Friday, November 16, 2018
We Know Who To Thank For The "Epidemic" In Teen Vaping (Fearmongers, We're Looking At YOU!)
The FDA found that, according to new 2018 survey data, vaping is up nearly 80% (78%) from 2017 among high school students and up nearly 50% (48%) among middle school students. Previously, teen vaping had increased 900% from 2011-2015 (while also displacing combustible cigarette smoking which is now at a record low, mind you), dropped slightly in 2016, and held steady in 2017 before this much more recent increase in 2018 that is believed to be driven by flavored vapes, particularly the JUUL brand which didn't really catch on until late 2017.
The recently announced FDA restrictions, in which flavored vapes (other than mint, menthol, and tobacco) will no longer be sold in stores unless those stores prohibit the entrance of people under 18, are largely a reaction to such data. But let's look at the sequence of events here: despite JUUL being founded in 2015, it is unlikely that many people had ever even heard of JUUL until the fearmongering mainstream media's moral panic began in 2017, providing the very best (and free!) advertising that JUUL could ever possibly dream of. Thus, we all know who to thank for that--fearmongers, we're looking at YOU!
If they really want to reverse this media-induced deviancy amplification spiral, the best thing for the media and the FDA is to simply STFU now that the new regulations are a foregone conclusion. Also, reducing the maximum nicotine content of vape products (JUUL is apparently unusually high) down to European and Israeli levels would also make it less likely that young experimenters would get hooked. But of course, that would make too much sense.
Labels:
e-cigarettes,
FDA tobacco,
Juul,
Juuling,
vaping
Saturday, November 10, 2018
FDA and New York Take Aim at Flavored Vapes
After much saber-rattling with JUUL and other leading vape manufacturers, the FDA now plans to ban the sale of most flavored vape products (except mint and menthol) in retail stores and gas stations to reduce availability to young people. Flavored vapes would only be allowed to be sold in vape shops and tobacco shops, and online sites with strict age verification measures. New York State plans to go even further, banning the sale of flavored vapes entirely, much like San Francisco has already done.
Oh, and the FDA also apparently wants to ban menthol combustible cigarettes as well, because they are believed to be harder to quit than non-menthols (though that is probably due to their generally higher nicotine content, the harsher taste of which is masked by the menthol). All other flavors have already been banned as of 2009. This particular ban, however, will likely take much longer to finalize and longer still before it is actually enforced.
Twenty-One Debunked has mixed feelings about these bans. On the one hand, they are in some ways still better than hiking the age limit to 21, and there is some truth to the idea that fruity flavors may make nicotine-containing vapes seem more benign than they actually are, increasing the likelihood of accidental addiction among young people. On the other hand, these bans, though modest, can also be a slippery slope and even perhaps a boon to Big Tobacco. So while we do not oppose these bans, we are still a bit wary about them nonetheless.
What would probably have the largest effect in terms of reducing the number of young people getting hooked on vaping is capping the maximum allowable nicotine content of vape products down to European and Israeli levels. Over there, JUUL reduced their nicotine content so they can be sold in those markets, and such products remain effective smoking cessation devices with a somewhat lower likelihood of accidental addiction happening quickly among young experimenters. Meanwhile, in the USA, there is a joke that the unusually high-nicotine JUUL products sold here are kinda like the horror film The Ring: you will get hooked in seven days. Not really far off the mark.
The best thing to stop the "epidemic" of teen vaping, of course, is to stop fanning the flames of moral panic. After such modest bans like the ones discussed above are in place, hopefully the mainstream media will finally STFU about this supposed "epidemic".
UPDATE: On November 13, 2018, JUUL announced that they will no longer restock any orders to retailers for any flavored vape pods other than tobacco or menthol, and will only continue selling them online to people 21 and older, and will also end all social media promotions as well. So it looks like 18-20 year old vapers who prefer such flavors will need to stock up very fast at their local stores before they run out.
And as of November 15, the FDA will go ahead and pursue the aforementioned regulations. The new regulations may not be fully implemented for months in the case of flavored vapes, and years in the case of menthol combustible cigarettes, but are essentially a foregone conclusion now. Flavored vapes, except for mint, menthol, and tobacco, will only be sold in stores that do not allow people under 18 to enter or have separate sections that disallow people under 18.
Thus, in their zeal to pre-empt regulators, it looks like JUUL is being unnecessarily ageist towards 18-20 year olds. And why can't JUUL just offer a nicotine-free option for pods, and reduce their sky-high nicotine content in their current ones to European levels?
Oh, and the FDA also apparently wants to ban menthol combustible cigarettes as well, because they are believed to be harder to quit than non-menthols (though that is probably due to their generally higher nicotine content, the harsher taste of which is masked by the menthol). All other flavors have already been banned as of 2009. This particular ban, however, will likely take much longer to finalize and longer still before it is actually enforced.
