Opinion: Does the ND State Chamber side with the U.S. Chamber on Opposing Tobacco Prevention?

By: Dr. Eric Johnson, Grand Forks
President, Tobacco Free North Dakota
If you have not read the June 30, 2015 New York Times article titled, “U.S. Chamber of Commerce Works Globally to Fight Antismoking Measures”, please do so. While we acknowledge there is, at times, a disconnect between national, state and local organizations such as the Chambers of Commerce organizations, I couldn’t help but recognize some similarities between Chamber international efforts as detailed in the article referenced above and the actions of the Greater North Dakota Chamber here in our state.
Even as an active member of the Healthy North Dakota Summit, a public health initiative established by then-Governor John Hoeven and whose statewide plan identifies strategies to “support North Dakotans who make healthy choices – in schools, workplaces, senior centers, homes and anywhere people live, learn, work and play,” the GNDC has not only been absent in supporting tobacco prevention efforts in our state, it has actively opposed them.
With the goal to “reduce tobacco use in North Dakota” on paper in their statewide plan and in mind, we are troubled to see efforts of the Chambers of Commerce – whether internationally or here at the state level – combat proven prevention strategies that save both lives and money.
We call on North Dakotans to demand better and challenge the GNDC to accept what the numbers have long confirmed – that comprehensive tobacco prevention practices are fiscally responsible to taxpayers, health care systems, and ultimately, our workforce and employers in the business community.
——-
Click here to read Mr. Andy Peterson’s letter to the editor in response.
And click here to read Dr. Eric Johnson’s corrections to the inaccuracies of Mr. Peterson’s letter.

Reuters: States target e-cigarette sales to minors amid slow federal action

NEW YORK – Frustrated by the slow pace of federal action, state attorneys general are waging their own campaigns against the sale and advertising of e-cigarettes to minors.

More than a dozen AGs, including those in New York, California, Indiana and Ohio, are using new state and local laws – some of which they helped craft – to put pressure on the industry at all levels, from neighborhood vape shops to big tobacco companies like Altria Group and Reynolds American Inc.

Much of the campaign so far has involved threats to sue violators or appeals to a company’s sense of responsibility, though some lawsuits have been filed, too.

State actions have accelerated in the wake of government data released in April, which showed that teen use of e-cigarettes tripled in 2014 alone, making them more common for youngsters than tobacco.

North Dakota passed its own bill to combat e-cigarettes this legislative session. House Bill 1186, which was signed by Gov. Jack Dalrymple on April 9, outlaws the sale of e-cigarettes to minors in the state. Minors are not allowed to buy, possess or use electronic smoking devices, and those who sell or give e-cigarettes to anyone under 18 is guilty of an infraction.

“The key is to avoid another generation being addicted to nicotine,” Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller said in an interview.

State attorneys general played a pivotal role during the 1990s in battling tobacco companies over conventional cigarettes.

The Master Settlement Agreement (MSA), an accord reached in November 1998 between the state attorneys general of 46 states, five U.S. territories, the District of Columbia and the five largest tobacco companies, resulted in significant changes to cigarette marketing and required the tobacco industry to pay the states about $10 billion annually for the indefinite future.

Nearly a year ago, a group of AGs asked the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to take a tougher line on e-cigarettes, the risks and benefits of which are still being studied.

In April of 2014, the agency proposed banning the sale of e-cigarettes to people under the age of 18, but did not recommend prohibiting advertising, flavored products or online sales – all of which help make the devices attractive to youngsters, according to public health advocates.

The FDA proposal has been under review ever since, which has meant that vaping remains legal for youths in states that haven’t passed laws banning it. The agency is likely to finalize its new e-cigarette regulations later this summer, though it could be several years before the federal rules go into effect.

Federal regulations and the 1998 Master Settlement prohibit makers of conventional cigarettes from targeting youth and from advertising on television, billboards and mass transit, but the rules don’t apply to e-cigarettes.

So far, however, 46 states have passed laws banning their sale to minors. Twelve of those states have also passed laws requiring child-proof packaging for e-liquids and e-cigarettes, according to the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.

AGs are using these laws, as well as others not directly tied to e-cigarettes, to force companies to drop ads appealing to teens, switch to child-proof packaging and spend thousands of dollars on more vigilant age verification systems for their websites and online deliveries.

In June, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman announced settlements with four companies that were not complying with the state’s rule about child resistant packaging for nicotine liquids.

Reuters spoke with more than 10 e-cigarette and vaping companies – including Reynolds American, which sells Vuse, and Altria Group, which sells MarkTen and Green Smoke – that acknowledged they have been contacted by state law enforcers or by the National Associations of Attorneys General. Reynolds and Altria say their brands were not in violation of local laws.

Some of the AGs have coordinated their efforts. One group is pressuring certain e-cigarette manufacturers and vendors to limit ads that appeal to teens, especially on company websites and places like YouTube.

Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine, along with colleagues from several other states, sent a letter in April to privately-held manufacturer NJOY, asking it to “immediately instruct YouTube to restrict” access to its advertisements to adults.

NJOY said in an April letter to DeWine that more than 90 percent of the U.S. viewers who have watched its hosted YouTube videos are at least 18, and the company said it would suspend videos if that figure fell to 85 percent or less.

NJOY, which previously settled a case with California over allegations of targeting minors and deceptive marketing, would not comment further.

California has sent letters to more than 150 e-cigarette and vaping companies in recent years “to encourage voluntary compliance with applicable state and federal laws,” including a ban on sales to youth, according to documents reviewed by Reuters.

The state is also pursuing companies that sell fruit-flavored vaping liquids that appeal to teens and those that make false or misleading statements in their advertisements. One letter sent by the state asked a manufacturer to quit claiming that “electronic cigarettes are one of the safest forms of nicotine available” and that “when you exhale, you are exhaling harmless water vapor.”

“Many companies have taken some or all of our recommended steps,” said Kristin Ford, a spokeswoman for Attorney General Kamala Harris.

AGs are paying particular attention to sales on websites, a popular source of vaping materials for teens, who trade information about which ones require little proof of age.

Jan Verleur, CEO and co-founder of electronic cigarette company VMR Products, said his company changed its age verification system in some states after being contacted by a state AG. He estimated the cost per order would increase by about 50 cents, but would not say if VMR would absorb any of that. The company makes about half its sales online.

“This is bad news for the smaller players and good news for the tobacco companies, whose business model relied on mass manufacturing, not personalized products,” said Philip Gorham, an equity analyst at Morningstar who covers consumer products.

http://www.grandforksherald.com/news/business/3783488-states-target-e-cigarette-sales-minors-amid-slow-federal-action

New York Times: U.S. Chamber of Commerce Works Globally to Fight Antismoking Measures

By DANNY HAKIM

KIEV, Ukraine — A parliamentary hearing was convened here in March to consider an odd remnant of Ukraine’s corrupt, pre-revolutionary government.

Three years ago, Ukraine filed an international legal challenge against Australia, over Australia’s right to enact antismoking laws on its own soil. To a number of lawmakers, the case seemed absurd, and they wanted to investigate why it was even being pursued.

When it came time to defend the tobacco industry, a man named Taras Kachka spoke up. He argued that several “fantastic tobacco companies” had bought up Soviet-era factories and modernized them, and now they were exporting tobacco to many other countries. It was in Ukraine’s national interest, he said, to support investors in the country, even though they do not sell tobacco to Australia.

Mr. Kachka was not a tobacco lobbyist or farmer or factory owner. He was the head of a Ukrainian affiliate of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, America’s largest trade group.

From Ukraine to Uruguay, Moldova to the Philippines, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and its foreign affiliates have become the hammer for the tobacco industry, engaging in a worldwide effort to fight antismoking laws of all kinds, according to interviews with government ministers, lobbyists, lawmakers and public health groups in Asia, Europe, Latin America and the United States.

The U.S. Chamber’s work in support of the tobacco industry in recent years has emerged as a priority at the same time the industry has faced one of the most serious threats in its history. A global treaty, negotiated through the World Health Organization, mandates anti-smoking measures and also seeks to curb the influence of the tobacco industry in policy making. The treaty, which took effect in 2005, has been ratified by 179 countries; holdouts include Cuba, Haiti and the United States.

Facing a wave of new legislation around the world, the tobacco lobby has turned for help to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, with the weight of American business behind it. While the chamber’s global tobacco lobbying has been largely hidden from public view, its influence has been widely felt.

Letters, emails and other documents from foreign governments, the chamber’s affiliates and antismoking groups, which were reviewed by The New York Times, show how the chamber has embraced the challenge, undertaking a three-pronged strategy in its global campaign to advance the interests of the tobacco industry.

In the capitals of far-flung nations, the chamber lobbies alongside its foreign affiliates to beat back antismoking laws.

In trade forums, the chamber pits countries against one another. The Ukrainian prime minister, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, recently revealed that his country’s case against Australia was prompted by a complaint from the U.S. Chamber.

And in Washington, Thomas J. Donohue, the chief executive of the chamber, has personally taken part in lobbying to defend the ability of the tobacco industry to sue under future international treaties, notably the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade agreement being negotiated between the United States and several Pacific Rim nations.

“They represent the interests of the tobacco industry,” said Dr. Vera Luiza da Costa e Silva, the head of the Secretariat that oversees the W.H.O treaty, called the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. “They are putting their feet everywhere where there are stronger regulations coming up.”

