Mar 09

Vapor Industry Seeks Support in US House

Headline

Four US vapor-industry organizations have written to the speaker of the House of Representatives, Paul Ryan, and the House minority leader, Nancy Pelosi, urging them to support a bill that would take the sting out of the Food and Drug Administration’s deeming regulations in respect of electronic cigarettes.

The letter writers believe that the FDA Deeming Authority Clarification Act of 2017, which was introduced by Representatives Tom Cole and Sanford Bishop, would lift the ‘industry-ending’ effect of the retroactive predicate date in the FDA’s regulations.
At the same time, it would institute regulations that better fitted the unique nature of vapor products. Without it, only major tobacco companies would have a chance to survive beyond 2018.

Ensuring this ground-breaking technology continued to be available as a healthier alternative for adult US smokers was key in the mission ultimately to eliminate cigarette smoking and smoking-related disease.

The writers said the FDA’s plan to regulate vapor products out of existence was misguided.

‘There is a large and rapidly growing body of scientific evidence that supports the premise that vapor products are the most important tobacco harm reduction opportunity of the last decade,’ they wrote. ‘The most recent study, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, conducted and authored by researchers from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), University College London and King’s College, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, found that consuming e-cigarettes exposes vapers to dramatically lower levels of toxins than smoking conventional cigarettes. Moreover, the difference between smokers’ and vapers’ exposure is actually similar to the difference between smokers and non-smokers, as found by the same CDC scientist in a 2012 study. Additionally, the Royal College of Physicians released a comprehensive scientific review that concluded that vapor products are at least 95 percent less harmful than combusted cigarettes. In the UK, Public Health England published a report recommending these products as a harm-reducing alternative for smokers.’
The writers said the proposed bill would allow an entire vapor products industry to remain afloat, saving tens of thousands of US jobs while providing unprecedented regulation of vapor products appropriate for this innovative technology.

‘Unlike the FDA’s regulations issued in 2016, the Cole-Bishop bill addresses the issues of product safety and enhances youth protections,’ the letter said. ‘Additionally, the legislation provides the strictest industry standards while also preserving access to vapor products for the millions of adult Americans who now use them every day instead of smoking.

‘Specifically, the FDA Deeming Authority Clarification Act of 2017 would:

Amend the current law’s highly-problematic retroactive predicate date from February 15, 2007 to the effective date of the final deeming regulations, allowing products that meet all regulatory requirements to remain on the market and keeping thousands of small businesses, and their tens of thousands of employees, afloat.
Protect consumers by preserving access to the diverse vapor marketplace, as opposed to the current law and FDA’s deeming regulations that threaten to force millions of adult consumers back to smoking or into the black market.

Set higher standards for product safety by requiring the FDA to implement rulemaking on product standards for batteries used in the devices within 12 months.

Protect teens by severely restricting marketing and youth access to vapor products.’

The writers said that if the FDA’s deeming regulations were allowed to stand, small- and mid-sized vapor retailers and manufacturers across the US would close their doors, leaving consumers – who were battling every day to quit smoking – without access to these life-changing and possibly lifesaving alternatives to combustible cigarettes.

‘Although it does not purport to solve every issue with the FDA’s deeming regulations, the FDA Deeming Authority Clarification Act of 2017 is a significant first step toward correcting the FDA’s misguided approach to regulation of the vapor industry,’ they wrote.

The writers are, in alphabetical order, Tony Abboud, executive director of Vapor Technology Association; Alex Clark, executive director Consumer Advocates for Smoke-Free Alternatives Association; Gregory Conley, president American Vaping Association; and Pamela Gorman, executive director Smoke Free Alternatives Trade Association.

Source: Tobacco Reporter

Mar 08

UNL students asked to weigh in on campus smoking ban

Headline

One of Scott Schenkelberg’s first memories after arriving at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln was walking across campus behind a group of people smoking cigarettes.