Twenty-One Debunked has mixed feelings about these bans. On the one hand, they are in some ways still better than hiking the age limit to 21, and there is some truth to the idea that fruity flavors may make nicotine-containing vapes seem more benign than they actually are, increasing the likelihood of accidental addiction among young people. On the other hand, these bans, though modest, can also be a slippery slope and even perhaps a boon to Big Tobacco. So while we do not oppose these bans, we are still a bit wary about them nonetheless.
What would probably have the largest effect in terms of reducing the number of young people getting hooked on vaping is capping the maximum allowable nicotine content of vape products down to European and Israeli levels. Over there, JUUL reduced their nicotine content so they can be sold in those markets, and such products remain effective smoking cessation devices with a somewhat lower likelihood of accidental addiction happening quickly among young experimenters. Meanwhile, in the USA, there is a joke that the unusually high-nicotine JUUL products sold here are kinda like the horror film The Ring: you will get hooked in seven days. Not really far off the mark.
The best thing to stop the "epidemic" of teen vaping, of course, is to stop fanning the flames of moral panic. After such modest bans like the ones discussed above are in place, hopefully the mainstream media will finally STFU about this supposed "epidemic".
UPDATE: On November 13, 2018, JUUL announced that they will no longer restock any orders to retailers for any flavored vape pods other than tobacco or menthol, and will only continue selling them online to people 21 and older, and will also end all social media promotions as well. So it looks like 18-20 year old vapers who prefer such flavors will need to stock up very fast at their local stores before they run out.
And as of November 15, the FDA will go ahead and pursue the aforementioned regulations. The new regulations may not be fully implemented for months in the case of flavored vapes, and years in the case of menthol combustible cigarettes, but are essentially a foregone conclusion now. Flavored vapes, except for mint, menthol, and tobacco, will only be sold in stores that do not allow people under 18 to enter or have separate sections that disallow people under 18.
Thus, in their zeal to pre-empt regulators, it looks like JUUL is being unnecessarily ageist towards 18-20 year olds. And why can't JUUL just offer a nicotine-free option for pods, and reduce their sky-high nicotine content in their current ones to European levels?
Labels:
Big Tobacco,
e-cigarettes,
smoking,
tobacco,
vaping
Tuesday, October 30, 2018
Smoking Tobacco May Actually Be Eradicated By 2030
Well, in the UK at least, particularly in England, according to a new report. The British currently have the second lowest smoking rate in Europe after Sweden, and only slightly higher than the USA, and rapidly falling for the past several years. And if current trends of the past five years continue, smoking rates will drop below 5% of the adult population (what researchers define as a "smoke-free" country) by 2030. Given that nearly half of British adults smoked in the early 1970s, this is no small feat.
And the real kicker? This is all happening without raising the smoking age to 21, as it is currently 18 (just like their drinking age) with no plans to hike it any further. The Tobacco 21 fever currently sweeping the USA by storm simply hasn't caught on over on the other side of the Atlantic. And unlike in the USA, there is no moral panic over vaping either. If anything, Public Health England encourages current smokers to switch to vaping to help them quit. These kinds of ageist American-style moral panics, with very few exceptions, are really quite foreign to them.
And come to think of it, after an initial boom in e-cigarettes for a few years, even vaping is now on the decline as well. It appears that's what happens when you don't turn something like that into a media circus / moral panic / deviancy amplification spiral.
It is things like this that almost make us wish that Britain, our mother country, would just revoke America's hard-won (but subsequently squandered) independence. (Tongue firmly in cheek, of course.)
And the real kicker? This is all happening without raising the smoking age to 21, as it is currently 18 (just like their drinking age) with no plans to hike it any further. The Tobacco 21 fever currently sweeping the USA by storm simply hasn't caught on over on the other side of the Atlantic. And unlike in the USA, there is no moral panic over vaping either. If anything, Public Health England encourages current smokers to switch to vaping to help them quit. These kinds of ageist American-style moral panics, with very few exceptions, are really quite foreign to them.
And come to think of it, after an initial boom in e-cigarettes for a few years, even vaping is now on the decline as well. It appears that's what happens when you don't turn something like that into a media circus / moral panic / deviancy amplification spiral.
It is things like this that almost make us wish that Britain, our mother country, would just revoke America's hard-won (but subsequently squandered) independence. (Tongue firmly in cheek, of course.)
Labels:
cigarettes,
e-cigarettes,
smoking age,
tobacco,
UK
Saturday, October 27, 2018
Guess Who Now Openly Supports Tobacco 21 Laws? Go On, Guess...
