The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
How Bans on Flavored Vapes Could Increase Teen Smoking
Well-intentioned restricitons on selling vaping products with non-tobacco flavors could have dire unintended consequences.
Many local jurisdictions have adopted laws banning the sale of flavored vaping products (i.e. vaping products with flavors other than tobacco). Additional cities, such as Cleveland, are considering whether to follow suit. The federal Food & Drug Administration has also refused to approve marketing applications for non-tobacco-flavored vaping products (aka ENDS or "electronic nicotine delivery systems").
All of these policies are largely justified on the grounds that non-tobacco flavors may appeal disproportionately to to non-smokers, and to youth in particular. The further concern is that once people start vaping, they may be more likely to end up smoking. Yet there has been little effort to study whether restricting access to flavored vaping products produces the desired policy outcomes, and little consideration by policy-makers about whether policies that make vaping less attractive increase smoking. This matters because, whatever the risks of vaping, the use of vaping products is far less dangerous than smoking.
Prior research has found that taxes and age-based restrictions on vaping products have the unintended consequence of increasing smoking rates. This suggests that vaping and smoking are economic substitutes, and that any policy that makes vaping marginally less attractive than smoking has the possibility of increasing smoking rates over what they would otherwise have been. As a consequence, it would be reasonable to suspect that vaping flavor bans might reduce the rate at which smokers switch to vaping and, even worse, could lead to increased smoking.
A new working paper by health researchers Abigail S Friedman, Alex C. Liber, Alyssa Crippen, and Michael F. Pesko looks at the effects of flavor bans on cigarette consumption, and the results are concerning. Here is there abstract:
Over 375 US localities and 7 states have adopted permanent restrictions on sales of flavored electronic nicotine delivery systems ("ENDS"). These policies' effects on combustible cigarette use ("smoking"), a more lethal habit, remain unclear. Matching new flavor policy data to retail sales data, we find a tradeoff of 15 additional cigarettes for every 1 less 0.7 mL ENDS pod sold due to ENDS flavor restrictions. Further, cigarette sales increase even among brands disproportionately used by underage youth. Thus, any public health benefits of reducing ENDS use via flavor restrictions may be offset by public health costs from increased cigarette sales.
And from the body of the paper:
This research has five key findings. First, ENDS sales fall and cigarette sales rise as a greater percentage of state residents is subject to policies restricting flavored ENDS sales. Effects are in the same direction for policies prohibiting all ENDS sales (i.e., flavored and unflavored), consistent with substitution. Second, ENDS flavor policies' relationships to ENDS and cigarette sales are larger in the long-run; that is, for policies in effect a year or longer. Indeed, when allowing differential effects over time, the relationship between ENDS flavor policies and cigarette sales are positive and significant in the long-run but not the short-run. Third, 71% of the increase in cigarette sales associated with ENDS flavor restrictions comes from tobacco-flavored cigarettes. Alongside the inclusion of controls for restrictions on menthol cigarette sales, this finding indicates that the observed substitution response to ENDS flavor policies cannot be attributed to menthol cigarettes' availability nor fully counteracted by menthol cigarette sales prohibitions. Fourth, ENDS flavor restrictions' relationship to cigarette sales holds across cigarette product age profiles, including for brands disproportionately used by underage youth. Finally, separating ENDS flavor prohibitions from less restrictive policies limiting flavored ENDS sales to particular types of retailers reveals that both policies yield reductions in ENDS sales and increases in cigarette sales once in effect for at least a year.
These findings are consistent with flavored ENDS policies encouraging substitution from ENDS towards combustible cigarettes, aligning with results from 16 of 18 other studies assessing cigarette use following adoptions of minimum legal sales age laws for ENDS, ENDS tax rate increases, and advertising restrictions (Pesko 2023). In other words, policies making ENDS more expensive, less accessible, or less appealing appear to incentivize substitution towards cigarettes.
If restrictions on vaping product flavors are going to be promoted as public health measures, policy makers might want to look at the actual evidence to see whether these policies actually enhance public health.
