E-cig ban in Richmond, KY

[James Wall]

Amended smoking ban in early stages » Local News » The Richmond Register

Well, apparently the Richmond Register originally reported this as a done deal (yet another media not doing their research before running a news story). However apparently the county has just agreed on the wording for banning e-cigs, so there may be time for someone to try to stop it.

 

[Vocalek]

“Madison County Board of Health members approved preliminary language for an amendment to the Clean Indoor Air Regulation,” said Christie Green, spokesperson for the health department. “Nancy Crewe, public health director and secretary to the Board of Health, will submit the language to the county attorney for review. Any other action toward amending the regulation is pending this legal review.”

The Board of Health will review the recommendations of the county attorney at its next regular meeting, scheduled for Wednesday, Dec. 1 at 7 p.m. at the Martha Pride Community Health Center in Berea.

It looks like the person to convince at this point would be the County Attorney. Can someone supply the name and contact information?

Apparently the County Board of Health has lost sight of the purpose of clean indoor air laws--keeping the air clean.

 

[James Wall]

Marc Robbins - Madison County Attorney

Looks like this is it, Marc Robbins. Vocalek, let me know if there's anything I can do to help.

On a side note, how would they apply this to 0 nicotine since it contains no tobacco products? According to their ban on e-cigs, this would still be illegal. Would they then ban the automatic air fresheners on the walls that use propylene glycol as a carrier agent?

 

[Vocalek]

Thanks, James. And that's a good question. I didn't realize the air fresheners used PG.

 

[James Wall]

Yep, run a quick google of propylene glycol and air fresheners. I remember I looked at the ingredients at the one at work shortly after I started vaping and saw that it had propylene glycol or dipropylene glycol in it, I don't remember which.

*It's funny when you know this and realize that the anti's are breathing our "anti-freeze" constantly isn't it?*

 

[Our House]

Yep, antifreeze! Completely cherry-picked from the list:

PROPYLENE GLYCOL -- Consumer Products

 

[rothenbj]

Here you go-

About scientific approach to air freshening

"Secondly, FROST contains glycols (propylene glycol and triethylene glycol) which have antibacterial effect. Glycols are extremely effective, and when getting in the air in the form of thin aerosol reduce undesirable microorganisms’ concentration in 10 minutes (e.g., bacteria and fungi) by several tenfolds. Thus the reappearance of unpleasant smell connected with microbial products is totally removed! Effectiveness of antibacterial effect of FROST air fresheners was also confirmed by the microbiological research results of the Concern “Kalina”."

 

[MoonRose]

There you go, e-cig users are actually protecting all the non-smokers by exhaling our vapor.

 

[FyreDragon]

I'm not nearly the letter writer that my dear MoonRose is, but I can provide some quick contact research to help out.

Contact info for Madison County, KY can be found at the following websites:


Madison County, Ky website -- > Madison County, Kentucky - Official Site

Madison County Attorney website --> Marc Robbins - Madison County Attorney

Madison County Health Department website --> Welcome to the Madison County Health Department

 

[FyreDragon]

After digging a little farther, I found the site for the Board of Health, which is the regulating body for the Madison County Health Dept. and directly refered to in the article as the body that voted on the language for the amendment .

Madison County Board of Health

 

[kristin]

What is an "oral smoking device for the purpose of circumventing the prohibition of smoking?" Cigarettes, cigars and pipes aren't circumventing anything and e-cigs don't produce smoke, so they don't fall under that definition either.

Additionally, no justification/supporting argument for banning indoor use of e-cigarettes is made.

What poorly written legislation.

 

[MoonRose]

This is what I sent to the Madison County Health Department

Dear Sir/Madam,

My name is Dorothy Taylor, a Licensed Practical Nurse in the state of Indiana. I am seriously concerned about your County Health Department's policy of tobacco and nicotine abstinence vs. tobacco harm reduction. CDC Director Thomas R. Frieden recently issued a statement that "the 40-year decline in tobacco use in the United States has stalled" and the CDC data showed that one in every five American adults still smoked cigarettes in 2009.