Tobacco 21 laws, or laws that raise the age limit to buy tobacco products to 21, are unfortunately gaining popularity as a sort of "feel good" measure despite the relative dearth of evidence backing them up. Well, now we can add a new name to the list of supporters: Philip Morris Altria Group. That's right, a company whose former name is literally synonymous with Big Tobacco now supports, whether grudgingly or otherwise, a smoking age of 21 (even at the federal level) despite at least feigning opposition just a few years ago followed by awkward silence on the topic.
So why the sudden turnaround? Probably a cynical combination of public relations as well as the realization that raising the smoking age to 21 (compared to 18) in several states and localities did NOT really end up hurting their bottom lines after all. And even more cynically, they can perhaps now leverage the arguably enhanced forbidden fruit effect to their own benefit, all while patting themselves on the back for their "corporate social responsibility".
(RALPH!)
You know, kinda like they did all along (to one degree or another) when the age limit was 18, and like the alcohol industry has done with the 21 drinking age. Put up a public fight at first, take a dive, stay quiet for a few years, then publicly support the new laws while leveraging them (and simultaneously fighting against higher taxes or any new regulations). Quislings.
Thus, it is safe to say that our cynicism is now fully maxed out. And that really says something indeed.
So why the sudden turnaround? Probably a cynical combination of public relations as well as the realization that raising the smoking age to 21 (compared to 18) in several states and localities did NOT really end up hurting their bottom lines after all. And even more cynically, they can perhaps now leverage the arguably enhanced forbidden fruit effect to their own benefit, all while patting themselves on the back for their "corporate social responsibility".
(RALPH!)
You know, kinda like they did all along (to one degree or another) when the age limit was 18, and like the alcohol industry has done with the 21 drinking age. Put up a public fight at first, take a dive, stay quiet for a few years, then publicly support the new laws while leveraging them (and simultaneously fighting against higher taxes or any new regulations). Quislings.
Thus, it is safe to say that our cynicism is now fully maxed out. And that really says something indeed.
Labels:
Altria,
Big Tobacco,
cigarettes,
e-cigarettes,
Guess who,
Philip Morris,
smoking age,
tobacco,
vaping
Sunday, October 21, 2018
Traffic Deaths Down So Far In 2018
There is good news on the highways lately, namely that preliminary data for the first half of 2018 show a 3.1% decrease in traffic deaths, and 2017 saw a 1.8% decrease as well following two straight years of significant increases. This is true despite the fact that the economy is still improving and there is thus more driving going on now than a few years ago.
So what happened in 2017-2018? Well, gas prices began rising again, after plummenting in 2014-2015 and reaching a low in the spring of 2016. And we know that there is an inverse correlation between gas prices and traffic fatalities. gas prices still remain well below their 2011-2014 average levels, even as some states raised their gas taxes. So that only explains part of the picture. And alcohol taxes, already historically low, have actually dropped since the Republican tax bill. So what else could it be?
The general secular trend in traffic deaths per vehicle miles traveled has been downward for decades, so this recent decrease could simply be reversion to the mean following the 2015-2016 spike in fatalities, at least in part. But the fact that so many states recently legalized cannabis from 2016-2018, and the proverbial dust has settled in the few states that had done so earlier, at the very least casts serious doubt that the previous spike in fatalities was caused by legalization, and supports the idea that legalization may have even reduced such deaths by displacing alcohol use and thus drunk driving as well.
Thus, as we have noted time and again, cannabis legalization was not a disaster after all, and seems to have been a net benefit to public health and safety overall. Next step is to legalize it at the federal level and in all 50 states and all territories as well, and also to lower the age limit to 18 like Canada now has.
So what are we waiting for?
So what happened in 2017-2018? Well, gas prices began rising again, after plummenting in 2014-2015 and reaching a low in the spring of 2016. And we know that there is an inverse correlation between gas prices and traffic fatalities. gas prices still remain well below their 2011-2014 average levels, even as some states raised their gas taxes. So that only explains part of the picture. And alcohol taxes, already historically low, have actually dropped since the Republican tax bill. So what else could it be?
The general secular trend in traffic deaths per vehicle miles traveled has been downward for decades, so this recent decrease could simply be reversion to the mean following the 2015-2016 spike in fatalities, at least in part. But the fact that so many states recently legalized cannabis from 2016-2018, and the proverbial dust has settled in the few states that had done so earlier, at the very least casts serious doubt that the previous spike in fatalities was caused by legalization, and supports the idea that legalization may have even reduced such deaths by displacing alcohol use and thus drunk driving as well.
Thus, as we have noted time and again, cannabis legalization was not a disaster after all, and seems to have been a net benefit to public health and safety overall. Next step is to legalize it at the federal level and in all 50 states and all territories as well, and also to lower the age limit to 18 like Canada now has.
So what are we waiting for?
Labels:
2018,
cannabis,
gas prices,
gas tax,
legalization,
Traffic deaths
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)