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. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
". . . whatever the risks of vaping, the use of vaping products is far less dangerous than smoking."
On a per-addict basis, perhaps, although the conjectural evidence for that is no better than the conjectural evidence used to justify the contrary position Adler opposes.
The larger question Adler avoids, however, is the effect on a population of a policy to promote addiction-based marketing, vs. a contrary policy to prohibit addiction-based marketing. And that is the real choice.
Experience had already proved that nicotine addiction was on the way toward extinction in the U.S. Perversely, Adler's advocacy is to bring it back, and not under any kind of health-related controls, but instead in an open ended way, forever, with what health and economic consequences nobody can know—although it remains trivially obvious that over time hundreds of millions of newly-created nicotine addicts would suffer substantial economic losses to keep nicotine habits going. The likelihood is also plain that the class worst affected economically would be those with lower incomes. Adler should find something better to advocate.
SL,
Start by learning some biochemistry. The idea that vaping is as dangerous as smoking a birning substance that produces tars is just stupid.
You should find some reason not to love the nanny state. Adler is an adult he neither knows about nor cares about your "advice."
You also have to add that tobacco, even before being burnt, naturally contains carcinogens, which is why chewing tobacco causes throat cancer, and tobacco workers are at risk from skin cancer just from handling the leaves. Making inhaling tobacco smoke much worse for your health than the smoke from most burning plant matter; The nicotine is almost an afterthought in terms of health risks!
Really, it's an almost uniquely nasty plant.
I wouldn’t say nicotine addiction was on the way out before vapes became available. Rather, the drop in cigarette consumption, which is at its lowest level ever, has roughly corresponded to the rise in vaping and other nicotine product use. There is a steady state percentage (about 20-30%) of the population who seeks nicotine and this is backed up by genetic studies.
As far as its addictiveness. Yes, it is more so than alcohol, but probably about as addictive as caffeine (try quitting caffeine for a day and see how you do) and nobody is complaining about Starbucks pushing caffeine on teens with their flavored coffee drinks.
The drug with the biggest social impact, especially on the poor, remains alcohol. Drunk parents beat their kids and spouses, spend more on booze than food, miss work, etc and alcohol is consumed by 70% of the population.
I understand you don’t like nicotine, but it is not the most addictive or dangerous legal drug.
I think it's possibly the most addictive non-prescription legal drug, but, yeah, by itself it's not any more dangerous than caffeine, and quite a bit less dangerous than alcohol.
By that logic next on their list is coffee.
"Well-intentioned restricitons on selling vaping products . . . "
Damnit, they are NOT well intentioned.
They are specifically designed to infringe on individual freedom.
It's water and nicotine, less carcinogenic than a Beer or Cocktail, or gasp! a "Marriage-a-Juan-a Cigarette"
And as far as "Addictive" no more than the overpriced water and caffeine Starbucks makes billions on.
Yet, something that is truly addictive and ruinous, gambling, is supported by almost every state (last time I checked Ali-bama was the last state without a lottery, keeping the Gambling where it should be, on the Injun reservations)
Frank
Nicotine is substantially more addictive than caffeine...
That's a function of the route by which it's administered, I think: Caffeine is almost exclusively administered by mouth, has to be absorbed through the digestive tract, which causes a delay between taking it and the effect, and cuts down on the peak, too.
Nicotine, when administered through the lungs, enters the body within seconds, very abruptly.
Operant conditioning, which is the psychological component of addiction, becomes much more efficient as the time between act and reward is reduced.
I'd be willing to bet that if caffeine were ingested by vaping, it would be roughly as addictive as nicotine.
The better comparison is orally ingested nicotine (ie, via nicotine gum) versus caffeine.
The gum is pretty darn addictive... But you could also include "chew" and other forms of tobacco that isn't smoked...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1939993/
All of this assumes honesty, rather than attempts to kill competitors to smoking.
