Posts

The Health Claims Of E-Cigarettes Are Going Up In Smoke

Jasper Hamill, Contributor | Forbes

The sales pitch of electronic cigarette manufacturers seemed too good to be true. Could nicotine addicts around the world really get their fix whilst dodging the health risks of puffing away on cancer sticks?

Sadly for smokers and “vapers”, the answer is far from clear. Over the past week, new evidence has emerged which suggests that E-Cigarettes can be dangerous too – in some cases carrying higher amounts of certain toxins than the blazing tobacco of old.

Researchers at the University of South California have found that although E-Cigarettes are less harmful than ordinary smokes, the vapour emitted by the gadgets contains the toxic element chromium, which is not found in traditional cigarettes, as well as levels of nickel four times higher than in real tobacco. The electronic replacements also contain lead, zinc and other toxic metals, although in lower levels than cigarettes.

English: Two electronic cigarette models. Self...

Two electronic cigarette models. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

“Our results demonstrate that overall electronic cigarettes seem to be less harmful than regular cigarettes, but their elevated content of toxic metals such as nickel and chromium do raise concerns,” said Constantinos Sioutas, professor at the USC Viterbi School of Engineering.

There is a bit of good news for reforming smokers, as E-Cigarettes contain virtually no detectable polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which are known to cause cancer. The researchers also said the metal particles were likely to come from the cartridge of the E-Cigarette devices, opening up the possibility that a change in the production process could eliminate the dangerous chemicals.

But this isn’t the only bit of bad news for vape inhalers. In the UK, the BBC reported that E-Cigarette liquid sold in the north east of England was found to contain a chemical called diacetyl, which is used to add butterscotch flavor to liquid tobacco.

Whilst this substance is harmless to eat, it is extremely dangerous to inhale. The chemical is known to cause a serious condition called popcorn lung, orbronchiolitis obliterans, an irreversible disease which scars the lung and makes it impossible to breathe properly. This illness has struck workers in popcorn factories, who are known to breathe in vast quantities of diacetyl, as well as ordinary people who eat a lot of popcorn.

Commenting on the report, Dr Graham Burns, a respiratory expert at Newcastle’s Royal Victoria Infirmary, said the illness is often “serious enough to warrant lung transplantation”.

VP, the firm which manufactured the cigarettes, immediately withdrew the liquid from sale, and Lynne White, head of retail distribution, admitted there were concerns about inhaling the liquid on a long-term basis.

“We are very sorry it has happened, we are investigating how it has happened,” she added.

“Because of the small amount the vaper would actually consume it was deemed in the short term there would be no health concerns.

“Long-term yes there could well be, however we decided it was a withdrawal rather than a recall of the product and that was based on Ecita’s (Electronic Cigarette Industry Trade Association) guidelines.”

But for many health-conscious people, the damage is likely to have been done. Once upon a time, the world didn’t know about the many terrible effects of cigarettes. It was only after a concerted campaign by scientists, doctors and activists that the risks began to be publicized and governments began to act on them. The long term implications of switching to E-Cigarettes have not yet been tested, so anyone using the devices has to ask themselves if they are willing to take the risk of becoming a guinea pig.

Marlboro Cigarettes

Marlboro Cigarettes (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The World Health Organisation has issued a report advising that use of E-Cigarettes should be banned indoors and and all advertising stopped until the emerging industry produces “convincing supporting scientific evidence and obtains regulatory approval”.
Backing this call, the British Medical Association board of science deputy chair Ram Moorth said “tighter controls are needed to ensure their use does not undermine current tobacco control measures and reinforces the normalcy of smoking behaviour”.

‘There is a need for research to understand the health impacts of E-Cigarettes on both the user and bystanders, and it is vital that the sale of e-cigarettes is appropriately regulated to ensure they are not sold to minors, and are not aggressively marketed to young people as tobacco was in the past,” he continued.

“Any health claims must be substantiated by robust independent scientific evidence to ensure that the consumer is fully informed regarding potential benefits and risks of E-Cigarettes.”
Are you willing to take the chance and keep on vaping?
For more news and comment, follow me on Twitter @jasperhamill
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasperhamill/2014/08/31/the-health-claims-of-e-cigarettes-are-going-up-in-smoke/

Report: Smoking bans, cigarette taxes linked to lower suicide rates

SALT LAKE CITY — Utah mental health and public health officials say a new report that links stronger anti-smoking initiatives to lower suicide rates suggests an added benefit of states’ prevention and cessation efforts.

