Posts

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

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

Reuters: US tobacco companies drop lawsuit vs FDA over labeling

The three largest U.S. tobacco companies on Tuesday dropped their lawsuit accusing the U.S. Food and Drug Administration of exceeding its authority by closely monitoring the content of their product labels after the agency said it would reconsider its rules.

Altria Group Inc, Reynolds American Inc and Lorillard Inc dismissed their case after the FDA on May 29 said it would review whether to mandate advance approval for label alterations such as changes to logos and background colors, or the use of descriptors such as “premium tobacco.”

In their April lawsuit filed in federal court in Washington, D.C., the companies said the 2009 Tobacco Control Act limited FDA authority to pre-approve label changes to two “narrow” circumstances: products claiming to lower tobacco-related risks, or when prior approval is required by regulation.

By expanding its oversight to cover how labels look, the FDA violated the tobacco companies’ commercial speech rights under the First Amendment, the complaint said.

The plaintiffs included Altria’s Philip Morris USA, Reynolds American’s RJ Reynolds and Lorillard Tobacco, whose respective cigarette brands include Marlboro, Camel and Newport, and some of their smokeless tobacco units.

In its May 29 statement, the FDA said it would not act against tobacco companies that do not seek pre-approval for label changes that create “distinct” products otherwise identical to those being sold, or where the only change is the quantity in each package.

The FDA said the interim policy would remain in place while the agency decides whether to adopt new label approval procedures.

Altria spokesman Brian May said there was no need to pursue the lawsuit in light of the FDA’s announcement. Reynolds American spokesman David Howard declined to comment. Lorillard did not respond to a request for comment.

FDA spokesman Michael Felberbaum declined to comment.

On May 26, Reynolds American won U.S. antitrust approval to buy Lorillard, combining the second- and third-largest U.S. cigarette companies.

The case is Philip Morris USA Inc et al v. FDA et al, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia, No. 15-00544.

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2015/06/03/us-tobacco-companies-drop-lawsuit-vs-fda-over-labeling/

LA Times: California Senate votes to restrict e-cigarettes as tobacco products

By PATRICK MCGREEVY

The state Senate on Tuesday approved a bill that would ban electronic cigarettes from restaurants, theaters and other public places in California where smoking is prohibited to address health concerns.

Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) said his bill would treat e-cigarettes, also known as “vaping” devices, as tobacco products because they often use nicotine and are popular with teenagers.

Youth e-cigarette use rising; heart group calls for regulation

“Of great concern is that the fastest growth segment of new users is among middle and high school students who are now smoking electronic cigarettes,” Leno told his colleagues. “They are advertised on television. They are advertised on billboards.”

The measure, which would also subject e-cigarettes to the same licensing requirements as tobacco, was approved by a 24-12 vote, with Sen. Jeff Stone of Murrietta the only Republican to vote for the bill.

Senate Republican leader Bob Huff of Diamond Bar said e-cigarettes work on vapor that does not spread as much as tobacco smoke, so they should be treated differently in public.

“E-cigs are used by people trying to kick the tobacco habit,” Huff said. He voted against the bill, saying the state should wait until the federal government takes action.

Stone noted that his mother was a former smoker who died of cancer. He said the tobacco and vaping industries are marketing e-cigarettes to young people with flavors including watermelon, tutti frutti and cotton candy while the vapor has nicotine derived from tobacco. He said “vaping” is a gateway to cigarette smoking.

