U.K.-based vaping retailer VPZ launched its pilot Vape Clinic on July 5 at its flagship Newbridge store. The company now plans to roll out the service across all its locations in the coming months. According to a press release, the vape clinic was begun to meet the growing demand for smoking cessation services.
Credit: VPZ
The moves comes as access to local stop smoking services and vaping retailers massively reduced during Covid-19 lockdowns, according to the release, adding that thousands of smokers were left without any services to help them quit smoking combustible cigarettes. Vape Clinic quit coaches will be specialists in helping smokers quit and advising the alternatives available. VPZ recently announced it had opened five stores since the end of lockdowns.
“With around 78,000 people in the U.K. dying from smoking year on year, and with many more living with debilitating smoking-related illnesses, the vape clinic has been designed to support the nation’s smokers quit for good,” the release states. “VPZ’s confidence in the success of the new Vape Clinic service is backed by its customer promise to provide a money back guarantee for hardware purchased and any unopened boxes of e-liquids and coils if customers are unable to make the switch to vaping entirely.”
Doug Mutter, director of VPZ, said the company is spearheading the fight against the nation’s No. 1 killer: smoking. He says that the “coaches” are trained and have expert knowledge and work to the individual needs of the customer. Many of the specialists are former smokers who have quit through vaping, so they understand the ups and downs of the journey.
“Smoking statistics are continuing to rise as the pandemic has triggered an increase in smoking rates and the public health problem has been compounded by funding cuts for National Health Service (NHS) stop smoking services and local support groups,” Mutter stated in the release. “Our new Vape Clinic concept is an investment to fill the void left by the loss of local NHS stop smoking services. We are so confident in the success of our new service that we are offering our customers a money back guarantee if they are unable to make the switch entirely.”
VPZ Vape Clinic is open 7 days a week, 10am to 5pm to all customers who book a free, 30-minute appointment here.
Medical marijuana won near-unanimous approval in a committee hearing in the Republican-controlled North Carolina General Assembly last week, the first of potentially many votes standing in the way of the plan becoming law. It’s a sign the bill could have broad support, according to the News & Observer. While the votes were not officially recorded, it appeared that all but two or three lawmakers voted for the bill.
Credit: Pro Mesa Art Studio
The bill’s sponsor is Sen. Bill Rabon, an influential committee chairman. And one of the votes in favor of it came from Senate Majority Leader Kathy Harrington. She said her husband was recently diagnosed with multiple myeloma, a type of blood cancer, and she has since come to realize that medical marijuana could help other patients in similar, painful situations.
“If you had asked me six months ago if I would support this bill, I would have said no,” Harrington said. “But life comes at you fast.”
If the bill is passed into law, North Carolina doctors would be able to prescribe marijuana for PTSD, cancer, sickle cell anemia, ALS and several other specific health problems. Lawmakers had initially included glaucoma on the list too, but deleted it during committee.
Former head of corporate affairs for Juul Labs Nicholas Kadysh has joined Poda Lifestyle and Wellness as a member of the global advisory board.
With over a decade of experience as a public affairs and regulatory expert, Kadysh has led government relations and regulatory departments for a number of large corporations, including acting as head of corporate affairs for Juul Labs, as government affairs and public policy leader for General Electric Canada and as director of public affairs for Red Bull Canada. Kadysh is currently the founder and CEO of PharmAla Biotech.
Prior to his work in the corporate sector, Kadysh gained a deep understanding of government as a campaign and legislative staff member in multiple levels of government, most recently directing the outreach department of the Office of the Leader of the Opposition at Queen’s Park in Toronto. He has also worked at the Canadian Parliament as a policy advisor.
Kadysh is trilingual (English, French and Russian) and is a graduate of Queen’s University. He is active in nonprofit and community initiatives in Toronto, including fundraising for Toronto East General Hospital and as a member of the board for Yonge-Dundas Square.
“I believe that Poda is well poised to gain significant market share in the rapidly growing heat-not-burn market,” said Kadysh in a statement. “With my vast experience in public affairs and as a regulatory expert, I look forward to helping guide Poda as they continue their global expansion. Entering highly regulated markets requires careful planning and skillful execution, and there are many potential pitfalls to be avoided.”
“Having worked closely with Nick at Juul Labs Canada, I can personally attest to the skill and expertise that Nick brings to the table,” said Michael Nederhoff, previous president of Juul Labs Canada, who joined Poda’s global advisory board in early July. “Nick has a wealth of regulatory experience across various categories and in multiple countries, which will be invaluable as we scale the business.”
