North Dakota ballot initiative would ban smoking and e-cig use in all workplaces

[Bill Godshall]

According to the news article at
UPDATED: Anti-tobacco group to push ND indoor smoking ban | INFORUM | Fargo, ND

BISMARCK, N.D. — A proposed North Dakota ballot initiative would ban smoking in all indoor workplaces, including bars, a step that the state Legislature has refused to take since lawmakers approved broad smoking restrictions seven years ago.

The measure, which a group called Smoke-Free North Dakota submitted to Secretary of State Al Jaeger on Wednesday, would cover “e-cigarettes,” which produce an odorless, nicotine-laced vapor that's similar to tobacco smoke.

There's also an editorial about this measure at
Forum editorial: Smoking measure a good bet | INFORUM | Fargo, ND

It would be helpful if someone obtained and posted that ND ballot initiative.

 

[Placebo Effect]

I read online that the Secretary of State in North Dakota (a Republican) is the one who has the final decision on ballot initiative titles.

If this gets the needed signatures by the deadline in August, I'd support multiple organizations petitioning the Secretary of State to retitle the initiative from, for example, "Banning Smoking in Public Places" to "Banning Smoking and the Use of Electronic Cigarettes in Public Places."

 

[Bill Godshall]

Don't know anything about ND ballot initiative law, but it can't hurt to encourage the Sec. of State to rename the initiative to include e-cigarettes.

It would also help to find some interested e-cigarette vendors and/or consumers in ND.

Nearly twice as many people live in my county (Allegheny, PA) as live in ND.

 

[pianoguy]

".....vapor that's similar to tobacco smoke."

 

[stevejo]

We're starting some initiatives here to counter this poorly written proposal -- working on getting a text copy now and sending letters and making phone calls to the supporters of it.

EDIT: The largest issue with this is the inclusion of e-cigs. So far none of the local city measures include vaping in their bans, and they have been very successful. As a B&M vendor, we work with many local bars and venues to secure management approval of e-cigs, and have been very well received. We have one local bar here where all but one of the staff (the sole non-smoker in the group) have switched to vaping, and the GM is absolutely ecstatic over the products.

This is just in the petition stage now, and they haven't even started circulating petitions. When they do, we will start some work on countering them. I've fired off several e-mails and phone calls directly to the supporters of this, and it's surprising (perhaps it shouldn't be) how uneducated some of these folks are regarding e-cigs, their function, and the difference between secondhand smoke and exhaled vapor.

 

[Placebo Effect]

Unfortunately, it looks like North Dakota uses a generic numbering for its ballot titles, so it will not be possible to have "smoking and the use of electronic cigarettes" on the ballot title.

However, if North Dakota vendors and e-cigarette users are willing to work to get 13,000 signatures, it would be possible to get a new ballot initiative in 2013 or 2014 to have e-cigarettes removed in the event this passes.

Edit: This article indicates there is a petition title, and it is indeed, "to prohibit smoking, including the use of electronic smoking devices, in public places and most places of employment in this state, including certain outdoor areas." http://www.necn.com/06/22/12/ND-Sec...s.html?&apID=46daf0444f3d42838666d930cb6cfb71

 

[stevejo]

Dug up a pdf and rehosted it on google docs

https://docs.google.com/file/d/13MS0REmSFm8_SAf_L12qFd2f_R_aYljXYdq3X3lJGQyz6qJ5K6jCuCqz9dny/edit

Lots of really scary language in there for us local folks. For those that aren't aware of ND, our winters can be brutal. Lots of local bars here in Grand Forks (that has been 100% smoke free for some time now) most bars have built an 'outdoor' smoking area that is isolated from the rest of the bar, and doesn't provide any service so that employees aren't exposed to smoke. The vast majority of these are fairly well enclosed, generally with screen or fencing to ensure circulation while still protecting from the elements. This proposal would limit them to 33% wall coverage, and has a very encompassing definition of a wall. This will result in smokers (and vapers) being stuck out in the weather to satiate their cravings. Also, it would ban smoking/vaping in smoke/vape related businesses. This would mean that when a customer comes in and wants to sample a flavor, the customer and I need to walk x feet from the door of my privately leased storefront for that customer to taste one of my liquids. Absolute and utter BS.

 

[stew5150]

Seems to me that the term "Electronic Smoking Device" in itself is going to make this easy to fight. A PV doesn't create smoke.

