1 in 20 School-Aged Kids Use Smokeless Tobacco

Susan E. Matthews, Everyday Health Staff Writer
Approximately 1 in 20 school-aged U.S. kids use smokeless tobacco products such as dip, chewing tobacco or snuff, a new study found. While smokeless products are often promoted by tobacco companies as “healthier” options, the study also found that teens who use them are not replacing traditional tobacco with smokeless tobacco, but instead are using both.
Since young people aren’t switching products and are instead combining them, any potential health benefits associated with switching to smokeless brands are lost. In fact, by using both types of products, young adults may actually be increasing their risks for tobacco-associated illnesses.
And in a blow to the idea that transitioning to smokeless products might help teens quit tobacco, the survey showed that less than half — 40.1 percent — of smokeless tobacco users intended to quit.
Researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health used data from the 2011 National Youth Tobacco Survey, which included more than 18,000 students in grades 6 through 12 who were asked about their use of a variety of tobacco products over the previous 30 days. Of the surveyed students, 5.6 percent used smokeless tobacco products, and 72.1 percent of these students also used conventional tobacco products including cigarettes, cigars, and water pipes.
In recent years, several novel forms of smokeless tobacco have come onto the market, such as snus, which is moist snuff, and dissolvable tobacco. Of the students using smokeless tobacco, 5 percent used traditional products, while 1.9 percent used snus, and 0.3 percent used the dissolvable tobacco. Compared to traditional smokeless tobacco and cigarettes, these products contain fewer carcinogenic nitrosamines, and may pose less health risk. As a result, tobacco companies have promoted them as a better tobacco alternative.
Males in the survey more likely to use smokeless tobacco products than females (9 percent versus 2 percent), and students over 18 were also more likely to use them than students aged 9 to 11 (10.8 percent compared to 2.2 percent). Smokeless tobacco use has stayed relatively consistent, at around 5 percent, while cigarette use has declined over the past decade, the researchers noted.
“Promotion of snus or dissolvable tobacco products at a population level may not have benefits and might even cause harm from dual use with combustible and/or conventional smokeless tobacco products,” the researcher wrote in the study, published in Pediatrics. Student who reported noticing warning labels on the products were actually more likely to use tobacco, suggesting that these warning aren’t effective, according to researchers.
The American Academy of Pediatrics has called for further regulation of novel tobacco. The study authors suggested more effective warning labels on smokeless products, and that physicians take more initiative in bringing up the harms of smokeless tobacco in consultations with young adults.
Based on the survey results, the researchers concluded that peer pressure was the most likely influence on smokeless tobacco use. If a close friend used these products, an individual was almost 10 times more likely to also use them, the study found.
Another study out today in Pediatrics found that children of smokers were 3.2 times more likely to smoke than children of non-smokers, even if the smoking parent had quit before the child was born. For children over age 11, smoking prevalence ranged from 23 to 29 percent of children whose parents had once smoked, compared to 8 percent of children of parents who had never smoked. The researchers, from Purdue University and Pennsylvania State University, suggested the study supported the idea of genetic predisposition towards smoking.
http://www.everydayhealth.com/stop-smoking/1-in-20-school-aged-kids-use-smokeless-tobacco-7884.aspx