The increasing global advocacy highlights the chamber’s enduring ties to the tobacco industry, which in years past centered on American regulation of cigarettes. A top executive at the tobacco giant Altria Group serves on the chamber’s board. Philip Morris International plays a leading role in the global campaign; one executive drafted a position paper used by a chamber affiliate in Brussels, while another accompanied a chamber executive to a meeting with the Philippine ambassador in Washington to lobby against a cigarette-tax increase. The cigarette makers’ payments to the chamber are not disclosed.

It is not clear how the chamber’s campaign reflects the interests of its broader membership, which includes technology companies like Google, pharmaceutical giants like Pfizer and health insurers like Anthem. And the chamber’s record in its tobacco fight is mixed, often leaving American business as the face of a losing cause, pushing a well-known toxin on poor populations whose leaders are determined to curb smoking.

The U.S. Chamber issued brief statements in response to inquiries. “The Chamber regularly reaches out to governments around the world to urge them to avoid measures that discriminate against particular companies or industries, undermine their trademarks or brands, or destroy their intellectual property,” the statement said, adding, “we’ve worked with a broad array of business organizations at home and abroad to defend these principles.”

The chamber declined to say if it supported any measures to curb smoking.

The chamber, a private nonprofit that has more than three million members and annual revenue of $165 million, spends more on lobbying than any other interest group in America. For decades, it has taken positions aimed at bolstering its members’ fortunes.

While the chamber has local outposts across the United States, it also has more than 100 affiliates around the world. Foreign branches pay dues and typically hew to the U.S. Chamber’s strategy, often advancing it on the ground. Members include both American and foreign businesses, a symbiotic relationship that magnifies the chamber’s clout.

For foreign companies, membership comes with “access to the U.S. Embassy” according to the Cambodian branch, and entree to “the U.S. government,” according to the Azerbaijan branch. Members in Hanoi get an invitation to an annual trip to “lobby Congress and the administration” in Washington.

Since Mr. Donohue took over in 1997, he has steered the chamber into positions that have alienated some members. In 2009, the chamber threatened to sue if the Environmental Protection Agency regulated greenhouse gas emissions, disputing its authority to act on climate change. That led Nike to step down from the chamber’s board, and to Apple’s departure from the group. In 2013, the American arm of the Swedish construction giant Skanska resigned, protesting the chamber’s support for what Skanska called a “chemical industry-led initiative” to lobby against green building codes.

The chamber’s tobacco lobbying has led to confusion for many countries, Dr. da Costa e Silva said, adding “there is a misconception that the American chamber of commerce represents the government of the U.S.” In some places like Estonia, the lines are blurred. The United States ambassador there, Jeffrey Levine, serves as honorary president of the chamber’s local affiliate; the affiliate quoted Philip Morris in a publication outlining its priorities.

The tobacco industry has increasingly turned to international courts to challenge antismoking laws that countries have enacted after the passage of the W.H.O. treaty. Early this year, Michael R. Bloomberg and Bill Gates set up an international fund to fight such suits. Matthew L. Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, an advocacy group that administers the fund, called the chamber “the tobacco industry’s most formidable front group,” adding, “it pops up everywhere.”

In Ukraine, the chamber’s involvement was no surprise to Hanna Hopko, the lawmaker who led the hearing in Parliament. She said the chamber there had fought against antismoking laws for years.

“They were against the tobacco tax increase, they were against placing warning labels on cigarettes,” she said. “This is just business as usual for them.”

Country-by-Country Strategy

More than 3,000 miles away, in Nepal, the health ministry proposed a law last year to increase the size of graphic warning labels from covering three-fourths of a cigarette pack to 90 percent. Countries like Nepal that have ratified the W.H.O. treaty are supposed to take steps to make cigarette packs less appealing.

Not long afterward, one of Nepal’s top officials, Lilamani Poudel, said he received an email from a representative of the chamber’s local affiliate in the country, warning that the proposal “would negate foreign investment” and “invite instability.”

In January, the U.S. Chamber itself weighed in. In a letter to Nepal’s deputy prime minister, a senior vice president at the chamber, Tami Overby, wrote that she was “not aware of any science-based evidence” that larger warning labels “will have any discernible impact on reducing or discouraging tobacco use.”

A 2013 Harvard study found that graphic warning labels “play a lifesaving role in highlighting the dangers of smoking and encouraging smokers to quit.”

While Nepal eventually mandated the change in warning labels, cigarette companies filed for an extension and compliance has stalled.

“Since we have to focus on responding to the devastating earthquake, we have not been able to monitor the state of law enforcement effectively,” said Shanta Bahadur Shrestha, a senior health ministry official.

The episode reflects the chamber’s country-by-country lobbying strategy. A pattern emerged in letters to seven nations: Written by either the chamber’s top international executive, Myron Brilliant, or his deputies, they introduced the chamber as “the world’s largest business federation.”

