The Post's View: Maryland’s cigarette tax is saving lives

By Editorial Board, The Washington Post

AMID AN electoral backlash against high taxes in Maryland, anti-smoking advocates have abandoned a campaign to raise the state-imposed levy on cigarettes. Politically, that makes perfect sense. As public-health policy, it is foolish.

A new study by Maryland’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene shows that the state’s drop in teen smoking rates, already steep following three sharp tax increases since 1999 on a pack of cigarettes, has continued in the past few years.

The rate of cigarette smoking among underage youth in the state has fallen from 23 percent in 2000 to just 11 percent last year. Since 2008, when the per-pack levy was doubled, to $2, smoking among high school youth has fallen by about a third; according to the state study, for the first time, slightly more teenagers now smoke cigars than smoke cigarettes.

Adult smoking has also fallen by about a fifth since 2000. Smoking among both youth and adults in Maryland is considerably below the national average, which is about 16 percent for youth and 18 percent for adults.

No doubt, the anti-tax mood in Maryland was central to Republican Larry Hogan’s upset victory in November’s gubernatorial election. That sentiment notwithstanding, the smoking numbers are a strong argument for leaving in place the state’s relatively high levies on tobacco products, which are not just a revenue source but also a means of saving lives.

According to the state study, hospital admissions to treat tobacco-related cancers in Maryland have fallen by 11 percent from 2000 to 2011, saving more than $102 million in hospital charges in 2011 alone.

The state study also showed a strong link between youth smoking and other forms of substance abuse. Minors who smoked were three times more likely than non-smokers to have used alcohol in the past 30 days, five times more likely to have used marijuana, six times more likely to have used other illegal drugs, and nine times more likely to have used — or, more likely, abused — prescription drugs.

It’s no coincidence that states that have been loath to offend the tobacco or anti-tax lobbies by raising the tax on cigarettes have significantly higher smoking rates. As we’ve noted before, a case in point is Virginia, where the per-pack levy is among the lowest in the nation, the price of a pack of cigarettes is $2 lower than in Maryland and the smoking rate is much higher. For continuing to bow before the throne of King Tobacco, the Old Dominion will pay a price in the public health of its citizens.

As smoking rates nationally have fallen, the use of e-cigarettes among high school-age youth appears to be rising. That’s a worrying trend, given that e-cigarettes also contain nicotine, which is highly addictive, and could promote the use of cigarettes and other harmful substances.

You don’t have to be enamored of the nanny state to recognize that tobacco use, especially cigarette smoking, correlates directly with lung cancer and other diseases and is a major threat to public health. Nor is there any serious doubt that tax increases have played a critical role in cutting cigarette use, especially among price-sensitive teens.

If Mr. Hogan intends to cut taxes, as he has promised, the tobacco tax is one he’d be well advised to leave intact.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/marylands-cigarette-tax-is-saving-lives/2014/12/27/36f2818a-8573-11e4-9534-f79a23c40e6c_story.html

Tobacco tax: Move for $2 per pack gains momentum in CA

By Dr. Nicholas Leeper | Special to the Mercury News

The changing of the New Year brings about a fresh start. If you are one of the estimated 46.6 million Americans who smoke cigarettes, quitting the habit is likely being considered for a New Year’s resolution. Polls have shown that a vast majority of smokers would like to quit, and we at the American Heart Association are dedicated to giving smokers every edge we can to put their habit in the past. One such proven way to encourage quitting is a tobacco tax.

This is why we are joining with doctors, health care workers, taxpayers and other nonprofit health organizations to support a $2-per-package tax on the cost of tobacco.

The benefits to our state would be enormous and would more accurately account for the true cost of tobacco. Currently, California spends about $9 billion a year on tobacco-related medical care, with taxpayers footing about a third of that. In fact, in data compiled from the Centers for Disease Control, the true cost to society in California is $15 for every pack sold. Our current tobacco tax is 87 cents.

A tobacco tax is also a particularly effective way to prevent younger people from ever taking up the habit. A staggering 80 percent of smokers start before they are 18, while only one in 100 begin at age 26 or older. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that, based on previous research, a 10 percent increase in the cost of tobacco will result in a five to 15 percent decrease in youth tobacco usage. This compares to three to seven percent for adults.

Education about the ill effects of tobacco over the past several decades has been instrumental in lowering the rate of smoking in the United States. Toward that end, the tax would bolster proven youth prevention programs to deter smoking. A few years ago, it was estimated that even the $1 added tobacco tax then proposed in California would have prevented 200,000 children in California from becoming adult smokers.

