Legislature(2015 - 2016)CAPITOL 106
03/24/2016 03:00 PM House HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation on Telehealth | |
| HB344 | |
| HB315 | |
| HB328 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 315 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 334 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 328 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 344 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 328-REGULATION OF SMOKING
5:16:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON announced that the final order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 328, "An Act prohibiting smoking in
certain places; relating to education on the smoking
prohibition; and providing for an effective date."
5:17:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 328, Version 29-LS1502\W, Martin,
3/18/16, as the working document.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected for discussion.
5:18:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO noted that current Alaska law prohibits
smoking in many areas of the state, including healthcare
facilities, schools, childcare facilities, and public meeting
rooms in government buildings. He offered that one of his
biggest concerns is the state level of Medicaid expenditures
attributed to smoking is about $67 Million per year. There is
no doubt, he said, that a fair portion of this is certainly
driven by Alaska's current fiscal situation, but this committee
has routinely discussed healthcare and preventative measure to
improve Alaska's situation statewide.
CHAIR SEATON asked for a quick explanation of the significant
changes between the original bill and the committee substitute
being considered.
5:19:59 PM
JOSHUA BANKS, Staff, Representative Dave Talerico, Alaska State
Legislature, advised that Version W was drafted to mirror the
changes made to SB 1. [He presented a slideshow titled "HB 328,
The 'Take it Outside' Act," slides 1-6.]
5:20:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON removed his objection to adopt Version W
as the committee's working document. There being no further
objection, Version W was before the committee.
5:20:48 PM
MR. BANKS continued his presentation and advised that HB 328 is
all about saving lives and dollars, helping Alaskans to be
healthier, and to spend less on healthcare. The bill will
provide a smoke-free work environment for Alaska's workforce, it
will create a standard for smoking that is effective statewide,
and it will put all businesses and workplaces throughout Alaska
on a level playing field. Currently, approximately one-half of
Alaska's population is covered by smoke-free workplace laws, yet
a 2015 Dittman Research survey shows that 88 percent of Alaskans
support a statewide smoke-free law. The sponsor's office has
conclusive evidence regarding Anchorage's smoke-free ordinance
that smoke-free laws do not have adverse economic consequences
for restaurants and bars subject to the laws. The bill does not
ban smoking or the use of e-cigarettes and Section 1 of the bill
depicts the areas where smoking is prohibited under AS
13.85.301.
5:22:27 PM
MR. BANKS explained that Section 1, AS 18.35.301(a) and (b)
provides a statewide smoking prohibition in enclosed public
spaces, public transportation vehicles and facilities, places of
employment, government buildings, buildings or residences where
a business is located for paid childcare, paid adult care,
healthcare facilities, Pioneer Homes, Veteran's Homes, and
vehicles that are places of employment with certain exceptions.
Also included under AS 18.35.301(c) are school grounds, public
parks, outdoor arena seating, smoke-free campuses, and areas
within certain distances from entrances, windows, and air in-
take vents of buildings where smoking is prohibited.
MR. BANKS continued that under Sections 2-4, 6-7, the Department
of Environmental Conservation (DEC) commissioner adopt
regulations for filing, processing, and investigating violations
of this bill, including the filing of complaints and issuance of
citations. AS 18.35.321 requires the DEC to work with the
Department of Health and Social Services to implement this
smoking prohibition and provide educational programs to those
affected by this bill. The DEC can also delegate
responsibilities to another agency, such as the Department of
Health and Social Services under AS 18.35.316(b). The bill
requires that a person in charge of a place where smoking is
prohibited display signs under AS 18.35.306, and the signs can
be provided by the Department of Environmental Conservation.
The Division of Public Health's Tobacco and Prevention and
Control Program will be responsible for providing public
education materials, he said.
5:24:21 PM
CHUCK KOPP, Staff, Senator Peter Micciche, Alaska State
Legislature, [referred to slides 7-12], and advised that the
Surgeon General's report is the 31st report in 50 years issued
to document the dangers of involuntary exposure to second-hand
smoke. More recent data suggests that this public health
concern is described as a "quite urgent matter" that must be
addressed. Since the period of time the Surgeon General began
reporting on this issue, over the last 50 years, the nation's
premature deaths caused by smoke and exposure to secondhand
smoke is up to approximately 21 million Americans. With regard
to DUI fatalities where people die violently and quickly, there
are 10,000 in one year, yet the nation has over 41,000
secondhand smoke fatalities in one year. The national blood
alcohol content (BAC) was 0.15 percent, then it was changed to
0.10 percent, and currently the BAC is 0.08 percent or greater.
He noted that drinking and driving a vehicle and secondhand
smoke both involve the reckless use of a dangerous substance
that kills people. He advised that approximately 440,000
smokers die in the United States each year.
5:26:25 PM
MR. KOPP noted that stroke is the most recent causally linked
disease to secondhand smoke exposure by the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC). It is known that exposure to
secondhand smoke within 30 minutes has a "nearly immediate"
impact on the cardiovascular system, damaging blood vessels,
making blood more likely to clot, and increasing the risk for
heart attack and stroke. The Surgeon General's Report is that
there is no safe level of secondhand smoke exposure and it is
casually linked to 20 percent to 30 percent increased risk for
stroke. The national cost is $5.6 billion per year in lost
productivity due to exposure to secondhand smoke, and in Alaska
60 deaths each year and more than $1 million each year directly
related to lost productivity. He related that $1 million is
probably a conservative number, which is not counting Medicaid
costs which Representative Talerico covered earlier. He stated
that evidence is sufficient to infer this causal relationship
and the implementation of a smoke-free policy leads directly to
reduction in coronary events among people age 65 years and
older. There are several large municipalities in the United
States that have gone smoke-free, such as Colorado and Arizona,
that had upwards of 40 percent and 45 percent decrease in
coronary and stroke incidents over one year after going smoke-
free. The only variable they could contribute to the decrease
was going smoke-free. Mr. Kopp pointed out that the bill
sponsor looks at this bill as a question of rights of people
that choose to smoke versus the need to breathe, and a clean
indoor policy does not prohibit smoking it only requires that
those who choose to smoke do so in manner that does not threaten
or harm others.
5:28:25 PM
MR. BANKS turned to slides 13-20 of the slideshow and pointed
out that a good portion of the opposition to this bill is that
e-cigarettes are included within the bill as smoking. The
sponsor believes there is good rationale for grouping e-
cigarettes with traditional cigarettes even though they are
different from traditional cigarettes. E-cigarettes are
generally battery operated and use an atomizer to heat liquid
from a cartridge until it becomes a chemical-filled aerosol, and
can contain nicotine, ultrafine metal particles, volatile
organic compounds, and other carcinogenic toxins. The use of e-
cigarettes by high school students has increased dramatically
from 1.5 percent in 2011, to 13.4 percent in 2014. He remarked
that slide 14 depicts the trend in contrast to the decrease in
use of the traditional cigarettes by high school students. This
trend, as well as advertising by e-cigarette companies have many
people worried, including the CDC which believes that the
increased marketing and use by youth of e-cigarettes could
reverse the progress in preventing tobacco use by youth. The
CDC noted that some of the same marketing strategies used by the
tobacco industry are being used to encourage the use of e-
cigarettes by today's youth. Under AS 11.76.109, it is illegal
to sell or give products containing nicotine to anyone under the
age of 19, and e-cigarette retailers do not need a sales license
endorsement, so there is no program of compliance checks for
these sales, he pointed out.
