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

[Bill Godshall]

Here's exactly what ND voters will see when they consider voting on Measure 4
https://vip.sos.nd.gov/pdfs/Portals/BallotLanguageMeasure4-Smoking-Nov6,2012.pdf

At least ND voters will be informed that Measure 4 bans the use of e-cigarettes (although the term electronic smoking devices isn't technically accurate), that Measure 4 applies to outdoor locations, and that violators will face penalties.

Due to that wording, I suspect many voters will appropriately consider the measure as too extreme, and vote NO.

 

[DC2]

Electronic smoking device is not only inaccurate, it is terribly ignorant and misleading.

I seriously think that if this passes it could be challenged in court as we produce zero smoke.
Therefore these are NOT electronic smoking devices.

But my wife (the lawyer) tells me you can't really sue for anything that makes sense.
Apparently you can only sue for stupid stuff that makes no sense at all.

I really don't understand why I paid for her law education, as it never seems to help.

 

[Vocalek]

Aside from the absurdity of banning e-cigarette use, the language of the ballot measure is unnecessarily cruel considering how ungodly North Dakota's winters are. The measure bans partially enclosed smoker booths (i.e., three walled structures that only smokers go into and may be heated in some way), which as far as I know are already installed in hundreds or thousands of places in the state.

Yes. That's one reason why the North Dakota Hospitality Association is not in favor of the measure.

 

[stevejo]

Sorry for the absence -- Elaine have you seen a publishing of that letter? I've been keeping track and haven't seen anything. This has passed through the signatory process now and is officially a measure for us in the November election.

We're getting a tad more active on our Facebook page located at:

Welcome to Facebook

And as always, any e-cig related research that we can get out hands on to post, as well as personal accounts of e-cig use, are more than welcome.

We also have a media list for the state of North Dakota available for download here:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ibt3eo8ggd3dj0x/North Dakota Media List.csv

For those types that feel motivated to write letters, make phone calls, or otherwise get this out to the ND media. This is an initiated measure, which sadly means that our elected officials have no way to support or oppose this measure, it is 100% up to the people of ND. We need to educate, educate, educate. We have three talking points regarding this measure:

1. Rolling electronic cigarettes and personal vaporizers into this ban aside traditional tobacco cigarettes is wrong. Electronic cigarettes have been proven to emit no measurable amounts of anything harmful in secondhand form. Of the four components that are contained, only nicotine presents any risk to humans, in the same way that caffeine does. However, studies have shown (see Clearstream Study) that nicotine is not present in scientifically measurable amounts in secondhand vapor, thereby negating any remotely possible harm to bystanders.

2. Removing the exemption for smoking related businesses will effectively close the doors on many ND small businesses such as hookah lounges, cigar bars, and with the PV inclusion, vape shops. These businesses exist as smoking havens, and any customers or employees entering this type of business should be obviously aware of the secondhand risks (if any even exist) prior to entering. Slapping these businesses with a 'no smoking' designation directly harms their primary form of revenue, making continuing business in our state impossible.

3. The altering of provisions to 'enclosed area' redefines an enclosed (and there for smoking prohibited) area as "all space between a floor and ceiling that has 33% or more of the area of it's perimeter bounded by opened or closed walls, windows, or doorways. A wall includes and physical barrier regardless off whether it is open or closed, temporary or permanent, or contains openings of any kind, and includes retractable dividers and garage doors." This effectively eliminates businesses erecting any sort of remotely protective structure to allow their smoking patrons to take a smoke break, and with the inclusion of PVs, forces ex-smokers out into the ND weather (which can reach fifty to sixty degrees below zero with high winds) to have a puff of their previsouly shown harmless PV. This also punishes businesses in the cities that have such smoking bans already in place, and in many cases have invested sizeable dollar amounts in erecting separate smoking structures for their patrons.

These three points illustrate quite clearly that while the spirit of this bill (removing harm from employees of affected businesses) is noble, the execution and wording does naught but harm to ND businesses, smokers, and vapers.

We as vapers need to spread the word, educate, and motivate voters to get out and vote 'NO' to Measure 4 this fall. North Dakota requires voters to have resided in ND for 30 days, have a piece of mail or a gov't ID to prove said address, and be 18 years of age. Every year, there is a huge segment of eligible voters that just don't vote. If we can motivate this segment, and educate the regular voters, we can defeat this bill.

Feel free to use any part of this post to share this information in any way you all see fit. Take care, God bless, and Vape on!

 

[stevejo]

Aside from the absurdity of banning e-cigarette use, the language of the ballot measure is unnecessarily cruel considering how ungodly North Dakota's winters are. The measure bans partially enclosed smoker booths (i.e., three walled structures that only smokers go into and may be heated in some way), which as far as I know are already installed in hundreds or thousands of places in the state.