Jamaica’s largest tobacco distribution company Carreras Limited has cautioned the Government against an excessive regulatory regime for vaping and other tobacco products. Managing director of Carreras, Raoul Glynn, says the regulations will be tough to implement and enforce, and will impose provisions that will put the industry at a disadvantage.
Credit: Miro Novak
He stressed that the company took no issue with lawful, evidence-based regulation. However, excessive regulation will cause more revenue losses, pointing out that government revenue lost to the tobacco black market in 2020 was $2.1 billion.
“Jamaica is one of those markets that have a significant illicit component, not just on tobacco but other products [too],” Glynn told a joint select committee that is reviewing the country’s proposed Tobacco Control Act, according to the Jamaica Observer. “What we saw happening in 2017 when there was a significant increase in the excise, you had an almost immediate jump in the illicit volume, so consumption remains the same because of a proliferation of very cheap products that doesn’t pay the taxes.”
The company’s view is that new category products, such as e-cigarettes, and combustibles should be regulated separately. Lumping them with the same regulations for tobacco products would send an “incorrect and unhelpful message that both product categories have the same risk profile and perpetuate the misconception that tobacco and nicotine carry same risks,” according to Glynn.
The proposed legislation goes beyond traditional tobacco products to include prohibiting the use of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) in public spaces. This and other changes to the legislation is supposed to make Jamaica fully compliant with the World Health Organization (WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC).
Glynn pointed to evidence that new category products have contributed to reduced smoking prevalence in countries with a more flexible regulatory landscape. It referenced the United Kingdom’s House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, which found that e-cigarettes could significantly accelerate already declining smoking rate and are about 95 percent less harmful than conventional cigarettes due to the absence of tar and carbon monoxide.
He noted that the Canadian Government says switching from tobacco cigarettes to vaping products will reduce exposure to many toxic and cancer-causing chemicals. The tobacco company’s view is that e-cigarettes should be regulated proportionately on an evidence-based approach, taking into consideration freedom to innovate, dialogue and responsible marketing freedoms, according to Glynn, who said also that the legislation, technically, places a ban on the sale of cigarettes in all public spaces, despite arguments that it does not.
Glynn also cautioned that the law puts small businesses at a severe disadvantage by prohibiting retailer incentives and promoting discounted products.
The Royal Malaysian Customs Department has seized RM2.7 million worth of e-liquid, which also carried RM273,480 in unpaid taxes. The KLIA Central Zone Enforcement Unit III personnel conducted an inspection on two containers from the United States in Northport, Port Klang, at 6pm on June 24.
Central Zone Customs principal assistant director Datuk Zazuli Johan said the team found 1,276.24 liters of e-liquid suspected to contain nicotine that had been declared as “atomizer devices” (hardware) in the containers. The e-liquid was also found to have exceeded their expiration date, according to the Philippine Star.
“We believe that the product would be repackaged before being distributed in the local market. The consignment was brought in without a valid import license and tax on it had not been paid,” he is quoted as saying in a statement on July 2, adding that e-liquid is classified as prohibited merchandise in Malaysia under the Customs (Prohibition on Imports) Order 2017.
RELX International recently launched its initiative to boost efforts to prevent youth use of vaping products. The initiative, RELX Pledge, is guided by three key pillars: Guardian program, Golden Shield and Green Shoots, according to a release.
The Guardian program is an initiative that stretches from product development to sales, preventing and discouraging the use of vape products by minors through joint efforts with retailers to step up on-site identification, according to RELX’s head of marketing, Leina Chedid.
“Since our inception, youth prevention has been an integral part of RELX International’s core company values. Our Guardian program applies across all our sales and marketing and supports effective legislation and regulation to prevent the purchase and use of our products by minors,” she said.
The Golden Shield program aims to end the sale of counterfeit products by working closely with investigation firms, e-commerce platforms and local authorities to weed out such products from the market, according to RELX’s global head of external affairs Jonathan Ng. He said that through Golden Shield RELX has assisted in 28 successful cases, removing over 550,000 fake products from the market and over 77,000 websites since 2019.
Green Shoots program is an initiative created to give back to the community, using the brand’s experience to help aspiring entrepreneurs and small business owners get their businesses on the track to growth and success, according to NG
“Startups and small businesses are the economic backbone of societies around the world. As a company that grew from a startup ourselves, we understand the numerous challenges that small businesses encounter daily. Through the Green Shoots program, we hope to share our experience and knowledge to help them get on the right track towards growth and success,” he said. “Protecting minors is an issue we take very seriously, as our pledge commitment shows. We sincerely hope that others in the industry take this lead and also commit to this new era of responsibility.”
