Response to the New Indoor Clean Air Act
Earlier today (8/29/11) the Utah State Health Department released the statement that "beginning September 12, 2011, the Utah Clean Air Act (UICAA) rule will include additional language to protect people from tobacco smoke."
The new language is in line with the intent of the UICAA statute that mandates the elimination of secondhand smoke exposure in indoor public places. The rule treats smoke from heated tobacco products like hookah the same as smoke from cigarettes, cigars, and pipe tobacco.
On June 6, 2011, the Utah State Health Department held a public hearing to hear arguments regarding change of language to the Utah Clean Air Act to include "heated" tobacco products, such as hookahs in public places in an effort to protect the public from second-hand smoke. The Utah State Health Department which does not have the authority to make new legislation was proposing this on the basis that their department has the right to interpret laws that have already been legislated. Their stance was that the initial intent of the word "ignited" tobacco products should have included "heated" tobacco products as well.
During that meeting, the Utah State Health Department was provided with scientific literature that contrasted the vast differences between "ignited" tobacco and "heated" shisha containing 20% tobacco. Facts that were given that day included: the temperature difference between igniting tobacco (igniting is 900 ºC) and heating (200 ºC), the vast difference in toxic compounds released (4,700 vs. 142), as well as the drastic differences between the nature of the smoke released from cigarettes as compared to hookahs. They were also provided with the extensive 46 page Meta-analysis written by Dr. Kamal Chaouachi, in which summarizes the evidence of 134 scientific papers written on the subject of the risks of second-hand smoke produced from hookahs. In this analysis he demonstrates the drastic differences in the second-hand smoke produced by cigarettes versus hookahs and concludes that "the toxicity of hookah Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) for non-smokers should not be overestimated and hyped in an unscientific way." Also during this analysis he pointed out that there are no actual studies that exist performed on hookahs demonstrating the risks of second-hand smoke. All of the opinions of these risks are based upon speculation and inferences from cigarette tobacco studies.
The only statement provided by the Utah State Health Department to justify their actions is given by Steve Hadden of the Utah Department of Health Tobacco Prevention and Control Program, "Second-hand tobacco smoke is known to cause cancer in humans. There is simply no safe level of exposure to tobacco smoke." Outlawing something based on the premise that you can't guarantee a safe level of it is absolutely absurd. Every industry on the planet produces some level of some substance that has potential risk to public health. No other industry is held to the standard of being allowed to produce zero substances with potential health risks. Experts use scientific data to establish industry guidelines to set standards of what acceptable levels of toxins produced are. Every one of us violates zero risk standard when we drive our cars to work everyday. The hookah industry deserves the same rights as other industries to have its regulations based upon scientific evidence and not this absolutely ridiculous double standard set out by the Utah State Health Department.
The Utah State Health Department does not have the authority to make laws. The officials in that department are appointed and not elected. The whole premise behind the Constitution was the outrage of our founding fathers for taxation without representation. Legislation without representation is every bit as unconstitutional. This department lacks the authority and they have been given the scientific evidence that has shown the vast differences between "igniting" and "heating" and has chosen to ignore it. The Utah State Health Department has yet to provide any actual scientific evidence supporting their position. Their actions are much more than a threat to local businesses. It is a threat to individual's rights. If they feel there is a danger, they need to seek legislation through the correct channels through the officials that we have elected to govern us.
Linked are copies of the two documents that were given to the Utah State Health Department at the meeting on June 6, 2011.
View Meta Analysis |
View our Response |
