Here Is Why the Massachusetts Ban on Vaping Products Is Bad for Public Health

Citing respiratory diseases associated with black-market THC products, the state is banning legal e-cigarettes that are far less hazardous than the conventional kind.


Yesterday, Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker (R) announced an "emergency" ban on the sale of all vaping products, including devices used to consume cannabis extracts, nicotine, or solutions with no psychoactive ingredients. Unlike the bans on flavored e-cigarettes in Michigan and New York or the similar ban planned by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which were presented as responses to underage consumption, the Massachusetts edict is based mainly on concerns about recent reports of severe respiratory illnesses associated with vaping. But the governor's explanation is highly misleading in light of what we know about the causes of those illnesses, and his sweeping ban is apt to undermine public health instead of protecting it.

"The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are currently investigating a multi-state outbreak of lung disease that has been associated with the use of e-cigarettes or vaping products (devices, liquids, refill pods, and/or cartridges)," Baker's press release says. "To date, the CDC has confirmed 530 cases of lung injury across 38 states. While many of the patients reported recent use of Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)-containing products, some reported using both THC and nicotine products. No single product has been linked to all cases of lung disease."

Baker is echoing the CDC's framing, which obscures the fact that the overwhelming majority of lung disease cases (not just "many") are associated with black-market cannabis products. In states where the products used have been reported, the share of patients who admitted vaping THC ranges from 83 percent to 100 percent. The actual rates in some of those states may be even higher, since patients might be reluctant to admit illegal drug use.

The most plausible explanation for the respiratory illnesses is that vaping oil-based THC solutions is leading to lipoid pneumonia, a rare condition caused by fat particles in the lungs, or eosinophilic chemical pneumonitis, a disease marked by elevated levels of white blood cells in the lungs. A leading suspect is vitamin E acetate, which was detected in most of the THC fluids tested by the FDA and New York's state lab. Legal nicotine e-cigarettes, by contrast, typically vaporize e-liquids containing propylene glycol and vegetable glycerin. Furthermore, such e-cigarettes have been used by millions of Americans for years, while the respiratory illnesses have been reported only in the last few months, which suggests that relatively new additives or contaminants are to blame.

"These excipients [propylene glycol and vegetable glycerin] have been used in e-liquids for the past 12 years without a problem," notes Boston University public health professor Michael Siegel, a physician and epidemiologist who supports e-cigarettes as a harm-reducing alternative to the conventional, combustible kind. "If PG/VG were the problem, then there would be a huge number of cases occurring among adults, much less of a differential by gender, and much less of an age gradient in the reported cases."

Siegel faults the CDC for its muddled message about vaping-related lung disease. "Given the fact that close to 90% of cases and 100% of the deaths for which products have been reported are associated with marijuana vaping, it is inexcusable that the CDC fails to distinguish between the products being vaped," he writes. "It is also inexcusable that CDC has failed to distinguish between the vaping of oil-based e-liquids (which are typically used in [THC cartridges]) and water/alcohol-based e-liquids (as are used in virtually all e-cigarettes)."

In this context, Baker's comprehensive ban on all vaping products makes little sense. He is relying on his authority to declare an emergency "which is detrimental to the public health." Based on Baker's declaration, the commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Health, with the approval of the state Public Health Council, has imposed a four-month ban covering a wide range of products that, so far as we know, have not been implicated in respiratory illnesses.

Implicitly conceding the inadequacy of his main justification, Baker also cites recent increases in e-cigarette use by minors as a rationale for the ban. "Vaping products are marketed and sold in nearly 8,000 flavors that make them easier to use and more appealing to youth," says Lt. Gov. Karyn Polito. "Today's actions include a ban on flavored products, inclusive of mint and menthol, which we know are widely used by young people."

Baker's action highlights the alarmingly broad authority that some governors are claiming to ban products they don't like in the name of "public health." Since the statutes on which they are relying do not define "public health," they seemingly allow governors to declare any situation an "emergency" and impose bans without new legislation. Gregory Conley, president of the American Vaping Association, which seeks to preserve e-cigarettes as an option for smokers who want to quit, asks, "If a governor is permitted to just ban e-cigarettes for four months, what else could they ban?" That seems to be an open question, although litigation by vaping businesses may clarify the answer.