Components of the RELX Pledge will be rolled-out globally (excluding Mainland China and the United States) throughout 2021, and will be further enhanced in 2022, according to the release. The RELX Pledge will be localized in countries in which RELX International holds a market presence to account for applicable local customs, cultures and traditions.
Smoore International Holdings is the only vaping technology company to make the Forbes 2021 Global 2000 list. The list ranks the world’s largest 2000 public companies. Smoore’s placement on the list confirms the legitimacy of the entire industry as a fast-growing and better alternative to cigarettes, with an expected compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 28.1% from 2021 to 2028, according to Grandview Research.
Recognition on the list is a reflection of the company’s performance throughout 2020 and growth in market share from 16.5 percent in 2019 to 18.9 percent. The parent company to the Vaporesso brand, Smoore has over 1000 technology patents and more employees in R&D than sales, leading the vaping industry since 2009, according to a press release.
“These cutting-edge innovations are then worked into marketable products by Smoore’s sub-brands including Vaporesso, FEELM Lab and CCELL to be distributed around the world,” the release states. “Also, Smoore is proactively promoting atomization technology to other industries around the world. Vaporesso has been setting new industry standards and further driving innovation in this emerging industry with many more to come.”
Taking a snapshot of the world of business, the Forbes Global 2000 list measures companies using four equally weighted metrics: assets, market value, sales, and profits. Under Smoore, Vaporesso is committed to helping its vast network of international partners abroad and, driven by a strong sense of social responsibility, launched a series of campaigns aimed at helping those most affected, according to the release.
“Under the umbrella of Vaporesso Care, these campaigns helped affected communities in Indonesia where Vaporesso donated over 70 million rupiah and France where Vaporesso worked with local partners to distribute food to needy people over Christmas,” according to the release.
While the legality of Delta-8 THC products is questionable, retailers say consumer demand is booming.
By Timothy S. Donahue
Delta-8 THC is currently one of the hottest cannabis products on the market. During the Tobacco Plus Expo (TPE) in May, an estimated 75–80 exhibitors out of 350 were offering a Delta-8 product. Many companies were introducing new Delta-8 products at the event; for example, Beard Vape Co., Charlie’s Chalk Dust, JustCBD and TD Distribution Co. all launched their own brands.
Recent estimates predict CBD sales in the U.S. could reach $1.8 billion by 2022. Trevor Yahn-Grode of cannabis industry analytics company New Frontier Data recently told MedPageToday.com that Delta-8 THC had retail sales of at least $10 million in 2020. That number is estimated to double in 2021. Based on the number of Delta-8 vendors at TPE (see “Finally Face to Face,” page 20), sales could triple. It was probably the most heavily hawked cannabis product at the event.
The Beard Vape Co. launched its HRVST Delta-8 brand after numerous distributors started asking about the new cannabinoid hitting the mass market, according to Zachary Kestenbaum, vice president of sales. He said his main objective at TPE was to talk with other distribution companies about where the Delta-8 market is headed. Kestenbaum said consumers like the product because it’s not as overwhelming as the traditional Delta-9 THC, the psychoactive component of marijuana commonly referred to as only THC.
“In the ’70s, ’80s, ’90s, people were smoking marijuana with THC levels at 12 [percent] to 15 percent. Now they’re breeding strains that are 24 [percent] to 26 percent THC (Delta-9 THC). It really can give that head anxiety to people,” he said. “That’s why people like Delta-8 THC because you’re getting a little bit of the psychoactive effect but not at that 25 percent level like you get with the Delta-9 THC. People are preferring the Delta-8. They like it better.”
First discovered in 1941, Delta-8 THC is only slightly different from its cousin compound Delta-9 THC. The two chemicals are only one chemical bond apart, according to Josh Church, a scientist and managing director of Roots Holdings. Research has shown that Delta-8 is a powerful anti-seizure drug. “The issue is it just doesn’t naturally occur at significant levels, so it’s really easy to ban,” said Church, adding that Delta-8 also promotes relaxation, clear-headedness and increased positivity.
Research has also shown that Delta-8 significantly helps reduce stress, stimulate an appetite and lessen nausea. Delta-8 is a less “head high” and more of a body high without the nervousness and paranoia often associated with Delta-9 THC. Delta-8 THC, users should be warned, will also turn up on a drug test as “THC,” according to Church.
Looking at legality
While its popularity is spiking across the U.S., Delta-8 is not without controversy. While hemp itself is federally legal (at or less than 0.3 percent THC), each state has different laws and restrictions regarding byproducts derived from hemp, including Delta-8. No products containing Delta-8 have been tested by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration or are FDA-approved.