The report, published in the journal Nicotine & Tobacco Research, found that public health interventions, such as raising cigarette taxes and imposing indoor smoking bans, could reduce risk of suicide by as much as 15 percent.

Janae Duncan, coordinator of the Utah Health Department’s Tobacco Prevention and Control Program, said Utah’s Indoor Clean Air Act “is really strong.”

While the state’s rate of adult smoking of 10.6 percent is the lowest in the nation, Utah’s tobacco taxes are relatively low at $1.70 per pack of cigarettes, Duncan said. Utah’s rate is higher than the national average but well below the rates of some East Coast states such as New York, which imposes a tax of $4.35 per pack.

“The study said each dollar increase in cigarette taxes was associated with a 10 percent decrease in (the relative risk of) suicide,” she said. “Even though we have a low tobacco use rate, it may be a good reason to look at raising our excise tax for tobacco.”

Other Utah officials say the report lends credence to mental health and substance abuse treatment practices that encourage wellness across the spectrum.

The state’s 2013 Recovery Plus initiative, for instance, required all publicly funded substance abuse and mental health treatment facilities to be tobacco free by March 2013.

“When we first started talking about doing this, there was a lot of talk such as, ‘You can’t expect someone with substance abuse or mental illness to also give that up. It’s too much on a person.’ They found that’s not the case. It actually helps with their recovery,” said Teresa Brechlin, coordinator in the Utah Department of Health’sViolence and Injury Prevention Program.

Kim Myers, suicide prevention coordinator with the Utah Division of Substance Abuse and Mental Health, said Utah officials have long observed that clients in publicly funded substance abuse and mental health facilities smoke at substantially higher rates than the general population.

The authors of the report noted that clinical and general studies have likewise documented elevated rates of smoking among people with anxiety disorders, alcohol and drug dependence, and schizophrenia, among other diagnoses.

“However, it is also possible that smoking is not merely a marker for psychiatric disorders, but rather directly increases the risk for such disorders, which in turn increases the risk for suicide,” the study’s authors wrote.

Myers said the study raises the question whether nicotine itself raises suicide risk.

“How do we use that information on a population level, but also on an individual level, to reduce someone’s risk, especially when it comes to people who have some of those other risks such as serious mental illness or substance use disorders?” she asked.

The study also determined that smokers’ risk for suicide is two to four times greater than nonsmokers.

Duncan said more research is needed to understand how the link applies to Utah. Utah’s suicide rate has been consistently higher than the national rate for the past decade, according to state health department statistics, while smoking rates are very low.

“The study doesn’t give those clear answers. I think what it does do, it helps us see we should be looking at whole health, and it’s important to look at it across the board, not just issue by issue, but how all these things are tying together,” Duncan said.

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=157&sid=30887197

Smoking may increase suicide risk, study says

By MONTE MORIN, Los Angeles Times

It’s well known that cigarettes are bad for your health, but does smoking make you more likely to kill yourself too?

In a paper published Wednesday in the journal Nicotine & Tobacco Research, authors argued that smoking and suicide may be more closely related than previously thought.

The researchers analyzed suicide rates in states that aggressively implemented anti-smoking policies from 1990 to 2004 and compared them to suicide rates in states that had more relaxed policies.

Those states that imposed cigarette excise taxes and smoke-free air regulations had lower adjusted suicide rates than did states with fewer anti-smoking initiatives, authors wrote.
“There does seem to be a substantial reduction in the risk for suicide after these policies are implemented,” said lead study author Richard Grucza, a psychiatric epidemiologist at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis.

“For every dollar in excise taxes there was actually a 10% decrease in the relative risk for suicide,” Grucza told Washington University BioMed Radio. “The smoke-free air policies were also very strongly associated with reduced suicide risk.”

Study authors said that states with lower taxes on cigarettes and more lax policies on public smoking had suicide rates that were up to 6% greater than the national average.

This is not the first study to document a correlation between cigarette smoking and suicide, but it is among the first to suggest smoking and nicotine may be specific factors.