“Now we are exposing a whole new generation of millenials to this fashionable way of smoking tobacco in a way that is going to jeopardize their lives,” Stone said. The measure next goes to the Assembly for consideration.

http://www.latimes.com/local/political/la-me-pc-california-senate-votes-to-restrict-ecigarettes-like-tobacco-products-20150602-story.html

Jim Whitehead: The evidence is in: Ban tobacco use in GF parks

By Jim Whitehead

GRAND FORKS—It seems that the proposed Park Board tobacco policy has some folks blowing more than smoke.
Among the assertions are the following:
▇ The policy is not based on good science.
▇ Youth are not influenced by the behavior of others.
▇ It will be unpopular in Grand Forks.
▇ It is paternalistic and a misuse of power.
▇ Golf and softball are adult activities and should be exempt from a chewing tobacco ban.
Let’s start by stating what is well known: First, tobacco products are harmful when used as intended; second, nicotine is highly addictive; third, most tobacco users start before the age of 18; and fourth, North Dakota has a major problem with youth smoking and chewing tobacco use.
Thus, it behooves local public health professionals and civic leaders to take reasonable action to address the issue—which, of course, begs the question of what is “reasonable.”
Well, is it reasonable to assume that the Grand Forks Park District should be interested in regulating unhealthy behaviors? Given that the district’s mission is “to provide the best parks, programs, facilities, forestry services and other services possible to promote a healthy and enjoyable lifestyle for all citizens of Grand Forks,” I would submit that it is quite reasonable to adopt policies that promote fidelity to its mission.
Is the proposed policy based on good science? Note that the risks of secondhand smoke have not been advocated as the basis for the proposed policy. In contrast, the rationale is far more about social norm issues such as the effects of role modeling and peer influence.
Of course, not all scientists agree, and I could certainly cherry-pick research papers that challenge their effects; but the weight of evidence seems to have impressed the scientists and public health professionals at the Centers for Disease Control and local public health departments.
Moreover, the science has been deemed good enough to underpin similar policies that have already been adopted by other local agencies and institutions that claim health-related missions, including Altru, UND and Grand Forks schools.
This is not “paternalism” in action. It is an objective and evidence-based attempt to address a serious public health concern.
The “good science” issue also is pertinent to the notion that the proposed policy “will be unpopular.” Those who have made that criticism may not be aware of the solid research design behind the two recent studies conducted on Grand Forks residents and on softball-team managers and golf-course users. The data shows that 78 percent of residents support the comprehensive tobacco-free policy (90 percent of frequent park users), and 84 percent of softball and golf participants are in favor. This is hardly an unpopular policy.
Moreover, when asked whether the proposed policy would “discourage youth from starting to use tobacco products, promote positive role-modeling” or “create an environment that promotes a healthy and enjoyable lifestyle,” well over 90 percent of respondents agreed.
Again, these data (obtained using good scientific methodology) overwhelmingly refute the notion that the policy will be “unpopular.”
Will this policy, if adopted, cause some people to bypass the city for destinations further south? Given that Manitoba intends to fine smokers $300 if they are caught puffing in provincial parks, beaches or playgrounds, it could be that hardened tobacco-using golfers might pass us by. But I doubt that will constitute enough of a revenue loss to Grand Forks to outweigh the health and health care cost-savings that will accrue from what is demonstrably a popular and science-based policy.
Thus, I hope that the Park District board will ignore these “smoke screens” and adopt the proposed tobacco policy at its meeting on Monday (May 4).
But I also hope that the board will recognize that golf and softball are not exclusively the domain of adults, and consequently, will be amenable to revisiting the chewing tobacco exemption sometime in the near future.
Given the alarming data on all forms of tobacco use by North Dakota’s youth, plus the near-overwhelming support for an all-inclusive comprehensive policy by Grand Forks’ residents and the city’s golfers and softball-team managers, I suggest that this is not an issue that can be “chewed over” and delayed too much longer.
http://www.grandforksherald.com/opinion/op-ed-columns/3734294-jim-whitehead-evidence-ban-tobacco-use-gf-parks

Fargo Forum: Bill banning e-cigarette sales to minors in ND passes Senate

By Mike Nowatzki

BISMARCK – A bill outlawing e-cigarette sales to minors in North Dakota unanimously passed the Senate on Tuesday, though one lawmaker warned that not defining the nicotine-delivery devices as tobacco products will make it more difficult to enforce the law and protect minors.