Twelve states have completely banned Delta-8 sales. Those states include Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Kentucky, Idaho, Iowa, Mississippi, Montana, Rhode Island and Utah. New York has a proposed rule to ban Delta-8 products, which is under a comment period until July 19. California, Oregon, Vermont and Washington are in the process of enacting regulations for Delta-8 products. Several other states are also considering bans.
The federal legality of Delta-8 products is disputed. The misinformation and ambiguity surrounding its legality is why some manufacturers in the CBD industry took time to develop and market their own Delta-8 products. Jakob Gutierrez, product specialist for JustCBD, which launched its JustDELTA-8 brand at TPE, said it took the company time to launch its Delta-8 product because it wanted to be sure it was working within the law. JustCBD only sells its products to retail shops and distributors; it does not sell directly to consumers.
“We wanted to make sure we were covering ourselves and making sure we were doing it right, complying with the right laws. Now, we were missing out a little bit because of that, but we’re back on track,” Gutierrez said. “We got on the train, and orders are exponential for the Delta-8. People are coming in, just ordering various product, and walking out. It’s insane how fast this stuff is flying out.”
Ask eight people if Delta-8 is legal federally and you’ll get eight different answers. Some believe that the vagueness of the 2018 Farm Bill, which legalized hemp and hemp-derived products, means that Delta-8 is currently legal under federal law. “Because Delta-8 is such a new product, many state laws don’t address it at all, which puts it in a gray area of de facto legality,” according to Leafly, a cannabis information source. The reason states have banned Delta-8 products is an uncertainty about what it is and what it does, according to many Delta-8 manufacturers.
On Aug. 21, 2020, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) issued an Interim Final Ruling (IFR) that stated hemp-derived Delta-8 is federally prohibited and is to be considered the same for enforcement purposes as Delta-9 THC and that “all synthetically derived tetrahydrocannabinols (THC) remain Schedule I controlled substances.” The memo states that these products cannot be shipped to customers from retailers through the U.S. Postal Service or any other shipping method, and it is illegal to use and possess these products in states where cannabis is not legal.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s position on Delta-8 THC is that the Farm Bill mandates only a Delta-9 THC limit and doesn’t regulate Delta-8 at all, so Delta-8 is not part of the agency’s hemp mandate, according to previous statements. Since the amount of Delta-8 THC found naturally in hemp is almost 1,000 times lower than the amount of Delta-9, the agency saw no reason to address it at all, including as part of its “total THC” testing requirement.
A hemp trade association and a hemp company have filed a petition in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia challenging the DEA’s IFR. That case is still being reviewed. The D.C. Circuit petition challenges the IFR on the basis that: 1) the DEA did not follow the appropriate notice and comment procedures, 2) the DEA does not have authority under the Farm Bill to issue the IFR, and 3) the DEA’s acting administrator lacks authority to issue the IFR.
Not all states are anti-Delta-8. For example, Florida’s statute states that “any hemp product intended for human or animal ingestion or inhalation which is sold in Florida must comply with all Florida statutes and rules. Any hemp or hemp extract products offered for sale or sold in Florida must comply with all labeling rules and have a certificate of analysis that shows a total THC (THCA x .8777 + THC Delta-9 = total THC) content of 0.3 percent or less.” Florida is the only U.S. state to have enacted legislation to provide a framework for the legal sale of Delta-8.
Florida’s statement on Delta-8 clarifies that Delta-8 does not run afoul of any Florida law and, in fact, certifies that the manufacture and distribution of Delta-8 is allowed in Florida, according to ACS Laboratory, a Tampa, Florida-based CBD testing facility. “Despite Florida’s conservative legislative trends, the state’s public policy toward Delta-8 is progressive and ultimately beneficial,” ACS’ website states. “By establishing a structured and comprehensive regulatory framework for manufacturers and distributors to follow, Florida is enabling a burgeoning industry to continue to grow and evolve while simultaneously ensuring the safety of buyers by mandating certificates of analysis for all [Delta-8] items sold.”
Chemistry lesson
The proposed updates to those New York rules that ban Delta-8 included a provision declaring that all cannabinoid and cannabinol products made through a chemical process called isomerization can no longer be sold in New York. The new rules specified the compounds Delta-8 and Delta-10.
Isomerization is, in its most basic explanation, adding a chemical bond to a molecule, according to Church. “Basically, anything you can make out of the THC molecule is banned because all isomers of said molecule are banned—technically,” explains Church. “If you remember Spice or K2, they were synthetic THC. The issue was the DEA; the FDA would ban the new molecule—say tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) 9753—and then within the next week, they would come up with THC 9756. And it was this cat-and-mouse game where the DEA, the FDA, and the Chinese authorities couldn’t stop them fast enough until they finally just banned all isomers.”