5:30:19 PM
MR. BANKS, turned to side 17, and advised that separating
smokers from non-smokers, air cleaning technology, and
ventilation systems cannot effectively and reliably protect
public health. Smoke-free workplace laws have been seen to help
reduce tobacco use among smokers, and former Surgeon General C.
Everett Koop, who served under President Ronald Reagan, stated
the following:
The right of smokers to smoke ends where their
behavior affects the health and well-being of others;
furthermore, it is the smoker's responsibility to
ensure that they do not expose non-smokers.
MR. BANKS continued that as previously mentioned, approximately
one-half of Alaska's population is protected by local ordinances
from secondhand smoke at work, including: Anchorage, Juneau,
Bethel, Dillingham, Unalaska, and Palmer. The remaining
boroughs with large populations do not have the legal health
powers to enact smoke-free laws, and this does not include the
unorganized boroughs of Alaska. Overall, Alaskans support laws
such as HB 328, and 88 percent of Alaskans overall agree that
all Alaskan workers should be protected from secondhand smoke in
the workplace. This includes the majority of smokers who
support smoke-free workplace laws, and by regions in Alaska the
support of this law ranges from 75 percent to 88 percent. He
related that the legislation is good for Alaskan's health,
businesses, and good for Alaska overall. He said that a number
of research sources used to create the slideshow are slides 20-
21.
5:32:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to Section 1, AS 18.35.301(b)(7),
page 2, lines 13-14, which read:
(7) in a building or residence that is the
site of a business at which the care of adults is
provided on a fee-for-fee basis;
CHAIR SEATON asked whether that includes PCAs that are receiving
personal care health services in their own home. He explained
that they've been trying through Medicaid to get out of
institutional care by providing services at home.
MR. KOPP responded that it does not, this was an amendment in
the Senate side to specifically make it so that a residence
being occupied by a homeowner who is provided personal
assistance care is not required to stop smoking. He explained
that it is only when a residence is used as a business, which is
why specific language was included, that it is site of a
business in which the care of adults is provided. Unless it is
an adult care business, a homeowner can smoke "if they are
receiving care from a personal care assistant," he explained.
5:33:58 PM
CHAIR SEATON referred to Section 1, AS 18.35.301(d)(1)(D), page
3, lines 13-14, which read:
(D) that is a freestanding building not
attached to another business or to a residence;
CHAIR SEATON asked the relationship to subparagraph (D) versus
"it doesn't share a ventilation system with another part of the
building." He asked whether that is the purpose of the
freestanding building, that it is not attached to any other
building or business.
5:34:39 PM
MR. KOPP replied that primarily its purpose is to prevent fumes
and particulates from being shared and a free standing building
accomplishes that. Representative Seaton is correct in that the
primary concern is that it is not impacting other businesses, he
replied.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL referred to the free standing building, and
used the example of downtown Juneau where it is buildings,
buildings, buildings touching, although there are separate
walls, it depends upon the actual structures. He asked whether
those are free standing because there is not an air gap between
them or are they continuous buildings.
MR. KOPP opined that from an engineering standpoint most of
those building would probably be considered free standing
because they do not appear to be structurally dependent upon one
another.
5:35:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL opined that if one of those buildings was
torn down the others would still be standing, hence free
standing.
MR. KOPP responded yes, that is a good way to define it.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL said he was uncertain whether the buildings
touched walls at the Rockwell, in downtown Juneau.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that his normal definition of a free
standing building is buildings that are not in contact with each
other. He opined that the definition needs to be clarified.
MR. KOPP agreed.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES noted that there is a zero fiscal note,
yet DEC is required to provide signs to hundreds of places, is
required to enforce the statute, and is required to educate the
public. She asked how that is possible with no money.
5:37:17 PM
MR. KOPP offered that under the law, DEC is already required to
do this and this bill is amending current law. The DEC already
has regulatory oversight of the prohibition of smoking and
already works with the Department of Health and Social Services
with signage. The sponsor drafted the bill so that the signs
required are part of its current inventory, and many of these
places are already posted "smoke-free" workplaces involving
state facilities and buildings. He advised that it is part of
the Department of Environmental Conservation's ongoing expense
that it is already engaged with. Current law was just amended
but it currently has this regulatory oversight, he related.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES surmised that approximately 50 percent of
the municipalities, villages, and cities in Alaska are smoke-
free.
MR. KOPP agreed and related that most of the buildings that have
the infrastructure and population base are already covered.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES said she does not believe there is no
fiscal note that should be attached to this because it doesn't
make sense.
CHAIR SEATON advised that the department will be asked to
justify its fiscal note.
5:39:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR referred to Section 1, AS 18.35.301(c), page
2, line 18, which read:
(c) Smoking is prohibited outdoors
REPRESENTATIVE TARR advised that these are in new sections of
the bill and referred to paragraph (c)(1), which read:
(1) at an area located at a public or
private school or a state or municipal park that is
primarily designated as a place for children to play;
REPRESENTATIVE TARR opined that she thinks of Alaska's public
lands as being available for anyone to enjoy whether an adult or
a child. For example, currently someone could be at a municipal
park and smoke a cigarette and this bill would prohibit that.
She asked who is going to say whether the park has to have a
certain number of picnic tables that a certain percentage of
adults would also frequent.
MR. KOPP responded that the key qualifier for that language is
that it is a park that is primarily designated as a place for
children to play. Municipal parks are not primarily playgrounds
as some are campgrounds, and the emphasis here is those that are
primarily designated as a place for children to play.
5:41:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR referred to page 2, line 21, (c)(2), which
read:
(2) in a seating area for an outdoor arena,
stadium, or amphitheater;
REPRESENTATIVE TARR noted there are places that have gone smoke-
free and have physically built something to be a smoking area.
Although, if this were an outdoor facility where there was a
designated smoking area it appears that the language is broad
enough that that would also be prohibited. She asked that the
restrictiveness of that language be explained.
5:42:06 PM
HILARY MARTIN, Attorney, Legislative Legal and Research
Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, Alaska State Legislature,
responded that the park issue on paragraph (1) reads that it is
primarily designated as a place for children to play, although
it is slightly unclear there would have to be a decision made
that it is primarily a place for children to play. She referred
to the park strip in downtown Anchorage where there are ball
fields and other things, and then there is a playground area
and, she opined, that is what the bill is getting at. Signs
would also have to be posted with the idea that a person
wouldn't be walking and suddenly walk into an area where smoking
is prohibited and didn't realize, she offered.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR pointed out that she has difficult with that
because in the neighborhoods she represents she frequently sees
people at the parks smoking, but they are doing it there rather
than being at home where the children are. She described it as
trying to make a good decision to not smoke around children by
going to a different nearby location that has a picnic table or
a swing. Although, she said, that would put them in a situation
of being in violation of the law. She expressed discomfort
because it appears that enforcement could be difficult and it
may be left to interpretation as to what is legal in that
particular area, and unfairly get someone in trouble.
MR. KOPP suggested deleting "primarily" and the provision would
read "designated as a place" so there is no question, and a no
smoking sign must be posted close to the playground.