Given that tobacco is a major contributor to coronary disease in our nation, we at the American Heart Association are always looking at effective policies that result in fewer smokers. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that if even a roughly $1 per package tax were to be instituted on cigarettes next year, there would be 2.6 million fewer adult smokers over the age of 18 by 2021. This would certainly be helpful in a nation where 443,000 people die from smoking-related diseases yearly, including 46,000 heart-related deaths attributed to secondhand smoke.

If these statistics just seem like numbers on a page, just think about the intangibles, such as the value added from having more years with a grandparent, or not watching a loved one suffer through the pain of emphysema, heart disease or cancer. These are things on which it’s impossible to place a monetary value, but with an estimated 100,000 California lives that will be saved in future years through a tobacco tax, they are nonetheless primary benefits.

So, in the New Year, if you need help to quit smoking, please visit our website, http://www.heart.org, for more information. And please join with us at http://www.savelivesca.com and support a $2-per-package tobacco tax next year. The life you save may be yours or a loved one’s.

Dr. Nicholas Leeper is Assistant Professor of Cardiovascular Surgery and Medicine at Stanford University Medical Center and president of the American Heart Association, Silicon Valley Division. He wrote this for this newspaper.

http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_27190645/tobacco-tax-move-2-per-pack-gains-momentum

Higher tobacco taxes save lives

By: Vincent DeMarco, Baltimore

A recent op-ed criticizing Maryland’s tobacco tax increases ignores the most important consequence of these measures: a dramatic decrease in tobacco use by teens that has saved thousands of young people from preventable tobacco-related deaths and serious illnesses (“Md. cigarette taxes have unintended consequences,” Dec. 18).

According to data compiled by the Campaign For Tobacco Free kids, within two years after the 2008 increase in the state cigarette tax, from $1 per pack to $2 per pack, there was a 29 percent drop in teen smoking in Maryland.

That translated into 15,000 fewer high school smokers (some of whom have become non-smoking young adults by now); more than 70,000 kids today who will not become adult smokers; more than 30,000 kids alive today who will avoid future premature smoking-related deaths; and more than $1.5 billion in long-term health care cost savings tp the state.

The Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene recently released a study showing that between 2010 and 2013 there was an 18 percent drop in Maryland teens smoking cigars. This happened at a time when nationally there was no statistically significant change in teen cigar smoking.

This progress, which also resulted in saving thousands of Maryland youth from tobacco addiction and preventable death and illnesses, occurred in part because of the 2012 increase in the state tax on cigars, along with an effective public education campaign by the state health department.

Granted, there will always be some people who will seek to avoid the tobacco tax by going to other states or resorting to smuggling. But very seldom will this involve children, whose lives we are saving in record numbers.

And we know from experience that the drop in cigarette sales in Maryland far outweighed the increase in sales in neighboring states that didn’t increase their tobacco tax. And were are fully confident in Maryland Comptroller Peter Franchot’s ability to prevent and prosecute those who would try to illegally smuggle cigarettes into the state.

In addition to saving lives, tobacco tax increases are good for Maryland taxpayers because they both reduce the health-care cost for tobacco-related illnesses and help fund critical health care programs. The 2008 tobacco tax increase partially funded the expansion of health care to over 100,000 uninsured Marylanders.

Although the Maryland Taxpayers’ Association doesn’t seem to want Marylanders to have these benefits, many independent polls show the vast majority of Marylanders clearly understand these benefits and would strongly support further increases in the tobacco tax to save more lives and money for the state.

-The writer is president of the Maryland Citizens’ Health Initiative.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/bs-ed-tobacco-letter-20141222-story.html

Cigarette smoking costs weigh heavily on the healthcare system

Reuters via Fox News

Of every $10 spent on healthcare in the U.S., almost 90 cents is due to smoking, a new analysis says.

Using recent health and medical spending surveys, researchers calculated that 8.7 percent of all healthcare spending, or $170 billion a year, is for illness caused by tobacco smoke, and public programs like Medicare and Medicaid paid for most of these costs.

“Fifty years after the first Surgeon General’s report, tobacco use remains the nation’s leading preventable cause of death and disease, despite declines in adult cigarette smoking prevalence,” said Xin Xu from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), who led the study.

Over 18 percent of U.S. adults smoke cigarettes and about one in five deaths are caused by smoking, according to the CDC.