And it looks like I was a bit behind with my previous post. This is exactly one of our issues. Many many businesses in the state (ND already has 8 cities that have independently adopted sane smoking bans) have spent collectively hundreds of thousands of dollars on smoking shelters that house the smoking public from the harsh ND winter, and comply with all sane smoking regulations designed to protect nonsmoking patrons and employees from ever getting a whiff of secondhand smoke. Many of these enclosures are heated, at great expense to the businesses, and are well-ventilated and generally have a large open area to the elements from which building secondhand smoke can escape. Restricting this to "less than 33% wall coverage" and defining wall coverage as any covering including chain-link and screen, and even temporary barriers, is unnecessarily harsh and in my humble opinion, just another shot at all of us from the "quit or die" faction.

 

[stevejo]

Here is the direct link to send ND related information to Public News Service rebutting the article on the smoking ban:

Public News Service Contact

 

[Bill Godshall]

There is now a six week window of opportunity to expose and oppose the many unwarranted provisions in Measure #4 to ND voters.

If Measure 4 is defeated, anti tobacco extremists may decide to not include an e-cigarette ban (and/or an outdoor ban within 20 feet of building entrances) in future ballot initiatives that are purportedly intended to protect people from secondhand smoke, and perhaps some future legislation as well.

Several years ago, Washington voters approved a ballot initiative that not only banned smoking in all workplaces, but also banned smoking outdoors within 20 feet of building entrances. That is the only state law that bans outdoor smoking within 20 feet of building entrances.

The most effective way to defeat Measure 4 is to expose the e-cigarette usage ban, and the outdoor ban within 20 feet of building entrances. By including those extreme (and unwarranted) provisions, the ballot initiative sponsors have increased the likelihood that ND voters (who are heavily conservative and/or libertarian) will reject the measure.

 

[Vocalek]

Did you know?

“It (the measure) would actually impede our ability to make meaningful changes. If the ballot initiative passes (it) would require a higher threshold for changes,” Ellingson said. In North Dakota changes to a ballot measure can’t be made for seven years and would then require a two-thirds majority vote of the Legislature.

Voters could decide on five measures

 

[Vocalek]

Here is the direct link to send ND related information to Public News Service rebutting the article on the smoking ban:

Public News Service Contact

Steve: I tried to access this site, but it was blocked by my antivirus software (Trend). Is there perhaps a typo in the link that leads to an "almost the same name" bad site?

 

[YKruss]

Steve: I tried to access this site, but it was blocked by my antivirus software (Trend). Is there perhaps a typo in the link that leads to an "almost the same name" bad site?

Worked for me, try my link: Public News Service Contact

 

[Vocalek]

Nope. Trend still blocked it. When I save the shortcut, this is what it reads:

http:// publicnewsservice.org/contact.php?release=1&id=5&ret=L3JlbGVhc2VzL2luZGV4LnBocA==

(I added a space after "//" to avoid having it automatically turned into a link by the ECF editor.)

Is that what you see in the address field when you click the link?

 

[YKruss]

Yes, it's the same. BTW, I am using Firefox.

 

[Vocalek]

The Absentee Balloting process has begun.

CASAA is willing to help ND residents to compose a Letter to the Editor.

Send us an email: board @ casaa.org

Provide the name of the paper you would send the letter to so that we can check the requirements.

Elaine

 

[Vocalek]

If you live in North Dakota, please consider writing a letter to the editor! We need to quash this measure!

CASAA is willing to assist you or to write the entire letter for you, if you wish. Send email to board@casaa.org

 

[DC2]

If you live in North Dakota, please consider writing a letter to the editor! We need to quash this measure!

CASAA is willing to assist you or to write the entire letter for you, if you wish. Send email to board@casaa.org

This is the kind of thing that should be an ECF announcement.

Maybe 3 people from North Dakota will see it here.
Maybe 40 people from North Dakota would see an announcement.

 

[Fiamma]

This is the kind of thing that should be an ECF announcement.

Maybe 3 people from North Dakota will see it here.
Maybe 40 people from North Dakota would see an announcement.

I'm in total agreement. ECF admins should really think about doing something about getting critical news to all members.

 

[Vocalek]

And now for your reading entertainment, we introduce another Anti-THR Lie of the Day:

"North Dakota’s Lies Freeze Out Smokers and Former Smokers"

North Dakota’s Lies Freeze Out Smokers and Former Smokers | Anti-THR Lie of the Day

 

[Vocalek]

Letter: Anti-smoking measure is an assault on liberty | INFORUM | Fargo, ND

Let’s say I want a garden in front of my house, so I plant the seeds in the spring, care for them accordingly and they grow. In the middle of summer, suddenly weeds start to grow. Does that mean I get my weed whacker and cut down everything, then till it all back into the earth? Absolutely not. I grab a hand-shovel and a hoe, and I remove the weeds so I can keep my beautiful garden.

Measure 4, the indoor smoking ban, is the weed whacker to the garden of freedom in North Dakota, and you should vote against it. The first of many flaws with this measure is that, as in the illustration above, it wants to address an alleged problem in a situation by removing the situation, not by trying to fix a problem.