“I just remember breathing that in and thinking about how disgusting it was,” said Schenkelberg, now a senior mechanical engineering major from Omaha.

When he joined the Association of Students of the University of Nebraska as a junior, Schenkelberg said one of his goals was to craft a policy that would make UNL smoke-free — a measure he said would improve the health of students as well as the appearance of the Lincoln campus.

On Wednesday, during the annual ASUN elections, students can weigh in on a smoking ban on campus, whether to allow smokers to use only designated areas on campus or to leave UNL’s current policy in place.

UNL currently bans the use of tobacco — including electronic cigarettes — in campus facilities and vehicles, while allowing tobacco use outside of a 10- to 25-foot buffer zone surrounding most campus buildings.

The survey will be used to create a metric for what direction ASUN should take in the future, according to Spencer Hartman, president of ASUN and a student member of the NU Board of Regents.

“Usually to move a policy forward, senators around the table want some sort of feel for where their constituencies are at, particularly in something this monumental that would affect campus life,” said Hartman, a senior ag economics major from Imperial.

Schenkelberg said others within ASUN and on an ad hoc “Tobacco-Free Campus Task Force” comprised of UNL students, human resources managers, facilities management, landscape services, UNL Police and Husker Athletics have also pushed for a smoking ban.

Nebraska law prohibits smoking in restaurants, bars, keno establishments, workplaces and other indoor public areas.

If UNL adopts a smoking ban, it would join a growing number of U.S. colleges and universities to do so, according to Cynthia Hallett, president and CEO of Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights, which has tracked college policies related to smoking since 2001.

“For a lot of campuses, they are not included in a local or statewide smoke-free workplace law despite the fact campuses are workplaces as well as institutions of higher learning,” Hallett said.

Data collected in 2010 showed 446 university and college campuses had banned smoking. That figure has grown to 1,757 this year, according to Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights.

Hallett said the spike is the result of education campaigns about the negative impacts of cigarette smoking as well as other tobacco use, which, according to the Centers for Disease Control, causes more than 480,000 deaths a year.

UNL remains one of three Big Ten universities to not have banned smoking on its campus, as well as the only campus in the University of Nebraska system without a tobacco-free policy.

UNO enacted a smoking ban last Aug. 22 — two years after a discarded cigarette caused a fire in a dorm room — while UNK banned tobacco from all campus grounds last fall, leaving designated locations in parking lots, according to spokesman Todd Gottula.

UNMC banned smoking on campus in 2009, and other universities in Nebraska have also snuffed out smoking in the meantime.

“We’re really behind the times,” Schenkelberg said. “Sharing that information with a lot of students, they saw where I was coming from and some had similar experiences to what I did.”

Schenkelberg said he isn’t opposed to smoking, but argued smokers should not be allowed to infringe upon the airspace of nonsmokers.

Hartman said he has heard mixed opinions from different student groups on a proposed smoking ban across campus.

Schenkelberg said he looks forward to seeing students’ opinions about a proposed policy change that would affect “everybody who works at the university or interacts with it on a daily basis.”

“If they don’t want a policy, then that’s how it is — at least we’ve let their voices be heard and that’s the important thing,” he said. “This is really one moment to get a collective opinion of everyone on campus.”

Source: Lincoln Journal Star

Mar 08

Giving up cigarettes linked with recovery from illicit substance use disorders

Headline

Smokers in recovery from illicit drug use disorders are at greater risk of relapsing three years later compared with those who do not smoke cigarettes. Results of the study by researchers at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health and the City University of New York appear online in The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.
Most adults who have illicit drug use disorders also smoke cigarettes. Yet while treatments for substance use disorders traditionally include and require concurrent treatment for addiction to all substances — including treatment for and required abstinence from alcohol and any other illicit substance use — treatment for nicotine dependence has not routinely been part of treatment for illicit substance use problems. 