Then the letters mention a matter “of concern.” In Jamaica and Nepal, it was graphic health warnings on packages. In Uruguay, it was a plan to bar cigarettes from being displayed by retailers. The Moldovan president was warned against “extreme measures” in his country, though they included common steps like restricting smoking in public places and banning advertising where cigarettes are sold.

A proposal to raise cigarette taxes in the Philippines would open the floodgates to smugglers, the government there was told. Tax revenue has increased since the proposal became law.

“We are not cowed by them,” said Jeremias Paul, the country’s under secretary of finance. “We meet with these guys when we’re trying to encourage investment in the Philippines, so clearly they are very influential, but that doesn’t mean they will dictate their ways.”

Protecting tobacco companies is portrayed by the chamber as vital for a nation’s economic health. Uruguay’s president is warned that antismoking laws will “have a disruptive effect on the formal economy.” El Salvador’s vice president is told that “arbitrary actions” like requiring graphic health warnings in advertisements undermine “investment and economic growth.”

On the ground, the chamber’s local affiliates use hands-on tactics.

After Moldova’s health ministry proposed measures in 2013, Serghei Toncu, the head of the American Chamber of Commerce in Moldova, laid out his objections in a series of meetings held by a regulatory review panel.

“The consumption of alcohol and cigarettes is at the discretion of each person,” Mr. Toncu said at one meeting, adding that the discussion should not be about “whether smoking is harmful.”

“You do not respect us,” he told the health ministry at another.

At a third, he called the ministry’s research “flawed from the start.”

His objections were not merely plaintive cries. The American chamber has a seat on Moldova’s regulatory review panel giving it direct influence over policy making in the small country.

“The American Chamber of Commerce is a very powerful and active organization,” said Oleg Chelaru, a team leader on the staff that assists the review panel. “They played a very crucial role in analyzing and giving an opinion on this initiative.”

Mr. Toncu, who has since left the chamber, declined to comment. Mila Malairau, the chamber’s executive director, said its main objective was to make sure the industry “was consulted” in “a transparent and predictable manner.”

After recently passing in Parliament, the long-stalled measures were subject to fresh objections from the chamber and others, and have not yet been enacted.

Fighting a Trade Exception

In Washington, the U.S. Chamber’s tobacco lobbying has been visible in the negotiations over the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a priority of the Obama administration that recently received critical backing in Congress.

One of the more controversial proposals would expand the power of companies to sue countries if they violate trade rules. The U.S. Chamber has openly opposed plans to withhold such powers from tobacco companies, curbing their ability to challenge national antismoking laws. The chamber says on its website that “singling out tobacco” will “open a Pandora’s box as other governments go after their particular bêtes noires.”

The issue is still unresolved. A spokesman for the United States trade representative said negotiators would ensure that governments “can implement regulations to protect public health” while also “ensuring that our farmers are not discriminated against.”

Email traffic shows that Mr. Donohue, the chamber’s head, sought to raise the issue in 2012 directly with Ron Kirk, who was then the United States trade representative. In email exchanges between staff members of the two, Mr. Donohue specifically sought to discuss the role of tobacco in the trade agreement.

“Tom had a couple of things to raise, including urging that the tobacco text not be submitted at this round,” one of Mr. Donohue’s staff members wrote to Mr. Kirk’s staff. The emails were produced in response to a Freedom of Information request filed by the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, which provided them to The Times.

Mr. Kirk is now a senior lawyer at Gibson, Dunn, a firm that counts the tobacco industry as a client. He said in an interview that during his tenure as trade representative, he met periodically with Mr. Donohue but could not recall a specific conversation on tobacco.

He said trade groups were generally concerned about “treating one industry different than you would treat anyone else, more so than doing tobacco’s bidding.”

The chamber declined to make Mr. Donohue available for an interview.

A Face-Saving Measure

In Ukraine, it was Valeriy Pyatnytskiy who signed off on the complaint against Australia in 2012, which was filed with the World Trade Organization. At the time, he was Ukraine’s chief negotiator to the W.T.O. His political career has survived the revolution and he is now an adviser to the Ukrainian prime minister, Mr. Yatsenyuk.

In a recent interview, he said that for Ukraine, the case was a matter of principle. It was about respecting the rules.

He offered a hypothetical: If Ukraine allowed Australia to use plain packaging on cigarettes, what would stop Ukraine from introducing plain packaging for wine? Then Ukrainian winemakers could better compete with French wines, because they would all be in plain bags marked red or white.

“We had this in the Soviet times,” he said. “It was absolutely plain packaging everywhere.”

Some Ukrainian officials have long been troubled by the case.

“It has nothing to do with trade laws,” said Pavlo Sheremeta, who briefly served as Ukraine’s economic minister after the revolution. “We have zero exports of tobacco to Australia, so what do we have to do with this?”

Last year, he urged the American Chamber in Kiev to reconsider.

