Alabama call to action: HB 149 (thanks for the heads up CASAA!!)

[CES]

Alabama is jumping on the e-cig banned wagon.

From the CASAA website:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Alabama House Bill 149 (HB 149) is an indoor/workplace smoking ban which also changes the definition of smoking to include "the use of e-cigarettes and any oral smoking device for the purpose of circumventing the prohibition of smoking in this act." It also defines an e-cigarette as a device which "provides a vapor of nicotine or any other substance."
This Bill could:
Ban the use of electronic cigarettes, regardless of whether or not they contain nicotine, in places where tobacco cigarette smoking is prohibited.

This bill was referred to the House of Representatives committee on Health on March 3rd, 2011.

Please call or write the members of the Alabama House of Representatives Health Committeee Members listed below.

What to say:
1. You want them to amend the bill to specifically exclude electronic cigarettes from the definition of "Smoking."
2. Tell your story on how switching to an e-cigarette or smokeless tobacco has changed your life.

3. Explain how smoking bans are enacted to protect the public from the harm of second-hand smoke, but electronic cigarettes have not been shown to cause harm to bystanders. In fact, all evidence to date shows that the low health risks associated with electronic cigarettes is comparable to other smokeless nicotine products and experts believe that there should be no significant risk to bystanders. This is supported by research done by Dr. Siegel of Boston University, Dr. Eissenberg of Virginia Commonwealth and Dr. Laugesen of Health New Zealand 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.

4. Let them know that vapor does not behave in the same manner as smoke. There is no "side stream" vapor like the side stream smoke coming from the lit end of a cigarette and unlike cigarette smoke, the vapor is virtually odorless and dissipates quickly. There is also no ash or litter. With so little evidence of use, enforcing indoor use bans on electronic cigarettes would be nearly impossible.

5. Inform them that the ability to use electronic cigarettes in public spaces will actually improve public health by inspiring other smokers to switch. Surveys of thousands of users indicate that the majority of those who switch very quickly completely replace tobacco cigarettes with the electronic cigarettes, reducing their health risks by 98-99%. So even if smokers think they are using electronic cigarettes just for indoor use, the chances are high that they will stop using tobacco cigarettes altogether.

6. [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Tell them that by switching to a smokeless product, you have greatly reduced your health risks and if they truly deem second-hand smoke to be a danger, placing you back out in smoking areas simply puts you back in harm's way.[/FONT]

Alabama House Health Committee
Chair: Jim McClendon (R )
Room 207-A
11 South Union Street
Montgomery, AL 36130
(334) 242-7768

Vice Chair: Michael J. Millican (R )
11 S. Union Street
Room 628-F
Montgomery, AL 36130
(334) 242-7354
Fax: (334) 353-3350
Email: mike.millican@alhouse.gov

Johnny Mack Morrow (D)
11 S. Union Street
Room 208
Montgomery, AL 36130
(334) 242-7698

Elaine Beech (D)
Room 528-D
11 S. Union Street
Montgomery, AL 36130
(334) 242-7702
Email: elaine_h_beech@yahoo.com
Donnie Chesteen (R )
Room 630-E
11 South Union Street
Montgomery, AL 36130
(334) 242-7742
Fax: (334) 684-1899
Email: dchesteen@panhandle.rr.com

Berry Forte (D)
Room 540-D
11 S. Union Street
Montgomery, AL 36130
(334) 242-7553
Email: berry.forte@alhouse.gov

Laura Hall (D)
Room 517-D
11 S. Union Street
Montgomery, AL 36130
(334) 242-7688
Work Phone: (256) 859-2234
District Phone: (256) 539-5441
Fax: (256) 539-5444
Email: laura.hall2@att.net

Ed Herny (R )
11 S. Union Street
Room 524-A
Montgomery, AL 36130
(334) 242-7736
District Phone: (256) 260-2146
Fax: (256) 260-2144

Ronald G. Johnson (R )
Room 627-D
11 S. Union Street
Montgomery, AL 36130
(334) 242-7777
John F. Knight, Jr. (D)
Room 524-F
11 S. Union Street
Montgomery, AL 36130
(334) 242-7512
Work: (334) 229-4286

Paul Lee (R )
Room 526-C
11 S. Union Street
Montgomery, AL 36130
(334) 242-7675
Fax: (334) 793-5232
Email: pwlee@graceba.net

Becky Nordgren (R )
Room 522-E
11 S. Union Street
Montgomery, AL 36130
(334) 353-9032
Fax: (256) 240-7216
Email: clearimagesal@earthlink.net

Jim Patterson (R )
Room 526-B
11 S. Union Street
Montgomery, AL 36130
(334) 242-7531
Work: (256) 975-7990
Email: jimpattersonhd21@gmail.com