“Sometimes the good outweighs the flaws, and that’s precisely how I view this bill,” said Sen. Erin Oban, D-Bismarck, executive director of Tobacco Free North Dakota.

Senators voted 46-0 in favor of House Bill 1186, which makes it an infraction to sell or give anyone under 18 an electronic smoking device or alternative nicotine product, or for minors to buy, possess or use them.

Introduced by Rep. Kim Koppelman, R-West Fargo, the bill also requires child-resistant packaging for liquid nicotine containers and bans self-service displays for e-cigarettes.

The Senate didn’t change the bill as approved by the House 71-20 last month, so it will soon head to Gov. Jack Dalrymple for his signature.

Sen. John Grabinger, D-Jamestown, who carried the bill from the Senate Judiciary Committee with a 6-0 do-pass recommendation, said the committee heard a lot of testimony and efforts to amend the bill but couldn’t decide on any changes that would make it better.

“Your committee decided rather than trying to fix the bill that really was getting these products out of the reach of the young, we should support the present bill,” he said.

Health advocacy groups and the state Department of Health have urged lawmakers to define e-cigarettes as tobacco products because the nicotine in the liquid vaporized by the battery-powered devices is derived from tobacco plants.

The definition would make e-cigarettes subject to tobacco excise taxes and require those who sell them to obtain a tobacco retailer license, as three North Dakota cities – Wahpeton, West Fargo and Grand Forks – have mandated through their city ordinances.

Twenty-three cities have updated their ordinances to prohibit e-cigarette sales to minors, according to the North Dakota Center for Tobacco Prevention and Control Policy.

Oban raised concern about using terms like “alternative nicotine product” for products “that are indeed tobacco products and should be treated as such under the law.”

“Creating multiple definitions makes enforcement and compliance more difficult and protection for minors less effective,” she said. “In addition, currently we have no idea who’s even selling products like electronic cigarettes, and unfortunately this bill doesn’t help us to address that concern, either.”

Still, she encouraged a yes vote with the understanding “that we may need to make some improvements in the future.”

Sen. Jonathan Casper, R-Fargo, said the debate over whether to classify e-cigarettes as tobacco products will continue as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration develops regulations for the devices. He said HB1186 struck a “middle-ground balance” between interests on both sides.

Senators also voted 9-37 Tuesday to defeat HB1078, which would have made it illegal for minors to use or be sold nicotine devices. Grabinger said committee members felt the bill introduced by Rep. Diane Larson, R-Bismarck, didn’t go far enough.

http://www.inforum.com/news/3712175-bill-banning-e-cigarette-sales-minors-nd-passes-senate