Parental smoking tied to kids' risk of lighting up

By Andrew M. Seaman
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) – Children born to parents with a history of cigarette smoking are more likely to light up than kids of people who never smoked, according to a new U.S. study.
Despite falling smoking rates across age groups, researchers found that children raised by current or even former smokers were about three times more likely to be smokers themselves during their teenage years than kids raised by parents who never smoked.
“Things are getting better, but we can see it’s best among the consistent non-smoking households,” said Mike Vuolo, the study’s lead author from Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana.
Previous research has produced similar results, but the new study was based on 23 years of data on the smoking patterns of the parents in the study – 214 people who were ninth grade students in 1988 – to see whether their habits from adolescence onward were tied to their children’s risk of smoking.
For example, Vuolo and his colleague, who published their findings in Pediatrics, were able to compare the children of never-smokers and people who had smoked consistently since high school.
They had data on 314 children of the original group of teens. In 2011, the kids of the second generation – all at least 11 years old – were asked if they had smoked cigarettes within the last year. Sixteen percent said yes.
Among the children of parents who had never smoked, about 8 percent reported smoking cigarettes during the past year.
That compared to between 23 percent and 29 percent of the children of current or former smokers.
The researchers also looked at the parents’ “trajectories” of smoking for clues about the parental influence on the children’s behavior.
They found that 23 percent of kids whose parents had smoked as adolescents but quit or reduced their smoking as young adults were smokers themselves.
Among kids whose parents had smoked little or not at all in high school but started smoking in adulthood, 29 percent were smokers.
And 25 percent of children whose parents had smoked consistently since high school were smokers.
In addition, children who said they had smoked during the last year were more likely to be older, to display more symptoms of depression and to have low grades and low self-esteem. They were also more likely to feel distant from their parents and to have an older sibling who smoked.
While the study can’t prove that parental smoking caused the children to adopt the habit, Dr. Jonathan Winickoff, who has studied teen smoking behavior but wasn’t involved in the new research, said the new results support past findings.
“I think the first confirmatory result is that if you are a parent who smokes, your teenage child has a three-fold increased risk of smoking,” Winickoff, an associate professor in Harvard Medical School’s Department of Pediatrics in Boston, said.
He added that there are several theories on why children of smokers may be at an increased risk of picking up the habit, including modeling their parents’ behaviors, easy access to cigarettes and being “primed” for an addiction through second-hand smoke exposure.
He cautioned, however, that the new study can’t determine whether a child’s risk of becoming a smoker falls if the parents stop smoking early-on, such as in their early adult years, because the group that contained those early quitters also included some current light smokers.
“They can’t say – based on these data – whether earlier parental quitting is associated with less smoking in their kids,” he said.
The researchers also warn that their findings may not apply to all smokers, because only 15 percent of the people included in their survey had a bachelor’s degree or more education and most had their first child at a fairly young age.
Vuolo added that they don’t know whether these smoking rates in the second generation are an improvement over the past because they’re only looking at one point in time. Going forward, they will be able to look at smoking rates over time as they collect more data.
“We’re going to be able to answer that question,” he said.
http://kfgo.com/news/articles/2013/aug/05/parental-smoking-tied-to-kids-risk-of-lighting-up/

Higher Minn. cigarette prices drive more to try to quit

by Mark Zdechlik, Minnesota Public Radio
MAPLEWOOD, Minn. — Anan Barbarawi expected cigarette sales at his store to drop once Minnesota’s $1.60 a pack tax increase took hold in July. But Barbarawi, manager at Maplewood Tobacco, was shocked to see his numbers plunge “50 to 70 percent.”
On the bright side, Barbarawi said, sales of electronic cigarettes have taken off.
A month into the tax increase, it’s not clear yet how much cash Minnesota is collecting. The stiff tobacco levy, though, is changing behavior.
Programs that help people quit smoking say they’ve seen a dramatic increase in the number of Minnesotans contacting them for help because of the higher prices. Demand for tobacco alternatives is up.
State officials maintain that was always the goal when they pushed the total tax to $2.83 per pack. They say they’d be happy if they didn’t get any tax revenue from tobacco and argue the state would save huge amounts of money on health care if Minnesotans didn’t smoke.
There’s no doubt cost led Bob Holmes to stop at the end of May — a month before the cigarette tax increase took effect.
“Yeah, it might have helped push me into quitting smoking,” said Holmes of St. Paul, who’d driven his friend to the Maplewood smoke shop to pick up some cheap cigars.
It’s good the higher tax is getting people to stop smoking, he said. Still, he and many other smokers thinks it’s not fair that many of those hardest hit by the tax can least afford it.
Tobacco tax figures from July on are not yet available, but anti-smoking advocates say the effects are visible already.
Calls to Minnesota’s QUITPLAN program were up more than 250 percent over the same time last year and website hits were up almost 300 percent, for the first half of July, said Mike Sheldon, spokesman for ClearWay Minnesota, the group that runs QUITPLAN.
ClearWay offers free quit-smoking counseling using $202 million from Minnesota’s 1998 legal settlement with tobacco companies. Summer is usually not a busy time, he said.
The group says about 625,000 adults in Minnesota smoke. About three of every 10 QUITPLAN clients abstain from tobacco for at least six months, Sheldon added.
The tobacco tax increase inspired Erik Nordstrom, 38, to look for options. The St. Paul man, a smoker since age 14, hopes to wean himself from nicotine with e-cigarettes. That’s what brought him to the tobacco store in Maplewood.
Quitting tobacco is the ultimate goal, but there was an immediate need to cut spending. He was fed up with paying almost $300 for his monthly cigarette fix.
“When I go into a store and I’m paying $7.75 (for cigarettes), there’s something seriously wrong with that picture,” he said. “I had a pack of Newports on me which is the last pack I’ll be smoking.”
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2013/08/02/health/cigarette-prices

