Minnesota To Ban Outdoor Use of E-Cig On Campus

[berty]

Bemidji State University (BSU) has proposed to include electronic cigarettes in their new "tobacco Free Campus" policy. They have included electronic cigarettes as a "tobacco product", and would be banned as such. The new tobacco free campus policy is expected to be signed by Dr Richard Hansen, President, in coming days.

Dr. Hansen asked that a work group examine the possibility of a tobacco free campus last year. It would seem that electronic cigarettes were never considered in any of the year long meetings and opinion studies of that work group. Then almost mysteriously, electronic cigarettes were added to the list of tobacco products in a final tobacco policy draft posted at the BSU web site today.

http://www.bemidjistate.edu/about/tobacco_free/documents/Tobacco%20draft.pdf

· Dr. Lisa Erwin- 218-755 2075 -VP Student Development and work group co-chair of the tobacco free BSU work group.
· Dr Richard Hansen - 218-755-2011- President Bemidji State University

I'm not sure, but would this be the first "outdoor" e-cig ban in the state, or even the country?
​

 

[LadyWeeps]

This is scary stuff. Do you know if the the patch and gum are included in this ban?

 

[Placebo Effect]

I put in phone calls to both individuals you listed. I think the phone numbers are the other way around though.

 

[Vocalek]

The Relative Risks of a Low-Nitrosamine Smokeless Tobacco Product Compared with Smoking Cigarettes: Estimates of a Panel of Experts
David T. Levy1,2, Elizabeth A. Mumford1, K. Michael Cummings3, Elizabeth A. Gilpin4, Gary Giovino3, Andrew Hyland3, David Sweanor5 and Kenneth E. Warner6
+ Author Affiliations

1Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, Calverton, Maryland; 2Department of Economics, University of Baltimore, Baltimore, Maryland; 3Division of Cancer Prevention and Population Sciences, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, New York; 4Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Cancer Center, University of California-San Diego, La Jolla, California; 5Smoking and Health Action Foundation, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; and 6Department of Health Management and Policy, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Requests for reprints:
David T. Levy, Department of Economics, University of Baltimore, 11710 Beltsville Drive, Suite 300, Calverton, MD 20878. Phone: 301-755-2733; Fax: 301-755-2799. E-mail: Levy@pire.org
Abstract
A nine-membered panel of experts was asked to determine expert opinions of mortality risks associated with use of low-nitrosamine smokeless tobacco (LN-SLT) marketed for oral use. A modified Delphi approach was employed. For total mortality, the estimated median relative risks for individual users of LN-SLT were 9% and 5% of the risk associated with smoking for those ages 35 to 49 and ≥50 years, respectively. Median mortality risks relative to smoking were estimated to be 2% to 3% for lung cancer, 10% for heart disease, and 15% to 30% for oral cancer. Although individual estimates often varied between 0% and 50%, most panel members were confident or very confident of their estimates by the last round of consultation. In comparison with smoking, experts perceive at least a 90% reduction in the relative risk of LN-SLT use. The risks of using LN-SLT products therefore should not be portrayed as comparable with those of smoking cigarettes as has been the practice of some governmental and public health authorities in the past. Importantly, the overall public health impact of LN-SLT will reflect use patterns, its marketing, and governmental regulation of tobacco products.

The Relative Risks of a Low-Nitrosamine Smokeless Tobacco Product Compared with Smoking Cigarettes: Estimates of a Panel of Experts

 

[berty]

Thanks Placebo effect, I corrected the numbers. I am trying to get the email addresses.

Thank you Vocalec for this information as well. Since they could not use harm to others in an argument against oral tobacco products, they sited the "litter" associated with it's use on campus. I asked if they banned gum and candy based on the wrappers and discards I have seen on campus, but neither was included in the proposed ban.

I also sited the San Francisco law which bans the use of wood burning fire places within city limits due to the carcinogenic pollution they emit. This was done in order to highlight the targeted hypocrisy of the outdoor smoking ban since the school has a huge fire pit located on campus that is used nearly daily. I could only assume that practice would be part of the outdoor smoking ban since statistically it produces thousands of times more carcinogenic toxins than the combined output of outdoor smokers.

Much to my surprise, they didn't seem to care about that practice and even plan to continue supplying the wood at no charge.