CBS MoneyWatch: As e-cigarette sales soar, critics eye regulations

By JONATHAN BERR | MONEYWATCH
The Food and Drug Administration expects to publish its much-anticipated regulations for e-cigarettes in June, as the products are surging in popularity. In fact, sales are expanding so rapidly that some experts predict e-cigs will overtake sales of conventional smokes within the next decade.
“From our perspective, the rules are long overdue,” said Erika Sward, assistant vice president of national advocacy at the American Lung Association, who noted the regulations have been in the works for about a year.
The FDA already regulates cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, roll-your-own tobacco and smokeless tobacco. Under the 2009 Family Smoking and Tobacco Control Act, the FDA can “deem” additional tobacco products to be subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Among other things, firms would be required to register with the FDA and submit product and ingredient listings, and include health warnings and take steps to prevent sales to underage consumers.
“To date, FDA has not been able to fully assess the public health impacts of unregulated tobacco products,” the FDA said in a statement sent to CBS MoneyWatch. “For example, some testing of e-cigarette cartridges has revealed significant variability in nicotine content and the presence of chemical constituents that raise concerns of toxicity.”
Altria Group (MO) and Reynolds American (RAI), two of the biggest tobacco companies, are welcoming the FDA’s efforts, arguing that the patchwork of existing state regulations fails to protect consumers against defective products, some of which have even exploded. The companies are lobbying the FDA to treat e-cigarettes differently than conventional smokes.
Some proponents of e-cigaretttes have claimed that they can be an effective smoking cessation tool. A study published last year found that people who wanted to quit smoking were about 60 percent more likely to be successful if they used e-cigarettes as opposed to other products such as nicotine patches or gum.
Industry critics, including the American Lung Association, counter that the evidence to back up these claims is inconclusive. A study released last month by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health found that e-cigarettes generate some of the same dangerous chemicals found in traditional smokes.
“There is absolutely no federal oversight of e-cigarettes in terms of what is in them, how they are being marketed,” said Sward of the American Lung Association, adding that e-cigarette makers are “following the Big Tobacco playbook” by offering flavored e-cigarettes that would appeal to underage smokers. “Really, what we are seeing are the same tactics that we saw 30, 40 years ago.”
Altria, which is based in Richmond, Virginia, has put a 116-word warning on packs of its MarkTen e-cigarettes even though it wasn’t legally obligated to do so. AsReuters noted, it said nicotine is “addictive and habit-forming” and that MarkTen isn’t intended for women who are pregnant or breast-feeding or people being treated for depression or asthma. Spokesman Steve Callahan said the wording on the company’s label was based the “available science.”
In a statement to CBS MoneyWatch, Reynolds argued that the FDA needed to regulate e-cigarettes fairly.
“We believe if (the) FDA is going to regulate vapor products, then it should regulate all vapor products — including open systems and the vape shops in which the liquid nicotine used in open systems is mixed or compounded — to create a level playing field where all manufacturers are subject to equal treatment, including FDA inspection/registration/regulation, manufacturing standards and product clearance requirements,” writes Richard J. Smith, a spokesman, in an email.
Whenever the regulations are issued, it will open another front in the decades-long battle that pits people trying to protect the public health against the rights of an industry selling an otherwise lawful product.

Dickinson Press: Debate over on e-cigs as tobacco products overshadows bills restricting sales to minors

By Mike Nowatzki, Forum News Service

BISMARCK – Two bills being heard at the Legislature this week aim to keep e-cigarettes out of the hands of minors, but the burning issue is whether the nicotine-delivery devices should be classified as tobacco products, which would make them subject to additional taxes.

The North Dakota Department of Health believes e-cigarettes should be considered tobacco products because the nicotine contained in the liquid that’s vaporized by the battery-powered devices is derived from tobacco plants, said Krista Fremming, director of the department’s chronic disease division.

“Defining nicotine devices as tobacco products would allow the state to treat and regulate the sale of these products to minors in the same way the state treats and regulates the sale to minors of other tobacco products, such as conventional cigarettes,” she testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday.

Rep. Diane Johnson, R-Bismarck, prefers not to bring the tobacco-product issue into the debate. Her House Bill 1078 – one of two bills the House passed last month to ban the use of e-cigarettes by minors – refers simply to “nicotine devices,” defining them as “any noncombustible product that can be used by an individual to simulate smoking through inhalation of a substance that contains or delivers nicotine or any other ingredient.”

The bill had its first hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday.

On Wednesday – the annual nationwide “Kick Butts Day” – committee members will take up the other House bill, HB 1186, which would make it an infraction to sell or give anyone under 18 an electronic smoking device or alternative nicotine product, or for minors to buy, possess or use them.

Fremming said the health department supports that bill’s requirements for child-resistant packaging and salesperson-assisted sales to limit e-cigarettes from being marketing to youths. But it’s still concerned that the bill defines e-cigarettes as non-tobacco products.

The bill’s prime sponsor, Rep. Kim Koppelman, R-West Fargo, has argued that while e-cigarettes use nicotine extracted from tobacco, they’re not tobacco products.

Koppelman was among the House lawmakers who voted to defeat a House bill that would have increased the excise tax on a pack of cigarettes from 44 cents to $1.54 while also defining e-cigarettes as tobacco products. He called it a back-door way to taxing e-cigarettes.