“The thinking in clinical settings has been that asking patients to quit cigarette smoking while they try to stop using drugs is “too difficult,” or that smoking may be helpful in remaining abstinent from alcohol and drugs, but it is not related whether or not one remains abstinent from illicit drug use over the long term,” said Renee Goodwin, PhD, of the Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, who led the research.

The researchers studied data from 34,653 adults enrolled in the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC) who were assessed at two time points, three years apart, on substance use, substance use disorders, and related physical and mental disorders. Only those with a history of illicit substance use disorders according to DSM-IV criteria were included in the final sample. Daily smokers and nondaily smokers had approximately twice the odds of relapsing to drug use at the end of the three-year period compared with nonsmokers. The relationships held even after controlling for demographics and other factors including mood, anxiety, alcohol use disorders, and nicotine dependence.

Specifically, among those with remitted substance use disorders who were smokers at the beginning of the study, more than one in ten (11 percent) who continued smoking three years later relapsed to illicit substance use three years later, while only 8 percent of those who had quit smoking and 6.5 percent of never smokers relapsed to substance use three years later. Among those who were non-smokers, smoking three years later was associated with significantly greater odds of substance use disorders relapse compared to those who remained non-smokers.

“Quitting smoking will improve anyone’s health,” says lead author Andrea Weinberger, PhD, an assistant professor in the Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine. “But our study shows that giving up cigarettes may be even more important for adults in recovery from illicit substance use disorders since it may help them stay sober.”

“If research continues to show a relationship between smoking and relapse to substance use among those in recovery, making tobacco treatment a standard part of treatment for illicit substance use disorders may be a critical service to provide to adults toward improving substance treatment outcomes over the long term,” suggested Dr. Goodwin.
Source: PsyPost

Mar 06

Lincoln Journal Star Editorial, 3/4: Don’t raise smoking age in Nebraska

Headline

By the Journal Star editorial board Mar 3, 2017 (10)

There’s no need for Nebraska legislators to rush to follow the lead of the two states that have raised the minimum smoking age to 21.

Opponents of the move have raised a legitimate argument against the change. If 18-year-olds can be trusted to make their own decisions on such matters as whether to join the military, rent an apartment or cast a vote for U.S. president and other elected offices, they ought to have the right to decide whether to buy a pack of cigarettes.
More at Source: Lincoln Journal Star

Mar 06

Lincoln Journal Star Letter, 3/5: Tobacco tax beneficial

Legislation , Policy

Nebraska’s cigarette tax hasn’t changed for 15 years. At 64 cents per pack, we have one of the lowest in the nation. However, this isn’t because we haven’t tried.

Another bill to increase the tax on tobacco products has been introduced by Sen. Sara Howard, and I hope this time’s the charm. Tobacco’s been costing Nebraskans far too much for far too long; health care spending directly related to tobacco use totals $795 million every year. A $1.50-per-pack tax increase as Sen. Howard has proposed has the potential to cause a great decline in smoking, saving $493 million in long-term health care costs.

The biggest benefit of this bill, however, would be to the health of Nebraskans. It’s proven that a meaningful tobacco tax increase can prevent youth from smoking, and encourages current smokers to quit. Abstaining from tobacco is beneficial to everyone’s health. Just five years after someone stops smoking, their risk of mouth, throat, esophagus and bladder cancers is cut in half.

I, as an American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network advocate and high school student, would like to thank Sen. Howard for considering Nebraska’s health. I see the impact tobacco has on the well-being of my community and peers every day and understand what it is like to lose a loved one to the habit. I hope that Legislature takes this opportunity now to positively influence the future of every Nebraskan, smokers and non.

Brooklyn Larimore, Bellevue

 

Source: Lincoln Journal Star

Mar 03

At Nebraska legislative hearings, just who gets to be heard?