Baker's defense of his ban lumps together several distinct issues: the outbreak of respiratory illnesses related to THC vaping, the surge in underage e-cigarette use, and the relative hazards of vaping and smoking. His take on that last issue is decidedly unscientific. "To further inform the public about the dangers of vaping and e-cigarette use," his press release says, the Department of Public Health "is relaunching two public awareness campaigns aimed at educating parents and middle and high school-aged youth. 'Different Products, Same Danger,' originally launched in April 2019, links the dangers of vaping to cigarette smoking."

Legal e-cigarettes, which deliver nicotine without tobacco or combustion, emphatically do not pose the "same danger" as conventional cigarettes. As David Abrams, a professor of social and behavioral sciences at NYU, explained in a recent interview with CBS News, studies of biomarkers in smokers who have switched to vaping find that they are exposed to far fewer hazardous substances, at far lower levels, than people who continue to smoke. "E-cigarettes are way less harmful than cigarettes," he said, "and they can and do help smokers switch if they can't quit."

If every smoker in the United States switched to e-cigarettes, Abrams estimates, it would prevent as many as 7 million smoking-related deaths. Vaping "delivers nicotine in a very satisfying way without the major harms of burning tobacco," he said. "If we lose this opportunity, I think we will have blown the single biggest public health opportunity we've ever had in 120 years to get rid of cigarettes and replace them with a much safer form of nicotine."

The harm-reducing potential of e-cigarettes has been recognized by a wide range of public health agencies and organizations, including the FDA, the Royal College of Physicians, Public Health England, the American Cancer Society, and the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. In 2015, Public Health England said "best estimates show e-cigarettes are 95% less harmful to your health than normal cigarettes." Yet the Massachusetts Department of Public Health is telling people that e-cigarettes pose the "same danger" as combustible cigarettes, a false premise that seems to be part of the logic underlying its ban.

If you ignore the enormous difference between the health risks posed by smoking and the health risks posed by vaping, it is easier to rationalize a policy that will deprive current and former smokers of an alternative that could save their lives. Massachusetts Health and Human Services Secretary Marylou Sudders implicitly acknowledges the impact the vaping ban will have on smokers who have switched to e-cigarettes or might be interested in doing so. "As a result of the public health emergency," she says, "the Commonwealth is implementing a statewide standing order for nicotine replacement products, like gum and patches, which will allow people to access these products as a covered benefit through their insurance without requiring an individual prescription."

As David Abrams noted in his CBS News interview, research indicates that e-cigarettes are nearly twice as effective in smoking cessation as those "nicotine replacement products." Many smokers who did not manage to quit with "gum and patches" were able to do so with e-cigarettes. By ignoring that reality, Massachusetts pretends that its vaping ban will improve public health when in fact it is apt to result in more smoking-related diseases and deaths as former smokers return to a much more hazardous habit and current smokers are deterred from quitting.

"Massachusetts has made significant progress over the past two decades in curbing youth and adult tobacco use," the governor's press release notes. "In 1996, the youth smoking rate was 36.7%. Today, the youth smoking rate is 6.4%. The adult smoking rate is also low, with just under 14% of adults using combustible tobacco products." These downward trends not only continued as vaping became more common; they accelerated, suggesting that e-cigarettes are replacing a far more dangerous source of nicotine. But that consideration does not seem to have figured at all in Baker's decision.

It should go without saying that the Massachusetts ban will not curtail vaping of mystery cartridges and e-liquids available on the black market, which pose the greatest risks. To the contrary, the ban will drive vapers toward those products. "Legal vapes while not safe are subject to regulation on manufacturing, sales, marketing, ingredients, warnings," former FDA chief Scott Gottlieb noted last month. "If we outlaw all vapes, and pull legal products off the market, problems with illegal and counterfeit products will get worse." Yet that's exactly what Massachusetts is doing.