5:44:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL pointed out that there are many outdoor
recreational areas that have a smaller area within it where
children play, and within that same body of land people may be
walking their dogs, and adults hangout and play Frisbee with
other adults. He offered that he can see mission creep as far
the "Take it Outside" issue wherein a person can't just take it
outside in that they have to take it outside to a certain area
outside. He referred to Section 1, AS 18.35.301(c)(4)(A) and
(B), page 2 lines 25-29, which read:
(A) 10 feet of an entrance to a bar or
restaurant that serves alcoholic beverages;
(B) 20 feet of an entrance, open
window, or heating or ventilation system air intake
vent at an enclosed area at a place where smoking is
prohibited under this section; or
5:45:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL remarked that a person walking down the
sidewalk in downtown Juneau smoking would have to walk in the
middle of the street to not violate (c)(4)(A) and (B).
MR. KOPP clarified that the intention with not being within 10
feet of a bar or restaurant is that those tend to be higher
volume businesses, people step outside and don't have to step
out as far. They do not have to walk in the middle of the
street and can walk up or down the sidewalk. He turned to
(c)(4)(B) and said 20 feet of an entrance would also cover
health care facilities and other places because it reads "at a
place where smoking is prohibited under this section." This
entire section covers a number of places that Mr. Banks
highlighted that fall under this provision. Rather than trying
to break down an individual distance it was standardized, he
explained.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL surmised that prohibited other places may be
a hardware store, jeweler, or sandwich shop and would all be at
a 20 foot buffer so it may be difficult to walk down the
sidewalk, and he noted that may be the intent. He reiterated
that he is referring to a dense urban area such as downtown
Juneau or Anchorage.
MR. KOPP advised that the idea to keep the smoke outside is
primarily what the sponsors are getting at. Representative Wool
is correct, that the distance may be something to be discussed.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR referred to the questions regarding the
fiscal note and said that she noticed on page 4, beginning line
17 with the notice of prohibition and said smoking prohibited by
law and the burning cigarette but, she pointed out, if this will
be expanded to e-cigarettes and vaping she did not see a
definition in the bill for what would be considered those
products. She noted that these technologies are changing so she
was unsure whether that is a necessity. She referred back to
the "Notice of prohibition," and opined it would need to be more
explicit because there is a lot of confusion about the
international no smoking people are thinking like a traditional
tobacco cigarette. She said she was unsure whether she would
automatically think that e-cigarettes and vaping were
prohibited, and the language should be more explicit and in that
sense maybe the existing inventory of signage wouldn't actually
be as useable, or maybe could have a sticker put on it.
5:49:25 PM
MR. KOPP referred to the definition of smoking, Section 12, AS
18.35.399(11), page 9, lines 28-30, which read:
(11) "smoking" means using an e-cigarette or
other oral smoking device or inhaling, exhaling,
burning, or carrying a lighted or heated cigar,
cigarette, pipe, or tobacco or plant product intended
for inhalation.
MR. KOPP explained that the sponsors tried to cover as many
things as possible under that definition so the smoking signs
would work. Also, the public information campaign has rolled
out with the smoke-free law which is significant, and the
Department of Health and Social Services does that in
cooperation with the Department of Environmental Conservation,
which is identified in a later section and they work hand in
glove. Currently, that is one of the duties of the Department
of Health and Social Services under AS 44.29.020(a)(14), which
read:
(14) a comprehensive smoking education,
tobacco use prevention, and tobacco control program;
to the maximum extent possible, the department shall
administer the program required under this paragraph
by grant or contract with one or more organizations in
the state; the department's program must include
(A) a community-based tobacco use
prevention and cessation component addressing the
needs of youth and adults that includes use of
cessation aids such as a nicotine patch or a nicotine
gum tobacco substitute;
(B) youth-based efforts that involve
youth in the design and implementation of tobacco
control efforts;
(C) anti-tobacco counter-marketing
targeting both youth and adult populations designed to
communicate messages to help prevent youth initiation
of tobacco use, promote cessation among tobacco users,
and educate the public about the lethal effects of
exposure to secondhand smoke;
(D) tobacco use surveys of youth and
adult populations concerning knowledge, awareness,
attitude, and use of tobacco products; and
(E) an enforcement component;
5:50:36 PM
MR. KOPP agreed about the public education, and Alaska Airlines
as an example in that it advises no smoking and that includes e-
cigarettes.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to Section 1, AS 18.35.301(f)(2),
Page 4, lines 5-6, which read:
(2) on a marine vessel when the vessel is
engaged in commercial fishing or sport charter fishing
or is otherwise used as a place of employment.
CHAIR SEATON noted it is an exemption; however, he asked why the
language solely discusses ocean vessels because sport fishing
takes place in guiding on free water systems. He asked whether
the terminology "marine vessel" specifically is in there to mean
only at sea.
MR. KOPP referred to line 6, and noted that it includes sport
charter fishing. He said that charter means a vessel which is a
place of employment; therefore, sport fishing boats are also
exempted for the same purpose that a commercial fishing vessel
is. The state territorial waters only go out three miles so for
a near shore fisherman it means working on open decks where
there is outdoor, fresh air exposure. The skipper or captain
can regulate how far from the air intake or vent a fisherman
must stand when smoking. He described this as angels dancing on
the head of a pin - some of the judgment calls, but the people
in the work boat industry brought to the sponsors attention that
they are outdoors all of the time.
5:50:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON remarked that the language will have to be
looked at because it starts on a marine vessel, and the others
are modifying what is being done but it is on a marine vessel.
It does not say that it is on a sport charter fishing vessels,
but rather a marine vessel when engaged either in commercial or
sport fishing. In the event a fisherman is halibut fishing this
would apply, but if the fisherman was on the Kenai River fishing
for King Salmon they are not on a marine vessel.
MR. KOPP noted that if the fisherman is out with friends sport
fishing, they can smoke. He referred to page 4, lines 1-6,
which read:
(f) Notwithstanding (b) of this section, unless
the owner or operator prohibits it, smoking is allowed
(2) on a marine vessel when the vessel is
engaged in commercial fishing or sport charter fishing
or is otherwise used as a place of employment.
MR. KOPP explained that it is being used as a place of
employment at that time, but if a fisherman is out having fun
fishing it wouldn't apply.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON related that the language would be looked
at further.
5:54:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR referred to Section 1, AS 18.35.301(a)(3),
page 1, lines6-7, and lines 11-12, which read:
(a) Smoking is prohibited in an enclosed area in
a public place, including an enclosed area
(3) at a public transit depot, bus shelter,
airport terminal, or other public transportation
facility;
REPRESENTATIVE TARR opined that currently when going through an
airport terminal there is an enclosed designated smoking area
and asked whether the provision makes those areas illegal.
5:54:39 PM
MR. KOPP opined that currently there are not any airports, other
than international terminals which do because people are in
transit and are not under FTSA regulation. They may be allowed
to leave the airport while in transit and they do have a smoke-
free room. This legislation covers that as an exemption wherein
they can have the smoke rooms in those airports where people
cannot leave the airport to step outside.
5:55:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES offered concern about the enforcement and
described it as passive enforcement such that "they are going to
give you a 1-800 number and if somebody's in violation you just
pick up the phone and call 1-800 and say, hey this place is in
violation," and that concerns her. To 86 someone, they will be
on the horn in a pair of seconds telling someone the
establishment is in violation. It further reads that "citations
could be made by the Department of Health and Social Services
designated staff or another agency," which is unclear. This can
be addressed at a later time but, she expressed, it is a concern
as it is the enforcement.
