Help - My Draft Response to the Minnesota Call to Action - SF 2027

[Susan~S]

If passed as-is, SF 2027 will:

• Redefine vaping & e-cigarette use as smoking. If you vape, according to the state, you will still be a smoker. This has far reaching implications.
• Ban the public use of e-cigarettes. This includes many vape shops. You will not be allowed to enter into a vape shop and vape.
• You will be forced to go outside and stand 25 to 50 feet away from entrances of buildings to vape.
• Business owners will no longer have the choice as to whether they want to allow vaping in their establishment, even if they vape themselves.

Please see the write up by MN Vapors Advocacy if you are a Minnesota resident and would like to draft a response.

Below is my first draft response. I would like to email it late tonight if at all possible. Does anyone have any suggestions, wording, grammer, spelling, etc.

Thanks!

My Draft Response to MN Legislature

I am a Minnesota resident from (insert city), MN who DOES NOT support any legislation that would treat me like a smoker. I began using electronic cigarettes back in 2006 when the industry was in its infancy. Back then there were few devices/flavors/nicotine levels available (I ordered mine from China) and no local brick and mortar stores.

Because of the growth of the industry in:

1. Types of devices
2. # of different flavors
3. Customizable nicotine levels
4. Local availability

I have been able to reduce my nicotine levels from 30mg/ml to 3-6mg/ml. With some flavors (and devices) I am able to vaporize successfully with no nicotine. Being able to "taste test" these flavors and try them out on different devises at local brick and mortar stores before I purchased has been invaluable. Without these options, I doubt I would be vaporizing at such low nicotine levels today. Before e-cigarettes, I was a two pack/day smoker for over 20 years.

Please amend SF 2027 to remove e-cigarettes from the smoking definition. I do support the rest of SF 2027 as it does regulate the sale of e-cigarettes to minors.

As currently written, SF 2027 will hurt local businesses who have seen new revenue as a result of vape meets, trade shows and customers being able to "taste test" and try new devises before purchasing. Because I believe that there’s scientific evidence proving that e-cigarette vapor is NOT harmful to bystanders, it should be left to businesses to decide their own policies.

In the peer reviewed study, “Peering Through the Mist” conducted by Dr. Igor Burstyn of Drexel University, he concludes “there is no evidence that vaping produces inhalable exposures to contaminants of the aerosol that would warrant health concerns by the standards that are used to ensure safety of workplaces”. He also concluded that “Exposures of bystanders are likely to be orders of magnitude less, and thus pose no apparent concern.” Here is the link to the BMC Public Health journal: BMC Public Health | Full text | Peering through the mist: systematic review of what the chemistry of contaminants in electronic cigarettes tells us about health risks

Dr. Anne Joseph of the University of Minnesota further confirmed this when she gave testimony on Wednesday, February 26th to the Health and Human Services Policy committee. She stated that “e-cigarette users are not smokers”, and that “combustible tobacco products are the real enemy”.

If you would like more information on e-cigarettes and vaping please visit the CASAA Research Library.

Thank you for your time and attention. If I can be of any further use please do not hesitate to contact me.

 

[Jman8]

I would like to email it late tonight if at all possible. Does anyone have any suggestions, wording, grammer, spelling, etc.

Read the whole thing. I didn't notice any errors either spelling wise or grammar wise. I feel it flows well, cites science and makes your point very well.

If I had written that, I'd feel confident that it is good to go.

If for some reason it just isn't sitting right with you, the only thing that came to me while reading it that you could change (and isn't necessary, IMO), is inserting questions at certain points. Rhetorical questions. Might not come off well, but then again, it could get them to pause and have to respond to the question in their head, and thus think twice about why they feel their position (for or against) is the right one.

But as you have it written, I think it is excellent. And as resident in neighboring state, I really really hope this bill is defeated.

Best wishes.

 

[Susan~S]

Thank you Jman8. I've already sent my letter as is, but this will probably not be the last letter I write. I like your idea about inserting a rhetorical question or two that would getting them thinking about how they vote could affect others. I'll incorporate that thought into my next letter.

Thanks again!

 

[Kent C]

Thank you Jman8. I've already sent my letter as is, but this will probably not be the last letter I write. I like your idea about inserting a rhetorical question or two that would getting them thinking about how they vote could affect others. I'll incorporate that thought into my next letter.

Thanks again!

Something I've said since reading this piece:

Achieving appropriate regulations for electronic cigarettes

"With the possibility of ecigarettes helping to reduce the 450,000 deaths/year due to smoking, you might not want to be on the wrong side of this issue."

And this one from a blog:

"I'll never smoke another cigarette..... unless my government forces me to."

 

[Susan~S]

Something I've said since reading this piece:

Achieving appropriate regulations for electronic cigarettes

"With the possibility of ecigarettes helping to reduce the 450,000 deaths/year due to smoking, you might not want to be on the wrong side of this issue."

And this one from a blog:

"I'll never smoke another cigarette..... unless my government forces me to."

Thanks Kent C! Those are powerful thoughts indeed.

 

[Marc411]

It's in a PDF downloadable format. If they allow attachments you may want to save it and add it to your correspondence.

Very well written response! You speak for many of us as our story is the same!

 

[TLS01]

Susan, if you do Facebook, join the Minnesota Vapors Advocacy group. We have a lot of interaction to address this situation as well.