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.]