Smoking rates peaked in the United States in the mid 1960s and have since declined to historically low levels. In contrast, use of e-cigarettes has recently soared, particularly among young people. In 2019, more than 27% of high school students reported using e-cigarettes during the past month, as compared with about 6% who reported using combustible cigarettes.1 Use of Juul products accounts for much of the doubling of vaping rates between 2017 and 2019, and these products represent 75% of the multibillion-dollar e-cigarette market. The growth in vaping among young people has alarmed policymakers and many others.

Federal and state governments have implemented numerous policies to combat the growth of vaping. To promote the health of the population, however, policies should protect young people without diminishing the ability of e-cigarettes to help adult smokers transition away from more harmful combustible cigarettes or to serve as a cessation aid for people attempting to quit smoking. This tension presents a quandary for policymakers, since vaping policies often promote one goal at the expense of the other. Furthermore, the facts that certain state and federal policies complement, substitute for, or undermine each other and that some federal policies supersede state policies add another layer of complexity to policymaking in this arena.

Because e-cigarettes vaporize liquid instead of burning tobacco, they are generally thought to be less harmful than combustible cigarettes.2 However, the long-term health effects of inhaling liquid flavoring chemicals and nicotine are unknown.

Juul is a cartridge (“pod”) type of e-cigarette — it is a reusable, rechargeable device that holds a liquid-containing pod, rather than a refillable open-tank system or a disposable device. Juul pods contain higher levels of nicotine than many other e-cigarette products, which makes them a better substitute for combustible cigarettes for smokers. However, high nicotine levels increase the risk of addiction among young people and can harm their cognitive development. Vaping e-cigarettes adulterated with tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and vitamin E acetate recently caused an outbreak of acute lung disease and deaths.3 Although these harms are seemingly linked to the addition of THC and to the use of e-cigarettes obtained from informal sources rather than to e-cigarettes in general, these complications heighten concerns about e-cigarettes.

State and federal policymakers are focusing on two key policies for preventing vaping among young people: minimum sales age laws that restrict the sale of e-cigarettes to adolescents and bans on flavored e-cigarettes. Some states have also implemented e-cigarette taxes (see table).

In December 2019, Congress passed so-called Tobacco 21 legislation, which immediately sets a federal minimum age of 21 for purchasing tobacco products, including e-cigarettes. Twenty-four states and the District of Columbia had enacted policies that set the minimum age for purchasing e-cigarettes at either 19 or 21; in other states, the minimum age was 18.

Because most tobacco use begins before 19 years of age, the new federal law has the potential to dramatically reduce current tobacco use among young people and prevent some people from ever using tobacco. However, enforcing bans on sales to minors is difficult in retail locations and even more so online, and young people often obtain e-cigarettes from family members and friends. To reduce access to e-cigarettes among young people, federal and state governments could increase funding for enforcement efforts and collaborate to find better ways to prevent sales to young people in stores and online.

Another important policy is banning flavored e-cigarettes. Because flavors are more attractive to young people than to adults, a flavor ban could reduce the appeal of e-cigarettes for young people without diminishing their role in harm reduction for adult smokers. Nine states have passed flavor bans, but most have been short-term emergency bans or have been blocked by legal challenges.

In December 2019, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced that it will use its market-review authority to essentially ban all flavors except tobacco and menthol in cartridge (pod-based) e-cigarettes. These changes became effective in February 2020. Disposable e-cigarettes and e-liquids for open-tank–system e-cigarettes typically sold in vape shops are not covered by the policy. The effect of the ban may be limited because of these important exemptions.

Banning all flavors in all tobacco products with few or no exemptions could be more effective than the current narrow ban for several reasons.4,5 First, menthol cigarettes, which remain on the market, have been shown to be appealing to young people. Second, although young people prefer fruit- and candy-flavored pods to menthol-flavored pods, the latter might become more attractive if they are the only flavored pods available. Third, under the current ban, young people may switch to e-cigarettes that are still permitted to contain flavoring. Indeed, adolescents have recently been favoring new flavored, disposable e-cigarettes that resemble Juul devices but have higher nicotine concentrations and cost less.

Another concern is that it is unclear how committed the FDA is to enforcing the flavor ban for cartridge e-cigarettes. The agency has largely declined to act on its authority to regulate e-cigarettes and to fulfill an obligation established by Congress to force products that do not protect public health, such as Juul devices, off the market. State bans on flavored e-cigarettes may therefore still be important.

A final policy is taxation of e-cigarettes. Twenty-one states and the District of Columbia tax both e-cigarettes and combustible cigarettes; the federal government taxes only combustibles.

The effects of such taxes on public health are complicated for several reasons. Levying taxes on e-cigarettes raises their price, thereby deterring some people from vaping. However, such taxes will also drive some vapers toward smoking, since taxes tend to increase the price of e-cigarettes relative to the price of combustibles.4,5 Consequently, the tax rate on e-cigarettes should be set so that it is cheaper to vape than to smoke. Determining optimal tax rates is complicated by the multiple types of e-cigarettes available, the fact that devices and pods are often bought separately, and the ability of companies — not the government — to set prices. Furthermore, too high a tax on e-cigarettes will encourage vaping of lower-priced or black-market e-cigarettes, thus undermining the benefits of the tax.