MR. KOPP advised that when Anchorage went smoke-free in 2007,
within five years of enforcement it only had three citations
because there was almost 100 percent voluntary compliance. This
is not a heavy handed thing and it is complaint driven and not
pro-active. In fact, for a peace officer to be involved these
offenses must occur in their presence and not called in.
Traditionally, he offered, it has been passively carried out
because people want this and they voluntarily comply. Joe
Darnel, with the Tobacco Prevention Program can speak to how the
program works as they have been doing this and it is low
maintenance on them to gain compliance. He explained that they
have a program of warnings, educating business owners, and that
Anchorage is over 300,000 people and have only had three
citations in five years.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES commented that areas Mr. Kopp referred to
have voluntarily gone smoke-free, this is not a voluntary
program as the legislation is taking one-half of the state that
is non-smoking and, she said, it has been on the ballots and
they've voted it down.
5:57:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL read, "in a seating area for an outdoor
arena, stadium, or amphitheater" means a seating area in the
prior three areas.
MR. KOPP responded where the public can come and be seated.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL continued that an outdoor amphitheater
grassy hill is fine, although if it is a seating area ...
MR. KOPP advised it is a designated seating area for the public
to come in and sit for an event.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON opened public testimony and advised all
testifiers to limit their testimonies to two minutes.
5:58:55 PM
GARY SUPERMAN, Owner, Hunger Hut Bar, Motel and Liquor advised
that he sits on the state board of CHARR, and said that all of
Mr. Kopps' citations and figures are alarming and provocative
for everyone to chew on. Unfortunately, he stated, they've been
promulgated out of a 1992 EPA study that was thrown out by the
United States District Court in 1995 as being pure junk science.
Advocacy groups assert that these bans help shape individual
preferences against smoking, and in fact these re-education
efforts have drastic reshaped attitudes of smokers and non-
smokers alike. He related that Alaska is acclimated to the fact
that public buildings and private building are now non-smoking,
what is unacceptable is the advocacy groups' absolute
unwillingness to allow a few remaining venues to accommodate
Alaskans own preferences. At this juncture in time, the rights
of non-smokers and non-patrons of bars supersede the rights of
his smoking patrons and himself as a business owner. He
expressed that there is no net benefit to anyone, this is simply
a taking, no one is compelled to enter his establishment, and he
respects adults choosing to make their own decisions. He
referred to postings and articles he has seen describing the
upcoming Senate vote on SB 1, and described it as little more
than a proclamation of disgust from his view point. It looks
like the former mayor of Soldatna and current mayor of Kenai
will soon be triumphant once and for all in their relentless
crusade to save society. Their zeal seeks to impose one of the
ultimate nanny state devices down the throat of those who only
wish to be left alone in the last refuges left in the state.
There is no smoking in public buildings and HB 328 and SB 1 are
de facto already as the only places left that allow a few bars
whose numbers dwindle annually, and he and his wife own one. He
related that the battle has smacked of elitism and basic
contempt for the unwashed working classes who still partake. He
advised that he will not comply and "you will have to bring the
strong arm of the state down on me. I will not be re-educated.
I loathe their politically correct agendas and dangerous
genuflections to special interests groups whose only interest is
control over those of us who still have a notion of what freedom
is."
6:01:58 PM
CHRYSTAL SCHOENROCK, Owner, Hunger Hut Bar, Motel and Liquor,
said she is the secretary for Kenai Peninsula CHARR and a member
of the Alaska State CHARR. She put forth that she would like to
know why smokers can't have the same rights as non-smokers as
there should be an area that does not prohibit smoking so
smokers do not have to go outside 20-30 feet from a building at
-10 to -30 below. Her patrons want smoking, all of her
employees smoke, and her patrons help her to pay the bills,
licenses, permits, stock, and taxes. She referred to the low
rate of oil prices and that people are being laid off, and said
she cannot wait five years to increase the amount of patrons in
her bar. When the small businesses are forced to close, Alaska
does not receive their taxes. She agreed to post signs
indicating that smoking is permitted, and if a patron doesn't
want to enter because they are a non-smoker, "then don't come
in. So be it." As it stands, the smokers have no rights and
this is not fair and just, and "as far as I'm concerned, my
patrons, and I have people coming in my bar that doesn't smoke,
nor do they drink. But, I feel that my patrons have a right to
have what they need and I feel that as a business owner paying
all my everything, that I should have the right to say what
going goes on in my establishment and not have to worry about
what's going on in my parking lot or in a little building."
6:04:20 PM
DANIEL LYNCH said he is representing himself and freedom in
Alaska. He related that it makes his heart sing to see so many
economic free market Republicans on the committee knowing that
they are not believers of the nanny state government and he has
confidence they will do the right thing and leave this
legislation in committee. America was built on tobacco and
freedom. There are two "watering holes" in Soldotna across the
street from one another, and one establishment has chosen not to
allow smoking, and the owner of the other establishment has
chosen to allow smoking. The BFW, Elks, and veterans currently
decide through their membership how to run their rules and their
buildings. He described that the numbers related to secondhand
smoke are speculative at best, and that he works on equipment
that causes his mustache to wring with oil yet he wouldn't be
allowed to smoke. In the event he succumbs to lung issues,
people would say that he was a smoker and it had nothing to do
with the diesel running out of his mustache. The fallacy of
being a workplace safety issue is a simple strawman, and driving
to the LIO office he passed six fast-food drive-through
restaurants and a dozen drive-through coffee shacks all with
employees hanging out the window sucking in carbon monoxide from
every vehicle, engine and tailpipe. It is known that smoking is
not a good habit and in his 45 years of doing so he has
contributed $10s of thousands of dollars to the federal, state,
borough, and city tax collectors, and he said he presumes the
legislature will increase alcohol and tobacco taxes again this
year. He asked that if the revenue from tobacco stopped, how it
would be replaced, by taking away the freedom of smokers.
6:07:22 PM
SHEB GARFIELD advised he is an ex-smoker and is now an avid
vaporer. He asked that the vaping provision in the legislation
be completely removed in that vaping is in this bill because it
looks like smoking. The bill includes vaporizers due to the
fear of secondhand vapor being as dangerous as secondhand smoke,
and it pre-emptively bans its use in public places and
businesses even though a short time on google will show the
opposite. He then read various studies and health expert's
reports that he would submit to the committee.
6:10:14 PM
CHAIR SEATON asked Mr. Garfield to send the studies
electronically to the committee.
6:10:29 PM
GREGORY CONLEY, Attorney, said he has been a leading advocate
for vapor products, e-cigarettes, and that he used them to quit
smoking approximately five years ago. He explained that vapor
products are not tobacco products, as it is anti-tobacco
technology products. Vapors are smoke-free, tobacco-free, and
often nicotine-free and are increasingly being recognized as a
smart way to get smokers to transition away from dangerous and
densely combustible cigarettes. Contrary to claims previous
made in this committee, there is no evidence that these products
pose risks to bystanders, but there is evidence of long harm
reversal or quality of life improvement in smokers who have made
the switch including smokers with COPD and asthma. He advised
that in previous testimony he discussed a review published last
year by Tuttle Publishing advising that one of its main
conclusions is that vaping should not be treated like smoking,
and it was endorsed by a dozen of the largest (indisc.) groups
in the United Kingdom, including Cancer Research United Kingdom,
the Royal College of Physicians, and the United Kingdom's
largest anti-smoking organizations. He surmised that these
groups support smoking bans but government mandated vaping
restrictions go too far. These restrictions could have grave
unintended consequences, such as sending a deadly message to
smokers that vaping is no less hazardous than inhaling burning
smoke. In 2014, among adult smokers that quit in the last year,
22 percent were using vapor products and these products are
helping smokers quit. These products also have the potential to
save Medicaid and Medicare costs because a study by State Budget
Solutions suggested a multi-billion savings if smokers need to
switch. He urged the committee to amend the bill's definition
of smoking to only include products that actually create smoke.