Up until now, researchers believed smoking coincided with suicide because people with psychiatric problems or substance abuse problems were more likely to smoke as well as to commit suicide.
“Markedly elevated rates of smoking are found among people with anxiety disorders, alcohol and drug dependence, schizophrenia and other diagnoses, in both clinical and general studies,” authors wrote. “However, it is also possible that smoking is not merely a marker for psychiatric disorders, but rather directly increases the risk for such disorders, which in turn increases the risk for suicide.”

Grucza said that the imposition of anti-smoking rules presented the researchers with a naturally occurring experiment. However, the authors did note that there were limitations on their research.

In particular, they said that since they considered state-imposed anti-smoking efforts only, their research would not account for local-level policies aimed at smoking behavior.

“While further studies may be required to establish a compelling weight of evidence, this study provides strong epidemiological support in its favor of the proposition that smoking is a casual risk factor for suicide,” authors wrote.

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-smoking-suicide-20140716-story.html

Letter: N.D. needs a hefty tobacco-tax hike

By Brenda Jo Gillund from West Fargo, N.D.

WEST FARGO — My family and I have been really happy with North Dakota’s smoke-free indoor workplace law that passed in 2012. As a mother of young children, I feel very fortunate that young people today will have decreased exposure to secondhand smoke.

As my children get older, I worry about their exposure to marketing for tobacco products. I find it appalling that tobacco companies target their marekting to children, including enticing flavored tobacco products and colorful packaging.

We know that as we increase the price of tobacco, fewer children start smoking, and more smokers make the decision to quit.

With so many lives at stake, my question is this: Why don’t we make cigarettes more expensive so people — especially children and young adults — can really start to see how much their habits cost them?

When it hits us in the pocketbook, we start looking for a way to quit an addiction or decide never to start in the first place.

I’ve heard that North Dakota is one of the cheapest places to buy cigarettes. There’s something wrong with that, and I think it is time for action.

Gillund is a registered nurse. 

http://www.grandforksherald.com/content/nd-needs-hefty-tobacco-tax-hike

Letter to the Editor: The issue with smoking is addiction, not freedom

I am writing in response to the Herald’s editorial on tobacco use in Grand Forks parks (“Too much loss for too little gain,” Page F1, June 1).

Tobacco prevention policies have, throughout history, always been met with some resistance. Tobacco use was so common when I was a child that it was normal to see smokers in grocery stores, movie theaters, school classrooms, teacher’s lounges, doctors’ offices, airplanes, airports and hospital rooms.

Each of those changes was met with the attitude that it was beyond the pale to even consider making changes. But today, it would seem unusual to see someone smoking in their hospital room or at a movie theater.

Tobacco use rates were high, and we all paid the price of the damage tobacco use does to the human body by way of health care costs, Medicaid costs, loss of productivity and sadly, early deaths of loved ones.

As a result of sound evidence-based practices, such as 1) preventing initiation among youth and young adults, 2) promoting quitting among adults and youth, 3) eliminating exposure to secondhand smoke and 4) identifying and eliminating tobacco-related disparities among population groups, headway has been made in reducing tobacco-use rates. But there still is work to be done.

Grand Forks Park District Commissioner Molly Soeby’s column put it well: “Tobacco use kills more people than AIDS, alcohol, car accidents, illegal drugs, murders and suicides combined” (“For health’s sake, Grand Forks parks should ban tobacco use,” Page F1, June 1).

“It is the No. 1 cause of preventable death in our country. Young people in North Dakota use tobacco more than the national averages. They smoke at higher rates (19.4 percent vs. 18.1 percent), and they use more chewing tobacco than adults (13.6 percent vs. 8.2 percent).”

Tobacco use kills about 480,000 people each and every year in the United States. That equals the number of American deaths in all the U.S. wars since the American Revolution, every 2½ years.

So, what can be done to improve these numbers? What does the research show us works?

The Centers for Disease Control recommends creating tobacco-free social norms through the use of “increasing the unit price of tobacco products, sustaining anti-tobacco media campaigns and making environments smoke-free.”

Tobacco-free parks policies are part of a comprehensive combination of strategies to get our youth tobacco use rates lowered.