Mike Rud, president of the North Dakota Petroleum Marketers Association, said Tuesday the group supports Koppelman’s bill because it’s more comprehensive and opposes classifying e-cigarettes as tobacco products because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is developing regulations for e-cigarettes.

“I think we’re going to see a lot of changes when those come out. There’s no sense in muddying the waters right now,” he said.

As of December, Minnesota and Vermont were the only states that taxed e-cigarettes and e-vapor products. Twelve state legislatures considered bills last year taxing e-cigarettes but didn’t pass them, according to Tobacco E-News, an industry publication.

In North Dakota, 23 cities have updated their ordinances to prohibit e-cigarette sales to minors, according to the North Dakota Center for Tobacco Prevention and Control Policy.

Three of those cities – Wahpeton, West Fargo and Grand Forks – require those who sell e-cigarettes to obtain a tobacco retailer license. That could become a state requirement if lawmakers classify e-cigarettes as tobacco products, which supporters say would reduce e-cigarette sales to minors.

Rud said most retailers have made a conscious decision not to sell e-cigarettes to minors, already treating them as tobacco products.

E-cigarette users argue the devices are safer than traditional cigarettes, are a useful tool for those trying to quit smoking and shouldn’t be subject to tobacco excise taxes. Fremming said the health department feels nicotine products approved by the FDA for tobacco cessation – which currently doesn’t include e-cigarettes – should be excluded from the definition of nicotine devices because their safety and efficacy is proven.

While the tobacco products definition will continue to be a source of debate, no opposition has surfaced so far to the idea of restricting e-cigarette sales to minors.

Fremming said the rate of North Dakota high school students who reported trying e-cigarettes nearly tripled from 2011 to 2013, from 4.5 percent to 13.4 percent, and high school students who have tried e-cigarettes are almost twice as likely to try conventional cigarettes.

At least 41 states currently prohibit sales of electronic cigarettes or vaping/alternative tobacco products to minors, including Minnesota and South Dakota, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Whitney Klym, a senior at St. Mary’s Central High School in Bismarck and a member of its SADD group, told the committee Tuesday she has seen e-cigarettes used at school, parties and other events by students as young as 14.

“It is becoming a dangerous social norm among youth,” she said.

http://www.thedickinsonpress.com/news/legislature/3702058-debate-over-e-cigs-tobacco-products-overshadows-bills-restricting-sales