According to the private coalition that wrote this bill, Smoke-Free North Dakota, the only way to make sure that nonsmokers are unaffected by secondhand smoke is to outlaw indoor smoking. Wrong. Taking Schatz Crossroads in Minot as an example, commercial air filtration systems can use HEPA filters that clean 99.99 percent of air particles as small as 0.3 micrometers from an entire room every three minutes. You can also couple this strategy with creating walled-off smoking and nonsmoking sections.

Furthermore, they attack vaporizers and e-cigarettes, claiming that the emissions are harmful, too. This is completely false, as the only thing they emit is water vapor, not smoke (because nothing is burning).

Next, this law is unconstitutional and violates the most fundamental moral, political and economic natural right Americans have. Smoke-Free North Dakota has carelessly debased the right to private property and, in dictatorial fashion, determined that business owners cannot own and operate their business in the fashion the owners deem most acceptable.

As John Locke presented, private property is the doorway to pursuing happiness, the key to owning your own labor, and the means by which you can transform a resource into a product, and thereby live freely on it. These entrepreneurs have transformed what were once shells of empty buildings into businesses that employ thousands, and cater to the desires of thousands more.

To remove that natural right would not only be unconstitutional but it would simply be wrong. The right to private property must always be maintained, or else we lose our freedoms.

They have also clearly established that equal rights mean nothing to them. Of course, they clearly cater to the freedom of assembly of nonsmokers, but what about smokers? Don’t people who smoke have just as much of a right to commune in a bar of their choice with other smokers, as nonsmokers do with other nonsmokers? Of course. Especially when we, as consumers, have done our job in the free market by creating enough of a demand for fully nonsmoking establishments. As a result of the demand we created, we now have the ability to fully exercise our right to choose to spend our money at the establishments that best cater to our desires. This, above all things, is supply and demand at its finest – the true mark of a free market economy.

And because of these facts, we must ask ourselves, is this law really about secondhand smoke, or is it actually about tobacco prohibition? I personally believe it’s the latter – a law that seeks to prohibit a legal action. This law would add to the epidemic of job-killing over-regulation. It diminishes the free market system and moves us closer to a control system, similar to those of communist Russia and China.

Please, vote for private property rights and freedom. Vote “no” on Measure 4.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Vega, Fargo, attends North Dakota State University and is the Republican Party’s first vice chairman, Legislative District 16.

 

[Vocalek]

Here is the text of the press release CASAA sent to North Dakota media yesterday.

Smoking Ban Goes Too Far, Endangers Health and Business

A drastically revised version of the state’s anti-smoking law, “Initiated Statutory Measure No. 4 Relating to Prohibiting Smoking in Public Spaces and Worksites,” goes too far, according to Dr. Carl Phillips, Scientific Director of The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association (CASAA).

“Proponents of smoking bans claim that their purpose is to enhance public health,” stated Phillips. “But this legislation is flawed. The health of many citizens will be endangered, and businesses may face loss of revenue or even closure.”

The current state law prohibits smoking in public places and all workplaces with half a dozen exceptions, most of which are outdoors or not open to the general public. Phillips cites the inclusion of smoke-free electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) in the definition of smoking as a major flaw in the revised law.

“Over 75% of e-cigarette consumers purchased the products to help them stop smoking and recent research found that up to 80% of daily users no longer smoke,” said Phillips. “Many e-cigarette users first discover the safer devices when they see them being used where smoking isn't allowed. Banning indoor use removes an incentive for smokers to switch to a low-risk alternative.”

The measure removes exemptions for bars, outdoor stadiums, tobacco shops, private rooms in hotels and motels, and private nursing home rooms. California Governor Jerry Brown recently vetoed a nursing home smoking ban, stating it would be "reasonable to allow elderly smokers to remain inside during inclement weather.”

Phillips pointed out that if North Dakota becomes the only state that offers no overnight shelter for smokers, the tourism business may suffer. The law will change the definition of “enclosed area” to prohibit smoking in most designated outdoor smoking areas to protect smokers from the elements. Many businesses made a considerable financial investment in constructing and heating these shelters.

“If the goal is supposed to be protecting public health, stated Phillips, “this measure fails in several areas. Former smokers will be banished to the smoking area, continuing smokers will have no incentive to switch, and many people will be subjected to North Dakota’s harsh winter weather. CASAA urges North Dakota citizens to vote NO on Initiated Statutory Measure No. 4.”

CASAA is a consumer-based non-profit organization that works to ensure the availability of low-risk alternatives to smoking and to provide the public with truthful information about such alternatives.

 

[Vocalek]

So far, the print media in North Dakota has been nothing but supportive of the passage of the ban: Vote

The mission of the March of Dimes is to improve the health of women of childbearing age, infants and children by preventing birth defects, premature birth and infant mortality. The March of Dimes supports a yes vote on Measure 4 on the November ballot to ban all smoking in all places of employment.

According to the U.S. Surgeon General’s 2006 report, “The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke,” exposure to secondhand smoke by non-smoking pregnant women may lead to premature birth.