NEXT: Local Man Uses Viral Fame To Raise $1 Million for Charity, Journalist Digs Up Offensive Tweets He Made at Age 16

Vaping E-cigarettes Public Health Tobacco CDC FDA Massachusetts

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

Please to post comments

31 responses to “Here Is Why the Massachusetts Ban on Vaping Products Is Bad for Public Health

  1. Yet cigarettes are still legal there. What an ignorant piece of shit.

    1. Its for the children though

    2. How much money does Juul pay into the Master Settlement Agreement?

      1. Same amount as Walmart and the Ford Motor Company I would assume, since none of them are tobacco companies

        1. You’re a tobacco company of Congress says you’re a tobacco company.

          1. I apologize. I am incorrect here. You’re a tobacco company if a Federal Judge says you’re a tobacco company.

          2. The results are astonishing. Not only is vaping costing billions in tax revenue, it could force some of the very states that have lead the charge against vaping into effective bankruptcy.

            Let’s dive into the data.

            If Vaping is “costing billions in tax revenue” via the lack of Master Settlement Agreement funds, then it boggled the mind to even imagine how much Amazon, Walmart and Ford Motor Company are costing us.

    3. Hey, nannies in a nanny state gottta nanny.

    4. Yeah, he gets money from tobacco.

  2. Dammit, man, I was right there with you on the anti-vaping witch hunt hysteria, but then you had to go and show a picture of what we’re talking about. Dank Sour Diesel? AYFKM? Burn the witches! I don’t care if they strapped a fake nose on her, anybody that would buy and smoke something advertised as tasting like a tire fire is obviously brain-damaged and needs to be protected from themselves. Which, come to think of it, also applies to anybody living in Massachusetts so it’s hard to have sympathy for those people anyway. Especially the Pats fans.

    1. Calm down there chief, Sour Diesel is a well-known cannabis strain that has been around for decades. Just like there are tobacco-flavored nicotine cartridges, there are also weed-flavored THC cartridges.

  3. If being dangerous and a “public health crisis”, why have not any state government banned cigarettes. There is much more danger in combustible tobacco than there ever will be in e-cigarettes. Maybe, and bear with me a moment, just maybe this has to do with state governments not being able to tax e-cigarettes at the same rate as combustible cigarettes. If people are allowed to switch from combustible cigarettes to e-cigarettes, state governments (especially New York) will lose a boat-load of revenue. We cannot have that. This is 100% a deliberate attempt to continue to generate revenue at the health and well-being of American citizens.

  4. While it’s hilarious that Massholes can still buy cigarettes even while they can’t buy vape products, the lesson they will learn is ‘ban cigarettes too’. After all, smoking is a moral defect…and so is anything that looks like smoking.

    It is truly bizarre that they’re going after the less dangerous product first though, which does make one wonder if the money they get from cigarette sales is their primary motivation.

  5. I missed Jacob Sullum’s advocacy for the asbestos, thalidomide, tobacco, and fracking industries, but it must have been forceful.

    1. Democrats have protected the booze industry for years, which has a much higher social cost than vaping, and rivals tobacco when you consider that it leads to accidents, wife beating, child neglect, rape, and murder, and of course chronic diseases too. The NIH under Obama was even ready to commission a study for them on the “benefits” of drinking.

  6. This whole issue is rather confusing to me. Seems more and more evidence comes out that the health problems are attributed from THC vaping liquids and not over the counter flavored liquids. With that in mind, why is there total silence on the THC aspect of all this??? I get it though…prohibitionists have wanted vaping banned for some time now in order to protect the kids from nicotine…and now these health issues has been exactly what they needed to put the nail in the coffin of vaping use.

    Everyone I’ve talked to about this issue is for banning vaping…and it drives me absolutely fucking crazy.

    1. Politicians have never really needed a rational reason to ban anything. If they were rational, they wouldn’t be politicians.

