Tackling Big Tobacco
The first (and only) time I vaped it tasted like “Blonde Dream,” which was something between a pineapple and coconut “dum dum” lollipop, and was painted with a scantily-clad woman wrapping her arms around the body of the pen. It was nicotine-free, just propylene glycol and syrup, super-heated into a vapor and sucked into my lungs. I wasn’t very good at tricks, but I did get one good ring and several overly dramatic pictures of me looking very cool indeed. Growing up, my teaching was all anti-smoking: my stepmother was an air particle scientist at Battelle, who had spent her career researching and campaigning against all forms of nicotine. Since I was 6 or 7 I had been trained and drilled to hate any and all forms of nicotine and anything that glorifies smoking: I memorized the health risks, studies and statistics, recited the dangers, ranted to strangers and passed judgment on friends, and - despite nearly a decade of programming and preaching - I still fell for it. Even without the addictive nicotine, it was beyond cool, it was delicious and satisfying and rebellious and I wanted it. And I am not alone, nothing is preventing teenagers, many who don’t even understand that what they are breathing in isn’t just “harmless water vapor,” from making a choice that could result in a lifetime of struggle against nicotine addiction? While a viable option for nicotine addicts, as an alternative to cigarettes, electronic cigarettes are too accessible, inviting and pleasant, which is leading to nicotine addiction as early as middle school.
The plethora of colors, flavors, shapes and sizes of e-cigarettes and e-cigarette juice creates the illusion of safety in young users and the inadequate to nonexistent research concerning the effects of repeatedly subjecting the lungs to nicotine vapor creates a new, unexplored issue in today’s society. In 2014, the CDC found that teens who had never tried cigarettes were nearly twice as likely to try e-cigarettes, because there are currently no known side effects and the vapor tastes good. This means that teenagers who would not normally have tried cigarettes, perhaps as a result of the falling popularity of cigarettes due to intensive research on the health detriments or perhaps the abhorrent sensation of inhaling smoke into one’s lungs, are inhaling candy-flavored propylene glycol into their lungs instead. Another study found that in 2011 only 79,000 teens and preteens reported having smoked an e-cigarette, but that by 2013 that number had nearly tripled to 263,000 (CDC, 2014). The numbers are rising and with the ever expanding flavors of vape “juice” and increasing customizability of the e-cig pens, the number will only grow. Of course, a comment by Stanton Glantz, a leading tobacco researcher from the University of California, brings up my final issue. "There's no question that e-cigarettes are a gateway to smoking,” he says when interviewed by a reporter. The usage of e-cigarettes in adults to wean themselves off or provide an admittedly healthier alternative to conventional cigarette use is the advertised and gallant purpose of the e-cig, which raises the question: Why make it so accessible and tantalizing to teenagers and non-smokers?
In reality, the notion of legally preventing teens from vaping is a concept as preposterous as it is insurmountable. History has witnessed an abundance of attempts to control substances, and, from alcohol to marijuana, it has always failed. And so, instead, I venture to propose a few viable, conceivable alternatives to the foolish notion of simply abolishing them from teenage use.
The first area in need of significant improvement is that of public use, specifically usage in schools. As it stands currently, teachers tend to be unfazed and, at best, merely mildly irritated when a student pulls out a pen and begins vaping in class. NPR interviewed Viviana Turincio, an 8th grader from the San Francisco Bay area, and she described her experience with vaping in school as her classmates were “just smoking on the vape pen, and the teacher was right there — and the teacher didn't even notice." This represents a significant problem. The laws against minor’s possession of e-cigarettes may be in place, but they become obsolete when unenforced, even on the most basic level. Because of this I propose increasing school vigilance in the enforcement of laws surrounding e-cigarettes.
The latter issue, and the one most resembling the root of the problem, is the allure of deliciously flavored vapor pens coming in all different shapes, sizes, colors, and designs. Because of the increased demand in the adolescent population for flavors and colors which simply mask the true dangers of nicotine and it’s addictive properties, I deem this issue far superior. The most logical solution is to outlaw the pretty packaging that tobacco companies have wrapped propylene glycol and nicotine in. The logic behind this is simple: for adults who suffer from nicotine addiction, a flavorless vapor in exchange for harsh tobacco smoke is a modest trade, however, for teenagers who feel that e-cigarettes are harmless and just taste like their favorite fruit or candy, taking the yummy flavors and cool colors from the equation may be exactly the push they need to quit or better, never begin in the first place.
