking.
2) Scientifically inaccurate definition of smoking.
3) S/B a legally invalid definition of smoking. By their definition, any inhalation of something is smoking. What about a nebulizer?

If you wish to ban e-cigs, make them a separate classification. I won't debate "rights" here, but rather accuracy. It's a stretch by ignorant extremists to deliberately classify e-cigs incorrectly, so as to leverage existing smoking laws against them. If you're that "anti" anything, you're just a member of an extremest hate-group. Plus, they have no grounds to assume harm from these devices. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff. Proof assumes accuracy.

So basically, "What a load of crap!"

 

[Placebo Effect]

A mix of bad and generic stories. The first two are most significant, as it reveals that the American Cancer Society appears to be taking a neutral stance on the e-cigarette usage ban, while the Utah PTA and Health Department are in full blown prohibitionist mode, with some of the most ill conceived reasons to be against e-cigarettes that I've ever seen.

David Neville of the Utah DOH seriously says that e-cigs are "confusing" to smokers and that smokers don't know when they've gotten enough nicotine.

Utah children are experimenting with e-cigarettes | Deseret News
Utah PTA aims to snuff out electronic cigarettes | ksl.com
Utah lawmakers look to tighten restrictions on nicotine, increase smokers' Medicaid premiums | The Republic
Legislature considers ban of hookah lounges, e-cigarettes | ksl.com
Bill to ban e-cigarettte, hookah use in public places put on hold pending clarifications | Deseret News

 

[LibertariaNate]

From the Deseret News article:

Nearly 8 percent of Utah's sixth-, eighth-, tenth- and twelfth-graders reported they had experimented with e-cigarettes and 3 percent had used them in the past 30 days, according to a 2011 Utah Division of Substance Abuse and Mental Health survey of more than 55,000 Utah school children, conducted by the Utah Department of Health.

I'm curious what the numbers are with re: to "conventional" cigarettes. Utah (as do many states) already has laws on the books prohibiting the sale of e-cigs to minors. I don't see how banning public use of them is going to decrease the numbers quoted above.

 

[ThatJoeGuy]

Something of interest to me...

Utah law states "it is important to note that Utah law prohibits the possession or use of all types of tobacco and E cigarettes at any time by students under the age of 19. This applies to students from adjoining states (whose laws may allow 18 year olds to possess or use tobacco ) who are at a Utah school to participate in extracurricular activities." (found here on pg 4, Item #4, third paragraph)

There's apparently been an admission of guilt in the breaking of an established law, as illustrated by this survey supposedly conducted by Utah's own DOH. Of course, there's no comparison data showing how many of these kids experimented with traditional cigarettes, alcohol, or prescription drugs.

 

[Placebo Effect]

Utah children are experimenting with e-cigarettes | Deseret News

It should be noted that the study mentioned and linked in the above story, which says a 2011 survey found that about 8% of Utah adolescents had used an e-cigarette and 3% had in the past 30 days, did not actually report e-cigarette use.

Perhaps the Utah DOH has the data, but it's not available in that survey.

 

[Jacinda222]

For anyone interested, here is a link to the recording of the first Committee Meeting discussing this bill: Click Here

ETA: The discussion for HB245 starts about 53 minutes in.

 

[Placebo Effect]

E-mail from journalist from Deseret News

‎

Apparently, the Division of Substance Abuse and Mental Health contracted with the SHARP survey operators, to ask additional questions in last year’s Personal Needs Assessment survey. Because they were questions that were not originally in the survey’s format, the data resulting from the answers is not included in the published SHARP survey. The department is working on publishing a separate study containing these numbers. I am told it will be made public in the coming months.

At any rate, attached is a copy of the slide containing e-cigarette survey results. It is taken from a PowerPoint presentation made at the Tobacco Prevention and Control Program’s advisory committee meeting in December.

Thanks for reading...I have made a change to the online article to reflect where the e-cigarette statistics came from.

So far more teens are using cigars and hookah, and the Utah DOH and PTA are vigorously opposing ... e-cigarettes.

 

[Vocalek]

Hmm... Looks to me that a different spin could come out of that slide:

Utah teens experiment with e-cigarettes less frequently than any other form of tobacco use.


Why are they focusing the full brunt of their resources against the least of their problems. Why aren't they focusing on the products teen use the most and (most importantly) the products with the highest known health risks?

Given the jobs of those doing the focusing, it's possible that what they are really afraid of is that teens will use e-cigs to stop smoking the real thing. Then what would their reason for existing be?

 

[Firebolg]

Utah PTA aims to snuff out electronic cigarettes | ksl.com

More uneducated people trying to get behind the utah house bill.

 

[TennDave]

I read the comments- amazing that so many people spoke out against the PtA speaking out against e-cigs!
Way to go vapers!!

 

[Jacinda222]

Call to Action is up! Bill is set to be discussed at 8 am on Wednesday, Feb 1st. Anyone going with me this time?

CASAA Call to Action