“I wrote a formal letter, asking them, ‘Do you still keep the same position?’ ” Mr. Sheremeta said. “Basically I was suggesting a face-saving way out of this.” But when he met with chamber officials, the plain packaging case was outlined as a top priority.

They refused to back down. After Mr. Pyatnytskiy, a tobacco ally, was installed as his deputy, Mr. Sheremeta resigned.

“The world was laughing at us,” he said of the case.

Shortly after The Times discussed the case with Ukrainian government officials, there were new protests from activists. Mr. Yatsenyuk called for a review of the matter. Ukraine has since suspended its involvement, but other countries including Cuba and Honduras are continuing to pursue the case against Australia.

Andy Hunder, who took over as president of the American Chamber of Commerce in Kiev in April, said the organization was moving on, adding, “We are looking forward now.”

Sofiia Kochmar contributed reporting from Kiev, Bhadra Sharma from Kathmandu and Palko Karasz from London.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/01/business/international/us-chamber-works-globally-to-fight-antismoking-measures.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=1

Upon reading this article, TFND communicated its disappointment with the Greater North Dakota Chamber’s work in our state alongside Big Tobacco. In doing so, we sent this letter: TFND Letter to GNDC – 7.1.15.

GNDC responded: GNDC – TFND Letter – 7.2.15

And our final communication back to GNDC: TFND response to GNDC – 7.2.15

Reuters: FDA seeks data on e-cigarettes after surge in poisoning cases

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration said it is seeking additional data and comments on liquid nicotine as it considers warning the public about the dangers of its exposure amid a rise in electronic cigarette use.

The agency has evaluated data and science on the risks, especially to infants and children, from accidental exposure to nicotine and liquid nicotine that is used in e-cigarettes. (1.usa.gov/1GXeSo4)

More Americans are using e-cigarettes and other vaporizing devices than a year ago, a Reuters/Ipsos poll showed in June.

ADVERTISING

The surge in e-cigarette use comes as conventional cigarette smoking has declined in the United States to about 19 percent of adults, prompting tobacco companies such as Altria Group Inc, Philip Morris International Inc and Reynolds American Inc to rush into the e-cigarette market.

(Graphic on global market: link.reuters.com/kuk83w)

Recent increases in calls and visits to poison control centers and emergency rooms involving liquid nicotine poisoning have raised public health concerns, FDA said.

The health regulator is now considering if it should warn the public about the dangers of nicotine exposure and require that some tobacco products be sold in child-resistant packaging.

Among high school students, e-cigarette use jumped to 13.4 percent in 2014 from 4.5 percent in 2013, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Cigarette use over the same period fell to 9.2 percent from 12.7 percent, the largest year-over-year decline in more than a decade.

(Reporting By Samantha Kareen Nair in Bengaluru; Editing by Don Sebastian)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/30/us-fda-ecigarettes-idUSKCN0PA2SD20150630

The Dickinson Press: Several businesses caught selling tobacco to minors

By Andrew Haffner

The Southwestern District Unit Health caught six Dickinson businesses selling tobacco to a minor Monday in a quarterly compliance check of 25 city retailers.

The businesses that failed the check are M & H Gas Station, Cenex Convenience Store on Villard Street, Simonson’s Store on Villard Street, Rosie’s Food & Gas, and Family Fare supermarkets at both 18th Street West and Roughrider Boulevard.

Tobacco Treatment Specialist Jennifer Schaeffer said in a release that compliance checks are conducted with a trained minor student with a police officer present. Dickinson municipal code prohibits selling tobacco to minors, with punishments tiered to the persistence of retailer offenses.

First-time offenders can face a fine of $100, while those who sell illegally three times within two years may receive a $500 fine and tobacco license revocation.

Schaeffer said in the release that the Southwestern District Unit Health offered a training course for tobacco retailers to prepare them for subsequent compliance checks.

“We are trying to educate them and the public that this is an important issue in keeping our children safe,” she said in the release.

http://www.thedickinsonpress.com/news/local/3777389-several-businesses-caught-selling-tobacco-minors

HealthlineNews: Is 18 Too Young to Buy Tobacco Products? Some States Think So.

California is on the verge of joining other states in raising the minimum age to purchase tobacco, sparking more debate about what privileges and responsibilities fall on young adults.

How old should you be to purchase tobacco?

Some legislative leaders in the United States apparently think 18 is too young.

On Friday, Hawaii’s governor signed a bill raising the minimum age to buy tobacco to 21. The law takes effect next year.

Four states — Alabama, Alaska, New Jersey, and Utah — have raised the minimum age to buy tobacco to 19, while some local municipalities have raised it to 21.

And, earlier this month, the California State Senate overwhelmingly voted to increase the age at which a person can buy tobacco products from 18 to 21. The bill still needs Assembly approval and the governor’s signature.