Given these considerations and the lack of evidence regarding how people respond to taxes on e-cigarettes, it may be preferable to rely on greater enforcement of Tobacco 21 policies and flavor bans to prevent vaping among young people. The appeal of tax revenue, however, may be too strong for governments to resist.

But at what level of government — state or federal — should e-cigarette policies be implemented? There are several advantages to states taking the lead. States may be more nimble regulators than the federal government, each state can regulate to meet its own needs, and state policies can serve as experiments and generate useful evidence. State laws can fill voids when federal regulations are absent or ineffective. States can also provide an impetus for federal action by demonstrating nationwide political will, as they did by passing Tobacco 21 laws. However, differing state policies risk leaving young people in some states unprotected and promoting the flow of e-cigarettes across state lines.

On the other hand, implementing regulations at the federal level has potential advantages over relying on state-based regulation of e-cigarettes because of the broad reach of national policies and their capacity to reduce trafficking across state borders. Nevertheless, as compared with states, the federal government has been slow to implement certain regulations.

Soaring rates of vaping among young people and associated problems have resulted in great urgency and important challenges for policymakers. Despite the urgency, policies should be evidence-based and thoughtfully designed. They require effective, collaborative, and well-funded enforcement by federal and state governments. Policymakers should aim to reduce vaping among young people while maintaining avenues to help smokers quit. Finally, policies should be forward-thinking, since the e-cigarette market is rapidly changing and e-cigarette companies can be more agile than regulators.

The post Regulating Vaping — Policies, Possibilities, and Perils appeared first on Clear The Air News Tobacco Blog.

Download (PDF, 597KB)

The post Group Urges Statewide Vaping Ban Amid Pandemic appeared first on Clear The Air News Tobacco Blog.

Abstract

Cases of vaping-induced lung injury have increased in the USA, resulting in a heterogeneous collection of pneumonitis patterns in persons who used electronic cigarettes. Hypersensitivity pneumonitis has been documented in several cases of first-hand electronic cigarette use; however, secondhand smoke health-related consequences have not been fully understood. We present a case of the patient who developed hypersensitivity pneumonitis secondary to exposure to secondhand smoke from electronic cigarette. We summarise the presentation and diagnostic investigation, as well as the management of this case.

The post Secondhand smoke from electronic cigarette resulting in hypersensitivity pneumonitis appeared first on Clear The Air News Tobacco Blog.

Abstract

Background

We examine the association among five types of state regulations on electronic cigarettes (defining e-cigarettes, special tax, packaging, youth access and licensure) and initiation and current usage of e-cigarettes in 50 US states and the District of Columbia.

Methods

Data came from the 2017 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System and the US e-cigarette regulations—50 state review by the Public Health Law Center. Logistic regressions were used to determine the odds of initiation and current use of e-cigarettes among individuals aged 18–24, 25–34 and the whole sample, adjusting for socio-demographic covariates.

Results

Despite the short history of state laws on e-cigarettes, each of the five state laws was associated with lower odds of initiation and use of e-cigarettes in the whole sample. In the 18–24 age group, only the licensure was associated with lower initiation. In the 25–34 age group, the licensure and taxation were related to lower initiation and current usage. There were significant differences of e-cigarette initiation and usage based on the number of state laws regulating e-cigarettes.

Conclusions

Our analysis indicates the potential of states’ policy efforts to regulate e-cigarettes comprehensively in leading significant changes to e-cigarette prevalence in their populations.

The post Do state regulations on e-cigarettes have impacts on the e-cigarette prevalence? appeared first on Clear The Air News Tobacco Blog.

The post Pain, nicotine, and tobacco smoking appeared first on Clear The Air News Tobacco Blog.

Download (PDF, 29KB)

The post Young People Have No Idea How Much Nicotine They Vape: Study appeared first on Clear The Air News Tobacco Blog.

Abstract

Introduction

Minimum floor price laws (MFPLs) are an emerging tobacco control policy that sets a minimum price below which a specific tobacco product cannot be sold. MFPLs target cheaper products and may disproportionately impact consumers choosing low price brands or using discounts to reduce prices. We developed a static microsimulation model for California, USA to project short-term effects of different MFPL options for a 20-stick pack of cigarettes on adult smoking behaviors.

Methods

We simulated 300,000 individuals defined by race/ethnicity, sex, age, and poverty status. Smoking behaviors and cigarette prices were assigned based on demographic distributions in the 2014-2016 California Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. We drew 100 random samples (n=30,000), weighted to state-level California demographic characteristics. We simulated six MFPL options and modeled impacts on smoking prevalence and cigarette consumption, in general, and separately for those in households below or above 250% of the federal poverty level (FPL), assuming a price elasticity of -0.4.

