E-cigarettes

Save E-Cigarettes From the Children

Concerns about underage consumption should not dictate the choices available to adults.

|

Last year I gave our oldest daughter an electronic cigarette kit for her 20th birthday. At that point Francine, who started smoking at 17, was going through two or three packs of Camels a day—which was pretty impressive, especially since she was not allowed to smoke inside the house. Today Francine has cut her cigarette habit down to zero. Instead she gets her nicotine from a refillable device that delivers the drug in a propylene glycol vapor, avoiding the tobacco combustion products that had threatened to degrade her health and shorten her life. Her favorite flavor: berry menthol.

I thought of Francine while reading "Gateway to Addiction," a recent report that claims e-cigarette companies "market their products to youth" by offering flavors "that could appeal to children and teens." The report, prepared by the offices of Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) and 10 other Democratic legislators, also takes a dim view of e-cigarette advertising that might be seen by minors. Intent on portraying e-cigarettes as a menace to the youth of America, the report gives short shrift to the lifesaving potential of a product that mimics smoking without burning anything.

Durbin et al. assert that e-cigarette companies "use child-friendly flavors to attract young customers." How do they know that is what e-cigarette companies are doing? Because "e-cigarette companies market e-cigarettes in flavors that appear to be designed to appeal to youth"—"flavors like Cherry Crush, Chocolate Treat, Peachy Keen, and Grape Mint." That is about as sophisticated as the analysis gets.

The charge that e-cigarette companies are luring "young customers" is ambiguous, perhaps deliberately so. After all, young customers include adults, among them 20-something women such as Francine who seem to favor the varieties that Durbin et al. deem "child-friendly." But if the senator and his allies are claiming that only minors could possibly like these flavors, that Peachy Keen and Grape Mint appeal to 17-year-olds but not 18-year-olds, they are clearly wrong.

In truth, the rap against fruity e-cigarette fluid is the same as the rap against flavored cigarssweet alcoholic beverages, and cannabis-infused chocolate bars: Adult products cannot be tolerated if they might taste good to kids. That is why Durbin et al. want the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which says it will issue e-cigarette regulations "very soon," to ban the flavors that offend them—for the children. Whether you think that recommendation is reasonable will depend on whether you accept the idea that concerns about underage consumption should dictate the choices available to adults.

Durbin et al.'s complaints about e-cigarette advertising and promotion are similarly overbroad. They note with alarm that e-cigarette companies "have significantly increased marketing expenditures" in recent years. They worry that e-cigarette companies sponsor "music festivals, parties, and motorsports events," which minors have been known to attend. They bemoan the fact that e-cigarette companies "utilize social media," which kids also utilize. They are disturbed that e-cigarette companies "air television and radio advertisements," because kids watch TV and listen to the radio.

Worse, the ads sometimes feature "celebrity spokespeople." You know who likes celebrities? Kids. They love Stephen Dorff almost as much as they love Cherry Crush e-cigarettes. A New York Times storyabout Durbin et al.'s report mentions another example of marketing that clearly targets minors: ads in Sports Illustrated that "featured women in bikinis." Every heterosexual man in America can testify that he immediately lost interest in that sort of thing when he turned 18.

Durbin et al. perceive a threat to children whenever e-cigarette companies give away their products, even in seemingly adult settings such as bars, which by law are off limits to anyone younger than 21. After all, kids love free stuff, especially when they can't get it.

All this marketing to youth must be working, Durbin et al. imply, since e-cigarette use among teenagers is rising. Between 2011 and 2012, according to the National Youth Tobacco Survey, "the percentage of high school students who had used e-cigarettes more than doubled from 4.7% to 10%." Durbin et al. do not mention that more than 90 percent of the teenagers who had tried e-cigarettes were already smokers, perhaps because that fact might undermine their warning that vaping could "increase public health risks by serving as a more socially acceptable gateway for non-smokers to pick up the habit." If anything, these survey results suggest that some teenagers may end up switching from smoking to vaping, rather than the other way around. Likewise with adults: Survey data indicate that e-cigarette use is overwhelmingly concentrated among current and former smokers.

There is in fact precious little evidence of the gateway effect that Durbin et al. fear. In a 2013 survey of 1,300 college students, only one respondent reported trying e-cigarettes before smoking the conventional kind. "It didn't seem as though it really proved to be a gateway to anything," said the lead researcher. Consistent with that observation, the same survey that Durbin et al. cite with alarm shows that smoking among teenagers fell as vaping rose.

Recent data from England likewise show that an increase in vaping has been accompanied by a decline in smoking. According to the Smoking Toolkit Study, e-cigarette use in England has been rising since 2011, when the survey began. Meanwhile, the percentage of smokers who reported quitting in the previous year rose from 4.6 percent in 2011 to 6.2 percent in 2012. The cessation rate was 6.1 percent last year and 8.7 percent in the first quarter of this year. During the same period the success rate of smokers who tried to quit rose from 13.7 percent to 21.4 percent.

Those numbers suggest the real promise of e-cigarettes—not as a nefarious plot to hook teenagers on nicotine but as a harm-reducing alternative to smoking. If the FDA follows Durbin's advice, it will ban most e-cigarette flavors, making the switch less appealing to smokers who prefer the prohibited varieties, and restrict e-cigarette advertising, making smokers less aware of a competing product that could literally save their lives.

This article originally appeared at Forbes.