Xu and colleagues linked data on healthcare use and costs from the 2006-2010 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey to the 2004-2009 National Health Interview Survey for a nationally-representative picture of smoking behavior and costs.

Out of more than 40,000 adults, 21.5 percent were current smokers, 22.6 percent were former smokers and 56 percent had never smoked. The researchers used prior data on smoking-related disease and deaths to calculate the proportion of healthcare spending by each person that could be attributed to smoking.

They also adjusted their figures for factors like excess drinking, obesity and socioeconomic status, and calculated the proportion of spending by payer.

In that analysis, 9.6 percent of Medicare spending, 15.2 percent of Medicaid spending and 32.8 percent of other government healthcare spending by sources such as the Veterans Affairs department, Tricare and the Indian Health Service, were attributable to smoking.

Of the $170 billion spent on smoking-related healthcare, more than 60 percent was paid by government sources, they wrote in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

Smoking-related healthcare costs affect most types of medical care, said Kenneth Warner at the University of Michigan School of Public Health. “Smoking infiltrates the entire body, through the blood stream, and causes disease in many of the body’s organs,” he told Reuters Health in an email.

Along with lung and heart problems, smoking can cause eye disease, skin problems and many cancers including pancreatic and bladder cancer, noted Warner, who was not involved in the new analysis.

“This study shows that, in addition to the human misery it inflicts, (smoking) imposes a substantial burden on the nation’s health care institutions, especially those funded by the public’s tax dollars,” he said.

The true cost of tobacco use may be even higher, Xu said. His study didn’t include medical costs linked to other tobacco products like cigars and chewing tobacco.

In 1964, the Surgeon General gave the first report on smoking and health. Since then, there have been many anti-tobacco efforts, ranging from banning tobacco in workplaces to quit-smoking help lines.

Mass media campaigns can be effective in reducing cigarette use, Xu said. In particular, the CDC’s current “Tips from Former Smokers” campaign is credited with an estimated 100,000 smokers quitting permanently.

The combination of research, publicity, policy and treatment has prevented eight million premature deaths in the U.S. since 1964, according to a 2014 Surgeon General’s report. Based on research published this year by Warner and his colleagues, he said, “Almost a third of the increase in adult life expectancy since 1964 is attributable to tobacco control.”

“Smoking kills about 480,000 Americans each year and remains the leading cause of preventable death and disease in the United States. No matter what age, it is never too late to quit,” Xu said.

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2014/12/22/cigarette-smoking-costs-weigh-heavily-on-healthcare-system/

Smoking Rates Continue to Decline

MMWR – MORBIDITY AND MORTALITY WEEKLY REPORT

The CDC recently updated its statistics about current cigarette smoking among adults. In its MMWR article of November 28, 2014, it tracked changes in smoking between 2005 and 2013. In general, the trends of previous years continued. Here are some of the results:

  • The proportion of U.S. adults who smoke declined from 20.9% to 17.8%, a 15% decline during that period. The 17.8% is a modern low in adult smoking prevalence.
  • The proportion of daily smokers declined from 16.9% to 13.7%, a 19% decline and another all time low.
  • Among daily smokers, the proportion who smoked at least one pack per day decreased from 52.1% to 36.4%, a 30% decline. And daily smokers now average 14.2 cigarettes, down from 16.7, a 15% decline.

Thus, there has been a decline in overall smokers, a slightly greater decline in daily smokers and in number of cigarettes smoked by daily smokers, and a major decline in the number of cigarettes consumed by daily smokers.

The profile of smokers is relatively unchanged:

  • Men (20.5%) are more likely to be smokers than women (15.3%)
  • Smoking prevalence is higher among adults aged 25-44 years (20.1%) and lowest among those over age 65 (8.8%)
  • Among ethnic groups, multiple race groups had the highest rates (26.8%), followed by American Indian/Native Alaskan (26.1%), Whites (19.4%), Blacks (18.3%), Hispanics (12.1%), and Asians (9.6%).
  • Smokers continue to be stratified by education level, often used as a marker for social class. Those without a high school diploma had smoking rates of 24.2%, followed by those with high school diplomas (22%), undergraduate college degrees (9.1%), and graduate degrees (5.6%). Those who obtained General Education Development (GED) certificates in lieu of high school graduation had the highest rates (41.4%). It is likely that many of these persons were incarcerated and thus also had medical conditions associated with high smoking rates, such as mental illness and substance use disorders.
  • Persons living below the federal poverty level had higher rates (29.2%) than those above that level (16.2%).
  • LGB adults were more likely to be smokers (26.6%) than straight adults (17.6%).