Clearing the smoke around teen e-cigarette use

Shari Rudavsky, The Indianapolis Star
INDIANAPOLIS — No one says publicly that they want teens to start using e-cigarettes. Nor do most argue about statistics that show that youth have been flocking to this funky alternative to tobacco.
The controversy in many state legislatures centers on what to do about it.
Last year, for the first time, more U.S. teens used e-cigarettes than smoked, 17% vs. 14%, according to a University of Michigan study, making it clear that state-enforced age limits alone don’t work.
Thus far, the Food and Drug Administration has opted not to act. So some states, including Indiana, are trying piecemeal solutions to keep vaping out of young hands, from increasing taxes to closer regulation of the industry.
In Indiana, an effort to tax the products went nowhere. A measure that would increase strictures of so-called vape shops is moving through the Indiana General Assembly. The question is whether it would produce the desired effect.
Vape shop owners argue they are not the problem and that too much regulation would only limit access for former smokers who have replaced their nicotine habit with vaping.
One shop owner told The Star he has no interest in the youth market. At the Indy Vapor Shop on the Westside, the first in Indiana, owner Mike Cline displays a sign announcing no sales to anyone under age 18 and rarely does one cross the threshold. In the five years his shop has been open, he’s denied service to fewer than 10 teens because of age.
“Really I think the idea of minors trying to buy from vape shops is way overblown,” Cline said. “We don’t do sales to minors.”
Someone, however, is selling to minors.
In 2013 more than a quarter-million middle and high school students who had never smoked tried e-cigarettes, according to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study that appeared in August. That number had tripled since 2011.
Still, most students don’t head to vape shops, many agree. Instead, they can pick them up at gas station convenience stores, raising health concerns.
Concerned about what we don’t know
E-liquids in sweet flavors, such as candy cane or bubble gum, may draw youth, as will delivery systems that can resemble a variety of other products, such as video game controllers, pens or soda cans, said Earnest Davis, a tobacco health educator for the Marion County Public Health Department.
Some may not realize that when they partake, they’re doing something akin to smoking.
“A lot of youth high schoolers that I talk to, say, ‘I’m not smoking cigarettes; I’m just using a flavored e-juice,'” Davis said. “Right now, they’re just in a wow factor…. It’s one of the scarier things we’re seeing, that everyone thinks it’s cool.”
Health officials say that they are particularly concerned not just with what we know about e-cigarettes but also about what we don’t know.
E-cigarettes do not contain tobacco, but the liquids involved can contain a number of other products, including formaldehyde and metals such as nickel, lead and chromium, whose effect on health is not known, said Dr. Aasha Trowbridge, a family medicine physician with Franciscan St. Francis Health.
“What we do know is that e-cigarettes release chemicals; they’re not harmless,” said Trowbridge, also medical director of the Aspire Tobacco-Free Program. “We know enough to say that the products that are released with burning the liquid are certainly of concern.”
Consuming nicotine in any form, including e-liquids, can be addictive and have detrimental effects on brain development, Trowbridge said.
What concerns Trowbridge most, however, is that many of her young patients tell her they have experimented with e-cigarettes, which suggests they may be more likely to start smoking.
The CDC study published earlier this year found that teens who had never smoked, but had vaped, were twice as willing to try conventional cigarettes.
“That is one of my greatest concerns; are we introducing a product that may not have been something a child would have looked at before and would now say, ‘Hey let me try this,'” Trowbridge said. “It is a perfect gateway drug to conventional cigarettes…. We’re giving our teenagers and youth one more way to be introduced to tobacco.”
For some, a way to quit smoking
Supporters of vaping point to other research that suggests that teens who do experiment with e-cigarettes do not partake regularly. In addition, none of the studies has asked whether teens actually use nicotine products when they vape, said Gregory Conley, president of the American Vaping Association, based in New Jersey.
The fruity flavors may sound designed to appeal to teens, but they also have adult fans, said Conley, who credits a watermelon-flavored vapor product with his own success quitting tobacco. He cites studies that show that 60% to 70% of adult vapers use fruity or sweet flavors.
Cline, who opened his own vape shop six years ago, claims vaping has helped many a smoker kick that bad habit. Cline said he has not smoked conventional cigarettes since he started vaping. Over time, he’s gradually weaned down the nicotine strength of what he vapes.
While Cline said he’s not averse to some tweaks to the law to protect minors and other consumers, he’s wary of going too far.
“We’re trying to reach a level that we as an industry can comply with and support and at the same time protect the consumer,” he said. “We do believe that regulation is both needed and necessary, we just don’t want to be regulated to the point where we can’t do business.”
‘I see it as very similar to cigarettes’
In Indiana, only the bill increasing regulations on the industry progressed. It would give the state the ability to check whether stores sell to minors.
Attorney General Greg Zoeller at the start of this legislative session had proposed a number of measures, including taxing the products and including e-cigarettes in the state’s smoking ban.
Tobacco’s history and the lack of solid data on the health effects of e-cigarettes prompted him to call for the actions on e-cigarettes, Zoeller said.
“Frankly I see it as very similar to cigarettes in the past,” he said. “I do think that these things should not be seen as socially acceptable. There’s unknown risks here.”
Health officials like Davis agree that it would be a shame if e-cigarette use continues to rise among teens at the same time as conventional cigarette use finally falls.
“We worked so hard to eradicate the use of traditional cigarettes among youth, just to have it replaced by something else,” he said.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/03/01/clearing-the-smoke-around-teen-e-cigarette-use/24228671/