Very little is known about the health effects of e-cigarettes

DEAR MAYO CLINIC: I’ve been a smoker for years. I’m thinking about switching to electronic cigarettes or to a nicotine inhaler because I’ve heard they aren’t as bad for you as regular cigarettes. Is that true?
ANSWER: Electronic cigarettes and nicotine inhalers both deliver nicotine to your body without tobacco. But that’s where the similarity ends. The two are quite different when it comes to how they’re used and how much doctors know about their safety. Nicotine inhalers are a proven safe and effective way to help people stop smoking. In contrast, very little is known about the health effects of electronic cigarettes.
Electronic cigarettes, or e-cigarettes, are battery-operated devices that look like regular cigarettes. Like traditional tobacco cigarettes, they contain nicotine. When you use an e-cigarette, a liquid inside it that includes nicotine is heated and turns into a vapor you inhale. It also makes a vapor cloud that looks like cigarette smoke.
The manufacturers claim that e-cigarettes are a safe alternative to tobacco cigarettes. But there are significant questions about the safety of these products. When the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) analyzed samples of two popular brands of e-cigarettes, they found varying amounts of nicotine and traces of toxic chemicals, including substances that are known to cause cancer.
The liquid inside many e-cigarettes contains a substance called propylene glycol. It creates the e-cigarette’s vapor. Other common uses of propylene glycol are in cosmetics and as an ingredient in fog machines and antifreeze. The specific health effects of this product are not clear.
No studies have been done to examine the safety of e-cigarettes. As a result, there is no evidence that doctors can use to assess the impact this product may have on a person’s body. Also, no convincing evidence shows that e-cigarettes are useful in helping people to eventually stop smoking.
It is also important to note that e-cigarettes are not regulated by the FDA. E-cigarettes are currently regulated as a tobacco product — even though they contain no tobacco. Because of this classification, there’s no oversight from the FDA to ensure they are safe. Like regular cigarettes, you can buy e-cigarettes without a prescription.
Nicotine inhalers, on the other hand, are classified as a type of medicine. They are regulated by the FDA and available by prescription only. They fall into a class of drugs known as nicotine replacement therapy, and they are used as part of stop-smoking treatment plans.
As with e-cigarettes, nicotine inhalers give you a dose of nicotine when you puff on them. Unlike e-cigarettes, the amount of nicotine you receive is controlled and small. And with nicotine inhalers you receive only nicotine. No other ingredients are included.
Nicotine inhalers have been carefully studied in controlled clinical research trials. They are safe and proven to be effective in helping people stop smoking. If you’re interested in using nicotine inhalers as part of a program to help you stop smoking, talk to your doctor. He or she can discuss the inhalers with you in more detail, as well as provide information about other medications and resources available to help you quit.
With the data available now, Mayo Clinic does not recommend the use of e-cigarettes. At this time, we simply don’t know enough about them. They have not been proven safe, nor have they been shown to be effective in helping people stop smoking. — Jon Ebbert, M.D., Nicotine Dependence Center, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
(Medical Edge from Mayo Clinic is an educational resource and doesn’t replace regular medical care. E-mail a question to medicaledge@mayo.edu. For more information, visit http://www.mayoclinic.org.)
http://www.chicagotribune.com/health/sns-201308011500–tms–mayoclnctnmc-a20130801-20130801,0,536387.story