 

[Vocalek]

There are several more articles on this CASAA page: CASAA.org

http://www.casaa.org/resources/journal.asp

 

[Nicko]

The ban on outdoor smoking doesn't go far enough. Every campus in the world should be completely enclosed by a gigantic air-tight glass dome. Only highly purified and thoroughly tested air will be breathed inside. All students, staff and faculty should be provided with space suits should they be brave enough to leave the campus.

 

[leannebug]

They aren't the first. A Florida school banned it last year I believe.

Ridiculous.


Sent from my pod

 

[cigarbabe]

This is just one more paranoid proposition fueled by the FDA's releasing their fabricated "press release".
I'm sure everyone has noticed there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason for including ecigs in these bans and I've yet to hear a valid argument about why they've been included in any bans or proposed legislation.
We should be out there protesting to call attention to how ridiculous these bans are and to call attention to the fact that none of the groups against tobacco smoking have supported using a product which is 99% safer, works actually better for many or even that there are studies proving this and that there isn't anti-freeze in these products as the FDA has alleged.
I do understand that there is only so much any one group can do, but perhaps we need to start asking more of vapers in the states where these types of bans are ongoing?
Just look at what has happened in Canada for an example of what could happen here.
C.B.

 

[Ande]

An article by an Emory university student that seems to relate...

Good Intentions Don

Best,
Ande

 

[Vocalek]

A ban on all tobacco products in the name of public health is based on a false premise: All tobacco products are harmful to both users and bystanders.

Well, we can trump that last one quite easly, as any non-combustable form of tobacco presents zero health risks to bystanders. But then, having been brainwashed by the anti-smoker propaganda, the rule-makers will have difficulty believing that some tobacco products are harmless, or nearly so, to the users themselves.

1. Nicotine does not cause smoking-related diseases. There are no known cases of lung disease, heart disease, or cancers linked to the use of FDA-approved Nicotine Reduction Therapy products (NRTs).
2. Electronic cigarettes contain no more carcinogens than a nicotine patch, and no toxins have been found in the vapor. If a Nicotrol inhaler is not dangerous to the user or to bystanders, there is not basis for assuming that e-cigarettes would be.
3. The new dissolvable tobacco products are very low in nitrosamines and therefore will probably have the same cancer risk as NRTs.
4. Smokers in Sweden who switch to snus, which is treated to be low in nitrosamines, but delivers more nicotine than NRTs live just as long as former smokers who stopped using all forms of tobacco. Snus users have lower rates of all tobacco-related illnesses than smokers.
5. The rates of smoking-related diseases are as low in snus users as in never-smokers, with the exception of pancreatic cancer, which increases risk very slightly (5.6 cases per 100,000) compared with non-tobacco users, but lowers risks of pancreatic cancer by 4.2 cses per 100,000 when compared to smoking.
6. Snus is more effective than NRT in achieving abstinence from smoking. Of men who used snus as their only method, 66% achieved smoking abstinence.
7. Studies show that switching to an electronic cigarette helps between 31% and >80% of users to achieve smoking abstinence.
8. Nicotine relieves symptoms of attention deficit disorder.
9. Insisting that these students treat their disorder with strong stimulant medication is not in their best interests, as these medications are linked to nausea, vomiting, nervousness, and increased blood pressure. Between 1990 and 2000 there were 186 deaths from methylphenidate reported to the FDA MedWatch program. The newer non-stimulant drug is linked to low blood pressure; low heart rate; fainting; sleepiness. Users are warned not to drive or operate machinery.
10. College students who smoke to help them concentrate and pay attention could be steered toward using snus or an electronic cigarette, thereby lowering their health risks by up to 99%. They would need to be provided with truthful information about the risks of various products in comparison to smoking.

Bottom line: Banning smoke-free alternatives can be harmful to the health of users. It does nothing to help the health of bystanders.

 

[berty]

Vokolek,

What a wonderful summery, I will be using it to further educate our educators at the University. I can't thank you enough for posting this.

Dan

 

[ThomasP]

The ban on outdoor smoking doesn't go far enough. Every campus in the world should be completely enclosed by a gigantic air-tight glass dome. Only highly purified and thoroughly tested air will be breathed inside. All students, staff and faculty should be provided with space suits should they be brave enough to leave the campus.

Then fill the domes with water.