  7. I am a 62 y.o. with a nicotine addiction going back 42 years. I have tried everything that came along to quit and failed each time. Even the earlier generation of vapes were not effective. For whatever reason Juul has worked for both myself and my wife of 40 years (who did quit for 10 years but started again when her Dad died and I had them on me since I was still an addict). Obviously vaping will never be “safe” but these nanny staters are protecting their cash flow (remember billions of tobacco settlement bonds were sold by most states, I believe right before the turn of the century) by pushing us addicts back to burning tobacco. They (and other anti-smoking zealots like the Dr. on the radio show) have no interest in any objective analysis of the relative risks of tobacco vs legal vaping. And of course the drug war angle is maybe even bigger than the settlement bonds b/c the warriors are a huge constituency of governments on all levels – legalize THC vapes and these problems might just go away. But of course all you need to do is look at the horrible turmoil legal weed has caused in CO, CA, NV, and elsewhere to realize how stupid legal THC would be – much better to have black market death and massive employment of drug warriors than fewer deaths and fewer government workers in the drug war/prison industrial complex. See: Pension Crisis stuff here at reason. It all does run together after a while, doesn’t it?

    1. Hey pal, I’m glad you two quit. Whenever I see a boomer vaping in traffic or whatever, I raise my mod for a toast.

  8. In a more rational society, banning vapes would be dangerous to the governor’s health.

  9. “Massachusetts has made significant progress over the past two decades in curbing youth and adult tobacco use,” the governor’s press release notes. “In 1996, the youth smoking rate was 36.7%. Today, the youth smoking rate is 6.4%. The adult smoking rate is also low, with just under 14% of adults using combustible tobacco products.”

    Thanks in part to vaping. Watch what will happen to those low rates a year or two after the ban on vaping.

  10. I hope this motherfucker and all his authoritarian counterparts die in house fires caused by a cigarettes or of smoking-related lung cancer.

    Leave us the hell alone you censorious pricks!

  11. He’s a genius. This will put every vape shop out of business and the tobacco taxes will come pouring in again.

  12. Many states are proposing a ban on vaping. This raises a question though. Just how can they justify this ban? There more people dying form tobacco than from smoking. Also smoking is hazardous only to the smoker but also to those around them. There more property damage because of it also.
    Just remember that there more people that die from alcohol also than vaping plus much more property damage and others social crimes such as rape but these states are not banning alcohol either.
    So there must be another reason which is that the states are to receive very large payouts from the tobacco industry through 2025 at least. Payouts from a settlement with the tobacco companies that the states have. That settlement is based upon the number of smokers. With vaping reducing the number of smokers the states are about to lose million if not billions of dollars if the trend continues. With vaping that trend would continue and the states would lose the money. So it boils down to the states are protecting their income at the expense of smokers and vappers. Sounds kind of callous but so is life.

  13. I left Asshatchusetts more than 20 years ago. Unfortunately, other states will look to emulate them on this, if the FDA itself doesn’t ban all vaping devices. Money talks, and vaping has threatened not only the tax and MSA revenue tobacco brings in, but also Big Pharma, who the FDA works for, bottom line, since I’m sure it has hurt their patch/gum/Chantix sales.

  14. just before i sAw the drAft which sAid $8187, i did not believe thAt my fAther in lAw hAd been ActuAlly tAking home money in there spAre time At their lAptop.. there friends cousin hAz done this for under twenty three months And just now pAid the mortgAge on their plAce And bourt A top of the rAnge lotus esprit. we looked here, HERE☛

  15. “Gregory Conley, president of the American Vaping Association, which seeks to preserve e-cigarettes as an option for smokers who want to quit, asks, ‘”If a governor is permitted to just ban e-cigarettes for four months, what else could they ban?'”

    Sounds like he’s calling for a ‘hold my beer’ moment.

  16. Maybe we should ban governors for four months.

  17. Nobody NEEDS to vape.

  18. Cigarettes concentrate Polonium 210 in the lungs, yet when was the last time you heard mention of that? Or of the total worth of U.S. cigarette exports? Vaping could be made as dangerous as smoking by the CDC demanding that Strontium 90 and free radicals be added, then shrieking “Assassin of Youth” at the top of its reports like in the good old days. Big Hemp is making inroads and taking away entrenched market share. Fake reporting is to be expected just as ballot access blocking and smear tactics are to be expected with the rapid increase in the Libertarian share of the vote count.

  19. Visit the website then register after that you can play many games with just 1 ID, let’s play with us now !!

Comments are closed.