Posts

New, desirable norm with tobacco

By: Ryan Bakken, Grand Forks Herald
Usually, cultural change in North Dakota starts in the bigger cities and seeps down to less populated towns.
That isn’t necessarily the case when it comes to tobacco, however.
Earlier this year, Cooperstown, N.D., a town of about 1,000 people in Griggs County, passed a tobacco ban in its city park. The ban includes the use of smokeless tobacco.
The Grand Forks Park Board hasn’t taken that extra step.
“We accepted the state law, which has no ban on smokeless,” said Bill Palmiscno, Park District director. “And, the way it was explained to us by the city health department, the smoking ban is about being around activities. If you go off alone somewhere in the park, you’re OK to smoke.”
Leading the charge in Cooperstown was Julie Ferry, administrator of the Nelson-Griggs Health Unit.
“I can’t take credit for it,” Ferry said. “The credit needs to go to health-minded people on the Cooperstown Park Board and their employees.”
A popular – and somewhat defensible – argument for not including smokeless tobacco is that there’s no second-hand damage to non-users, as there is with smoke. But Ferry comes well-armed to argue that point.
Her case is that: 1) Chew can have second-hand damage because it’s spit on the ground and can be consumed by youngsters and pets; 2) Chew sets a bad example; and 3) Banning chew can help to set a new, more desirable norm.
“If we adopt policies that limit places you can do something, that creates a new social norm,” Ferry said. “The social norm used to be that you could smoke on airplanes. Now you can’t.
“The consequence to others is them seeing it and thinking it’s an acceptable behavior. We need to role model for our youth.”
Molly Soeby, a first-term commissioner who has brought diversity to the Grand Forks Park Board in more ways than her gender, hasn’t given up her efforts to make parks tobacco-free. She has applied for a grant to conduct two surveys about the issue. One would be for the general public and the other specific to golfers and softball players, anticipated to be the demographic most opposed to a ban.
“The whole purpose behind this is to not get kids started because it’s so addicting,” Soeby said.
If the grant comes through, the survey should be completed by the end of summer. If the survey is favorable to her cause, Grand Forks may become the next Cooperstown.
“It’s sometimes easier to watch what bigger cities do, so you can find out where the battlegrounds are,” Ferry said. “On the other hand, because everyone knows everyone else, small towns can get things done faster.”
http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/267941/publisher_ID/40/

Letter: Use all anti-tobacco strategies

By: Rep. Blair Thoreson, Fargo, N.D., INFORUM
Several weeks ago, a letter from Dr. Eric Johnson appeared in The Forum in which Johnson made inaccurate accusations regarding a resolution I introduced in the 2013 North Dakota Legislature aimed at reducing the risk of death and disease among smokers. By attempting to distort my motives and tie me to special-interest groups with which I have never had any affiliations, the letter’s author distracted from what should be a productive conversation.
Because smoking harms us all, the state ought to pursue an all-of-the-above strategy to reduce cigarette consumption. In addition to conventional anti-smoking measures, like messaging to youths and promoting smoking cessation, one strategy our state should consider is tobacco harm reduction, which seeks to minimize the damage tobacco does to users and society alike.
Tobacco harm reduction is a secondary strategy that could be used when traditional anti-smoking measures fail. It’s not in question that quitting is the single best thing smokers can do for both themselves and society, but despite our efforts to encourage quitting, thousands of smokers remain unable or unwilling to snuff out their addiction. Tobacco harm reduction targets these individuals by accepting that they will continue to use nicotine, and explores ways to reduce the costs and harmful effects of their nicotine usage.
One alternate product current smokers could turn to is the electronic cigarette, which delivers nicotine without the toxic carcinogens and doesn’t produce secondhand smoke. In fact, a study by the Boston University School of Public Health found that electronic cigarettes are significantly safer than conventional ones, with carcinogen levels 1,000 times lower. If smokers who refuse to quit entirely could be persuaded to switch to electronic cigarettes, North Dakota would pay less in smoking-related health costs, and our children would be at less risk of secondhand smoke exposure.
It may seem like an unconventional method of reducing risk, but studies have shown that smokeless tobacco carries significantly lower health risks than cigarettes. No one should mistake smokeless tobacco for a healthy product, but compared to smoking, it may be less deadly and a better choice.
National and state anti-smoking campaigns have been highly effective, as the smoking rate is half of what it was 50 years ago, and smoking among teenagers is at an all-time low. Yet there remains a persistent minority of nicotine users for whom our conventional outreach has failed. In efforts to promote public health, cut health care costs and reduce preventable deaths, we can’t afford to give up on messaging to these smokers.
It’s clear, however, that we need to think outside the box to reach them. Tobacco harm reduction, endorsed by the American Association of Public Health Physicians, won’t eliminate all the health risks created by persistent smokers, but it could lower their death rate and medical expenses, and take secondhand smoke out of the air.
Instead of making false claims, I believe it would be much more productive to work together and address the public health problems created by smoking on as many fronts as possible. The Legislature’s interim Health Services Committee recently launched a study of the overall effectiveness of North Dakota’s tobacco control programs, which gives us the opportunity to expand and improve our outreach. As we move forward with developing the next generation of public health strategies, tobacco harm reduction should at least be part of the conversation.
Thoreson, R-Fargo, is a small-business owner and represents District 44 in the North Dakota House.