 

[Placebo Effect]

Also, it would ban smoking/vaping in smoke/vape related businesses. This would mean that when a customer comes in and wants to sample a flavor, the customer and I need to walk x feet from the door of my privately leased storefront for that customer to taste one of my liquids. Absolute and utter BS.

I didn't know there was a brick and mortar store in North Dakota.

I hope those from the tobacco / bar / cigar industry who will be opposing this ban realize what an effective propaganda technique they've been handed because of Smoke-Free North Dakota's senseless insistence on including electronic cigarettes. E-cigarettes have much higher acceptability rates than regular cigarettes (i.e., survey from NYC finding 2/3 opposed to banning them indoors), so it is not hard to paint these people as extremists.

 

[stevejo]

Seems to me that the term "Electronic Smoking Device" in itself is going to make this easy to fight. A PV doesn't create smoke.

Sadly the actual text reads

E-cigarette means any electronic oral device, such as one composed of a heating element, battery, and/or electronic circuit, which provides vapor of nicotine or other substances, and the use or inhalation of which simulates smoking

They've covered their bases fairly well. I've printed out copies of this to hand out to all my customers with the relevant passages highlighted, and had some very good conversations today, with everyone I talked to taking a copy and pledging whatever support is needed to fight this.

I'm hoping in such a small state as ND (~600K people) we can create enough noise to get this proposal the treatment it deserves, that being a trash can.

EDIT: Also fired off an e-mail to CASAA, so hopefully as this progresses we can get it out as a call to action. I know that we have a few hundred folks here locally that follow those, so if they don't make it into the store or into the e-mail list, they can find out that way.

 

[rothenbj]

"This proposal would limit them to 33% wall coverage, and has a very encompassing definition of a wall. This will result in smokers (and vapers) being stuck out in the weather to satiate their cravings."

Hey, if you can't get them to quit smoking (or vaping), maybe we can kill them off with pneumonia. Who says they're anti-smoking? They're anti-smoker(vaper).

 

[stevejo]

"This proposal would limit them to 33% wall coverage, and has a very encompassing definition of a wall. This will result in smokers (and vapers) being stuck out in the weather to satiate their cravings."

Hey, if you can't get them to quit smoking (or vaping), maybe we can kill them off with pneumonia. Who says they're anti-smoking? They're anti-smoker(vaper).

Yeah, and the largest issue with this is 8 cities have already adopted a similar law, but allowing for far more protection from the elements. So all the businesses that invested money (I know of one local bar that spent close to 20K, adding outdoor heaters and all) need to tear em down and start over.

 

[stevejo]

Also wanted to post and let folks know that we have both a Facebook page and website up. Right now this is shaping up to be a PR campaign, as we can't sign anything, just educate folks on the harm that this proposal will cause. We are actively seeking any research you may have access to that hasn't been posted up yet or personal accounts of how e-cigs have changed your life for the better. Feel free to contribute in any way you can, it's all appreciated!

Website:
Stop the ND Smoking/Vaping Ban!

Facebook:
http://facebook.com/stopthendban/

 

[Vocalek]

Shared your Facebook link and left comments on the Tobacco Free ND's Facebook page.

I gave them the link to CASAA's version of the Kentucky smoke-free Policies document. E-cigarettes and Smoke-free Policies - Research supports that e-cigarettes should not be included in smoking bans: vapor is not smoke.

 

[stevejo]

Shared your Facebook link and left comments on the Tobacco Free ND's Facebook page.

I gave them the link to CASAA's version of the Kentucky smoke-free Policies document. E-cigarettes and Smoke-free Policies - Research supports that e-cigarettes should not be included in smoking bans: vapor is not smoke.

Thanks! We appreciate all the help we can get. Sadly, this state has only a few hundred vapers currently in it, so it's an uphill battle. I'd encourage anyone from anywhere to leave a story of how e-cigs have helped them, as this combined with the research we have available through the ClearStream project and IVAQS is going to be our cornerstone of 'this is why these should not be included in the ban'

The truly sad part is that they are screwing smokers as well by eliminating the provision for shelters that most of our local smoking bans have established, and cutting shelter coverage down to 33% walls or less. Combined with the lack of anywhere indoors and public to smoke, it seems like they are just going back to the 'quit or die' mantra, but altering it to 'quit or freeze to death'

EDIT: Can't type well on laptop while ......