R.J. Reynolds Pulling Back on Dissolvable Tobacco Products

WINSTON-SALEM, N.C. – R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. is cutting back on the marketing and sales of its dissolvable tobacco products after more than four and a half years in test markets.
According to a report by the Winston-Salem Journal, Camel Orbs, Camel Sticks and Camel Strips will remain in limited distribution at point-of-sale sites in Denver and Charlotte, N.C., as well as on the age-verified website www.cameldissolvables.com.
“At this time, there are no plans for any marketing beyond these channels,” said Richard Smith, spokesman for Reynolds. “We’ve found in our conversations with adult tobacco consumers that while there’s strong interest in the category, a different product form may present a better option over the long term. Though for now, Camel Sticks, Strips and Orbs will remain available while we continue to gather learnings.”
Dissolvable tobacco products have garnered criticism from organizations such as the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, which believe that they will appeal to children due to their flavoring and packaging. Reynolds offered these products in child-resistant packaging, but some analysts have speculated that the difficulty in opening them may have had a detrimental effect, according to the report.
Others speculated that the market for dissolvables may already prefer other products. “My thought would be that the market for spit-less, non-combustible tobacco is probably already taken up by snus,” John Spangler, a professor of family and community medicine at Wake Forest School of Medicine, told the news outlet. Reynolds took just two and a half years to move Camel Snus from test markets to national distribution after its April 2006 debut.
Reynolds initially offered its dissolvables for sale in Columbus, Ohio; Portland, Ore.; and Indianapolis before moving them to Denver and Charlotte. The company did not dictate retail prices, but suggested that they sell at a comparable price to a tin of Camel Snus, or between $4 and $4.50.
http://www.csnews.com/top-story-supplier_news-r.j._reynolds_pulling_back_on_dissolvable_tobacco_products-64184.html

NC law takes effect banning e-cigarettes to minors

MITCH WEISS
Associated Press
CHARLOTTE, NC (AP) — At North Carolina smoke shops and other retailers, the warning signs are going up.
A law banning the sale of e-cigarettes to minors takes effect Thursday.
Retailers now face the same misdemeanor charge if they sell e-cigarettes to a minor as they already did for other tobacco products. Penalties can be as high as a $1,000 fine.
So retailers say they’ll be careful.
E-cigarettes are battery-powered devices that heat a liquid nicotine solution, creating vapor that users inhale. Some are made to look like a real cigarette with a tiny light on the tip that glows.
Devotees tout them as a way to break addiction to real cigarettes.
But public health officials say the safety of e-cigarettes and their effectiveness in helping people quit regular smokes haven’t been fully studied.
http://www.wwaytv3.com/2013/07/31/nc-law-takes-effect-banning-e-cigarettes-to-minors

E-Cigarette Sales to Hit $1 Billion

By ALAN FARNHAM
E-cigarettes—a relative novelty three years ago–are about to hit $1 billion in sales, according to Wells Fargo securities analysts.
While that’s only 1 percent of sales of traditional cigarettes, the number of consumers who say they’ve tried e-smokes is growing fast. The sale of e-cigarettes totaled just $500 million last year.
According to the most recent survey by the Centers For Disease Control and Prevention, in 2011 about 21 percent of adults who smoke traditional cigarettes said they had tried the electronic alternative, up from about 10 percent in 2010.
“Overall,” says a CDC press release, “about 6 percent of all adults have tried e-cigarettes, with estimates nearly doubling from 2010.”
“E-cigarette use is growing rapidly,” said CDC director Tom Frieden in a February 2013 release announcing the survey’s findings. “There is still we do not know about these products.”
E-cigarettes, in their most popular form, look like conventional tobacco cigarettes. They do not, however, contain leaf tobacco and they do not burn. As described by CDC, they are battery-powered devices that provide inhaled doses of nicotine vapor and flavorings. Because they do not burn and do not produce smoke, their advocates consider them more socially acceptable than traditional cigarettes.
Their detractors do not. The Long Island Rail Road declared earlier this month that e-cigarettes violate LIRR’s smoking ban, which declares it unlawful for railroad patrons to “burn a lighted cigarette, cigar, pipe or any other matter or substance which contains tobacco or any tobacco substitute.”
SAFER SMOKE OR NEW BAD HABIT?
In the eyes of some, the mere appearance of someone smoking—even smoking a non-tobacco, electronic substitute—creates the dangerous impression that smoking is okay.
“The use of e-cigarettes in public areas in which cigarette smoking is prohibited could counter the effectiveness of [smoke-free compliance] policies by complicating enforcement and giving the appearance that smoking is acceptable,” the CDC report says.
Gregory Conley, legislative director at the Consumer Advocates for Smoke-Free Alternatives Association, scoffs at that attitude, saying, “It looks like smoking…so it must be evil.”
Conley’s association, he says, represents some 5,000 e-cigarette users. Conley says e-cigarettes “annoy people who don’t understand that they’re a great advertisement for smoking-cessation” and “people who believe no one should be allowed to have nicotine in any form.”
NO PROOF E-CIGARETTES COMBAT ADDICTION
The question whether e-cigarettes can be viewed as an aide to quitting smoking, for conventional tobacco users, is a contentious one. Eli Alelov, CEO of LOGIC Technology, makers of LOGIC e-cigarettes, says e-cigarettes are not a health product, and that he’s not claiming they are. At the same time, however, he points out, an e-cigarette contains no tar and no tobacco. It produces no second-hand smoke. Regulations prevent his suggesting that his product is healthier or safer, he says. “So, we leave that up to the public: they can use their logic.”
Alelov says that the people who hate e-cigarettes most include both big tobacco and the tax man. E-cigarettes aren’t taxed the same as regular cigarettes, so “the states hate us, because they’re losing money,” Alelov said.
Five years from now, he thinks, 30 to 40 percent of traditional smokers will have switched to e-cigarettes—perhaps as many as 20 million customers. In five years e-cigarette sales will grow to $15 billion to $20 billion a year, he thinks.
As for what further restrictions might be coming down the pike, Alelov says he’s not particularly worried about any regulations the FDA may eventually promulgate. (The FDA currently does not regulate e-cigarettes, but it is expected to in the future.) He expects the FDA’s regulations, when they come, would apply to packaging, labeling, and minimum age of the buyer.
Alelov says there are some venues where he, personally, won’t smoke an e-cigarette. They include McDonalds, movie theaters and children’s playgrounds. Everywhere else, however — everywhere that nicotine gum or nicotine patches are permitted — he feels e-smokes should be, too.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/electronic-cigarette-sales-billion/story?id=19815486
 