He added that this is also true for the vapor product retailers,
they need to be exempt from this bill even if they share a wall
to another business. Both Chicago and New York City, two anti-
tobacco cities that have banned smoking and retail tobacco
stores, created exemptions that allow vaporing in vape stores.
He asked that if the bill must move forward to consider
exempting bars, private workplaces and other places where the
public is invited and only adults congregate.
CHAIR SEATON advised that he was welcome to submit written
comments to the committee as well.
6:13:19 PM
MICHAEL CERVANTES, Owner, Banks Ale House, said he is a board
member for Alaska CHARR, and that as an owner of a local
business it is his choice to be smoke-free or not, and this bill
takes that privilege away from local entrepreneurs in the state.
He referred to testimonies regarding secondhand smoke and its
impact on individuals and he agrees that secondhand smoke is a
choice for an individual to make when entering a smoking
establishment. Most areas throughout the state, whether the
establishment is posted non-smoking or smoking allowed the signs
are posted at the entrance of most bars or restaurants. He
expressed that he disagrees with the testimony that when a
smoking establishment goes non-smoking they do not feel a
financial impact because friends and other owners who have gone
smoke-free and (indisc.) claim businesses grow because the
customers have left their establishment to go into a smoking
establishment. Not every owner has the opportunity to wait
multiple years to gain back or re-establish that customer base
that they lost to another restaurant or bar. He asked that the
committee oppose HB 328 as it does offend and restrict owners
and others from smoking being available to their community.
6:16:19 PM
ANGELA CERNICH, Owner, Artic Industries, said she is an Alaska
born Athabascan woman who along with her husband own and operate
Artic Industries. There is no irony in the fact that her
business focuses on (indisc.) in the workplace. Secondhand
smoke is a personal concern for her because as a child she was
raised in a smoke filled environment complements of her parents
who were proverbial chain smokers. This caused a profound
effect on her personal health in that she has many issues
related to her severe allergies with smoke. After moving out of
her home, many of the severe issues subsided; however, as a
young adult she always felt the asthmatic and lung issues
related to the damage done to her lungs. Last year at the
hospital with lungs that were collapsing, she was diagnosed with
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) and she personally
never smoked a day in her life, but is now facing a lifelong
disease that will shorten her life, a disease she has to fight
with all of its symptoms. Even a common cold becomes a lengthy
disease that causes her to have coughing bouts that cause
migraine-like headaches and, yet she is not the one who caused
this. She expressed that when she hears 'no one should be
allowed to take away their right to smoke', she responds that
she does have a right to be in a smoke-free environment. She
related that some areas in Alaska are small with few jobs and
while taking care of her father who suffered from cancer, the
only job she could find was at the Inlet (indisc.), which is a
restaurant/bar that allowed smoking. Within one week she was so
sick she had to quit her job and because no other jobs were
available she was forced to leave and did not have the chance to
spend that time with her dying father. She related that if her
father were alive today, without a doubt he would look a person
in the eye and tell them to take smoking outside.
6:19:23 PM
CARMEN LUNDE, Director, Kodiak CHARR, said the Kodiak CHARR
opposes the bill because it believes strongly that business
owners have the right to make their own choices without
government on any federal, state, local level mandating laws for
a small business owner to go against their wishes. Punishing
smokers for their own good is repulsive to basic freedoms of
choice and she does not feel government has any role in making
these choices for its citizens. Kodiak has positively handled
the smoking the issue and has used the common sense approach
that works. There are 16 non-smoking establishments and 6
smoking establishments giving every adult a free choice to enjoy
their drinks in both type establishments, and this demonstrates
free choice at its best. Alaskans live in a country where
personal choice is one of its most cherished freedoms.
Personally, she said, every day one or more of our personal
choices are being taken away from us. She asked the committee
to not take another freedom away as people should not be forced
to stand outside to smoke a cigarette in cold and freezing
temperatures. She advised that two of Kodiak's busiest
establishments went non-smoking last year and within three
months had to re-instate smoking due to their heavy losses of
income, and she wonders how many businesses can weather that
loss in being forced to close their doors. Please leave the
choice of smoking or non-smoking to the men and women who own
these establishments as they have the right to do what is best
for their individual establishments, she said.
6:21:32 PM
ISAAC HEWELL, Owner, Cold Vapes 907, said he is vice-president
of Clear The Air Alaska which is the state's local trade
association and consumer advocacy for the vaping industry. He
advised is a former smoker who saved his life by switching to
electronic cigarettes and feels tremendously healthier as a
result. The use of e-cigarettes benefits the environment,
health, and costs to consumers, and it is premature to suggest
that vaping is unhealthy just by certain national health
advocacy's suggestions. He related that he is unaware of any
national double-blind multi-year academic studies but noted
various studies in the United Kingdom. Most recent studies
completed by the (indisc.) and funded by the FDA and NIH have
found that electronic cigarettes are not a gateway to tobacco
use, and that 75 percent of minors get cigarettes from social
sources. The exit for current tobacco users is to switch to
safe alternatives, and other states have recognized that vaping
is not smoking, such as Idaho, Nevada, and New York, he said.
6:24:31 PM
ALISON HALPIN offered that the bill violates individual human
rights and includes vaporizers as smoking. Vaping and smoking
are two entirely different things as stated in People v. Thomas,
in that an electronic cigarette does not contain or burn
tobacco. The court noted, instead the use of such a device
which is commonly referred to as vaping, involve the inhalation
of vaporized (indisc.) cigarette liquid consisting of water,
nicotine, (indisc.), and vegetable glycerin occasionally
(indisc.). She related that this state has a tobacco use
problem and as a former smoker who tried multiple DHSS approved
(indisc.) devices to try to quit tobacco and failed with each
product, she found vaping and has been tobacco free for three
years. Vaping has been proven by public health in England to be
95 percent safer than with combustible cigarettes. Alaska is
fighting against the tobacco problem, not the nicotine problem
in that is an organic chemical created by plants naturally.
Nicotine is found in many vegetables, such as eggplants,
potatoes, tomatoes, kale, and many other green leafy vegetables.
Nicotine is the only trait similar to tobacco products and she
urged the committee to remove vaping from this bill.
6:26:16 PM
BRIAN PREBLE said he agrees with everything the last two
witnesses testified to in that vaping is not smoking. He has
four children and does not allow them around his vaping, they do
not enter places that allows vaping which is his choice as an
adult and an American. He does choose to vape in his work
vehicle and outdoors and, he opined that responsible users of
vapor products often try to keep it out of the line of those it
could affect because they know what cigarettes have done to
people. He asked the committee to oppose this bill or at least
rewrite it to focus more on actual smoking and secondhand smoke,
and until more is known about vaping it should not be lumped in
with the issue of secondhand smoke.