NEXT: Steve Chapman on What's Wrong With Victims' Rights

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Can someone explain to me why so many leftys embrace harm reduction in the form of needle exchanges and condom handouts but their heads assplode when it comes to e-cigarettes? I’ve yet to receive a satisfactory answer.

    1. Because the limousine liberals will never encounter heroine junkies or crackwhores in their quotidian lives; however, there is a possibility that they might encounter tobacco users.

      1. Heroin junkies. Heroine junkies are the guys who think Hillary is the answer to all of their problems.

    2. And you won’t.

    3. That’s easy, Rebekah. E-cigarettes are manufactured by Big Tobacco … well, at least by Big *Industry*, whereas needles and condoms are *not* manufact, …. Let me rephrase. E-cigarettes are mostly used by well-off middle class people, but needles and condoms are used mostly by the poor and needy … well, needles, anyway. So, there you have it.

      1. E-cigarettes are manufactured by Big Tobacco

        I’ve heard this since I started vaping almost five years ago. It was ridiculous then and only slightly less ridiculous now. Of course, the sort of people who make this claim very rarely look at the actual evidence.

        E-cigarettes are mostly used by well-off middle class people

        You might be on to something.

    4. Smokers switching to e-cigs aren’t playing the role of lost souls who have fallen and are in need of uplifting.

      Ever since Columbus discovered tobacco there has been a fierce moral opposition to its use.

      1. But needle exchange users and free condom users aren’t playing the fallen soul either. However, drug shooters and condom users are sticking to The Man, as are pot smokers. By contrast, tobacco users are The Man.

        1. sticking it to The Man

          (Sticking it, Jerry, sticking it!)

    5. Needle exchanges and condom handouts are government programs. E-cigarettes are products sold on the open market. One is the benevolent hand of the paternalistic state, the other is the invisible hand of the market place.

      1. If we can get government to mandate or at least subsidize e-cig purchases libs will get behind it.

    6. I don’t think that lefties are universally for needle exchanges or against e-cigarettes. It might be different people who take those positions (though I am sure there is some overlap, people are good at congnative dissonance).
      As much as it may seem to sometimes, the left does not think (when it can be bothered) with one mind.

    7. It’s because the “left” seem as prone as others to “dragging the pivot foot” when it comes to proscriptions on behavior.

      Say you want to stop people from doing something, and you have a justif’n that you stand on for stopping them. (I’m not concerned here with whether that justif’n is something everyone accepts, just enough people to sway public policy.) You correctly understand that there are substitute actions which violate the spirit of the proscription, so you pivot to stop them as well, closing the loopholes. But after a while, people forget what the justif’n was, and just come to accept the prohib’n as an end in itself. They will then move their other foot entirely away from the basis it stood on, and adopt further restrictions on similar actions.

      So it was with those who tried to prohibit virtual child pornography, even though it did not victimize children as did real kid porn. So it is with controls on substitutes substances for “drugs of abuse”, even thought the substitutes do not have the same dangers as the original “drugs”. Whether they say so or not, attempts to suppress e-cigs are in that tradition. It’s an attempt to close a perceived loophole in anti-tobacco policy. The object has become to frustrate nicotine users, not to protect them from harm from smoke. If it were basketball, this would be walking with the ball.

    8. There’s also the nagging fear “leftists” have that someone, somewhere is making money.

    9. I am clueless as to why they want to protect these large tobacco companies other than they are there major contributors to campaigning.

  2. The alt-text makes me want to be a kid again.

    1. Ummm…alt-text? There was alt-text?

  3. I was about to be all, “Lulz, your 17 year old daughter smokes two packs a day,” and then I remembered that at that age I was hovering around a pack and a half of Camel Filters myself, along with whatever I rolled myself and/or a pipe I carried around for reasons I swore had nothing to do with pretentiousness.

    Meanwhile, I wonder what the hardon for e-cigs is about. Is it because it’s a drug without an obvious down side? The easy answer is that somebody’s making money if e-cigs get regulated to hell, but just for a laugh I like to pretend there’s another less corrupt reason.

    1. Meanwhile, I wonder what the hardon for e-cigs is about.

      Have you seen the ad?

  4. So they should advertise using bad flavors, just because kids might like tasty flavors? How absurd.

    1. Yup. The only flavors acceptable to the people pushing e-cigarette regulation would be: Toe Jam flavor, Old Gym Socks flavor, Sweaty Crotch flavor or Smelly Butthole flavor.

      Even then, Sweaty Crotch might need to be proscribed if it appeals to too many people. There’s no accounting for taste, unles you work for the government.

  5. This is the excuse. The real reason is revenue. George Will has written about the states addiction to cigarette taxes. Since the war on tobacco is winning, this revenue is falling dramatically.

    Hence, the new squalling about e cig’s. Everyone uses them to quit real smoking (Greg Gutfeld), so where is the gateway? And if someone uses these to start with, why would they graduate to tobacco? After all, the candy crush, grape attack, cherry bomb flavors are not available in real tobacco.

    1. And remember that big tobacco lawsuit? My state of South Carolina got around $25 billion over X years, we immediately bonded the entire sum out so we could have the cash immediately, but the lawsuit says if tobacco sales income falls below some point they can reduce payments, so once tobacco sales fall to a certain point the taxpayers have to pay down the bonds instead of the tobacco companies. I expect that’s the same for other states.

      1. “And remember that big tobacco lawsuit?”
        Yeah the one that cartelized the market so as to extract as much money from the “victims” as possible?
        https://reason.com/archives/200…..-cant-kick

  6. I don’t support smoking at all, not real cigarets, not e-cigs either

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.