Vaping Problem in the Society

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Vaping problem
Policy alternatives
Stakeholders and roles
Budget cost factors
Saving measures
Evaluative criteria
Summary
References

Vaping problem

National and state data from patient reports and product sample testing show tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)-containing e-cigarette, or vaping, products, particularly from informal sources like friends, family, or in-person or online dealers, are linked to most EVALI cases (CDC, n.d.).

E-cigarettes compounds are reported to have traces of heavy metals, tobacco-specific N-nitrosamines, and diacetyl, besides they have a proven harmful impact on lung and brain development of adolescents (Hobson, Arndt, & Barenklau, 2020). The exposure to ECs increases chances of memory and hyperactivity disorders, and even drug abuse (Hamilton, 2019).

In 27 states of the US 60 deaths caused by EVALI has been confirmed by mid-January, with more than 2600 people hospitalized around the country (CDC, n.d.)

As 50% of the patients provided data on the source of the product they used, the concerns of CDC were confirmed 78% of users acquired e-cigarettes or vapes from informal sources (friends, family, online, dealers)

As Food and Drug Administration attempted to reduce cigarette smoking by replacing it with Ecs and helping this new market grow, problems like access do adolescents were overlooked (Kaplan & Richtel, 2019). Moreover, tobacco giants like Altria (Marlboro producer) made their point by acquiring stakes in nations biggest vapor producers (JUUL) (Kaplan & Richtel, 2019).

Policy alternatives

Flavoring ban introduced in the beginning of January by FDA does not prohibit the sale of flavors from tank-based system (Alltucker, 2020). By introducing these measures FDA attempts to target products widely used by children and strike the public health balance, leaving adults who make effort to quit smoking with EC alternatives (Alltucker, 2020).

Still, the existing federal measures seem to be insufficient, so in some states tightened measures are introduced. For instance, in Massachusetts 4-month ban on all online and in-store sales of vaping products and prohibition of vaping on all campuses (Lannan, 2019). In New Jersey, the first permanent ban on flavored vapor products nationwide was introduced in the beginning of 2020 (Faughnan, 2020).

Stakeholders and roles

There are many stakeholders behind the vaping lobby in the US today. Smoke Free Alternatives Coalition, representatives of vape business, The Petroleum Marketers Association, and The Association of Convenience Stores are the ones taking part in the discussions regarding legislative efforts recently introduced on the federal level. It comes as no surprise that the businesses in the industry are strongly against the new law enforcement, as they believe it will not help solve the vaping problem, but will negatively affect the sector that is not that influential (in comparison to big tobacco lobby) (Anzel, 2019). Their claims are supported by marketers, who argue it would cut back the tobacco cessation progress that has been made so far and reduce tax revenues coming from 15% wholesale tax on e-cigarettes (Anzel, 2019). Still, their claims seem to be the trivial argumentation of representatives of the main interest groups, not concerned with public health perspective.

The main stakeholders in the process of solving the existing problem are federal agencies, responsible for public health programs. These include the Department of Public Health and Human Services (HHS) and the affiliated agencies Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA). As these agencies are occupied with gathering the statistics on vaping effects on the national level and also dealing with its horrendous consequences, they lobby for the tightened control and law enforcement. The legislators and authorities on the state and local levels have the same incentives.

Budget cost factors

Budget costs of EC prohibition measures will come from the tax revenues cuts, but there are still ways to outweigh the losses. The new policy is designed to protect public health, the goal that is one of the all-time imperatives for any country.

Saving measures

It is clear that overall budget losses are irreversible, as the EC market has been expanding for 13 years now. Still, one way to cut the losses is to move on increasing the cigarette tax and the taxation on devices not covered by the newly introduced law enforcement tank-based devices. Besides, the budget losses are temporary, and as soon as enough data on the health effects of flavored vapor devices is gathered, the ban might be reconsidered. It is also essential for the purposes of not letting the population go back to smoking traditional cigarettes to promote research on increasing safety of the existing EC devices through innovation.

Evaluative criteria

Relevance

The proposed policy is consistent with the existing need to tackle the vaping epidemic and conduct thorough research on the effects of vapor products for human health.

Effectiveness

The temporary ban on vapor products will give the specialized institutions time to analyze the scope of the problem and gather the necessary data that will allow them make comprehensive conclusions and propose effective, trial-based measures to enhance public health problems caused by vaping.

Impact

While the ban will negatively impact the budget revenues from taxation, there are ways to keep the losses lower by increasing taxes on products left out the regulative measure. Although there will be financial losses, the positive impact on the development of research and possible treatment for the people who got injured by using unsafe vapor products, outweighs the financial side of the issue.

Coverage

The ban will cover potentially threatened groups and will help those, who already found themselves in a life-threatening situation, as along with the introduction of the ban, research on the treatment options will be pushed forward.

Incentives and support

While introduction of this policy is a big step forward, incentives for the organizations to contribute to the ongoing health impact research are essential to reach the objectives of the ban. These incentives should include transparency efforts, increased collaborative partnership between the state agencies and non-governmental organizations and associations dealing with the vaping issue nationwide.

As the purpose of the policy is not the tightening of the EC market, but the elimination of the vaping epidemic and its consequences, the success of the proposed measure is rooted in the cooperation of all interest groups.

Summary

The vaping problem is continuously intensifying nationwide with little information available on the scope of the harmful impact of vapor products for the users in the long-term period.

The temporary bans on sales of vapor products will reduce the use of these products, thus, present an opportunity to conduct comprehensive research, develop treatment, and draw conclusions about the severity of vaping for human health.

References

Alltucker, K. (2020). FDA bans mint- and fruit-flavored vaping products but exempts menthol and tobacco.

Anzel, R. (2019). Vaping industry opposes flavored product ban, legislation has stakeholder opposition. Web.

Faughnan, S. A. (2020). Flavored vape products now banned in NJ. Web.

Hamilton, J. (2019). How vaping nicotine can affect a teenage brain.

Hobson, A., Arndt, K., & Barenklau, S. (2020). Vaping: Anesthesia Considerations for Patients Using Electronic Cigarettes. American Association of Nurse Anesthetists, 88(1), 27-34.

Kaplan, S., Richtel, M. (2019). Tobacco and e-cigarette lobbyists circle as F.D.A. chief exits. Web.

Lannan, K. (2019). Baker declares 4-month ban on vaping products sales. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!