Tobacco-free parks policies will keep young people from ever starting. The research is done, the evidence is clear. According to the CDC, comprehensive tobacco-free policies prevent young people from seeing tobacco use as a normal adult activity and show a significant effect on reducing tobacco use initiation among youth.

Our community would not be the first to adopt a tobacco-free parks policy. North Dakota currently has 12 communities with tobacco-free parks, and Minnesota has more than 150.

According to the editorial, “secondhand smoke in indoor areas is a health hazard; secondhand smoke in parks in inconsequential.”

But it’s not about secondhand smoke, which, by the way, many people consider a nuisance that interferes with their personal enjoyment of the parks. It is about what we know will work to keep young people from starting to use tobacco.

The editorial says that this is not a good enough reason to “clamp down on personal freedom.”

But this is not a personal freedom issue, either. Tobacco use is an addiction, and most adult tobacco users report that they started using before age 18.

A policy such at this will not prohibit anyone from using tobacco. It will help to keep children, who do not use tobacco, from starting.

That is a public health issue, not a personal freedom issue.

Recent studies in Grand Forks show overwhelming support in the community for the adoption of tobacco-free policies on all of our Park District properties. (The community-wide study is available on www.tobaccobytes.com)

Tobacco-free parks policies are cost effective. They’re good for the health of North Dakotans now and, as Soeby put it, “for future generations of residents of Grand Forks.”

Knox coordinates the tobacco prevention program for the Grand Forks Public Health Department.

http://www.grandforksherald.com/content/theresa-knox-issue-smoking-addiction-not-freedom

Andrew Knight: Extend to parks the push to reduce smoking

By Andrew Knight, Grand Forks Herald

Smoking should be allowed in Grand Forks parks because banning it “clamps down on personal freedom?” (“Too much cost for too little gain,” editorial, Page F1, June 1)

Is the argument really about progress vs. freedom?

The Herald’s “ThreeSixty” opinion section on June 1 includes the phrases “enjoy a cigarette on a park bench,” “cigarette smoke smells like roses,” and that a “(smoking) ban is ‘pointless’ from a traditional perspective.” It felt more like an opinion section from the 1960s.

Grand Forks Park District Commissioner Molly Soeby expertly lays out the issues with several pieces of evidence for this ban, and then non-local public policy wonks (Dennis Prager et al.) are trotted out as the counterpoint, with nary a point made specific to smoking in parks.

Soeby explains 78 percent of the Grand Forks community and 82 percent of golfers and softball managers are for a comprehensive tobacco-free policy. Even with sampling error, we can discern a clear majority opinion here.

How then, does Grand Forks City Council President Hal Gershman think the ban would be “very unpopular?” (“Banning smoking in parks a ‘needless intrusion,’” letter, Page A4, June 4).

This isn’t to say that I don’t expect a small but vocal backlash from the “hey, freedom!” crowd.

The supposed “counter” to Soeby’s arguments and statistics is a smattering of excerpts on the topic of smoking, starting with Simon Chapman from Australia (yes, Australia). Chapman compares car exhaust to secondhand smoke because we breathe in benzene from both sources. There are a LOT of car owners and not nearly as many smokers. How much benzene shoots out of exhausts in cars versus a single cigarette?

This argument fails because he’s using two different scales.

Chapman finishes the tortured analogy saying “we hear no serious calls for the banning of cars.” First, no one is calling for banning cigarettes; it’s about reducing smoking.

Second, there is substantial market pressure on car companies to reduce emissions. Science told us vehicle emissions are pretty bad, so we are trying hard to reduce them. Science also told us smoking is bad, so that’s why the push to reduce places where smoking is allowed needs to continue to parks and other public places.

The slippery slope fallacy continued with an excerpt from a New York Times editorial (from three years ago) to that city’s smoking ban, comparing it outright to alcohol prohibition 90 years ago. If we ban smoking in parks, it may lead to “a civic disaster,” according to the writer.

If this is the best group of arguments to keep smoking legal in parks, maybe it means there are few, if any, locals willing to write against the ban (in which case, kudos to Gershman and the Herald’s editorial board for being lone wolves on this minority opinion).

You have freedom to smoke on your property, in your car, while you walk around town and so on. You have freedom to do a LOT of things in your own home that you cannot do in a park because many of us believe it is better not to expose nature, playgrounds and children to it.