Headline

Don Schuller just wanted to give his five-minute speech and go.
The farmer and retired civil engineering technician from Wymore drove to Lincoln and spent seven hours hoping to testify against Gov. Pete Ricketts’ proposed income tax cuts during a public hearing last month, only to be turned away by the Legislature’s Revenue Committee for lack of time.

“I feel like I’m a reasonable person,” Schuller said Thursday. “I’m not all that acquainted with how the hearings work, because this is the first time I’ve attended. But I didn’t like how it was handled.”

Nebraska is one of the few states that guarantees a public hearing for each of the hundreds of bills lawmakers introduce every year. The longstanding tradition is intended to foster transparency and accountability in government.

But it causes some headaches, too.

Scheduling the hearings is an inexact science: No one can predict just how many people will want to speak or how many questions senators will ask. Testimony can stretch late into the evening, dashing plans of laypeople and lawmakers alike.

And because there isn’t enough time in the legislative session to discuss each bill on a different day, hearings usually cover three bills or more.

Sen. Jim Smith of Papillion, chairman of the Revenue Committee, said he limited testimony on the governor’s income tax bill to make time for a related measure scheduled for the same day.

“Is it appropriate to have those folks go until 11 o’clock or midnight, or is it best to try to limit and structure the testimony in such a way that you try to get as much of an opinion on both sides of the issue into the record as possible?” he asked.

Many people who were interested in the later proposal, the governor’s plan for reforming agricultural property valuation, were farmers and ranchers who drove to Lincoln from far-flung parts of the state, Smith said. And scheduling the two bills for different days wouldn’t have been fair to people who were interested in both.

“We also had a very active committee that chose to take up a considerable amount of that time.”

One-fifth of discussion on that bill was dominated by a single committee member asking questions, he said.

Committee chairmen usually limit individual speakers to three or five minutes, with exceptions for testimony from subject-matter experts and public officials, including the senator who introduced the bill. Committee members can extend a person’s speaking time by asking questions.

In extreme cases, committees can limit overall testimony to a set amount of time for each side.

That happened at least twice this year, once in Smith’s committee and again Wednesday in the Health and Human Services Committee, during a hearing on a bill that would change occupational licensing for cosmetologists, audiologists, nail technicians, massage therapists and barbers.

That rare morning hearing was ended promptly at noon because of events to mark Nebraska’s 150th year of statehood.

Dozens of people who opposed the bill were unable to testify. Its sponsor, Omaha Sen. Merv Riepe, is the committee chairman and decided to end the hearing at noon — a decision announced in advance through a news release but not included on the agenda.

Omaha Sen. Sara Howard, a committee member, disagreed with the scheduling decision and brought it up on the legislative floor Thursday morning.

“There is no celebration so big that it should keep us from doing the work that George Norris (father of Nebraska’s unicameral Legislature) dreamed of, and that Nebraskans deserve,” Howard said.

Committees typically know in advance when a bill will be controversial, and take that into consideration when scheduling the hearing.

Sen. Laura Ebke of Crete should know. 

She’s chairwoman of the Judiciary Committee, which deals with notoriously contentious topics such as medical marijuana and gay rights, and tends to draw testimony that is extensive, passionate and often redundant. 

“I feel very seriously that if people want to come and talk, they have a right to come and talk,” Ebke said. “It would have to be a truly dire situation for me to shut them down.”

Legislative rules give committee chairmen wide latitude in establishing ground rules.

Lobbyists and other regulars at legislative hearings know those rules in advance and plan around them, but outsiders often don’t.

The rules can also change at the last minute, usually to accommodate an unexpected number of speakers.

Most committee chairmen make a point to announce the rules at the start of each hearing.

Walt Radcliffe, a longtime Capitol lobbyist, said this isn’t the first year people have been turned away when they expected to testify on bills.

Different committee chairmen handle it with different levels of tact, he said, but all lawmakers should respect that public hearings are for the public, not for senators to have a “soliloquy.”