The irony here is that while the Director condemns general "tobacco use," the medical community acknowledges that the vast majority of tobacco-related illnesses are the result of SMOKING, while smokeless products such as Swedish snus, dissolvables and electronic cigarettes have been shown to be up to 99% less hazardous than smoking. They also eliminate the danger of second-hand smoke harming bystanders. While smokeless tobacco has been tentatively linked to some cancers in lab rats (oral, stomach, pancreatic), reviews of these studies show that the risk of oral cancer is minimal and smokeless tobacco use "did not substantially increase risk for cancer incidence above that of non-tobacco users" ("Cancer Incidence among a Cohort of Smokeless Tobacco Users," Neil A. Accortt, John W. Waterbor, Colleen Beall and George Howard, 2005).

Although all tobacco use carries some risk, the concept of reduced harm is not unknown to the medical community for other products. Health experts readily recommend low-fat food products to the obese, rather than expecting patients to eliminate all fat from their diet. Sugar-free products are made available for diabetic patients. Automobile drivers are encouraged to use seat-belts, rather than told to stop driving altogether. In light of the recent CDC report that people are continuing to use tobacco, in spite of the known health risks, does it not seem logical to encourage them to use the tobacco products which carry the least risk?

Electronic cigarettes are an even better option. As nothing is burned, they do not emit smoke, so there is no air pollution, no tar, particulates, CO, or thousands of chemicals created by the process of combustion. They only contain FDA-approved ingredients: propylene glycol, nicotine and food flavoring. None of these ingredients is linked to cancer. Additionally, as e-cigarettes contain no processed tobacco leaves, they further reduce what little risk is found in smokeless tobacco. What you see with electronic cigarettes is actually a water-based vapor. Health New Zealand has studied the vapor and pronounced it “harmless, inhaled or exhaled.”

Given what we know from research on nicotine delivered from other safer sources such as Swedish snus and medicinal nicotine products, informed medical experts predict that switching to an electronic cigarette will reduce the risk of smoking-related diseases by up to 99%. And let's not forget the thousands of people who die or are injured in fires each year. Since the e-cigarette is not burning there is no risk of a fire starting due to a cigarette being dropped or left unattended. Bystanders are in no more danger of being exposed to “drug use” by former smokers who have switched to a reduced-harm tobacco product like snus, dissolvables, or an e-cigarette than they are by being around former smokers using the FDA approved patch, gum, lozenges, or prescription nicotine inhalers, in other words, no danger whatsoever.

I personally have been using e-cigarettes since July 19, 2010 and have not smoked a tobacco cigarette since that date. I worked as a Hospice Nurse for 5 years, caring for hundreds during that time who died of smoking related diseases, and not even when my mother died of cancer in 2002 was I able to quit smoking. Now for the first time in 26 years I am cigarette smoke free, this after more than a dozen attempts over the years to give up smoking cigarettes using all the different FDA approved smoking cessation products without success. Let me be clear on this one point though, I have stopped smoking cigarettes, not given up nicotine. The use of nicotine is actually of benefit to me, as it keeps my anxiety and bouts of depression under control without the use of prescription drugs and their side effects. Also the physical act of using the e-cigarette satisfies the hand to mouth habit of smoking a real cigarette and thus has allowed me to lower my nicotine intake to a mere 8mg/ml from the 18mg/ml that I started with, which was comparable to the amount of nicotine I was getting when smoking cigarettes. This combination of the physical act of smoking and being able to get the nicotine that I crave and need is what has led to the success of my being able to give up smoking tobacco cigarettes.

Since there have been no official reports of serious illness or injury linked to e-cigarette use in the U.S. since they came on the market in 2003 and even the infamous FDA test you cite in your warnings against e-cigarettes failed to find any toxic levels of any chemicals nor dangerous levels of carcinogens, your opposition to these potential life saving devices is completely unwarranted. I and fellow health professionals, such as the AAPHP, have reviewed the evidence and concluded that a reduced-harm approach to tobacco use, including e-cigarettes, has the potential to save the lives of over 4 million of the 8 million smokers in the U.S.