Add smoking to the list. We don’t want children to see adults smoking, feel cigarette butts in their toes or smell the cigarette smoke. Leave the cigarettes in the car for a round of golf or a volleyball match.

Soon my family is moving to Colorado — a state with acres ravaged by fires in recent years. Herald readers can probably understand that the residents there are skittish about smoking in places such as parks and playgrounds, and therefore have enacted smoking bans.

Like people in Grand Forks, they have natural beauty worth preserving, would prefer not seeing people “enjoying a cigarette on a park bench” and don’t want to take the chance that an errant cigarette butt could take down a forest range.

We’re packing up for the move and are already missing people we’ve befriended here, but we won’t miss the overly cautious, conservative approach to environmental protections.

This is not a simple false choice of progress or freedom. The Park Board should feel very confident moving forward in enacting this policy.

And to the Herald editorial board: Yes, the benefits are more than worth the costs.

Knight is an assistant professor in the music department at UND. 

http://www.grandforksherald.com/content/andrew-knight-extend-parks-push-reduce-smoking

Partial indoor e-cigarette "vaping" ban heads to Dayton for signature

Posted by: Abby Simons, Star Tribune

A retooled measure that would ban the use of electronic cigarettes—commonly known as “vaping”– in some public places head to Gov. Mark Dayton’s desk for signature into law.

The measure re-passed the House 93-35 and the Senate 52-13 Thursday as part of the Health and Human Services Policy omnibus bill, which also includes a ban on the use of indoor tanning beds by children under 18.

The final version of the bill prohibits vaping in most government-owned buildings including correctional facilities, daycare facilities including home daycares, hospitals and any buildings owned by the University of Minnesota or Minnesota State Colleges and Universities, including dorm rooms. The bill does not ban use in city-owned buildings, but they have the option of adopting by equal or more strict bans.

The bill also require4s child-proof packaging for all e-cigarette liquids p[prohibits e-cigarette use in public schools, bans retail sales from mall kiosks and allows local governments to pass stronger restrictions and ensure penalties for sale of e-cigarettes to minors.

The final result was a compromise between a stricter Senate versions authored by Sen. Kathy Sheran, DFL-Mankato, which placed e-cigarettes under the Clean Indoor Air Act, banning their use in all public places. A House version narrowed the ban to state buildings and public schools. The bill’s House author, Rep. Laurie Halverson, DFL-Eagan, removed the Clean Indoor Air Act provision in hopes of garnering enough votes to pass the bill.

In the past year, 80 percent of Minnesota’s 200 e-cigarette retailers have set up shop in kiosks and brick-and-mortar stores, garnering gratitude from users who say the devices are a safe alternative for those trying to quit smoking. But the devices, which can contain nicotine laced with various flavors that emit a vapor rather than smoke, concern some who say little is known about what chemicals secondhand vapors contain, and whether they’re harmful. However, opponents of an indoor use ban say there’s no proof that the vapor emitted from the products is harmful or dangerous.

Despite earlier reservations about a ban, Gov. Mark Dayton said he intends to sign the bill.

Should this be legal? Dickinson commissioners consider anti-hookah ordinance, but say more information is needed