Results

Predicted changes in prices, prevalence, and consumption increased exponentially as the floor price increased from $7.00 to $9.50. Assuming 15% policy avoidance, projected increases in average cigarette prices ranged from $0.19 to $1.61. Decreases in smoking prevalence ranged from 0.05 to 0.43 percentage points, and decreases in average monthly cigarette consumption ranged from 1.4 to 12.3 cigarettes. Projected prices increased, and prevalence and consumption decreased, more among individuals in households below 250% FPL.

Conclusions

MFPLs are a promising tobacco control strategy with the potential to reduce socioeconomic disparities in cigarette smoking prevalence and consumption.

The post Simulating the impact of a cigarette minimum floor price law on adult smoking prevalence in California appeared first on Clear The Air News Tobacco Blog.

Objective: Examine trends in e-cigarette use, and Juul use specifically, among U.S. college students.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07448481.2020.1726355

Participants: In 2016, we established a cohort of 529 incoming first-year students to a large Midwestern University. In 2018, these students (now third-years) were re-contacted, and a new sample of 611 incoming first-year students was enrolled.

Methods: First-year students in 2016 completed a survey assessing their e-cigarette use; in 2018, first- and second-year students reported on e-cigarette use, and use of Juul specifically.

Results: From 2016 to 2018, past 30-day e-cigarette use rose from 5.9% to 27.7%. In 2018, for Juul alone, ever use was above 35% and past 30-day use was above 20% for both cohorts. Juul use did not differ by gender, but was associated with higher socioeconomic status (SES) and being White.

Conclusions: Findings present disturbing possibilities for long-term nicotine addiction among the next generation, and underscore the need for a rapid public health response.

The post Juul and the upsurge of e-cigarette use among college undergraduates appeared first on Clear The Air News Tobacco Blog.

Previous research shows the associations between secondhand smoke exposure and health consequences among youth, but less is known about its effect on academic performance. This study examines a dose–response relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and subsequent academic performance among U.S. youth.

https://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(20)30048-9/fulltext

Methods

Data were from a nationally representative sample of youth non–tobacco users (aged 12–16 years) in Wave 2 (2014–2015) who completed Wave 3 (2015–2016) of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study ( n=9,020). Past-7-day number of hours exposed to secondhand smoke at Wave 2 and academic performance at Wave 3 (1=Mostly As to 9=Mostly Fs) were assessed. Weighted multivariable linear regression models were used to examine the association between hours of self-reported secondhand smoke exposure at Wave 2 and academic performance at Wave 3 (1=Mostly Fs, 9=Mostly As), adjusting for covariates including sociodemographics, prior academic performance, internalizing and externalizing problems, and substance use problems. Analyses were conducted in 2019.

Results

More than 30% of U.S. youth non–tobacco users were exposed to secondhand smoke in the past 7 days. Compared with unexposed youth at Wave 2, those who were exposed for 1–9 hours had poorer academic performance at Wave 3 (adjusted regression coefficient= −0.11, 95% CI= −0.18, −0.04), and those who were exposed for ≥10 hours at Wave 2 had even poorer academic performance (adjusted regression coefficient = −0.31, 95% CI= −0.45, −0.18).

Conclusions

A dose–response relationship was observed between secondhand smoke exposure and academic performance among U.S. youth. Reducing youth secondhand smoke exposure may promote academic performance and subsequent educational attainment.

The post Secondhand Smoke Exposure and Subsequent Academic Performance Among U.S. Youth appeared first on Clear The Air News Tobacco Blog.

https://academic.oup.com/ntr/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/ntr/ntaa041/5801058

Abstract

Introduction

Vape shops represent prominent, unique retailers, subject to Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulation in the United States.

Aims and Methods

This study assessed compliance of US vape shop retail marketing strategies with new regulations (eg, required age verification, prohibited free samples) and pre-implementation conditions for other regulations (eg, health warning labels on all nicotine products, required disclosures of e-liquid contents).

Results

95.0% of shops displayed minimum-age signage; however, mystery shoppers were asked for age verification at 35.6% upon entry and at 23.4% upon purchase. Although 85.5% of shops had some evidence of implementing FDA health warnings, 29.1% had signage indicating prohibited health claims, 16.3% offered free e-liquid samples, 27.4% had signage with cartoon imagery, and 33.3% were within two blocks of schools. All shops sold open-system devices, 64.8% sold closed-system devices, 68.2% sold their own brand of e-liquids, 42.5% sold e-liquids containing cannabidiol, 83.2% offered price promotions of some kind, and 89.9% had signage for product and price promotions.

Conclusions

Results indicated that most shops complied with some implementation of FDA health warnings and with free sampling bans and minimum-age signage. Other findings indicated concerns related to underage access, health claims, promotional strategies, and cannabidiol product offerings, which call for further FDA and state regulatory/enforcement efforts.

The post Exploring the Point-of-Sale Among Vape Shops Across the United States appeared first on Clear The Air News Tobacco Blog.