Thus, the trend of smoking to be concentrated among the less educated, the poor, and the LGB population continued. Not included in this report, but summarized previously by a special MMWR are recent data documenting the much higher rates among persons with behavioral health issues, the groups with the highest smoking rates in the entire population. Notably, those working in the health professions in the United States have some of the lowest smoking rates in the world, with some surveys showing that only 1% of physicians are smokers.

This new report should encourage us that progress, indeed, is happening. But, the slow rate of decline, in the face of all the evidence about the harms of smoking and the accumulating tobacco control policies such as taxes, clean indoor air laws, counter-marketing, and coverage for smoking cessation therapies, is sobering. As smokers increasingly resemble members of marginalized parts of the American community, the risk is that resources for tobacco control will be diverted to other causes. Yet, over 40 million people still smoke, including many of the most vulnerable of us. And close to 500,000 people die each year from smoking-associated illnesses. We need to capture better the sense of urgency buried in those statistics.

Finally, it is important to recognize two new potential threats to the health of the nation—electronic cigarettes and marijuana. Right now the rhetoric about the benefits and harms of these two commodities outstrips the evidence. We do know that the use of the e-cigarette is climbing, and it is highly likely that marijuana use is also increasing in the wake of state legalization efforts. We also know that because these commodities contain immense potential for profit, marketing efforts to promote usage are certain to increase. As we continue our efforts against the harm from using combustible tobacco, we need to track the use of these new potential threats, as well as to assemble evidence about what happens to those who use them.

Forum editorial: Close off e-cig sales to minors

Fargo Forum Editorial

The Legislature should follow the lead of several North Dakota cities and ban the sale of e-cigarettes to minors. As it stands now, even with sales bans in Fargo, Bismarck, Casselton, Mapleton and other cities, e-cigs can be (and likely are being) sold to minors all over the state. It’s a gaping loophole in a state law that in every other way treats e-cigs like tobacco products.

E-cigs are touted as an effective option for tobacco users to get off cigarettes, although the research is inconclusive. But they also appeal to kids because they are used by some minors for “vaping,” which kids think is “cool,” according to public health experts. E-cigs don’t contain tobacco, but they can be nicotine delivery devices. Often the substances in e-cigs include candy flavors. There is little doubt the products are aimed at adolescents, according to new research. And kids are taking them up at alarming rates.

That being said, e-cig sellers in Fargo insist it is against company policy to sell to anyone under age 18, no matter what a state’s law or city’s ordinances allow or prohibit. In fact, e-cig retailers say they want a state law that bans sales to minors, and will work with legislators in the upcoming session.

While the retailers’ public attitude is good news, questions remain. Where are kids getting e-cigs? Why is use up among minors? Who is policing what?

Most troubling: There is no question e-cigs are a gateway to smoking among teens. New studies indicate that as more minors try e-cigs (up in several states), chances increase that they will try tobacco and get hooked. Nicotine, whether in an e-cig or a cigarette, is addictive. It should come as no surprise that big tobacco companies are in the e-cig business.

The state of North Dakota, with what appears to be support from e-cig sellers, should close the sales-to-minors loophole. Without informed and firm action, e-cigs could erode the progress that’s been made to reduce tobacco use in the 50 years since the first surgeon general’s report revealed the health risks of smoking.

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

http://www.inforum.com/opinion/3637026-forum-editorial-close-e-cig-sales-minors

E-Cigarette Use on Rise for Teenagers, Study Finds

The New York Times, By SABRINA TAVERNISE

WASHINGTON — A new federal survey has found that e-cigarette use among teenagers has surpassed the use of traditional cigarettes, even as smoking of traditional cigarettes has continued to decline. Health advocates say the upward trend for e-cigarette use is dangerous because it is making smoking seem normal again. They also worry it could lead to an increase in smoking of traditional cigarettes, though the new data do not show that.

The survey, released Tuesday by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, measured drug and alcohol use this year among middle and high school students across the country. More than 41,000 students from 377 public and private schools participated. It is one of several such national surveys, and the most up-to-date.

It was the first time this survey measured e-cigarette use, so there were no comparative data on the change over time. Other surveys have shown e-cigarette use among middle and high school students to be much lower, but increasing fast.

“The numbers are stunning,” said Matthew L. Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, an advocacy group.