6:27:52 PM
LARRY HACKENMILLER said that the mere presence of smoke inside a
building where the public is allowed does not legally constitute
a public health hazard, or where people are employed. In
federal law in the Clean Air Act, indoor air quality is
controlled by OSHA and under this act all air contaminants known
today are listed in the air contaminant standards of 29 CRF
1910.1000. It lists the concentration of the contaminant being
inhaled and the time of exposure to come up with a risk
assessment, and they all have "permissible exposure levels or
limits" to determine the public health risk associated with the
chemical. As for secondhand smoke in the air, OSHA the
authority of indoor air quality, has stated outright "field
studies on environmental tobacco smoking indicate that under
normal conditions the components in second ... in tobacco smoke
are diluted below existing permissible exposure levels (PELs) as
referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard. Further, it would
be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any
PEL would be exceeded." He said it is difficult to justify the
need for HB 328, to protect the public health when no public
protections are needed under existing federal standards. The
data relating to death and major health issues attributed to the
presence of secondhand smoke in the workplace does not cite OSHA
as a reference in their quoted science references. He asked
whether the committee found that odd that the people with the
authority and control of indoor air quality has not been
referenced in all of these scientific studies about the woes of
secondhand smoke, 60 people dying a year of something that OSHA
indicates a person can't get enough of in a building. He
suggested asking the references of what OSHA has to say about
their research and to ask the experts to testify. This is
indoor air, what about outdoor air, what was the concentration
of the contaminants causing death and major health issues
outside the baseball stadium. Currently, AS 18.35 regulates
smoking in certain areas and states "the statute considers
smoking in any form a nuisance and a public health hazard and;
therefore, prohibits smoking in public places and indoor
places." This is in conflict with the Clean Air Act, he pointed
out, which identified public health hazard through the air
contaminant standards in practice today. The key word here is
hazard and the starting point for each of these issues is that
the indoor air quality does not legally recognize secondhand
smoke as a public hazard. He asked that someone show him the
science about outdoor air and testify about the patterns of
secondhand smoke and what the permissible exposure limit is for
outside air quality on secondhand smoke. He referred to the
fiscal note problem and said if the bill is passed that the
state will have to send a trooper out to the villages to give a
$50 citation so there will be a fiscal note.
6:31:33 PM
JENNIFER VARGASON said vaping saved her life from the ball and
chain of tobacco use, she and her family are healthier, and she
does not understand how smoking tobacco and vaping is the same.
Vapor products do not contain tobacco so there is no combustion
and research has shown that vaping does not have the harmful
effects of smoking, and there are no carcinogens for bystanders.
The ingredients in a liquid are in everyday food products
consumed, and it has been shown that nicotine is not harmful.
She referred to an article that stated that there have been
instances where nicotine has been known to help certain
conditions, such as Alzheimer's, depression, Parkinson's
disease, and more. She is an ex-smoker who, initially, rolled
her eyes at vaping but then gave it a try and since December
2013 has been completely without tobacco. She asked the
committee to please reconsider HB 328.
6:34:25 PM
JESSE WALTON asked that all references to vaping be removed from
the bill. She has been vaping since 2013 when she received a
Christmas gift from a nurse practitioner, which allowed her to
quit smoking. She feels healthier, has more energy, and is able
to get the snow machine unstuck. She listed the amount of
milligrams she started on and is now down to, and listed the
various remedies she previously tried, yet always found herself
with a cigarette in her hand. [Difficult to decipher Ms.
Walton's testimony due to audio.] There are many people in
Fairbanks trying to quit smoking for themselves and their
families, and there are reputable vape shops around Alaska where
people are welcome to learn about the industry, she said.
6:36:18 PM
TERRY CROWSON said that the committee is aware that secondhand
smoke is bad and how bad [background noises masked the audio].
She related that when a local vote to prohibit smoking is held,
those who vote against public smoking and lose the vote, lose a
lot more than face because the public loses the opportunity for
clean air. Although, the public has the choice to not go where
smoking is allowed, the public loses the opportunity to
socialize, do business, or whatever is offered. This bill would
protect not only folks who need a job bad enough to take a job
in a smoking situation, but also everyone who does business in
these places. The legislature has an opportunity to promote and
enable a healthier Alaskan environment. Please take action to
make this positive difference for healthy living for those
Alaskans who can't count on a clean deep breath, she asked. In
small communities there often is only one choice of a similar
place to do business and when that business allows smoke there
is no choice for those who want to avoid secondhand smoke.
After listening to prior testimony, she suggested removing the
vaping provisions and move on to protect Alaskans from
secondhand smoke.
6:38:41 PM
CHERYL SCHOOLEY said that people who have made the responsible
choice to not smoke are victims of secondhand smoke in
establishments where smoking is still legally allowed. This
backward mindset sends a message from the legislature that it is
okay to light up, and puff up, secondhand smoke. This bill
promotes a healthier Alaska which will lower health costs and
help budget challenges, without this bill it appears the state
is choosing to promote the negative effects. Alaska has a
pristine image to be proud of, and is a market for the tourism
industry, let's be a class act, she remarked.
6:39:38 PM
WAYNE CROWSON said he has listened to smokers testify today, and
listened to them having trouble breathing and coughing as they
spoke, which was him 20 years ago. His lungs are much clearer
now since he's quit smoking and he would like to keep them that
way, he commented. Please move this bill to the governor for
signing this session as the governor wrote "Alaskans Health
First," he said.
6:40:26 PM
ROBIN MINARD, Director, Public Affairs, Mat-Su Health
Foundation, said she strongly supports HB 328. While making
great headway in the Mat-Su and Alaska, she pointed out that
Alaska continued to have some of the highest tobacco use rates
in the nation. Tobacco use rates bump up its chronic
respiratory disease rates, such as bronchitis, asthma, and COPD.
Tobacco use costs Alaska $579 million annually in direct medical
costs and lost productivity due to tobacco related deaths. She
stressed that enacting this law in Alaska to require smoke-free
public places will help reduce these costs and will also help
reduce Medicaid costs, something that the legislators and the
Foundation care deeply about. Much has been said about the
effects of secondhand smoke and e-vaping, and she stated that
Alaska needs robust clean indoor air statutes that includes e-
cigarettes because adolescents perceive e-cigarettes as safer
than traditional cigarettes. In addressing the myths that these
products are safer or that they are a cessation tool, she
advised they are the opposite. These products are a grooming
tool, grooming kids to accept, like, and become dependent upon
smoking and nicotine. A 2015, National Institute of Health
report showed that ninth-graders using these e-cigarettes were
over three times more likely to begin using traditional tobacco
products than those who didn't. She asked the committee to keep
in mind that e-cigarettes have not been approved by the FDA as a
smoking cessation aide. As discussed earlier, only one-half of
Alaskans are protected by smoke-free workplace laws and many
jurisdictions, such as Mat-Su, do not have the health powers
necessary to pass an areawide smoke-free ban. This legislation
is the next step in further reducing smoking rates and
secondhand smoke exposure in Alaska, it is the next step in
raising the health status of all Alaskans, the Mat-Su Health
Foundation supports the bill, and she asked that the committee
expedite its passage.
6:42:40 PM
PETE BURNS said he is testifying for himself and Humpy's Great
Alaskan Ale House. He offered testimony as follows:
I know this sounds bad that sometimes go against the
grain and CHARR has always been a great advocate for
various industry stuff, but for this one I have to go
against them.