Many industry players say that the federal government will soon legalize marijuana, and the ambiguity around products like Delta-8 and Delta-10 THC will disappear. President Biden has publicly said that he supports the decriminalization of cannabis and removing it from the Schedule I list while Vice President Kamala Harris has gone further, stating that she supports full legalization. But like all the states that have legalized Delta-9 THC and have specifically banned Delta-8, it would not be surprising to see the federal government make some of those same decisions, according to Church.
“Regulation of these cannabinoids … it’s going to take an act of Congress. Then it’s really hard to try and predict what Congress is going to lay forth in the legislation. I mean, look at the nicotine space with synthetic nicotine still not being closed as a loophole around regulation,” explains Church. “Because so many states are banning it right now (Delta-8), I think the federal government will come in with some sort of hefty regulation on all the isomers or conversion molecules.”
Tony Riva, CEO of TD Distribution Co., parent to the Hi Drip e-liquid brand, also launched a Delta-8 brand at TPE. Riva said he didn’t have the concerns many of the other manufacturers had. He says the vapor industry has been dealing with a harsh regulatory environment for nearly a decade. He doesn’t see why the cannabinoid industry is going to be any different, especially as more and more cannabinoids come to market.
“If I lived in fear all the time in this industry, I’d never get anything done. We are just trying to provide a legal product and hope that the government doesn’t tell us that we can’t. It’s a constant battle with their … tyrannical overreach that they’ve thrown down on the vaping industry,” he says, adding that he expects the cannabis industry to be federally regulated in some form within the next few years. “People like Delta-8; people like Delta-10 or CBD. They feel that it helps them. We are just trying to provide high-quality, legal products to our clients. At the end of the day, it’s just going to be another hula hoop to jump through.”
Church says that he recommends any retailer or manufacturer contemplating entering the Delta-8 market to consider having a firm process of chain-of-custody documentation, adding that the cannabinoid industry should look toward the legal marijuana industry as a guideline. Church emphasized that one bad player could destroy the market by doing something wrong and causing the potential for another situation like the e-cigarette or vaping product use-associated lung injury (EVALI) issues that occurred because a few bad players used vitamin E acetate in black market THC vape pens without doing any research on the chemical.
“Those dirty conversions are out there; there is a lot of risk to a finished good. The last thing you want to see is a dirty lab pumping out a bunch of garbage. Then it gets distributed nationally, and we have another EVALI situation. This isn’t because of the Delta-8, which is largely safe, but because it’s a bad product. I would strongly encourage anyone looking to move into the Delta-8 or Delta-10 space to meet those high standards that are required for any type of legal consumer product,” says Church. “The reality is, though, that the sky’s the limit on these types of products. I think we’re just now seeing it with Delta-8 and Delta-10 … but it’s going to evolve into a crazy world of these new designer cannabinoids. And regulation is coming along for the ride.”
A large study conducted by the TPA shows e-cigarettes control youth smoking.
By Maria Verven
An extensive, state-by-state analysis conducted by the Taxpayers Protection Alliance (TPA) proves e-cigarettes are more effective in controlling youth smoking than tobacco control programs started after the Master Settlement Agreement (MSA).
“Tobacco & Vaping 101: 50 State Analysis,” authored by Lindsey Stroud, uses data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to argue the benefits of vaping, especially when it comes to teen usage. Ironically, this same data had been used to create public hysteria over vaping rates, especially among youth.
“As lawmakers across the country seek to reduce youth tobacco and vapor product use, many have introduced and passed legislation that regulates, taxes and in some cases prohibits the sale of products that actually help reduce tobacco use,” Stroud said.
Stroud said she’s been using the findings in state legislative testimony this year. “I’ve received positive feedback from pro-vaping and tobacco groups but have not heard much back from the anti-groups,” she said. “They may be surprised to see that I used the same data they do to argue the benefits of vaping,” she said, adding that she’s determined to make this information publicly available and accessible.
Stroud said she hopes other researchers and industry followers will use the report’s state-by-state information on adult and youth use of tobacco and vapor products in future articles and reports.
Of particular interest is the effectiveness—or lack thereof—of tobacco settlement payments, taxes and vapor products on reducing combustible cigarette use.
While all 50 states and Washington, D.C. saw a decrease in the percent of smokers, some states actually saw an increase in the number of smokers, due to an overall increase in the state’s population. Stroud’s analysis took into account both the percent difference and population change in examining adult and youth vapor and tobacco rates.