The goal is to further limit access to tobacco products to young smokers. The move is backed by several health groups, including the American Cancer Society and the California Medical Association.

Dr. Jack Jacoub, an oncologist and director of thoracic oncology at the Memorial Care Cancer Institute at Orange Coast Memorial Medical Center in Fountain Valley, California, says with decades of data available, it’s clear the age increase is a sound move to prevent people from starting lifelong habits.

“It’s still a risk factor for a host of different cancers, not just lung cancer,” he said. “If you separate the legal aspect of it, it makes the most sense to raise the minimum age to 21.”

A Measure Aimed at Delaying the Start

A study by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) published in March found that increasing the minimum legal age to 21 would likely prevent or delay when people would begin smoking, specifically children aged 15 to 17.

About 90 percent of smokers now start before 19 years old, so the argument is the 21-year minimum would reduce teens’ access to tobacco because it’s unlikely they would be in the same social circle as people old enough to purchase tobacco.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) doesn’t have the authority to raise the legal smoking age to 21, so it’s an issue that must be dealt with at the state level. The federal government, however, does have a law that withholds federal highway funds to states that don’t have their minimum drinking age at 21.

The town of Needham, Massachusetts, raised its smoking age to 21 in 2005. Over the next decade, teenage rates of smoking dropped from 13 to 7 percent, according to the Education Development Center, which conducted the study.

In California, smoking has been banned in enclosed workspaces since 1995, and smoking in a vehicle with a minor has been illegal since 2008. This was done to prevent exposure to secondhand smoke, but the new proposed law would affect young smokers directly.

“The group where smokers usually start is the highest impact group,” Jacoub said. “I don’t know of anyone who would be against it.”

A handful of trade groups, such as the Cigar Association of America and the California Retailers Association, oppose the change on the grounds that Americans are considered adults under the eyes of the law, so that’s also when they should have the right to make their own decisions.

Personal choice is the crux of the argument the tobacco industry uses when opposing stricter legislation.

This new legislation has lit up an ongoing debate over when a person is considered a legal adult and what that entails.

When Are Americans Adults?

When the federal drinking age was pushed back from 18 to 21 in 1984, it was backed by health concerns, mainly the high rate at which minors were being killed in traffic accidents while under the influence.

Research shows the parts of the brain most responsible for decision-making, impulse control, sensation seeking, and susceptibility to peer pressure are still developing and changing between the ages of 18 and 21. The IOM study notes, “Adolescent brains are uniquely vulnerable to the effects of nicotine.”

Jamie Miller, a political consultant and e-cigarette lobbyist from Florida, likened the California legislation to the change in voting age in 1971 when young men were being drafted to serve in Vietnam.

The thought was that men and women old enough to serve in the armed forces should be able to vote for the people who decide to go to war.

“We’re looking at the unintended consequences of passing laws under public pressure at the moment. I personally believe we, as a society, made a mistake when we changed the Constitution to allow those who are 18 to vote just so we could draft those who are 18,” he said.

Saying he believes the fewer people who have access to addictive substances the better, Miller also says there needs to be some kind of uniformity to when young people are considered adults.

“If the age to drink and smoke is 21, we should change the draft and voting age to 21 as well,” he said. “In other words, full, legal adulthood would be 21.”

http://www.healthline.com/health-news/some-states-think-18-is-too-young-to-buy-tobacco-products-062015#5

The Sacremento Bee: California cigarette tax backers commit $2 million

BY JEREMY B. WHITE

Hoping to influence a special health care budget session, a coalition of labor and medical groups has put $2 million into an initiative to raise California’s tobacco tax and use the revenue to fund health care for low-income Californians.

The money flowed from a coalition of groups that include SEIU California State Council – a union umbrella group whose members include thousands of health care workers – the California Medical Association, the California Dental Association, the American Cancer Society and groups promoting heart and lung health.

Their twin ballot initiatives would impose a $2-per-pack tax on cigarettes to fund health programs that include smoking prevention and Medi-Cal, California’s health insurance program for low-income residents.

The money is another move in an ongoing political fight over Medi-Cal reimbursement rates.

A similar coalition of medical and labor groups has pushed to have California increase how much it pays doctors and other providers, saying existing rates are making it hard to obtain health care. Some of the cigarette tax revenue would flow into a new fund that could be used to augment Medi-Cal provider rates.

“We are serious about increasing these rates and improving access and keeping California healthy,” said Laphonza Butler, president of SEIU California.

Proponents have yet to decide which ballot measure they would pursue – one of the two would tax electronic cigarettes – but they will be able to begin collecting signatures soon.

A Senate bill to boost the tax cleared committees but still awaits a floor vote, a dubious proposition given that it would need votes from Republicans unlikely to back a new tax. Outside groups often float ballot initiatives as a way to pressure legislators: pass the bill or we will go directly to voters.