My story is, my father was born in 1936. He started
smoking in 1951, in 1994 he passed. He gave up
smoking. 1998 he had his first heart attack. He was
wheelchair bound from then for the next part of his
life. 2002 I had a pain in my hip, I went to the
doctors here in Anchorage, they sent me to the Seattle
Cancer Care Alliance in Seattle. One thing is that I
had never smoked, I had never been around it in my
life. I spent three and one-half months in the Cancer
Care Alliance, over a year am able to walk. And I
vividly remember my dad sitting in a wheelchair
sobbing thinking he had caused cancer in me. Whether
he did or didn't it did not matter when you are a
child your father is your idol. I went in remission
at that time, within one year and one-half. 2009 May
15th, my father got sick with what he thought was a
chest cold, he was admitted to a hospital in
Knoxville, Tennessee. July 29th, 45 days later he
passed away and in those 45 days he went from 185
pounds to 85 pounds. He developed emphysema and COPD.
He hid it from our family, he didn't want us to know.
Our family incurred over $300,000 in debt for his
hospital stays. It is a debt that we gladly would
have paid any day just to have one more day with our
father.
I am selfish. I miss my father. I wish someone back
in the 1950s and 1960s had done this to my father.
Taken that away from them. It's not about me, it's
not about you, it's about the families, their kids
that don't have a choice in this to grow up like me.
I'm a 44 year old man and mention my father puts me on
the ground. I cannot see him again, I cannot even
begin, I cannot learn from him again. All I can do is
know that he knows that I am fighting a good fight for
him. I beg you pass this, end it now. Thank you.
6:45:43 PM
JOHN YORDY, M.D., Anchorage and Valley Radiation Therapy
Centers, said he is testifying in support of this bill and on
behalf of the Anchorage and Valley Radiation Therapy Centers and
himself, he lives and works in Wasilla, and treats cancer
patients with radiation therapy. He related that his concern is
with the health risks of secondhand smoke and the disease
causing properties of being exposed to smoke. He referred to
the testimonies regarding businesses and individuals opposing
smoke-free work environments and explain that from the health
care perspective in treating cancer patients on a daily basis
and watching the effects of what cancer does, as well as knowing
the exposure to smoke has directly caused some of the cancers
that he is treating makes him compelled and passionate about
trying to eradicate smoking from the workplace. There are many
reasons why people may feel compelled to expose themselves to
secondhand smoke despite a desire to the contrary. It may be
the only job or the best job they can get and, he pointed out,
many people live in an area where it may be difficult to find a
good job so they feel compelled to put themselves into the
[smoked-filled] situation so they can put food on the table or
buy medicine for their children. There are other professions
dependent upon protecting themselves in a public situation such
as musicians, who may feel compelled to perform in an
environment that is smoke-filled. He related that his concern
is for these people who may not be smokers themselves, but are
being forced to partake in work situations that cause them to
breathe in smoke that can be harmful to their health. For these
reasons, he said he strongly supports this legislation and asked
that the committee consider passage so all Alaskans can work and
live in smoke-free workplace environments.
6:48:15 PM
OWEN HANLEY, M.D., Fairbanks Memorial Hospital, said he is a
pulmonary lung doctor and he strongly supports the legislation.
He pointed out that patients in Fairbanks want the same
protection that citizens in Juneau and Anchorage have, and
disagrees with the remark that one-half of the state wanted it
and the other half didn't want it and voted it out. He related
that Fairbanks hasn't had an opportunity because our borough has
no health powers. [Audio difficulties.] My patients would love
to have a smoke-free environment (indisc.) in Fairbanks. Some
patients are living in housing and on oxygen but the people in
the hallways and next door are smoking and have ventilation
systems (indisc.). Most Alaskans would like to enjoy the same
opportunities of smoke-free clean air that legislators have in
their buildings, he said. (Indisc.) testimony that since OSHA
doesn't find secondhand smoke exceeds a particular toxic
standard that it is therefore safe. The science of the evidence
is overwhelming that secondhand smoke is lethal, and the
evidence is overwhelming that limiting secondhand smoke has
dramatic reduction in heart attacks and strokes. E-cigarettes
must be banned, while it may be true that some e-cigarettes are
safe, there are enumerable things that can be put in the
containers such as, nicotine, marijuana, or an unlimited amount
of chemicals, an e-cigarette is just a delivery device and it
would be impossible to legislate or enforce what is in an
individual vaping device. He stated that there is no way to
ensure that an e-cigarette contains a safe substance, and
whether the person next to them is producing a harmful toxin.
The legislation is not asking people to quit using it, just to
take it outside, he pointed out.
6:51:00 PM
ERIC VARGASON referred to the prior testimonies and opined that
everyone wants the same thing, although, he does not believe
including vaping and e-cigarettes language is most prudent. He
said he opposes this bill due to the inclusion of the vaping
language because by not allowing sampling "e-juices" in vape
shops the bill is basically pushing more people to smoke, at the
end of the day. He advised the committee that everyone wants
clean air and to consider the relevant studies testified to
today, otherwise, it as not only jumping the gun but it is
irresponsible and overreaching. He said that when he is alone
in his house vaping and his children are with their mother, he
is still left to these standards. Not only is that not fair, he
advised but the government is telling him what he can and cannot
do in his own house provided he is not hurting anyone else. He
said he has chosen to not vape around anyone else, vaping has
made him healthy, and speaking as a former smoker he does not
need a study to tell him how he feels right now.
6:53:21 PM
STEVEN MAPES said he is speaking in opposition to HB 328 and is
speaking for all of the adults on the Kenai Peninsula who have
made the choice to vape rather than smoke. He referred to
various studies and noted that one study indicated the threshold
limit values of vapors produced by e-cigarettes were magnitudes
below OSHA limits. Adults choosing to vape rather than smoke
looked to unbiased independent studies to help them make
informed decisions. He stated that vaping has saved previous
smokers thousands of dollar because they "ain't paintin their
lungs with tar and fillin their blood stream with carbon
monoxide" and it has had a tremendous positive impact on their
lives, including his. This bill would effectively regulate this
healthier alternative out of existence, and it will harm the
health and wellbeing of the citizens of Alaska. The standalone
language for vape shops and secondhand vape goes against all of
the science and research available today. He related that both
of his parents died of lung cancer and it was ugly, and he made
the choice to quit smoking and finally found vaping. He has
been vaping for four years and can breathe and exercise and
feels about 1,000 times better. On a side note, he said he sees
adults writing testimonies for their children to read at these
teleconferences, and he watches this happening at the Kenai LIO
every time he goes down there, and these actions taint this
process.
6:55:41 PM
BOB URATA, MD, Valley Medical Care, said he was born and raised
in Wrangell, and has practiced medicine in Juneau since 1984.
He has been a volunteer for the American Heart Association for
16 years and is testifying today as a representative for the
American Heart Association and himself. He expressed his
support for this bill and the inclusion of e-cigarettes because
every 34 seconds an American dies of a heart attack, every 40
seconds an American dies of a stroke; and cancer and
cardiovascular disease are the number one and two causes of the
deaths of Alaskans. Secondhand smoke is one of the main causes,
he stressed and it kills over 50,000 Americans each year, it is
expensive as the CDC reports secondhand smoke exposure causes
the United States to spend $5.6 billion a year in lost
productivity, tobacco expenditures in the United States are $133
billion in direct medical care for adults, and this state may
save $5 million in Medicaid medical expenses if not more. An
example of a success of the Clean Air Act is Pueblo, Colorado -
1.5 years before and after passage of its smoke-free ordinance
it saw a 20 percent rise in bar and restaurant sales tax revenue
and a 27 percent decrease in heart attacks. He opined e-
cigarettes should be included due to the serious questions about
their safety because the FDA found toxins that are known to
cause problems to health, and also nicotine in the products. A
medical saying is "First do no harm" and he believes that vaping
must remain in the bill. Imagine the many lives saved if
cigarettes had been properly studied before being placed on the
market and Alaskans must make sure that e-cigarettes are safe
before exposing everyone to them. In closing, the positive
impacts will benefit many in the short and long term and on
behalf of the American Heart Association and many Alaskans, he
urged the committee to support this bill.