“It’s the only time, really, that they interact face-to-face in a sanctioned, public forum.”
Source: Norfolk Daily News

Mar 03

Nebraska Tobacco Quitline To Provide No-Cost NRT

Headline

Beginning March 13, the Nebraska Tobacco Quitline is providing a two-week supply of over-the-counter nicotine replacement aids at no cost (one of the following: gum, patches or lozenges) while supplies last.

To qualify, the caller must be:

  • Nebraska resident over the age of 18 who is ready to quit tobacco,
  • Registered with the Quitline and complete one coaching session.

Callers will be screened for medical eligibility to receive the free medication.

Callers can contact the Quitline 24/7 at 1-800-QUIT-NOW (784-8669).

For Spanish, call 1-855-DÉJELO-YA (335-3569). Translation is available in more than 170 languages.

Medicaid recipients are still eligible for a 90-day supply of prescription nicotine replacement therapy at a very low cost.  Individuals with private insurance should contact their insurance providers about their cessation prescription benefit.  The fax referral form can be found at QuitNow.ne.gov.

This offer coincides with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s national Tips From Former SmokersTM campaign.

Health care providers who are referring patients to the Quitline should continue to use the fax referral form on the QuitNow.ne.gov website.  Thank you for sharing this with individuals who might benefit from this opportunity.

 

Funding for this project is provided by the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services/Tobacco Free Nebraska Program as a result of the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement.

Mar 03

Tackling Tobacco: February 2017 National Legislative & Regulatory Roundup

Headline

NATIONAL REPORT — Tobacco legislation and regulation is constantly under review at the local, state and federal levels. In this monthly roundup, Convenience Store News highlights the latest proposals and approved changes happening across the United States.

ARIZONA

Phoenix — A move to increase the legal age to buy tobacco products to 21 statewide has been shot down. House Commerce Committee Chairman Rep. Jeff Weninger (R-Chandler) said he would not hear the bill because it places an unnecessary restriction on 18-year-old residents. The proposal, House Bill 2335, needs a hearing in the committee to advance.

INDIANA

Indianapolis — The Indiana Ways and Means Committee is reviewing legislation that would raise the state’s cigarette excise tax and raise the minimum legal age to buy tobacco products to 21. Both were approved by the state Public Health Committee in early February.
If passed, Indiana HB 1578 would raise the tax on a pack of cigarettes by $1.50 to nearly $2.50, with a larger tax increase for bigger cigarettes. The bill also has language that could repeal smoker protection laws, which are state statutes that protect tobacco users from discrimination from employers or potential employers.

KANSAS

Topeka — The state House of Representatives and Senate has forwarded Gov. Sam Brownback’s proposal to raise cigarette taxes to their chambers for debate, without formally endorsing it. The measure could come up for debate in March. Brownback’s proposal would increase the state’s cigarette tax by $1 a pack to $2.29.

MONTANA

Helena — Montana State Sen. Mary Caferro (D-40th District) proposed a bill to increase the state’s tobacco tax by $1.50. If the measure passes, the increase would put the total sales tax at more than $3.20 a pack. The revenue would be used to offset cost of healthcare programs.

Also in Montana, The Senate Judiciary Committee heard a bill in early February that would add electronic cigarettes and vaping products to the list of prohibited tobacco items in the Clean Indoor Air Act.

NEW JERSEY

Bloomingdale — Borough officials approved a move to raise the legal age to buy tobacco products to 21. The measure passed on first reading, with a final vote slated for March 7. The ordinance would also hike the penalty for businesses that sell to underage buyers. Under the new structure, fees for first- and second-time offenses could go up to $500 and $750, respectively, from $250 and $500. The borough also can revoke licenses.

In addition, officials voted in favor of a license and fee of $750 for businesses that sell electronic cigarettes. The final vote is also scheduled for March 7. The license would apply to any smoking device, whether electronic or other powered device, that can be used to deliver nicotine or other substances to the person inhaling from the device, including but not limited to, an e-cigarette, cigar, cigarillo or pipe, or any cartridge, refill or other component of the device or related product, including but not limited to refills such as liquids, gels, waxes and powders.