The benefits of adopting a law prohibiting the use of flavors in electronic cigarettes range from protecting the environmental to reforming social and cultural standards to promoting the medical welfare of subsequent generations. Exhaled nicotine aerosol, or “vapor,” has been found to contain toxins and pollutants, detrimental to the environment and second-hand inhalers. Wolfgang Schober and colleagues found that when e-cigarettes are used indoors for extended periods of time (this study measured the air quality of the room over two hours), it significantly increases the number of airborne fine particles (by nearly 3,400%) and a 20% increase in harmful carcinogens. (University of California, 2013). According to Americans for Non-Smoker’s Rights, exhaled vapor contains nicotine, ultrafine particles, propylene glycol, glycerol, flavorings, and nicotine, along with acetone, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, propanal, diacetin, and triacetin. A delightful concoction any parent would want their child breathing in at school while a classmate vapes, right? In addition to being harmful to others and the environment, the e-cigarette is not as puppies and kittens as the manufactures would lead citizens to believe. Despite little being known about e-cigarettes and the effects of prolonged use, scientists do know that many of the chemicals found in e-cigarettes have been proven to increase the rate of heart disease and cancer significantly, and the risk for asthma in children exposed to the vapor. (Though it is currently undisputable that electronic cigarettes are less harmful than conventional cigarettes, is “safer than cigarettes” good enough to be “better than never starting”?)
Another lens to examine the benefits of adopting the proposed policy is that of medical significance. Having previously enumerated the veiled risks and dangers of vapes, the prospect of medical care for cancer patients is a looming and formidable future for many smokers (both electronic and conventional), and the costs are taken out of the insurance companies, which pulls from the economy. In 2008, the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project found that around 535,000 patients (90% of which were smokers) were admitted for treatment for lung cancer in that year, and, with lung cancer patients costing an average of $1,900 per day to receive care, it is clear how quickly this can add up to insurmountable costs for families and insurance companies (estimated aggregate costs are around six billion per year).
The final means by which I seek the end of this solution is to disenchant the act of smoking in the eyes of the public. Since Native Americans introduced tobacco into our culture, it has been an idol of young rebellion, a symbol of social class, and the epitome of vogue for people around the globe. Now, just as the cigarette appeared to be dying out through scorn of the younger generations, the electronic cigarette has taken it’s place. It makes it all too easy to forget the addictive drug contained within the cotton candy and bubble gum flavored cloud. I am confident in my stance that by eliminating that sweet disguise, the e-cigarette will lose popularity in minors as it is stripped it to it’s bones and made a necessity only to those who desperately need an alternative instead of a luxury to children who don’t understand that taking a puff is making a choice.
Considering that vapes are currently a hot trending item and the tobacco industry is booming as a result, there would be considerable opposition to this plan, coming from sources like e-cigarette manufacturers and distributors and current vape users. Manufacturers of e-cigarettes and e-cigarette accessories clearly have the most to lose in this situation, as vape sales would ideally plummet, and would be highly motivated to prevent a regulation like that which is being proposed from passing, especially considering the fall in sales of conventional cigarettes. As with the manufacturers, distributors are at a similar disadvantage and could potentially lose everything since many distributors open new shops for the sole purpose of selling e-cigarettes. Current vape users, despite lacking the motivation of losing material investment, are also likely to be strongly opposed to this since many users began vaping solely because it tastes good and looks cool and if one is removed from the equation the allure is lost while the addiction is maintained.
However, there are also many large, influential groups who would support the regulation of e-cigarettes, such as anti-smoking organizations, and insurance companies. Anti-smoking organizations, such as Americans for Non-Smoker’s Rights, would support this, since it discourages smoking and nicotine addiction. The Americans for Non-Smoker’s Rights has already done extensive research into the health effects of e-cigarettes and have begun campaigning against them. On their webpage, they state “At this time, Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights recommends that e-cigarettes not be used in areas where people will be exposed to the vapors they emit.” Insurance companies would be another huge advocate, since they already pay an estimated 6 billion a year in lung cancer treatment fees, and with the new wave of vape-users, this number is likely to expand exponentially (Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, 2008).
Tobacco companies have hooked children on nicotine under the guise of fruit and candy flavored syrup while claiming that "our target customer base is those people who felt doomed to a life of smoking," (Geoff Braithwaite, owner of “Tasty Vapor”). By banning the use of flavorants in electronic cigarettes, companies like Tasty Vapor can still safely fulfill their noble purpose without the worry of inflicting a lifetime of addiction upon children so young and vulnerable to manipulation. What is a profit loss when the alternative is so bleak and the product still functions perfectly for it’s advertised intent and purpose? So many children and teenagers, who would not have even considered smoking a conventional cigarette, are turning to “safe” electronic cigarettes, ignorant to the dangers of breathing in aerosolized chemicals and incapable of grasping the permanence of addiction