6:58:27 PM
ANGELA CARROLL, Smoke-Free Alternative Trade Association, said
she represents the Smoke-Free Alternative Trade Association and
noted that more states are looking at electronic delivery
systems to add a solution to the tobacco problem. These states
are reviewing the science behind this new technology that is
saving lives and could ultimately save billions in health care
costs including lost work time, per a scientific study released
by the State Budget Solutions in March 2015. She read various
studies and peer reviewed studies and advised that they have
been submitted as documents of opposition. She remarked that as
representatives of Alaska the committee has an opportunity to
show its constituents the members care about their health, and
are in favor of Alaskans utilizing a safer alternative to
combustible cigarettes by supporting vape shops. Alaskans make
the choice to enter a vape shop to test flavors and find the
device to help them to maintain that vapor alternative. This
bill would force current vape owners to relocate (indisc.) for
vape products and this one provision will force most vape shop
owners out of business in Alaska, eliminating the opportunity
for adult Alaskans who currently smoke from discovering this
alternative to combustible cigarettes. For these reasons the
members of the Smoke-Free Alternative Trade Association (SFATA)
are asking that the vape language be removed from this bill, and
in the alternative SFATA is asking for the standalone
requirement to be removed so they can continue to operate in
their current location. No shop currently meets these
requirements and it would be cost prohibitive for these "mom and
pop" establishments to (indisc.) standalone structures. If the
bill passes as written the SFATA members would close up existing
shops and this alternative combustible cigarette would be lost.
She asked that the legislation be re-written before passing it
out of committee.
7:01:47 PM
JUNE ROGERS said she is testifying as a concerned member of the
community and as a business owner. She said she has long been
in favor of a smoke-free environment because 15 years ago when
she and her husband began their business, a coffee house and
recording studio, they determined that the business would be
smoke-free. A significant factor in her strong support of this
bill is that her mother was diagnosed with emphysema and had
never smoked, although, she did work in smoke filled restaurants
for most of her life. Ms. Rogers advised she has never smoked,
but in earlier times of her performance work she spent too many
hours in smoke filled rooms, breathing more deeply than perhaps
anyone else in the room as she sang for their entertainment.
While she does not have the severe condition that her mother
has, she does have issues of allergic and problematic breathing
responses to smoke filled rooms. She referred to the comment
that people make the choice to work in such conditions, true
enough and; therefore, made the decision to create her own smoke
free workplace where her band performs every Friday and Saturday
evening. However, she pointed out this is not a realistic
option for most musicians, particularly young hopeful musicians,
and stressed that they should not have to put their health in
jeopardy in order to work. In speaking with club owners who
have converted to smoke free venues she is not surprised when
they advise that their revenue increased substantially. Only
recently did she investigate the properties of e-cigarettes but
based upon what she has learned, she firmly agrees that
including them as an item that does not deserve acceptance in a
smoke-free venue. As Alaskan leaders, legislators are called
upon to decide on a broad spectrum of issues that relate to the
wellbeing of Alaska's communities, she asked that the committee
give its upmost consideration to this bill as it will provide a
more productive and healthy workplace, and not surprisingly will
also benefit in less healthcare costs for Alaska.
7:04:00 PM
DANNY RUEREP said his opposition to HB 328 is based solely [on
vaping] because he does not want to see the vape shops in local
communities removed because it will destroy the vaping local
economies. He described this as a step in the wrong direction
because he had been a smoker for 20 years until he found a local
vape shop and sampled every liquid he desired, and advised he
has now been two years free of cigarettes. He related to the
committee that in taking the vaping provisions out of the bill
there will be less opposition.
7:055 PM
QUOC DONG said that he had smoked for 10 years, vaped for three
years, quit vaping, and has gone from 18 milligrams of nicotine
to zero. He opined that it is a good tool for people to
transition their lives from tobacco smoking. While in school he
was taught that if he made a mistake with something he had to do
it in the correct manner twice before he could learn it
correctly, and felt that is the same for any habit. In order to
quit smoking, he opined, a couple of years might be a more
reasonable expectation of people and that eventually most people
vaping will quit vaping in addition to not smoking. The
environment in which vaping has been created is not similar to
smoking as it is built on innovations. In an economy that has
led to many devices and different types of e-liquids in a short
period of time, if bills such as HB 328 continue to be passed in
the United States, different innovations will arise and the
legislature will be dealing with a whole other thing that could
be far worse than vaping. In order to pre-empt that, he opined
the committee should reconsider the language and reconsider how
vaping is used before actually passing laws. With the
introduction of marijuana to Alaska, he opined that the two
industries side-by-side and a negative view on vaping could
potentially create a hazardous environment for nicotine users.
He advised that some vape shops in Anchorage sell marijuana
tools which, unsurprisingly, are smokeless devices that don't
produce vapor. Speaking as a person who formerly vaped, he said
he has quite a bit of vaping paraphernalia which also includes
100 milligrams per milliliter nicotine. He related that if he
were to drink the entire bottle he would die so some people may
have the wrong impression about what vaping is.
7:08:56 PM
OCTAVIA HARRIS, American Lung Association in Alaska, said the
American Lung Association in Alaska supports HB 328 as there is
no safe level of secondhand smoke or aerosol exposure. She
pointed out that there is statewide support for this bill and
approximately 1,000 businesses and organizations from all
corners of the state have signed resolutions in support of this
measure, and an updated version will be submitted to the
committee. She asked that committee support the legislation and
pass it out of committee.
7:10:11 PM
EMILY NENON, Director, Alaska Government Relations, American
Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, noted that a number of
volunteers contacted her after Tuesday's hearing regarding not
getting a chance to testify and she suggested that the folks
send in their written comments. She pointed out that the
legislation is modeled after a number of the existing ordinances
in the state including Anchorage. The language around the
children's play area is discussing playground equipment, which
is identical to the language already in place in Anchorage and
existing ordinances around the state. No smoking on a toddler's
swing is how it has been interpreted over time, she remarked,
and the bill is focused on inside workplaces. Regarding the
questions around the education program, the Department of Health
and Social Services has an existing tobacco prevention program
with grantees around the state performing educational (programs)
regarding secondhand smoke and other tobacco issues. She
pointed out that those folks performing the education work now
will be transitioning some of their work to implementation, and
education around this bill is already in place and being
performed which is one of the reasons there is no additional
cost. Many discussions have come up around electronic
cigarettes as cessation products which, she related, is not the
argument at hand in this bill because it is simply discussing
exposure to secondhand aerosol.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, after ascertaining no one wished to
testify, closed public testimony.
7:13:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON advised he will take the bill up at a
future hearing, questions were submitted to the sponsor who
indicated he will return the answers to the committee, and it
would be best that all amendments are prepared by Legislature
Legal and Research Services.
[HB 328 was held over.]