When one of the biggest vaping companies fell on its sword, trying to drag crushing regulation onto itself, and, golly, its competitors, oh look, it is owned by a tobacco company, I knew something was up.
"Why would they spend that much money to do that?" After hundreds of billions in settlement money, and they are now free and clear? Seriously?
Lawyers and corruption paid, that was the game all along.
Exactly. And government plays along, too, because they get that sweet, sweet tobacco settlement money, but, IIRC, that settlement didn't apply to vaping.
There was a time when one streaming service I used was practically unusable because those anti-Juul adds were tying up so much screen time, and who was paying for that?
Yeah, the tobacco companies. Because vaping was cutting into their market.
You think these bans are well-intentioned?
Well, bless your heart.
Vaping is not harmless. It has substantial risk involved. It is designed to attract new teenage smokers.
Yes, if you ban it, some individuals who currently vape may replace that risk (vaping) by moving to use of other illegal products. But importantly, in the future, it cuts down on new smokers being attached by the vaping.
It also cuts down on existing smokers moving to the healthier vaping.
According to at least one major study, about a third of smokers shifted to vaping between 2008 and 2017. A different study said almost 20% switched between 2011 and 2015 in Australia.
The opposite - progressing vaping to smoking - appears to be rare among adults (5%) but much more common in young (under 25) - over 20%.
You may still want to restrict vaping, but it certainly is not clear at this point that vaping is a guaranteed gateway into smoking, nor that it has a high probability of replacing smoking.
Vaping has mostly replaced smoking among youth in the US. Total "nicotine product days" are up over the past decade, probably due to vaping as an option; whether that implies more or less total harm depends on the relative harm of vaping vs traditional cigarettes. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2783483
"Adolescents who use e-cigarettes are 3.6 times more likely to report using combustible cigarettes later in life"
We know that nicotine addiction often originates in adolescence with studies showing that close to 90% of adult daily smokers started before the age of 18.10 Thus, e-cigarettes are effectively helping to create a new generation addicted to nicotine.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7023954/#:~:text=Nicotine%20Addiction%20in%20Teens&text=Adolescents%20who%20use%20e%2Dcigarettes,combustible%20cigarettes%20later%20in%20life.&text=Teens%20have%20also%20been%20shown%20to%20be%20more%20susceptible%20to%20addiction.
Lots of things we don't try to regulate out of existence aren't harmless.
Sometimes the Conspiracy reads like a bunch of statements from lobbyists for select controversial industries. Banks, guns, and now vaping. At least guns have their own constitutional amendment.
Past posts on vaping suggested that the FDA had acted arbitrarily, at least a legal question and on a matter before the courts. But this is an out an out public policy argument. Vaping is like, Saul Goodman! It helps teens get addicted to nicotine in ways that are less harsh on their lungs than smoking. Government should be promoting it, not restricting it.
This is pure lobbying. A pure Saul Goodman argument.
I kicked a 28 year, 4 pack a day cigarette habit 11 years ago by switching to a vape in quite literally 1 day. Is it a perfect solution? No, but I am not willing to make the perfect the enemy of the merely very good.
Now I am perfectly willing to agree that the overpriced convenience store pods are useless to kick he habit. First and foremost they do not contain enough nicotine to reduce cravings for the real deal. For that you really need a proper mod, tank, and liquid sufficiently high in nicotine to be a good substitute.
I'm not particularly worried about any government action. We gallons of liquid stockpiled, enough to last years. Still, I do not want to see the most effective means for people to quit smoking removed all in the name of bad, or non existent "science".
For what it's worth the two liquids I have are one that is completely unflavored, and one Kentucky Bourbon flavored. It helps to deal with certain clients where the real deal might let me speak too much of what's really on my mind.
Personally I don't buy the whole flavoring argument. Have you looked at what's in people's grocery carts lately? Have you looked at other people's cocktails? To say sweet and fruity are made for kids is patently ridiculous.
How about what people put in their bodies is none of your damn business?
Problem solved.