The survey found that 17 percent of 12th graders reported using an e-cigarette in the last month, compared with 13.6 percent who reported having an traditional cigarette. Among 10th graders, the reported use of e-cigarettes was 16 percent, compared with 7 percent for cigarettes. And among 8th graders, reported e-cigarette use was 8.7 percent, compared with just 4 percent who said they had smoked a cigarette in the last month.

A 2013 youth tobacco survey by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released in November found that the share of American high school students who use e-cigarettes rose to 4.5 percent in 2013 from 2.8 percent in 2012. The share of middle school students who use e-cigarettes remained flat at 1.1 percent over the same period.

The gap between the two sets of findings was substantial, and researchers struggled to explain it. Both are broad, reliable federal surveys that go back years, and their methodologies do not differ greatly. The drug abuse institute uses individual school grades, while the disease centers combine grades, which may account for some of the difference.

Some experts said that the new data suggested the rate may have increased substantially since 2013, though it will be impossible to know for sure until the C.D.C. releases its 2014 data sometime next year.

E-cigarettes have split the public health world, with some experts arguing that they are the best hope in generations for the 18 percent of Americans who still smoke to quit. Others say that people are using them not to quit but to keep smoking, and that they could become a gateway for young people to take up real cigarettes.

But that does not seem to be happening, at least so far. Daily cigarette use among teenagers continued to decline in 2014, the survey found, dropping across all grades by nearly half over the past five years. Among high school seniors, for example, 6.7 percent reported smoking cigarettes daily in 2014, compared with 11 percent five years ago.

Most experts agree that e-cigarettes are far less harmful than traditional cigarettes. But they contain nicotine, an addictive substance that some experts contend is potentially harmful for brain development. Some experts also warn that nicotine use could establish patterns that leave young people more vulnerable to addiction to other substances.

The survey found significant declines in the use of other drugs. Among high school seniors, about 6 percent reported having taken a prescription drug, substantially down from the peak of 9.5 percent in 2004. Abuse of Vicodin, the opioid pain reliever, declined by nearly half among 12th graders over five years.

In states with medical marijuana laws, 40 percent of high school seniors who reported using marijuana in the past year said they had consumed it in food, compared with 26 percent in states without such laws.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/17/science/national-institute-on-drug-abuse-e-cigarette-study.html?_r=0

USA Today – Our View: E-cigarettes cloud progress on teen smoking

USA Today Editorial Board

E-cigarettes, once seen as a harmless alternative to tobacco smoking, are beginning to look more like a new gateway to addiction.

This year, for the first time, more teens used electronic cigarettes than traditional ones: 17% of high school seniors used the devices, vs. 14% who smoked cigarettes. Kids in eighth and 10th grades favored them 2-to-1 over traditional smokes, according to an eye-opening University of Michigan survey released Tuesday.

In one sense, there is good news. Teen smoking hit a record low last year after a steady decline since the late 1990s, leaving fewer teens vulnerable to the risk of cancer, heart disease and emphysema that comes with tobacco use. But e-cigarettes are a troubling alternative.

Just as scientists didn’t grasp the danger of tobacco when the nation was becoming addicted, they don’t fully understand the risks posed by e-cigarettes now.

One is obvious: addiction.

E-cigs, battery-powered nicotine inhalers that produce a vapor cloud, could be every bit as addictive as tobacco. With sales skyrocketing to $754 million, 30 times five-year-ago levels, and tobacco giants Altria and Reynolds entering the business, millions of people are getting hooked.

This is particularly a problem during the teen years because that is when nearly all smokers pick up their habit.

For manufacturers, the logic is inescapable: Addict a teenager and you could have a customer for life; miss the moment and you have no customer at all. So in ways subtle and not so subtle, e-cigarette makers have applied Big Tobacco’s advertising and marketing practices.

One prominent tactic is their use of celebrities — including former Playboy centerfold Jenny McCarthy, singer Courtney Love, actor Stephen Dorff and teen heartthrob Robert Pattinson of Twilight fame — to make “vaping” look sexy and rebellious.

No one knows how dangerous this is because with federal oversight missing, no one knows exactly what’s in the devices, some made in China. A Japanese study found hazardous substances in the vapor at higher levels than in cigarette smoke.

There are obvious ways to address the problem, starting with attention from the newly confirmed surgeon general, Vivek Murthy, and analysis by the Food and Drug Administration of e-cigarette content. Both worked with tobacco but could be thwarted by a Congress rigidly opposed to regulation.