Reading the smoke signals on e-cigarettes: Can you puff away on a plane, train or in your local bar?

By / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Where there’s smoking, there’s no longer fire — but there’s plenty of heated debate.
Electronic cigarettes, known to smokers as e-cigarettes, are lighting up the city as puffers snuff out their butts in favor of the refillable, rechargeable alternative, which produces a not-so-smelly vapor instead of pungent smoke.
But should tokers treat these devices like cigarettes themselves, keeping the habit out of restaurants, bars, barbershops and airplanes? Or should they light up wherever the mood strikes, taking advantage of industry claims that the synthetic nicotine sticks are as harmless to passersby as nightclub fog machines?
Depends on who — and where — you ask.
Trains, planes and buses are out of the question.
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority told the Daily News it allows no e-cigs on the E train or any of its rides, for that matter.
“We would interpret our prohibition on smoking as applying to electronic cigarettes,” a spokeswoman wrote in an e-mail.
The Long Island Rail Road also extends it cigarette ban to e-cigarettes.
The U.S. Department of Transportation says no smoking — or “vaping,” as e-cigarette enthusiasts call it — on airplanes.
But that’s where the formal prohibitions end. The city Parks Department doesn’t consider vaping to be smoking, meaning Mayor Bloomberg’s ban on puffers in parks is not airtight.
More importantly, the city’s Department of Health says Bloomberg’s defining Smoke Free Air Act, which prohibits smoking inside public places, does not govern electronic smoking. That means as far as the city is concerned, any bar, restaurant, movie theater, nightclub, bowling alley, nail salon or shopping mall is fair game for vaping.
That is, of course, if business owners choose to allow it.
Some do, and some don’t: Starbucks recently snuffed out the chance for patrons to enjoy coffee and e-cigarettes, while lower East Side bars Iggy’s, Whiskey Ward and Coal Yard don’t have a problem with it. On the other hand, many Times Square bars and Broadway theaters say no to e-smoking.
It’s a legal area that’s grayer than a smoker’s lungs, according to Phil Roseman, co-owner of VapeNY, Manhattan’s first electronic-cigarette shop.
“What we tell our customers is that you can vape anywhere you like,” says Roseman, whose newly opened lower East Side storefront sells the battery-powered devices for about $40 a pop, as well as flavored refills like coffee, vanilla and “juicy fruit.” “I’ve taken it on planes, into restaurants and movie theaters, and never had a problem.”
The store has been doing brisk businesses, as more and more nicotine addicts decide they don’t want to pay $15 for a pack of real cigarettes when there’s a cheaper, less-taxed, and more socially permissable alternative.
Not to mention, one that doesn’t stink up the whole apartment.
“I can use this e-cigarette as much as I want and my wife doesn’t complain about the smell,” says lower East Side resident Mike Chan, 41, a VapeNY regular who spends about $30 a month on the liquid refills, down significantly from his cigarette-smoking days.
That’s not to say all New Yorkers are welcoming the glowing tip of these electronic devices.
“There was a time when I was wasted, vaping an e-cigarette, and someone came up to me and told me to put it out,” says Alex Catarinella, 26. “I blew smoke in his face and then pretended to put out my cigarette on his chest. He jumped!”
Writers and regular e-smokers Christelle Gérand, 27, and Joel Johnson, 35, toured the city with the Daily News and vaped openly in bars, restaurants, a dry cleaner and even a grocery store without anyone telling them to cut it out.
“I am surprised at how many places don’t seem to mind — especially bars,” says Johnson.
One place that will never turn e-smokers away is the Henley Lounge, planned to open in SoHo in September. The local e-cigarette company hopes to screen films and host talks, all while passing out samples of its Henley e-cigs.
“Our job with this company is to educate people that nicotine is like caffeine,” says Henley co-founder Talia Eisenberg. “Yes, it’s addictive, but it’s not going to hurt you.”
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/rules-e-cigarettes-article-1.1412964?pgno=1#ixzz2ajJYNc2i
 