“We strongly support securing a legislative remedy that’s in the best interest of Californians, but we are ready and willing to go to the ballot if necessary,” said Mike Roth, a spokesman for the campaign.

The $2 million announcement coincides with Gov. Jerry Brown convening lawmakers for a special budget session to deal with Medi-Cal’s finances. It is “yet to be determined” if an agreement to raise reimbursement rates would lead the coalition to drop the tobacco tax initiatives, Roth said.

Advocates have lost the tax fight at the ballot before, in 2006 and most recently in 2012, after being vastly outspent by a tobacco industry intent on defeating Proposition 29.

Tobacco companies donated tens of thousands of dollars directly to lawmakers last election cycle. The Legislature is considering a number of tobacco-related bills this year: one would raise the age to purchase tobacco to 21; one would treat e-cigarettes like conventional cigarettes; and another would ban major-league baseball players from chewing tobacco at California ballparks.

http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article25118476.html#storylink=cpy

AP: House bill aims for less e-cigarette regulation

WASHINGTON — House Republicans are pushing to ease proposed government regulations for companies that sell e-cigarettes and other new tobacco products, a move that Democrats charge could lead to unsafe products on the market.

A spending bill approved by a House subcommittee Thursday would prevent the Food and Drug Administration from requiring pre-market reviews of e-cigarettes that already are on the market.

As part of a broader rule regulating e-cigarettes for the first time, the agency has proposed that e-cigarette brands marketed since February 2007 undergo those pre-market reviews retroactively once the final rule is approved. Companies would have to submit the applications within two years of the final rule, and then the FDA would ensure that the product is “appropriate for the protection of the public health.” If not, the agency could take it off the market.

In addition to e-cigarettes, the FDA rules and the House legislation would apply to other unregulated tobacco products such as cigars, hookahs, nicotine gels, waterpipe tobacco and dissolvable tobacco products. The FDA already regulates cigarettes, smokeless tobacco and roll-your-own tobacco products.

Republicans said the pre-market review would be a lengthy and expensive process that could drive companies out of business. Alabama Republican Rep. Robert Aderholt, who sponsored the bill, said the provision is just a technical change that would keep the newer products under FDA oversight but allow them to be regulated in the same way as older tobacco products. The legislation would not affect the FDA’s proposal to ban the sales of the products to minors and would still allow certain product standards.

Public health groups said the legislation would hamper the FDA’s ability to prevent tobacco companies from marketing the new products to kids, and Democrats said before the panel’s vote that the change would reduce regulation on the industry at the same time that e-cigarette use is skyrocketing.

The bill “is nothing short of a giveaway to the tobacco industry,” said New York Rep. Nita Lowey, the top Democrat on the Appropriations Committee.

FDA’s proposed rules, expected to be finalized in the coming months, are aimed at eventually taming the fast-growing e-cigarette industry.

E-cigarettes are plastic or metal tubes, usually the size of a cigarette, that heat a liquid nicotine solution instead of burning tobacco. That creates vapor the user inhales.

The nicotine-infused vapor of e-cigarettes looks like smoke but doesn’t contain all of the chemicals, tar or odor of regular cigarettes. Some smokers use e-cigarettes as a way to quit smoking tobacco, or to cut down. However, there’s not much scientific evidence showing e-cigarettes help smokers quit or smoke less, and it’s unclear how safe they are.

Matthew Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, said the House language could keep products on the market that appear to be targeted to children, like cigars and e-cigarettes in a variety of candy and fruit flavors.

Gregory Conley, president of the American Vaping Association, said the FDA regulations could hurt small businesses.

“This proposal does not remove the FDA’s ability to regulate vapor products,” Conley said. “The FDA will still have the full authority to make science-based regulatory decisions on the manufacturing, marketing and sale of these products.”

The FDA would not comment on the legislation, but FDA spokesman Michael Felberbaum said the rules are important consumer protections.

“When finalized, the rule will represent a significant first step in the agency’s ability to effectively regulate tobacco products and, as we learn more about these products, the agency will have additional opportunities over the long term to make a positive difference in the public health burden of tobacco use in this country,” Felberbaum said.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/house-bill-aims-for-less-e-cigarette-regulation/

MINNPOST: Proposed Minneapolis tobacco licensing changes will help curb youth smoking

By Jan Malcolm | 06/19/15

Imagine a future when tobacco is no longer the leading cause of preventable death and disease. To make this vision a reality, we must prevent more young people from getting hooked by deadly tobacco products. The Minneapolis City Council is poised to do just that by considering changes to the licensing ordinance to restrict the sale of all flavored tobacco (other than menthol) to adult-only tobacco stores and set minimum price limits for cigars. These measures strike at the heart of the tobacco industry’s strategy to sell their products to kids: flavoring and price.