The analysis of cigarette tax revenues between 2000 and 2019 found that while cigarette tax hikes helped increase revenues in the short-term, these increases didn’t contribute to the decline in smoking rates.
It also shows that most states drastically underfunded programs for tobacco cessation services, education and prevention after collecting cigarette tax revenue and tobacco settlement monies over the past 19 years.
Vapor products tied to decrease in youth smoking
Of greatest importance is the analysis on the reduction in youth use of combustible cigarettes—which is at an all-time low. The report also examines youth vapor rates, specifying whether they ever tried an e-cigarette or are truly current or daily users.
Here’s where the data got really interesting. Stroud compared the smoking rates among 18-year-olds to 24-year-olds in the 10 years after the MSA with the smoking rates in the 10 years after e-cigarettes appeared on the market.
Credit: Vaksmanv
Lo and behold, there were greater decreases in smoking rates in the 10 years after the emergence of e-cigarettes when compared to the 10 years after tobacco settlement lawsuits.
And in the four states where smoking rates actually increased after e-cigarettes came on the market, policymakers had increased scrutiny and restrictions on e-cigarettes due to the perceived youth vaping “epidemic.” Coincidence? Stroud doesn’t think so.
“Addressing youth use of any age-restricted product is laudable, but it should not come at the expense of adult users of such products,” Stroud wrote in Politics, adding that bans, arduous regulations and/or unfair taxation threaten adult access to e-cigarettes and other tobacco harm reduction products.
“Completely disregarding that youth smoking rates are at all-time lows, officials often propose ‘solutions’ that fail to address the real reason why youth use e-cigarettes,” Stroud said.
States with higher rates of youth smoking have higher rates of youth vaping. Stroud said that the data clearly indicate that youth use e-cigarettes because friends and family members use them.
When asked about the “primary reason” for using e-cigarette products (among current users, only 10 percent of respondents from many states answered it was due to “flavors” while 17 percent cited “friends and family” and 51 percent cited “other.”
Vapor Voice caught up with Lindsey Stroud to learn more about this groundbreaking report and how this plethora of tobacco and vaping data can be used to inform future policymaking.
Vapor Voice: How was all this data collected? How long did it take?
Stroud: The idea was to provide policymakers with a plethora of tobacco-related data in a simplified manner.
We compiled the data manually by inputting data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Behavior Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) between 1995 and 2019.
While state-specific BRFSS data included detailed demographic information such as age, gender, race, education level, income and smoking status, it wasn’t easy finding that data for the U.S. as a whole. So I started going through individual state data and putting together state-specific spreadsheets on cigarette use.
In addition, I examined annual state cigarette tax receipts, annual state tobacco control funding, cigarette tax increases and youth tobacco and vapor product use, which came from the CDC’s Youth Risk Behavior Survey.
It’s important to note that the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids also uses this same BRFSS data. However, while Tobacco-Free Kids only shows smoking rates and the cost of smoking in each state, we pulled various data items to tell a more complete, insightful picture.
What surprised you the most about this project?
I was amazed that my hypothesis—that e-cigarettes were more effective than the MSA in reducing smoking rates among young adults—actually held true. It was really eye-opening.
It’s still pretty amazing that 45 states and D.C. saw greater decreases in smoking rates among 18[-year-old] to 24-year-old adults in the 10 years after e-cigarettes emerged on the market than in the 10 years after the tobacco companies started shelling out millions that states were supposed to use on smoking cessation programs.
In the outlier states, smoking rates were at their lowest levels ever until 2018—the same year the surgeon general declared a “youth vaping epidemic.” Tragically, that’s when smoking rates began to increase.
Why did you feel this data was needed?
I really wanted to show policymakers data that compared youth vaping to youth smoking rates, which were way higher in the 1990s, especially compared to today’s youth vaping rates.
In all states, cigarette tax increases led to immediate increases in revenue in the short term, but these have all fallen as less adults smoke cigarettes.
I also wanted to call attention to the lack of state funding for tobacco control programs, despite the fact that states receive millions if not billions of dollars annually from tobacco monies such as excise taxes and tobacco settlement payments.
As far as I know, this is one if not the first analysis of the BRFSS data to include graphs—which clearly show the reduction in smoking rates among young adults as well as how little funding is spent on tobacco control.
Finally, I wanted to prove my hypothesis that vaping can take much of the credit for the reduction in both adult and youth smoking rates.
Vaping products don’t create costs; they make some of the costs of tobacco use disappear.