By Nadya Faulx, The Dickinson Press

City Commission members are weighing options for a possible hookah bar in Dickinson, but the idea could be up in smoke before it even starts.
City Administrator Shawn Kessel told commissioners Monday that he has been getting requests for hookah bars to be built in town, but wanted to gauge members’ “desires as they relate to hookah bars.”
“Is that a business model you’d like to see in the community?” he asked.
An unnamed caller reached out to Kessel on Monday afternoon asking for information about how to open the city’s first hookah bar, where patrons could gather to smoke from the water pipes that originated in the Middle East but have become popular throughout the world — just not North Dakota.
“A hookah bar is an interesting term,” Kessel told the commission. “It goes back a long ways, and it has its roots in the Orient. And I had to look this up online, because I wasn’t exactly sure.”
The state’s first and only hookah bar, Dreas Hookah Lounge in Grand Forks, closed last month as a result of the 2012 ban on smoking in worksites and public spaces.
Any hookah bar in Dickinson would be able to serve only herbal products in lieu of the traditional shisha, or flavored tobacco.
Aside from the state smoking law, there are no other legal barriers to opening a hookah bar in the city.
“We can’t deny them,” Kessel said. “And if it’s in the interest of the City Commission to do so, I’m here to tell you that the city staff does not have that ability.”
The only way to put the kibosh on hookah would be to draft an ordinance to block the practice and hold a public hearing with input from community members.
“To get the process going, you either have to have an ordinance saying we’re going to allow these and the conditions we’re going to allow them on,” Mayor Dennis Johnson said Monday, “or you could draft an ordinance saying we’re not going to allow them, and then you get whole public comment and discussion.”
He added that he hasn’t “thought a whole lot about hookah bars.”
In an interview, Johnson said he “didn’t get the sense that anyone at the commission table knows a whole lot about the issue.”
He added: “We would rather get much better educated on it.”
Commission member Klayton Oltmanns said in an interview that there weren’t strong feelings among the commission either for or against a hookah bar, but that more information is needed before a decision is made.
“It is new to each of us as commissioners,” he said. “Just to get ahead of the game, we’re going to issue an ordinance. We’ll be able to gauge the community’s response — pro or con — and make a good informed decision based on what the community says.”
At least one community member would support the ban: Jennifer Schaeffer, tobacco prevention coordinator at Southwest District Health, said hookah smokers face numerous health risks, whether the pipes are packed with tobacco or herbs.
“Anytime you smoke something into your lungs, you’re putting your lungs and heart at risk,” she said. “We’re concerned about that.”
Hookah smoke contains nicotine, tar and carbon monoxide like cigarette smoke, and is at least as toxic, according to the Center for Disease Control.
Schaeffer said she would support the City Commission if it issued an ordinance banning the practice in Dickinson.
“As a health unit, as a tobacco prevention program, we wouldn’t be in support of having hookah bars,” she said.
But talks about the potential hookah bar are in their earliest stages, and Oltmanns said there is “still too little info” to take any definite stance yet.
City Attorney Matthew Kolling and city administration would first have to draft the ordinance, at which point it would go through a first reading and public comment. Oltmanns said the topic is expected to come up again in a June commission meeting.
“Any ordinance in its initial reading isn’t necessarily how it ends beyond that,” Oltmanns said, adding the city wants to hear a response from residents and businesses before it makes a decision.
http://www.thedickinsonpress.com/content/should-be-legal-dickinson-commissioners-consider-anti-hookah-ordinance-say-more-information

Forum editorial: Prohibit smoking in all parks

Forum editorials represent the opinion of Forum management and the newspaper’s Editorial Board.
—–
All metro area communities, large and small, should follow the lead of Dilworth and Moorhead and ban smoking in public parks. Dilworth took the smart step last week. Moorhead parks have been smoke-free since 2011. The Fargo Park District has a limited ban that allows smoking 25 feet away from playgrounds. West Fargo allows smoking in parks.
Parks primarily are venues for families and children. Moreover, park officials champion healthy lifestyles. The sports activities that take place on park fields comport with fitness and health. Smoking should be anathema.
In addition to bans and partial bans in the metro, nearby cities that ban smoking in parks include Mayville, Kindred, Valley City, Cooperstown and Wahpeton, all in North Dakota. Dozens of Minnesota cities have bans in place.
While some smokers might see the closing off of more public spaces as a violation of their rights, that argument is nonsense. There remains a plethora of places where smokers can indulge their habit, as long as it does not threaten the health of others. The many voter-approved bans in place reflect recognition that smoking and secondhand smoke are health issues, not rights issues. Some smokers will debate that unassailable premise until they cough their lungs out, but as a matter of public policy the debate is over.
Therefore, the Fargo Park District should extend its limited ban to every square foot of park land, and West Fargo should ban smoking in every one of its beautiful, allegedly family-friendly parks.
http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id/433907/

E-cigarette etiquette: While regulations remain in flux, users recommend being mindful

