Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 1091.111 2012-2014To: The Honorable Brenda Ford, Chair, Committee on Public Safety and Mass Transit Honorable Members of the Hawai'i County Council '-) From: Hannah L. Hedrick, PhD, 50+ year tobacco -free advocate P_=� Date: November 19, 2014 `c Subject: Protect Public Health via Unanimous Support for HC Bill 302 a? =` Mahalo to the six County Council members who voted on November 6 in support of HC Bill 302, which would amend Chapter 14 (General Welfare), Article 4, of the Hawaii County Code. Bill 302 would include electronic smoking devices (ESDs) in current ordinances protecting bystanders from exposure to second-hand smoke. Only two of the Council members present were unwilling to accept incontrovertible evidence provided at the November 6 hearing that exposure to ESD byproducts produces severe negative reactions. Members of the public, health professionals, representatives of healthcare facilities, educators, and staff and members of the county and state tobacco -free coalitions submitted written testimony and many of them spoke at or attended the hearing. Testimony against HC Bill 302 was submitted primarily by one minority segment of the smoking population: ESD retailers and their customers. Among the inaccurate claims they made was that an unnamed Surgeon General of the US Public Health Service opposed regulating use of ESDs in protected public places. I'm puzzled why testifiers who struggled so hard to switch to ESDs are so persistent in exposing youth to the seductive advertising for nicotine delivery products. Health threats and toxic ingredients are listed on ESD labeling, yet ESD retailers testified that ESDs should be allowed in public places where cigarettes, cigars, and other fume -producing nicotine products are currently prohibited. These retailers and producers would knowingly deprive people with chronic conditions and disabilities, including children with asthma, of the basic right of joining their families at the county fair, at outdoor athletic events, and in county recreational areas. In spite of personal stories about negative reactions to ESDs, the ESD retailers and their supporters lit up as soon as they stepped outside during the break, sending clouds of vapor across the closest exit. This disdain for the welfare of others was reported by testifiers who commented that when they ask ESD users to move to smoking designated areas, the ESD users respond that the smoke-free laws do not apply to them. I believe that almost all Hawaii residents and visitors --non-smokers and smokers alike --want to be protected from ESD by-products in areas where they, their family members, and friends are currently protected from conventional cigarette smoke. In the event that Mr. Ilagan and Mr. Onishi have not reversed their opposition to HC Bill 302, 1 ask them to please consider the following five points: 1. Smoke-free areas are generally assumed to include ESDs. Members of the public and retailers other than ESD retailers generally assume that current smoke-free ordinances include ESDs. Mr. Ilagan based his "no" vote on his desire to demonstrate leadership by talking with businesses about "partnerships" in dealing with SD Comm. N . 60 Ref. To: Ref. Date - use. During the past several years, and especially in recent months, proponents of Bill 302 have spoken with all kinds of retailers, and to my knowledge, none of them permitted open use of ESDs, except smoke shops and ESD retailers. I look forward to hearing the results of Mr. Ilagan's conversations. 2. Respecting "personal freedom" and "minority rights" is inappropriate if it creates public health risks. Mr. Ilagan expressed his commitment to recognizing the rights of people who are in the minority on an issue. Minority rights do not include the right to directly jeopardize a bystander's health. Just like conventional cigarette smokers, ESD users can smoke everywhere except in those places where their device by-products threaten the present and future health of bystanders. Including ESDs in existing ordinances would diminish the impact of the "Take Back Your Freedom" ads that imply to youth that they would be able to smoke ESDs where conventional cigarettes are currently prohibited. 3. Hawaii County has the nation's highest asthma infant -mortality rate. Hawaii County is one of two counties in the nation with the highest infant mortality rates due to asthma. We also have an unusually high low -birth -weight rate. Both the high asthma death rates and the high low -birth -weight rate have been associated with the use of nicotine delivery products. 4. ESD use in protected public places is separate from penalties for youth smokers. Mr. Onishi stated that his "no" vote was based primarily on the absence of an ordinance with specific penalties for minors who smoke. During the past decade, Hawaii County tobacco - free advocates have chosen to emphasize education and support rather than penalties for minors. Regrettably, only about 2% of the funds disbursed from the $206 billion awarded in the tobacco settlement is spent on prevention. Mr. Onishi has every right to introduce a bill delineating penalties for minors who smoke. But if the Council does not pass Bill 302, hundreds if not thousands of Hawaii keiki and youth will be experimenting with ESDs. How many more Hawaii youth will become addicted to nicotine via ESDs if they get the message that ESDs are "safe" because their use is permitted in protected public places? 5. Discomfort from ESDs is not similar to discomfort about breastfeeding. The adverse health affects from exposure to ESD by-products is not in any way comparable to the discomfort some people feel when seeing a mother breastfeed, as claimed by ESD retailers opposing Bill 302. I respectfully request that all County Council members recognize that the testimony opposing HC Bill 302 is based on the necessity of continuing to addict youth to nicotine to create profits for Big Tobacco, including ESD retailers. Please vote unanimously for HC Bill 302.