Most U.S. youth exposed to tobacco advertising in stores

ATLANTA, July 31 (UPI) — U.S. researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention say a lot of kids continue to see tobacco ads and be influenced by them.
Dr. Shanta Dube, lead health scientist for surveillance in the Epidemiology Branch, Office on Smoking and Health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, and colleagues examined the proportion of adolescents exposed to pro-tobacco advertising and assessed the association between this exposure and susceptibility to smoking.
The researchers used data from the 2011 National Youth Tobacco Survey to calculate the proportion of susceptible middle-school and high-school students exposed to pro-tobacco advertisements via stores, magazines and the Internet. Susceptibility to smoking cigarettes was defined as “never smoked but open to trying cigarettes,” Dube said.
In 2011, 81.5 percent of middle-school students and 87 percent of high-school students were exposed to tobacco advertisements in stores; 48 percent of middle-school students and 54 percent of high-school students were exposed to such advertising in magazines.
Exposure to tobacco advertisements on the Internet was similar at about 40 percent for both middle-school and high-school students.
Of those surveyed, 22 percent of middle-school students and 24 percent of high-school students were susceptible to trying cigarettes.
Exposure to magazine advertising declined from 71.8 percent in 2000 to 46 percent in 2009 among susceptible middle-school students; but exposure increased to 55 percent in 2011. Tobacco advertising seen through the Internet among susceptible high-school students increased from 26 percent in 2000 to 45 percent in 2011.
The study was published in the Journal of Adolescent Health.
Read more: http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2013/07/31/Most-US-youth-exposed-to-tobacco-advertising-in-stores/UPI-26521375321062/#ixzz2ajGPXhMN

E-CIGARETTE BAN: Hennepin County property now off-limits

by Bill Keller
Smokers may be able to smoke in vehicles and their homes, but there are fewer public places to light up. Now, even electronic cigarettes are banned on Hennepin County property.
Most private buildings have a rule about smoking near entrances, but a new law is cutting a new way to cut cravings out of the picture.
“I was just a little disappointed that the county would take that stand on them because people are trying to quit,” said Donna Bratulich.
E-cigarettes seemed to fill a void as smoking restrictions continued to mount by offering a way to get a nicotine fix without breaking the law, but Hennepin County employees got an e-mail clarifying the tobacco-free property policy on Tuesday that listed the devices on a list of prohibited products.
“We are proactive. We’ve been proactive here,” said Hennepin County Administrator David Hough. “We want to make sure that our workforce and the residents, clients in the building are being protected.”
Hough said the decision was made after concerns were raised last week even though e-cigarettes do not violate the state’s Clean Indoor Air Act.
“The law is very specific in how it defines smoking as involving the combustion of tobacco or other materials to create smoke,” Dan McElroy, of the Minnesota Restaurant Association, told FOX 9 News. “So, an e-cigarette is not a cigarette or smoking device in the eyes of the law.”
McElroy told FOX 9 News he is not aware of any restaurants that ban e-cigarettes, but he has fielded several questions on the topic.
“The difference in e-cigarettes is they don’t create second-hand impact,” he explained.
Hennepin County’s decision may mark the first ban on nicotine regardless of where it comes from, and it applies to anyone on Hennepin County property regardless of whether the person works there or not.
Metro Transit is also in the process of updating its rules to make using e-cigarettes on a bus or light rail a violation of its code of conduct.
Read more: E-CIGARETTE BAN: Hennepin County property now off-limits – KMSP-TV http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/story/22973287/e-cigarette-ban-hennepin-county-property-now-off-limits#ixzz2ajIG8Ki4