Alternatively, states could fill the breach. Nearly a dozen still allow e-cigarette sales to minors when they plainly should not. They could also use the 1998 tobacco settlement negotiated with the industry long before e-cigarettes existed. The accord defines covered products in a way that includes e-cigarettes, because nicotine is derived from tobacco.

By invoking the settlement, state attorneys general would be able to clamp down on marketing that’s targeted at youth, including certain celebrity promotions, concert sponsorships and access to free samples.

After a decades-long battle against youth smoking, it would be tragic to see a new generation of teens hooked on a different but potentially dangerous substitute.

USA TODAY’s editorial opinions are decided by its Editorial Board, separate from the news staff. Most editorials are coupled with an opposing view — a unique USA TODAY feature.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/12/16/e-cigarettes-teen-smoking-university-of-michigan-editorials-debates/20485297/

E-cigarettes usually aren’t taxed like regular tobacco products. Utah’s governor wants to change that.

By Hunter Schwarz | The Washington Post

Utah Gov. Gary Herbert wants e-cigarettes to be taxed, and his office thinks it could bring in $10 million for the state annually.

“The governor feels strongly we should tax e-cigarettes the same way as other tobacco products,” said Marty Carpenter, a Herbert spokesman, in an interview with the Washington Post. “We don’t want to be in the business of incentivizing” e-cigarettes, he said.

The tax was included as a footnote in Herbert’s budget proposal released Thursday, and first reported by the Salt Lake Tribune. Herbert tweeted about the tax Monday.

While cigarettes are taxed in every state — from a high of $4.35 in New York to $.17 in Missouri — Utah would be among the first to tax e-cigarettes. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, only Minnesota and North Carolina currently tax e-cigarettes, but Carpenter said he “wouldn’t surprise me if other states were to look at something similar.”

For e-cigarettes to be taxed, the legislature would need to create and pass a bill. Carpenter said he doesn’t anticipate much opposition to such the proposed tax.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/12/15/e-cigarettes-usually-arent-taxed-like-regular-tobacco-products-utahs-governor-wants-to-change-that/

KX News: Students Help Draft E-Cigarette Bill

By Steph Scheurer, Reporter

The CDC reports more than 16 million minors live in states where they can buy e-cigarettes legally.

The topic of age limits on e-cigarettes is one that will be brought up during the 2015 legislative session.

Braden Will and Ashti Ali are 7th graders.

But even at a young age, they’re thinking about their safety.

“It’s kind of scary that 12 year olds, even 10 year olds can buy e-cigarettes,” says Braden Will, Simle 7th Grader, SADD.

“We don’t think it’s right that kids our age and younger can buy e-cigarettes because they’re just as harmful as regular cigarettes and so if they start now, then they’ll just get addicted for their whole life and we don’t want that to happen,” says Ashti Ali, Simle 7th Grader, SADD.

So, they decided to do something about it.

“The Simle SADD chapter wrote Representative Larson and said, you know what, we want a bill to protect our youth,” says Kristie Wolff, Program Manager, American Lung Association, ND.

Representative Diane Larson went to Simle, met with the students, and got a bill drafted that would restrict the sale of e-cigarettes to minors across the state of North Dakota.

“Currently several communities across the state have already developed city ordinances that are in place but statewide we do not have an e-cigarette ordinance so it is legal for minors not only to purchase but possess e-cigarettes across much of the state,” says Wolff.

Wolff says e-cigarette use among the youth has tripled since 2011. Currently 40 states prohibit the sale of e-cigarettes to minors. North Dakota is not one of them.

“One of the reasons could be because we only have session every other year and so this is one of the first times that our legislators, you know, are going to be addressing it,” says Wolff.

As of September, 18 cities across the state have developed city ordinances that are in place, but Braden, Ashti, and the rest of their SADD chapter hopes their voice will help make this change statewide.

“I like the feeling that we actually kind of get to help with this because it just makes me feel good,” says Ali.

“I think the way the bill came about is amazing because it’s coming directly from those we want to protect,” says Wolff.

E-cigarettes are included in North Dakota’s Smoke Free Law.

Anywhere that traditional tobacco cannot be used, e-cigarettes also cannot be used.

According to a list from the American Lung Association in North Dakota, Dickinson is just one city where e-cigarettes are not restricted from being sold to minors.

http://www.kxnet.com/story/27634626/students-help-draft-e-cigarette-bill