Benjamin "Allen" Treadaway (R )
Room 528-C
11 S. Union Street
Montgomery, AL 36130
(334) 242-7685
Work: (205) 254-1720
Email: bsketa@aol.com

April Weaver (R )
Room 522-B
11 S. Union Street
Montgomery, AL 36130
(334) 242-7731
Semicolon delimited emails:
mike.millican@alhouse.gov; elaine_h_beech@yahoo.com; dchesteen@panhandle.rr.com; berry.forte@alhouse.gov; laura.hall2@att.net; pwlee@graceba.net; clearimagesal@earthlink.net; jimpattersonhd21@gmail.com; bsketa@aol.com

Comma delimited emails:
mike.millican@alhouse.gov, elaine_h_beech@yahoo.com, dchesteen@panhandle.rr.com, berry.forte@alhouse.gov, laura.hall2@att.net, pwlee@graceba.net, clearimagesal@earthlink.net, jimpattersonhd21@gmail.com, bsketa@aol.com
[/FONT]

 

[ktarantino]

Ughhh, I had a feeling Alabama would jump on that soon after Tennessee did! Thanks for the heads up!

Karri

 

[player30]

Thanks for posting CES. I have emailed them and I will send a letter to them all tomorrow.

 

[Stosh]

e-mailed them, and signed it:

I am a 60 year old ex-smoker that uses an e-cigarette, and I VOTE in every election.

 

[CES]

I'm going to email and follow up with snail mail letters. CASAA has a great legislative packet that'll I'll be printing out to include.

 

[CGProg]

Section 2. The Legislature finds and declares that the purposes of this act are (1) to protect the public's health and welfare by prohibiting smoking in public places and places of employment; and (2) to recognize that the need to breathe smoke-free air shall have priority over the desire to smoke.

term meanings:

(4) E-CIGARETTE. Any electronic oral device, such as one composed of a heating element and a battery or electronic circuit, or both, which provides a vapor of nicotine or any other substance, and the use or inhalation of which simulates smoking. The term shall include any such device, whether manufactured, distributed, marketed, or sold as an e-cigarette, e-cigar, e-pipe, or under any other product name or descriptor.

 

[CES]

so, they did enough research to find out how to describe e-cigs, but not to realize that there's no public health reason to include them in indoor smoking bans

 

[CES]

ok...I'm not nearly as good at this as Elaine or Kristin, but i think i caught most of the typos in the letter i emailed to the Alabama health committee

Alabama House of Representatives Health Committee Members,
As a registered Alabama voter, I am writing to urge you to amend HB 149 to specifically exclude electronic cigarettes from the definition of "Smoking."
I would like to share my experience with using e-cigarettes/personal vaporizers (PVs). I began using a PV in October 2009. I did not begin using the PV to circumvent indoor smoking bans, but as a method for allowing myself to continue to utilize nicotine without the harm associated with smoking combustible cigarettes.

I have been smoke free since December 2009, more than 16 months. The harm reduction aspects, in my case, have been strong. My blood pressure (systolic and diastolic) has decreased 10 points, my hemoglobin has decreased to the middle of the normal range, and I no longer cough or get easily winded.

All of the research to date suggests that PVs are orders of magnitude safer than combustible cigarettes. The harm associated with smoking is due to the smoke from combustion. There is no firsthand or second hand smoke from PVs because there is no combustion. The vapor from PVs is comparable to fog from a fog machine. There is no side stream smoke and no evidence that the vapor is any more dangerous to bystanders than that caused by people wearing too much perfume.

In fact, all evidence to date shows that the low health risks associated with electronic cigarettes are comparable to other smokeless nicotine products and experts have reported that there should be no significant risk to bystanders. This is supported by research done by Dr. Siegel of Boston University, Dr. Eissenberg of Virginia Commonwealth and Dr. Laugesen of Health New Zealand 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.

Including PVs in indoor smoking bans serves no public health protection purpose. in fact, raising barriers to use of an arguably safer alternative to smoking has the potential to harm public health.
I have included links to some current research and will follow up with additional information by mail.
Thank you for your time and consideration


(name and address)


A very good overview and background information can be found at CASAA | The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-Free Alternatives Association , the website for The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association.