While Big Tobacco is supposed to be prohibited from marketing to kids, it finds many ways around that ban. Tobacco executives know that unless they get to kids before they reach their 20s they’ve lost a customer. Documents released during the tobacco trials of the 1990s reveal how deliberately tobacco companies target young people. On the witness stand, the chairman of the Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co. said, “If you are really and truly not going to sell to children, you are going to be out of business in 30 years.” A Lorillard executive wrote that he wanted to exchange research data with Life Savers to figure out what tastes kids want. And a marketing plan from U.S. Smokeless Tobacco showed a deliberate strategy to start users on sweet flavors, then “graduate” them to plain tobacco.

Candy and fruit flavors

The appeal of flavoring to young people is the reason the FDA banned cigarettes in flavors other than menthol in 2009. Unfortunately, products such as little cigars, cigarillos, chew, e-cigarettes and others are still widely available in candy and fruit flavors such as bubble gum, grape and gummy bear – flavors that clearly appeal to youth. These flavored products are for sale in more than 250 stores throughout Minneapolis alone, and they are easy for children to purchase. One-third of Minneapolis boys under 18 report buying tobacco from a convenience store or gas station.

Research shows that young people mistakenly believe that flavored tobacco products are less dangerous than other tobacco products. In fact, they are just as dangerous, with the same health risks of cancer, heart disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Candy and fruit flavored tobacco products just mask the harsh taste and feel of tobacco.

Nearly 20 percent of Minnesota high school students have tried a water pipe or hookah, and almost all shisha (hookah tobacco) is flavored. More than 25 percent of Minnesota high school students have used an e-cigarette, and most e-cigarette liquid is flavored. More than 35 percent of Minnesota high school students report that they have tried flavored cigars, cigarillos or little cigars at some point in their lives. In fact, kids are now twice as likely as older people to be cigar smokers. Almost 20 percent of Minneapolis 12th-graders say they smoke cigar products like cigarillos regularly.

Young people known to be price sensitive

Nearly 75 percent of Minneapolis tobacco retailers currently sell cigars and cigarillos, many for less than a dollar. The proposed changes to our city’s tobacco licensing ordinance would set a minimum price of $2.60 for each cigar. Research shows that young people are very sensitive to price increases and are more likely to just quit using a product they can’t afford than adults are.

Flavored tobacco restrictions and price minimum requirements have been successfully implemented in other communities around the country – and right here in Minnesota. No one wants our young people to face a lifetime of addiction and other health problems. We know that policies that restrict access to flavored tobacco and raise tobacco prices keep kids from starting to smoke and help them to quit.

Support the proposed changes to the Minneapolis tobacco licensing ordinance. Stand up for our kids against Big Tobacco.

Jan Malcolm is the vice president of public affairs for Allina Health. She served as Minnesota state health commissioner from 1999 to 2003. Malcolm lives in Minneapolis.

https://www.minnpost.com/community-voices/2015/06/proposed-minneapolis-tobacco-licensing-changes-will-help-curb-youth-smoking

Forum editorial: ND law is clear on e-cigs

It’s been stressed before, but in light of the growing use of e-cigarettes by youth and adults, it should be stressed again: All the prohibitions, bans and restrictions on the use of tobacco in North Dakota apply to e-cigarettes and related electronic devices used for “vaping.” The law, which won voter approval in every county in the state less than three years ago, is clear.

Steve Stark, Fargo Forum

Steve Stark, Fargo Forum

There seems to be either a misunderstand-ing or a purposeful manipulation of North Dakota law among fans of e-cigs and vaping. Aided and abetted by a sophisticated industry, the peddlers and promoters of electronic smoking are trying to characterize their habit as nonsmoking, nonaddicting and an effective means to get off tobacco. But the stealth agenda seems to be more about convincing the public that electronic nicotine delivery systems are harmless, indeed beneficial.

Don’t buy it.

It’s no accident e-cigs have gone from nondescript tubes to smartly produced designer accessories, like a watch or a purse or a switchblade. It also should come as no surprise that big tobacco has jumped into the e-cig market with both dirty feet, including airing TV spots designed to convince that use of the nicotine delivery tubes is sexy, fashionable and safe. Nor should anyone be shocked that marketing strategies feature brightly colored e-cigs and appealing vaporized flavors. In advertising at least, the lies that brought us the Marlboro Man are not dead, even if the Marlboro man is.

North Dakota law does not prohibit the sale and use of e-cigarettes by adults. But just like tobacco products, e-cigs are banned in all places where smoking is not allowed under the law. It’s not complicated. E-cig and vaping aficionados who believe smoking ban laws don’t apply to them should be called out and, if necessary, fined.

Forum editorials represent the opinion of Forum management and the newspaper’s Editorial Board.

http://www.inforum.com/opinion/editorials/3768165-forum-editorial-nd-law-clear-e-cigs