City of Trenton — Trenton joined a growing list of New Jersey towns to ban the sale of tobacco products to consumers under 21 years old. The statewide minimum legal buying age is 19. The vote came on Feb. 16, and goes into effect 20 days later. Retail outlets violating the new rule face penalties ranging from $250 to $1,000. The city’s health department can also suspend the retail food establishments license of a violator for up to three days.

Trenton — A New Jersey State Assembly panel approved legislation sponsored by Assembly members Herb Conaway, Jr. (D-Burlington) and Daniel Benson (D-Mercer/Middlesex) to ban the sale of flavored electronic smoking products in the state. The move is an effort to prevent the products from being targeted to young people.

A separate measure approved by the panel would also prohibit the use of coupons and promotional offers for both tobacco and vapor products.

The first bill (A-3704) would specifically prohibit the sale, the offering for sale, and the distribution of electronic smoking devices and related products that have a “characterizing flavor,” meaning the device imparts a distinguishable flavor, taste, or aroma prior to or during consumption.

This bill would amend the existing law to expand the prohibition on the sale or distribution of flavored cigarettes to include flavored electronic smoking devices, cartridges, components and other related products, including liquid refills.

Anyone found in violation of the prohibition established under this bill would be liable to a civil penalty of not less than $250 for the first violation, not less than $500 for the second violation, and $1,000 for the third and each subsequent violation.

The bill would take effect immediately upon enactment.

The second measure (A-4620), sponsored by Conaway, would prohibit the use of coupons, price reductions, and price rebates in connection with the sale or offer for sale of tobacco and vapor products to consumers at retail.

A violation of this prohibition would be punishable by a civil penalty of not less than $250 for a first violation, not less than $500 for a second violation, and $1,000 for a third or subsequent violation, which would be paid into the treasury of the municipality in which the violation occurred.

Additionally, a licensed tobacco retail dealer found to have committed a violation would, following a hearing, be subject to an additional administrative penalty or suspension of the dealer’s license. The license would be subject to revocation following a second violation.

This bill would take effect two months following enactment.

Source: CSNews

Mar 03

Texas Legislator Seeks to Ban Smoking on State-Owned Property, College Campuses

Headline

A college campus isn’t generally thought of as an ideal place to light up a cigar, but if a bill introduced into the Texas legislature gets passed, it won’t only be an less than ideal place, it will be an illegal place.

On Wednesday, Rep. Rick Miller, R-Sugar Land, introduced H.B. 2652, which seeks to prohibit the use of cigarettes, tobacco products and e-cigarettes in all state-owned or leased buildings, on all state-owned or leased grounds, and on any college campus that receives state funding. Should it get passed, the ban would go into effect on Sept. 1.

The bill has not yet been assigned to a committee.

Source: Halfwheel

Mar 03

Arkansas Legislature Wants to Raise Tobacco Smoking Age to 21

Headline

ARKANSAS – – The Arkansas Legislature is considering a bill that would raise the legal age to use or buy tobacco to 21.

The bill was introduced Monday by Arkansas State Representative Fred Allen.

The four-term Democrat’s proposal would prohibit sale of vapor products, nicotine patches, e-liquid products and rolling papers to anyone under 21.

It would also authorize police or school officers to confiscate tobacco products and a minor could get community service if they’re convicted of a crime and has a tobacco product on them.

Stan Brown doesn’t agree with the new bill saying the age limit is fine where it is at.

“I believe that a person is 18 years old, and they’re in a position that they can serve for our country and willing to put their life on the line for their country for our freedoms and things of that sort, then they should at least have the right to smoke,” Brown said.

The bill would move Arkansas in line with California and Hawaii that have 21-year-old limits.

Chicago and New York City also have similar laws in place.

Source: NWA