By: Ryan Johnson, INFORUM
FARGO – When Kelsey Eaton tries to explain electronic cigarettes to new customers at Infinite Vapor, she first has to give a lesson in lingo.
“Vaping” is now a verb, referring to the act of inhaling from the battery-powered devices available in all shapes, styles and price ranges; “atomizers” heat the concentrated liquid, available in several flavors and with or without nicotine.
Meanwhile, public health officials are now beginning to wonder if “secondhand vapor” could pose health risks to others.
Even after mastering the vocabulary, e-cig users still need to settle one more issue – how to vape as desired without risking a breach of etiquette, especially as the social norms continue to evolve.
“Mostly, I just tell people to definitely look at the laws in their area and where the legislation’s at,” said Eaton, who has managed Infinite Vapor in downtown Fargo since the store opened last November.
But Bryce Brovitch and Jake Berg, 18-year-old high school seniors in Park Rapids, Minn., said the rules of using
e-cigs around others depends on more than the latest state and local laws.
Berg prefers to ask permission before using his e-cig in someone’s house or car.
Even though there’s nothing on the books in Minnesota that bans vaping indoors in public places, Brovitch said he usually goes outside so he won’t bother others – or make them think he’s breaking the smoking laws that do apply to regular cigarettes.
“You know that you can’t smoke inside, but it’s not smoking,” he said. “It still kind of looks like it.”
The law, for now
At the federal level, e-cigarettes aren’t classified as tobacco products, meaning the devices and liquid refills don’t have to comply with the same restrictions on advertising, manufacturing or age requirements for purchase or use.
But many states and communities in recent years have passed local laws to deal with the devices, which are growing in popularity and show no sign of slowing down.
A statewide smoke-free law approved by North Dakota voters in 2012 does include electronic cigarettes, Eaton said, which means they can’t be used indoors in public places and are banned from use outdoors within 20 feet of doors, operable windows and air intakes.
Minnesota’s smoke-free law doesn’t include e-cigarettes, and the devices remain legal to use indoors unless a city has passed rules outlawing it.
Keely Ihry, coordinator of the PartnerSHIP 4 Health that includes health officials from Becker, Clay, Otter Tail and Wilkin counties, said Minnesota requires purchasers of
e-cigs to be at least 18, but North Dakota doesn’t have that same statewide age requirement.
Fargo and West Fargo both have passed city-level laws that require e-cig purchasers to be 18 or older, and Dilworth and Moorhead have enacted policies that restrict the devices at public schools, she said.
But health officials such as Ihry have their work cut out for them, she said, because the rules are changing, and many are working for more comprehensive statewide and national policies and laws to address the rising influence of e-cigarettes.
“Some people don’t know that they’re not regulated,” she said. “There’s not a lot of information that’s out there at this point.”
Social norms
Even if e-cigs aren’t technically classified as cigarettes at the federal level, and sometimes don’t contain nicotine, Ihry said public health officials think of them as another regular tobacco product – and believe they should be used in the same manner.
“We would ask that since we don’t know a lot about the vapor that they would be used like a normal cigarette, so they would not be used in indoor public spaces like the bars and restaurants and other general workplaces,” she said.
Another issue, Ihry said, is that children who have grown up in the era of indoor smoking bans could see the act of smoking “renormalized” if they spot adults puffing e-cigs in restaurants and workplaces.
A lot of the rules regarding cigarettes, either formally in the law or the proper usage as agreed to by the broader society, have sprung up because of the secondhand smoke these products produce, Eaton said.
Electronic cigarettes don’t make that same “bad,” “raunchy” smoke, she said, instead emitting a vapor that may leave a light odor in the air.
“It’s just water vapor, and maybe some scent,” she said.
Still, Eaton said Infinite Vapor has tried to stay ahead of the curve by following its own rules that often are stricter than the laws of the communities in North Dakota and Minnesota where it operates its eight stores.
The stores only sell to customers 18 or older, for example, and support calls for the federal Food and Drug Administration to begin regulating the manufacturing of e-cig liquids for consistency and safety.
But the biggest etiquette advice, Eaton said, is to be mindful of others when vaping.
“If I am inside in a different state, and if someone tells me, ‘Hey, that’s bothering me,’ then I don’t do it,” she said. “If it makes people uncomfortable, or if I notice people are uncomfortable, and they’re like, ‘Hey, we don’t want that,’ I’m like, ‘Hey, that’s fine, just let me know.’ ”
http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id/432381/group/homepage/