By George Gay
According to a Vapor Voice news story quoting a CStoreDecisions piece by Isabelle Gustafson, lawmakers have introduced into the U.S. Senate a bill that would establish a federal tax on vaping products and increase the traditional tobacco tax rate for the first time in a decade.
I quote below three of the five-paragraph news story in full because I believe that some of the points made by those supporting the bill need to be challenged, though I acknowledge that such challenge will not affect the final outcome:
The Tobacco Tax Equity Act of 2021 aims to “close tax code loopholes for tobacco products by increasing the federal tax rate on cigarettes, pegging it to inflation to ensure it remains an effective public health tool and setting the federal tax rate for all other tobacco products at this same level.”
“Tobacco-related disease accounts for one out of every five deaths in America, and I know that story firsthand,” Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin was quoted as saying. “Data shows that the most effective strategy to prevent children from starting this deadly habit is to price it out of their range. This bill would help reduce tobacco and e-cigarette use by ending loopholes that the industry has exploited to target our children. If America can kick its nicotine addiction, it would go a long way to improving our public health for generations to come.”
“Loopholes in our tax code continue to favor big tobacco while the American public, especially our youth, pays the price,” said Representative Raja Krishnamoorthi. “The Tobacco Tax Equity Act increases taxes on cigarettes and finally imposes taxes on the e-cigarettes hooking our children on nicotine, which would generate billions of dollars in federal revenue. As a father of a high schooler and middle schooler, I’m determined to make sure we end the youth nicotine and vaping epidemic.”
I would like firstly to question the term “loopholes,” which is used three times, once in the introduction and once each by the two politicians quoted. The word loophole is used normally to convey the idea that some scam is in operation that allows a disreputable individual, corporation or organization to gain an advantage over others by obeying the letter of a law or rule but not the spirit of that law or rule. And that implied criticism is aimed at one of the usual suspects—big tobacco.
But is this what has been going on here? Has big tobacco been using loopholes in the tax system to target young people? Not from the evidence presented. The politicians quoted seem to be complaining that big tobacco hasn’t been falling in line with tax rules not yet in place, which seems a tad unfair. In other words, the complaints, if any, should be aimed at the politicians for not having brought in these new rules earlier, given that they seem to believe they are so important.
But it is not the way of politicians to blame themselves or even to admit that they have been neglectful of their duties, so the politicians try to clamber onto the word loopholes as if it somehow represents the moral high ground.
And on that somewhat unstable ground, they teeter. Durbin is quoted as implying that one or more people from within his circle of family and/or friends died from a tobacco-related disease. I’m sure that most people would sympathize with Durbin at this point, but the problem here is that he is trying to convince people of the correctness of his position by arguing from the particular to the general.
And the concern must be that despite the fragility of such arguments, other politicians will be won over. It makes you wonder what would happen if a politician called for extra taxes on automobiles because somebody from within her circle had been killed in an automobile wreck.
What I don’t like, also, about Durbin’s position is that it smacks of collective punishment. Tobacco consumption led to the death of somebody from within his circle, so all tobacco users should be punished through the taxation system, even though what they are doing is legal and even though they had no interaction or involvement with the dead person. Such actions are banned even in war.
Then, from the dizzying moral heights of language loopholes and particularities, the announcement moves on to the favorite ploy of all: emotional blackmail. We are told that the new taxes will protect “our children”—or, rather, children (three mentions), youth (two mentions) and schoolers (two mentions).
I wonder how? Perhaps, in the light of not enough attention being paid by politicians to some of the other needs of children, the additional money raised through the new taxes could be used to feed the 18 million children who are projected to face hunger in the U.S. this year. But don’t hold your breath.
Credit: Auremar
Krishnamoorthi is quoted as saying that the Tobacco Tax Equity Act “increases taxes on cigarettes and finally imposes taxes on the e-cigarettes hooking our children on nicotine.” Note the use of “finally” here, which I guess is meant to imply that it has taken a long time to bring the bill forward because of the heroic efforts that politicians have had to put in to overcome the huge barriers standing in the way of tax reform, when, presumably, the reason is that they have not been bothered up to this point.
I would also like to take issue with the idea that Krishnamoorthi trots out about “e-cigarettes hooking our children on nicotine.” Does he know this to be the case, I wonder? Has he proof? It is true that if you look on the website of the National Institute of Drug Abuse, you will see a piece that says, “Consuming nicotine—through regular cigarettes or vaping—leads to the release of the chemical dopamine in the human brain. As with many drugs, dopamine prompts or ‘teaches’ the brain to repeat the same behavior (such as using tobacco) over and over.”