Vansickel et al, 2010. A clinical laboratory model for evaluating the acute effects of electronic “cigarettes”: nicotine delivery profile and cardiovascular and subjective effects. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 19(8) August 2010. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.
Publications of the AACR

Bullen et al, 2010. Effect of an electronic nicotine delivery device(e cigarette) on desire to smoke and withdrawal, user preferences and nicotine delivery: randomised cross-over trial. Tob Control 2010 19: 98-103. doi: 10.1136/tc.2009.031567

White paper from the American Association of Public Health Physicians (AAPHP)
http://www.aaphp.org/special/joelstobac/ecigcontext.pdf

Royal College of Physicians. Harm reduction in nicotine addiction: helping people who can’t quit. A report by the Tobacco Advisory Group of the Royal College of Physicians. London: RCP, 2007.
http://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/pubs/contents/e226ee0c-ccef-4dba-b62f-86f046371dfb.pdf

White paper draft http://tobaccoharmreduction.org/wpapers/011v1.pdf

Results of online survey of PV users. 74% of respondents report no use of tobacco or nicotine products other than e-cigs. https://www.surveymonkey.com/sr.aspx...HfwE9UXRNhE_3d<https://www.surveymonkey.com/sr.aspx?sm=HrpzL8PN5cP366RWhWvCTjggiZM_2b8yQJHfwE9UXRNhE_3d>

I'll change up the letter a little and mail it with an information packet

 

[CGProg]

2 thumbs up, CES. Still working on mine, need to find documentation (snail mail) for Dr. Siegel and Dr. Eissenberg's research.

If I was still a smoker, I would oppose this bill. No smoking within 15 feet of buildings, parks and so forth. If I'm reading this section correctly, you wouldn't be able to smoke in your own home (?):
(7) ENCLOSED AREA. All space between a floor and ceiling that is bounded on all sides by walls, doorways, or windows, whether open or closed. A wall includes any retractable divider, garage door, or other physical barrier, whether temporary or permanent.

Oh wait, that would apply to us too?
grrrr... lol

 

[CES]

CG, the CASAA website and the ECF library have pdfs of most of the research. I've printed the CASAA legislative packet, the trifold brochure and one other short CASAA pdf.

 

[CES]

... stuffed them and the updated letter into envelopes yesterday evening, and will take them to the post office today. Someone had better read the packet- innocent trees died for those information packets.

Has anyone gotten any responses to their emails?

 

[Storyspinr]

Frankly, everyone in Alabama should oppose this bill for its infringement of private property rights and personal freedom. As for e cigs, what better proof is there that smoking bans are not and never have been about public health; it is about driving smokers from society, including anyone who just "looks" like they're smoking.

 

[JustJulie]

Frankly, everyone in Alabama should oppose this bill for its infringement of private property rights and personal freedom. As for e cigs, what better proof is there that smoking bans are not and never have been about public health; it is about driving smokers from society, including anyone who just "looks" like they're smoking.

This +1,000,000.

Smoking bans ceased being about health quite some time ago. Banning smoking in outdoor venues should be proof enough of that . . . and if you have any doubt, the inclusion of e-cigarettes in various smoking bans gives further proof to the lie that the government is regulating for our health.

I no longer smoke, having replaced my smoking habit with vaping more than two years ago. Even so, I stand solidly by the smokers who demand honesty and integrity in governmental regulation and respect for private property rights.

And lest we be lulled into thinking that over-reaching smoking bans aren't our problem, make no mistake: In the eyes of the vast majority of antis, we are smokers.

 

[CES]

I wish more people would demand honesty and integrity in governmental regulation- not just for smokers, but for everyone. Regulation and public health policy should be based on the available science in context, not on political expediency and sound bites

 

[Cit-e Steamer]

The Alabama CASAA Call to Action was updated to include the identical Senate companion bill (SB 371). The contact information for the relevant Alabama senators is contained in the CTA. Please call, write, fax and/or e-mail the senators as well.

 

[CES]

Thanks for the update!!

(I'm out of town but will print and mail another ink cartridge's worth of letters and packets when i get home)

 

[CES]

I'm finally home and sent emails to the Senate Health committee.

I've heard NOTHING back from any members of the house health committee. not one single response in the 3 weeks since i emailed and snail mailed. . hmph.

I think the session is just about over (the state web page gives the beginning but not the ending dates of the sessions). the House at least isn't in session this week, while the Senate may have a day or two left ... As far as i can tell both bills are still in committee, but I'm not an expert at navigating legislative web pages. So if anyone has an update please post it!

 

[CES]

I'm a bit hopeful here...since June 9th is the only remaining day of the regular legislative session for the Alabama senate.

Alabama Legislative Information System Online
HB149 Pending Committee Action in House of Origin Health 03/03/2011

Alabama Legislative Information System Online
SB372 Indefinitely Postponed in House of Origin 05/05/2011

There was an amendment to the Senate version of the bill- but so far i haven't been able to find out what the amendment is

 

[Webby]

No worries...HB 149 appears to be dead.

 

[seadog]

No worries...HB 149 appears to be dead.

Really? Just found this thread and was distinctly unhappy. I've been tobacco-free via e-cigs for 5+ weeks now and state government wants to make this success more difficult? Hope you're right.