In conclusion, your wanting to place e-cigarettes in the same category as tobacco cigarettes and ban their use in indoor public places just does not make any sense. They pose no danger to non-smokers as there is no second-hand smoke nor any carcinogens being exhaled by the user. Approximately 79% of smokers who start using e-cigarettes as a smoking alternative are able to completely stop smoking tobacco cigarettes and use the e-cigarettes only. The act of forcing e-cigarette users to have to go to smoking areas can and does lead to a percentage of them returning to smoking tobacco cigarettes. This is not what I would call a good health decision on the part of those who are supposed to be trying to promote healthier life styles for the citizens in their communities.

Sincerely,
Dorothy Taylor, LPN

 

[Vocalek]

I see that they are invoking the "intended use" benchmark:

Smoking also includes the use of an e-cigarette, which creates a vapor, in any manner or in any form, or the use of any oral smoking device for the purpose of circumventing the prohibition of smoking in this article.

So if my motive for using the e-cigarette (or a Nicotrol inhaler) is to remain abstinent from tobacco smoking, then my intended use ('purpose") falls outside their revised law.

Which bring up another issue. In most jurisdictions, a Board of Health falls under the Administrative branch of government, not the Legislative. Entities in the Administrative branch have the authority to enact regulations in support of a law, but not the authority to create laws. So why is this Board of Health generating legislation?

We ran into that situation in Virginia, where the state Board of Health decided that e-cigarettes were included in the state's indoor smoking law. One of our ECF members contacted her representative who asked the Virginia Attorney General for a ruling. AG Ken Cucinelli said that the state law specified that the prohibited articles must be "lighted" (i.e., set on fire) and produce real smoke.

 

[Vocalek]

I just found the answer to my question http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_smoking_bans_in_the_United_States:

Kentucky

No statewide smoking ban. Instead, in Kentucky, the only state laws dealing with smoking prohibit smoking in government offices, universities, and the state capitol, except in designated smoking areas.[106][107] In 2004, the Kentucky Supreme Court ruled that the state's food and tobacco sales laws do not preempt cities and counties from enacting smoking regulations of any kind.[108]

Localities in Kentucky with smoking bans that include all bars and restaurants (13 total):
Ashland, October 1, 2006, banned in all enclosed workplaces, including bars and restaurants,[4] as well as outdoor venues and outdoor patio areas of restaurants and bars.[citation needed]
Clark County, banned in all enclosed workplaces, including bars and restaurants[4]
Danville, banned in all enclosed workplaces, including bars and restaurants[4]
Danville, Kentucky, July 28, 2008, banned in all enclosed workplaces, including bars and restaurants,[4] as well as within ten feet of the entrance of any such place[citation needed]
Elizabethtown, Kentucky, banned in all enclosed workplaces, including bars and restaurants[4]
Frankfort, July 25, 2006, banned in all bars and restaurants, but not in all other workplaces[4]
Georgetown, October 1, 2005, banned in all enclosed workplaces, including bars and restaurants[4]
Hardin County, banned in all enclosed workplaces, including bars and restaurants, in unincorporated areas of the county[4]
Lexington, April 27, 2004, banned in all enclosed workplaces, including bars and restaurants[4]
Louisville, January 11, 2008, banned in all enclosed workplaces, including bars and restaurants.[109]
Madison County, June 12, 2007, banned in all enclosed workplaces, including bars and restaurants;[4] exempts outdoor patio areas of restaurants and bars (bars are only allowed in the city of Richmond, since the rest of the county is dry).[citation needed]
Morehead, banned in all enclosed workplaces, including bars and restaurants[4]
Paducah, April 1, 2007, banned in all bars and restaurants, but not in all other workplaces[4]
Paintsville, 2006, banned in all restaurants, but not all other workplaces[4]

Localities in Kentucky with smoking bans that do not include all bars and restaurants (6 total):
Daviess County, January 1, 2006, banned in any public establishment open to children under 18, but exempts private businesses and bars.[citation needed]
Henderson, banned in all enclosed workplaces, excluding bars and restaurants[4]
Letcher County, July 1, 2006, banned in all enclosed workplaces except bars and restaurants[4]
London - smoking ban in all restaurants within the city limits of London.
Oldham County, banned in all restaurants, but not bars or all other workplaces[4]
Pikeville, banned in all restaurants, but not bars or all other workplaces[4]