But according to a review by Rivka Galchen (London Review of Books, April 22) of The idea of the Brain, the author, Matthew Cobb, casts doubt on such an idea. “The connection of dopamine to addictive behavior—Cobb cites a Facebook founder saying the site was meant to be addictive, to ‘give you a little dopamine hit’—is ‘nonsense’ and ‘neurobollocks,’” Galchen quotes Cobb as saying. I am not saying that Cobb is correct. I am not in a position to be able to judge such things, but what he has to say must surely give people, even politicians, pause for thought, for he is not alone in thinking this way.
One problem in assessing the rights and wrongs of taxing vaping products in the U.S. arises from the fact that politicians have fallen for the Food and Drug Administration’s descent from science to alchemy in “deeming” these products to be tobacco products. Imagine a U.S. in which bread has not been invented and a significant proportion of the population lives on cake as a staple, with the consequence that these people are wobbly fat.
In trying to improve the situation, the authorities have turned to imposing high taxes on cake, but the sugar content proves to be too appealing, and the people keep buying cake, whether tax-paid or illicit. The authorities then declare war on the cake manufacturers who, after a while, admit that too many wobblies are dying, and come up with bread, with which they claim they can wean at least some of the people off cake.
What do the authorities do? Do they welcome this development? Not if we are talking about the FDA. They say that bread, like cake, contains flour, and, since there are still small amounts of sugar in bread to make it palatable, bread must be deemed to be cake. At which point, the politicians, desperate for funds, realize that bread can be taxed. Alice has gone headfirst through the looking glass.
Credit: Highway Starz
A couple of other points come out of the announcement of the bill. It is clear that part of the aim of the bill is to force the U.S. “to kick its nicotine habit.” But nicotine and tobacco use are both legal in the U.S., so people have the right to consume tobacco and nicotine products. There is a danger here that politicians are going to muddle up issues of ethics with those of rights.
Just because you object to something on ethical grounds doesn’t bestow on you the right to make it unobtainable for those who don’t go along with your ethical views. In the U.K., we seem to get stuck in the same morass when discussing the issue of assisted dying, and all too few politicians are willing to make the stand that though they might be ethically opposed to assisted dying, they recognize the rights of others to avail themselves of it. As I believe Michel de Montaigne pointed out in the 16th century, “Life is slavery if freedom to die is wanting.”
At the same time, it seems to me that we enter the tobacco and nicotine tax debate too far along the line. We enter it on the assumption that tobacco and nicotine products should be taxed. But why is this so? Well, one idea has it that products should be taxed according to the harm that they cause. This point was made by a couple of speakers who addressed the Western Economic Association International (WEAI) virtual conference during March.
According to a news report, one of them, Woo-Hyung Hong, professor in the Hansung University Department of Economics (South Korea), said that tobacco taxes should be based on a product’s external economic costs. Such a system should consider medical costs, loss-of-labor capital costs, costs from cigarette-related fires and avoidance costs, among others.
There is a certain logic associated with this idea, but if you accept that logic, then surely you have to apply it to everything. Automobiles, for instance. Look at the medical costs that arise from people driving automobiles. There are, of course, the deaths and injuries caused by car wrecks, the deaths and injuries caused by the pollution most automobiles contribute to, pollution that has now been acknowledged to be a bigger killer worldwide than tobacco consumption. And then there is the issue of people becoming wobbly fat because they use their cars rather than walk.
This, in part, is what the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has to say on this subject: “Obesity is serious because it is associated with poorer mental health outcomes and reduced quality of life. Obesity is also associated with the leading causes of death in the United States and worldwide, including diabetes, heart disease, stroke and some types of cancer.”
And what about the loss-of-labor costs? Well, for a start, all of the medical problems outlined above are likely to lead to such loss of labor, and just imagine the loss caused by people snarled up in highly polluting traffic jams.
And while most automobiles still run on fossil fuels, there is the billion-dollar cost of subsidizing the oil companies for pumping these fuels out of the ground—fuels, the use of which is causing eye-watering costs associated with climate change and environmental breakdown, costs from which we might never recover.
None of this is to say that tobacco should not be taxed. We are too far down the road to go back now. But all of the revenue from such taxes should be used to relieve some of the causes that encourage people to take up smoking; one of which is clearly poverty since poverty is a good predictor of the likelihood of a person being a smoker. I believe in the idea of redistributive taxes, but the way that tobacco taxation works at the moment is that it is redistributive “upward,” which is obscene.
And finally, there is no reason to tax vaping devices. They don’t create costs; they make some of the costs of tobacco use disappear. They are a solution, not a problem.
