Missouri HB 2103

Status
Not open for further replies.

JustJulie

CASAA
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jan 30, 2009
2,848
1,393
Des Moines, IA
Missouri HB 2103 has been referred to the Small Business Committee, and we are asking vapers to show their support of this legislation by completing the attached Witness Appearance form (link to document is at bottom of post) and by close of business TUESDAY, APRIL 24TH, 2012:

1. Fax the completed form to Representative Kathie Conway at 573-522-0414 with the title “HB 2103” on the fax, OR

2. Email the completed form to Representative Kathie Conway at Kathie.conway@house.mo.gov with the title “HB 2103” on the email.

Here is a summary of the proposed legislation:

This bill specifies that a local political subdivision cannot restrict the use of an electronic cigarette in a public place and exempts any public place that derives at least 60% of its retail sales from alcohol, tobacco, or entertainment from any local ordinance or rule relating to smoking in public places.
The text of the bill can be found at:
http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills121/biltxt/intro/HB2103I.htm

COMMENTS SHOULD BE IN YOUR OWN WORDS. We have heard time and time again that emails/faxes/letters that are identical are largely dismissed by legislators as spam.

Some reasons why people might be in favor of this legislation--

1. It allows private property owners to make decisions about whether to allow e-cigarette use on their premises.

2. It provides more certainty for businesses by enacting a state-wide exemption.

3. It ensures that e-cigarettes, which do not create smoke, will not be treated as cigarettes for purposes of smoking bans.

Some potential talking points:

1. Tell your story on how switching to an e-cigarette or smokeless tobacco has changed your life.

2. Explain how electronic cigarette use is easy to distinguish from actual smoking. Although some e-cigarettes resemble real cigarettes, many do not. It is easy to tell when someone lights a cigarette, from the smell of smoke. E-cigarette vapor is practically odorless, and generally any detectable odor is not unpleasant and smells nothing like smoke.

3. 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. There is also no ash or litter.

4. 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, completely replace tobacco cigarettes with the electronic cigarettes, reducing their health risks by 98-99%.

5. Tell them that by switching to a smokeless product, you have greatly reduced your health risks.

6. Direct them to the CASAA.org website for more information.

While forms completed by Missouri residents will obviously have the greatest impact, vapers from other states should feel free to share their views regarding this legislation with the Missouri House of Representatives' Small Business Committee.

Google docs link for Witness Appearance form: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B26hMMO97qS6VlZzek9FcXZOV3M/edit
 

Bill Godshall

Executive Director<br/> Smokefree Pennsylvania
ECF Veteran
Apr 2, 2009
5,171
13,288
67
Please note that HB 2103 in Missouri also would preempt local governments from banning smoking in many workplaces.

Therefore, anyone who supports the e-cigarette provision of this legislation should specifically state that they are urging support for Section 191.777 (1) of HB 2103.

(this post has been edited)
 
Last edited:

JustJulie

CASAA
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jan 30, 2009
2,848
1,393
Des Moines, IA
In all fairness, Bill, I think if you actually read what I wrote, you'll see that CASAA is urging people to talk about E-CIGARETTES, not the smoking portion.

My personal views on the subject of smoking bans in general are irrelevant in terms of CASAA's testimony, as are yours. CASAA takes no position on smoking bans except as they pertain to e-cigarettes and other smokeless alternatives, and that will be my testimony.
 

JustJulie

CASAA
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jan 30, 2009
2,848
1,393
Des Moines, IA
Sorry it's taken me so long to update this thread . . . I got home from Jefferson City and crashed Wednesday, and then I spent most of the day yesterday catching up on all of the stuff I had neglected to get ready for the hearing. :blink:

The hearing for the bill before HB2103 went longer than expected, so the chairman asked that anyone who would NOT be able to return to testify to step forward. (There was just enough time for one person to testify.) A doctor from Kansas City stepped forward to testify against the bill, and while he had some nice things to say about e-cigarettes, it was pretty clear he wasn't a huge fan, noting that we were all continuing our addiction. :glare:

The best part is that Representative Conway vaped throughout the entire proceeding, and no one minded . . . they're all used to it. :laugh:

In any event, I will be returning when the hearing is rescheduled, probably sometime next week.

Thank you to those who've helped out by sending a Witness Appearance form. For those who haven't, the upside to the hearing being continued is that you now have more time to get in your form.
 

JustJulie

CASAA
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jan 30, 2009
2,848
1,393
Des Moines, IA
And can I assume that Rep. Conway has had access to information provided by CASAA?

Yup.

CASAA prepared bound booklets for each of the members of the Small Business Committee, and they were distributed Wednesday.

Here's a listing of what was included:


CASAA Position Statement on Electronic Cigarettes, p. 1

Electronic Cigarette FAQs, p. 2

E-cigarettes and Smoke-free Policies, p. 3

What Experts Say About Electronic Cigarettes, p. 6

About Electronic Cigarette Use Indoors, p. 9

Dr. Michael Siegel, “Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights Now Supporting Bans on Vaping in Public Places,” p. 11

American Council on Science and Health, “E-cigs allowed under the Bridges of Madison County but not Indoors,” p. 13

American Heart Association, American Cancer Society, American Lung Association, One Air Alliance, March 16, 2012 letter to Mayor of Springfield, MO, p. 14

American Heart Association, American Cancer Society, American Lung Association, One Air Alliance, March 16, 2012 press release re smoking ban, p. 15

Chart illustrating tobacco specific nitrosamines present in various tobacco and nicotine products, p. 16

American Association of Public Health Physicians White Paper regarding E-Cigarettes, p. 17

Cahn & Siegel, “Electronic cigarettes as a harm reduction strategy for tobacco control: A step forward or a repeat of past mistakes?” p. 22

Health New Zealand lab reports, p. 38

Exponent Technical Memorandum—Technical Review and Analysis of FDA Report: “Evaluation of e-cigarettes,” p. 41
 

JustJulie

CASAA
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jan 30, 2009
2,848
1,393
Des Moines, IA
You guys are cracking me up. I have no idea who's going to be at the hearing.