 

[stevejo]

A fellow vaper managed to get a well-written letter published in the Fargo Forum today:

E-cigarettes not the problem | INFORUM | Fargo, ND

We're starting to get the word out there!

 

[Vocalek]

A fellow vaper managed to get a well-written letter published in the Fargo Forum today:

E-cigarettes not the problem | INFORUM | Fargo, ND

We're starting to get the word out there!

And to make getting the word out move towards viral, when reading an excellent article or letter to the editor, we should all look to see if there is a Share or Like button for Facebook, and a Tweet button so that we can pass this one to those connected to each of us. We can make the word spread out like the branches of a family tree.

 

[stevejo]

I've been doing some research, and have prepared a letter to the editor in response to the several that have been published already.

Looks like the original letter has been archived (which means they want $3 to view it) but the response is still public here:
E-cigs should be included in ban | INFORUM | Fargo, ND

My response is as follows:

Barbara Clark made an interesting point that e-cig vapor has not been tested and proven safe in a “25-year study conducted by an independent research team”. How many other things do we breathe on a daily basis that have not been tested and proven safe?
Ever walk into a restaurant? Do you realize there is a device (usually several) present in almost every restaurant that generates carbon monoxide? Many people even have these untested ‘safe’ devices in their homes! They are called gas stoves. They contain an open flame, burning natural gas and emitting carbon monoxide from the combustion. According to the US Consumer Product Safety Commission (2008), 56% of unintentional deaths from non-fire CO poisoning were associated with engine-driven tools like gas-powered generators and lawn mowers. Natural gas heating systems accounted for 4% of these deaths.
Direct e-cigarette vapor, on the other hand, has accounted for exactly zero deaths. It contains a combination of propylene glycol, vegetable glycerin, food-based flavorings, and nicotine.
Propylene glycol has been classified as GRAS (generally recognized as safe) by the FDA, as well as being shown to be non-irritating (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (2008)), and proven to not cause sensitization (UNEP Publications, SIAM 11, U.S.A, January 23–26, 2001, page 21), and it shows no evidence of being a carcinogen or of being genotoxic (Title 21, U.S. Code of Federal Regulations. 1999).
Vegetable Glycerin is a colorless, odorless, viscous liquid that is widely used in pharmaceutical formulations, including cough syrups, elixirs and expectorants, toothpaste, mouthwash, and many other products that we ingest and use on our bodies on a daily basis.
The food-grade flavoring, from companies like LorAnn, Flavor Apprentice, and FlavourArt, is used (outside of e-cig applications) in hard candies, taffies, frostings, baked goods, and countless other products that are eaten by the general public in mass quantities every day with no ill effects.
The nicotine has quite literally been the e-cig industries ‘elephant in the room’ for some time now. However, recent studies have shown that due to the heat introduced in the process and the interaction between mucous membranes and vaporized nicotine, the majority of absorbable nicotine in the solution is absorbed as soon as the user mouths the vapor. So much in fact, that the nicotine concentration in exhaled vapor is unable to be measured, and is scientifically proven (Clearstream Study, May 2012, utahvapers.com/clearstream.html) to be less than .001mg per cubic meter of air.
Now, nicotine is a stimulant that is effectually similar to caffeine, not a carcinogen (although in large quantities it encourages cancer growth). In the quantities shown to exist in ‘secondhand vapor’ in these studies, it provides absolutely zero danger to the nearby patron.
With this information, it is easy to see that including e-cigs in this proposed ban due to harm caused by ‘secondhand vapor’ is not only factually incorrect, but actually harmful to public health as a whole; the proposal will force ex-smokers that have found relief through publicly harmless e-cigarettes to stand outside in the elements, surrounded by smokers.

Thoughts? Opinions? Corrections? I've done a ton of research these last few weeks, and had to modify this a bit to fit the format of a response, but as long as all is factually correct this will go out to all the newspapers in the state by the end of this week.

 

[Vocalek]

Most papers limit the number of words they will publish in a Letter to the Editor. While it differs from one paper to another, you can't go too far astray by limiting your letter to 200 words or less.

 

[Vocalek]

Most papers limit the number of words they will publish in a Letter to the Editor. While it differs from one paper to another, you can't go too far astray by limiting your letter to 200 words or less.

I emailed you a shortened version.