The Consumer Choice Center has released its second U.S. State Vaping Index, which looks at 50 states plus the District of Columbia. It reveals that only three states, including Alaska, North Dakota and Tennessee, received an A+ in the study for an evidence-based approach to vaping policy.
This rating means these states are in a position to harness the enormous potential of vaping as a harm-reduction tool while still letting consumers choose for themselves. Other states that perform well are Arizona, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Texas, Alabama, Arkansas, Oklahoma and Wisconsin.
By contrast, 12 states have overwhelmingly embraced restrictive policies on vapers and vaping, including Utah (0 points), California (second to last at 5 points), Vermont (10 points), Oregon, New York, New Jersey, Nebraska, Massachusetts, Illinois, Hawaii, D.C. and Colorado (all at 15 points). The number of low scores has doubled since the 2020 edition of the Vaping Index.
“Vaping saves lives,” said Emil Panzaru, research director for the Consumer Choice Center. “If every smoker in the United States switched to vaping over 10 years, you’d have 6.6 million fewer premature deaths in the U.S.
“Unfortunately, policymakers across America do not recognize that vaping is a valid harm-reduction substitute for traditional combustible tobacco products. Vapes are often mistakenly referred to as tobacco products, and in turn, targeted with draconian flavor bans, taxed higher than cigarettes, subject to registries meant to gatekeep the products, and faced with bans on online sales.
“These policies deter consumers from switching away from the more dangerous habit of smoking and fuel black markets for vape products. The end result is a patchwork of state laws at odds with the most up-to-date public health practices from around the world.”
The purpose of the U.S. Vaping Index is to inform consumers about vaping policies in their area and highlight the need for more informed and level-headed lawmaking. The Consumer Choice Center weighed five factors in the index:
1) Whether the state considers vapes to be tobacco products;
2) State-level vaping flavor restrictions;
3) Requirements for state registries (which mirror the FDA-approved database);
4) Additional excise taxes on vaping; and
5) The presence or absence of online sales bans.
“Let’s set the empirical record straight,” said Panzaru. “The best available research by authorities such as Public Health England recognizes that vaping is 95 percent safer than combustible tobacco for users. Evidence in the New England Journal of Medicine finds that vaping is twice as effective at smoking cessation than any nicotine tablet, patch or spray at helping people quit smoking.
“What’s more, a review of 15 different studies found little evidence of a supposed gateway effect leading teens down the path from vaping to smoking or hard substances.”
“Rather than embracing policies that ignore the evidence and do not work, state authorities should commit to studying and learning from the example of Sweden, the first country to become smoke-free in Europe thanks to the research-driven recognition of vapes as harm-reduction tools,” Panzaru concluded.
The Kansas City Council postponed an Oct. 10 vote on a proposed ban on selling flavored nicotine products in Kansas City.