But, yeah, it will be a more friendly group of legislators than usual. Not only do we have an educated vaper on the Committee, the Committee is used to being around someone who vapes. :wub:

And sorry--to the best of my knowledge, the hearings aren't televised.
 

Bill Godshall

Executive Director<br/> Smokefree Pennsylvania
ECF Veteran
Apr 2, 2009
5,171
13,288
67
Please note that Section 191.777(2) of HB 2103 would preempt 30 already enacted municipal smokefree workplace ordinances in MO (list on page 15 of http://no-smoke.org/pdf/100ordlisttabs.pdf and map at http://no-smoke.org/pdf/USOrdMap.pdf ) to once again allow smoking in "Any public place which derives at least sixty percent of its retail sales from alcohol, tobacco, or entertainment," which probably includes 20,000 - 50,000 public places.

The 30 smokefree ordinances in MO include 14 ordinances that ban smoking in all bars http://no-smoke.org/pdf/current_smokefree_ordinances_by_year.pdf , and the 30 ordinances cover nearly half of state's population, including Kansas City, St. Louis, Jefferson City, and many suburbs of KC and St. Louis.

Section 191.777(2) of HB 2103 also would preempt all future ordinances from banning smoking in those locations, which would include tens of thousands of additional public places.

As such, I expect ANR, CTFK, ACS, AHA, ALA, and other state/local health/medical groups will aggressively oppose HB 2103, as will mayors and councils of those 30 municipalities and the statewide association(s) of cities and municipalities (which oppose all state legislation that preempts local authority).


In contrast, Section 191.777(1) of HB 2103 would preempt just several recently enacted local ordinances in MO that ban e-cigarette use in public places.

Although some e-cigarette consumers may view HB 2103 as an e-cigarette consumer protection bill [due to Section 191.777(1)], HB 2103 will be correctly exposed and opposed by many others as an outrageous cigarette industry protection bill that threatens public health and that threatens the authority of local governments in MO.

That is why I strongly urge all vapors who support Section 191.777(1) of HB 2103 to make it clear to MO legislators, the news media and others that they are only advocating Section 191.777(1) of the bill, and not Section 191.777(2).

Right to smoke activists, various bar owners, the MO tavern association, private clubs, and casinos (if legal in MO) will actively lobby for the smoking protection provision of HB 2103, while Philip Morris, Reynolds and Lorillard are likely lobbying behind the scenes in support of HB 2103.

I remain confident that HB 2103 will not be enacted into law [unless Section 191.777(2) is removed from the bill], as that smoking protection provision will (in the near future) doom this legislation.
 
Last edited:

Bill Godshall

Executive Director<br/> Smokefree Pennsylvania
ECF Veteran
Apr 2, 2009
5,171
13,288
67
Also please note that opposing and preventing preemption of local smokefree laws is the number ONE priority of ANR, ACS, AHA, ALA, CTFK, and the entire antismoking movement.
They will hire dozens of lobbyists and spend a million dollars if necessary to defeat HB 2103.

I campaigned to repeal local preemption in PA from 1988 (when it was enacted to preempt Pittsburgh's smokefree ordinance I had just gotten enacted) until 2008 (when I sued Allegheny County to enact an ordinance, when I got three local smokefree ordinances enacted in Allegheny County, Erie County and Scranton, when we fought RJ Reynolds in state court over preemption, and until the PA General Assembly enacted our current smokefree workplace law in 2008 that bans smoking in 99% of workplaces, but still preempts local governments from banning smoking in bars, drinking clubs and casinos.

A map showing the states that preempt local smokefree ordinances is at
Protect Local Control :: ANR (Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights)
and there is lots of detailed information about preemption at
Preemption - no-smoke.org

ANR carefully monitors all preemption bills, and HB 2103 in MO is on their list at
Protect Local Control :: ANR (Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights)
 
Last edited:

Vocalek

CASAA Activist
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
What is, and is not, included in the mission of The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association?

CASAA is a non-profit organization that works to ensure the availability of reduced harm alternatives to smoking and to provide smokers and non-smokers alike with truthful information about such alternatives.

Our mission is to ensure the availability of effective, affordable and reduced harm alternatives to smoking by increasing public awareness and education; to encourage the testing and development of products to achieve acceptable safety standards and reasonable regulation; and to promote the benefits of reduced harm alternatives.

CASAA takes no position for or against smoking bans. When a smoking ban is proposed that includes use of smoke-free electronic cigarettes in the definition of smoking, our request for action specifies that we want the legislators to amend the proposed legislation to remove electronic cigarettes.

Missouri HB 2103 differs from all the proposed legislation we have encountered before, in that we do not need to have the legislation amended to protect the legality of using electronic cigarettes. Asking the House to amend the bill to remove the preemption of smoking bans for "Any public place which derives at least sixty percent of its retail sales from alcohol, tobacco, or entertainment" would amount to taking a stand in favor of smoking bans. To repeat: CASAA takes no position on smoking bans, for or against.

The CASAA Board decided that the best way to handle this situation would be to ask CASAA members and supporters to submit testimony that specifies support of protecting the use of electronic cigarettes, without mentioning the other part of the bill. We determined that asking folks to state that they are not supporting Section 191.777(2) would be confusing, and could be misinterpreted as asking them to speak out in favor of smoking bans. To repeat: CASAA takes no position on smoking bans, for or against.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread