Month: March 2022

Despite evidence to the contrary, the proposed Senate Bill 367 assumes that a flavour ban would reduce teen vaping rates.

Just like other Northeast States’ bills, namely the ones in Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Rhode Island, Senate Bill 367 assumes that a flavour ban would reduce teen vaping rates. This despite the constant incoming data indicating that actually flavour bans do not work.

Recent figures from San Francisco, which was the first US city to ban flavours, has in line with expert predictions indicated that the measure has just led to teens reverting from vaping to smoking. Besides facing significant opposition from the tobacco industry and retailers leading up to the final days of the 2019-20 Legislative Session, SF’s flavour ban had also been met with concern by public health experts who predicted that it would drive teens back to smoking regular cigarettes.

Similarly, the city’s chief economist Ted Egan, whose office is charged with analyzing the economic impact of legislations in San Francisco, had confirmed that the ban would only lead to increased smoking rates. And sadly, data keep confirming this.

Vape flavour bans lead to increased smoking rates

A recent study published in JAMA Pediatrics, found that following San Francisco’s flavour ban, teenagers in the city’s high schools were more likely to take up smoking than teenagers in US school districts where no flavour bans were imposed. While prior to the ban, smoking rates in San Francisco were similar to that of many cities across the country.

In line with these data, a recent report by renowned anti-smoking researcher Dr. Konstantinos Farsalinos’ titled “The Case for Flavours,” highlights that ultimately flavour bans are a form of prohibition, which only serve to fuel the growth of massive black markets and increases in smoking rates, as they lead many vapers to turn back to smoking.

There is no vaping epidemic

In the episode, Dr. Farsalinos discussed his multidimensional review on the use of flavours in nicotine vapes and offers his recommendations to regulators. In the past the researcher has spoken against the alleged teen vaping epidemic explaining why considering an increase in vaping an epidemic, is a flawed premise.

He had explained that the risk of dependence on nicotine and the risks associated with e-cigarette use cannot and should not be compared to the risks from smoking. He added that the duty of public health officials is to weigh the benefits and adverse effects of any intervention and check where the balance lies. Farsalinos has consistently highlighted that in the case of e-cigarettes, the benefits outweigh any adverse effects, and this needs to be taken into account.

“Even if e-cigarettes are causally linked to subsequent smoking (which has not been proven to be the case, the common liability phenomenon is a much more plausible explanation), the contribution of e-cigarettes to smoking prevalence is minimal. We should not forget that all these years that e-cigarette use (mainly experimentation) was increasing among youth, the smoking prevalence has substantially declined. This is why I mentioned above that the smoking rates should be mentioned when the data are presented,” he explained.

Read Further: CTPost

Canada’s Proposed Flavour Ban Seems to be Losing Steam

For at least the third time in a year, a police interaction with a black teenager over outdoor vaping laws has resulted in a violent confrontation, followed by an arrest and criminal charges. The latest example of extreme overreaction to vaping happened last Thursday in Atlanta, after a white police officer observed a black youth vaping in a city-owned skate park.

The officer advised 17-year-old Terion Forston that he wasn’t allowed to vape in the park, according to an Atlanta Police Department statement. The officer said Forston continued to vape and refused to show identification when asked. He then “physically resisted the officer’s efforts to detain him,” according to police.

But the available video (seen in the news report below) shows the youth posing no apparent threat to the female officer, who shoots him with the taser before any physical confrontation could occur. The first shot appears to have no effect. The second, however, brought Forston to the ground, and his legs began to involuntarily spasm as he sits on the concrete. As Forston sits on the ground reacting to the taser, the officer pushes him down then onto his stomach while repeatedly screaming at him to “get down.”

“He never once charged at her,” Forston’s aunt told Atlanta TV station WGCL. “He never once approached her. She was scared because he’s a big black dude.”

Forston was eventually handcuffed and arrested for disorderly conduct. He spent part of last Thursday in jail. Atlanta Police say the incident is still being investigated. In an unusual move, police publicly released the name of the minor suspect, but did not name the officer.

Videos of the incident posted to Twitter Friday have already been viewed 80,000 times.

Atlanta banned smoking in city parks in 2012. The law was amended in 2020 to include vaping, at the urging of Smokefree Atlanta, an organization whose partners include the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, American Heart Association, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights, and American Lung Association—all of which promote bans and restrictions on vaping. Smokefree Atlanta’s address is the same as the American Cancer Society’s Atlanta office.

A similar incident occurred last summer on the boardwalk in Ocean City, Maryland, when police decided to enforce that city’s public vaping ban. A 17-year-old black youth was tasered, and another was wrestled to the ground and repeatedly kneed in the ribs and abdomen by a police officer. Four Pennsylvania teenagers were arrested and charged with various crimes, including disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, and second degree assault.

Outdoor smoking and vaping bans are usually sold to the public as common-sense, pro-health laws. But there is no evidence that smoking or vaping in open-air situations could possibly pose a health risk to bystanders. The real reason groups like the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids advocate for such bans is their belief that “denormalizing” smoking and vaping—stigmatizing vapers, portraying them as unhealthy outsiders with an unsavory “addiction”—will make the practice less attractive to adolescents.

Well-founded concerns that such laws will lead to unnecessary interactions with police—and violent incidents like the ones in Atlanta and Ocean City—are routinely brushed aside by anti-tobacco zealots like Tobacco-Free Kids. But when those interactions inevitably do happen, it is the vapers expected to “comply” with foolish and unjust laws, and the police tasked with enforcing them, who must live with the consequences of criminalizing nicotine use.

The bill proposes a tax on both devices and e-liquids/capsules, which would allow for the products to be taxed relative to their nicotine content level.

“Unlike conventional tobacco products, these products are mostly unregulated in South Africa, hence the Department of Health has also started a process of amending the current tobacco control legislation to include these products in the regulatory framework,” said the publication. “Similarly, other governments around the world have started a process of regulating the consumption and use of ENDS through tax and non-tax measures.”

The proposal document was open for comment until the 25th of January, and it proposed  a tax on both devices and e-liquids/capsules, which would allow for the products to be taxed relative to their nicotine content level.

Meanwhile, other vape regulations have also been going through a review process. The new Control of Tobacco Products and Electronic Delivery Systems Bill, first announced in May 2020 by Deputy Health Minister Joe Phaahla, would prohibit smoking in public spaces, and also set in place stricter e-cigarettes regulations, that include restrictions on the use, marketing, and sales of certain tobacco products. Moreover, it would set in place a provision allowing the government to implement a “100% public cigarette ban.”

The Vapour Products Association of South Africa

The Vapour Products Association of South Africa’s (VPASA) has emphasized that contrary to what is generally assumed, the industry welcomes the introduction of sensible e-cig regulations. “VPASA’s second successful diginar in its Vaping Conversations series ended in consensus – that governments, including South Africa’s, should regulate vaping – and that these laws should be grounded in a risk-based approach which ensures users are both educated and informed. All decisions must be based on the latest available scientific data.”

A 2021 study commissioned by the group had analysed the economic impact that the vape industry has locally, including its contribution to GDP and employment. “The vapour products industry supports GDP and jobs throughout its supply chain. Its total gross value-added contribution to GDP is R2.49 billion, with R710 million in tax payments made in 2019.”

Business Tech summarized the report findings as follows:

“Direct economic impact:

• More than 350,000 South Africans use vapour products;
• Vapour product sales in 2019 amounted to R1.25 billion;
• The industry generated 3,800 jobs;
• R280 million was paid in taxes;
• Gross value-added contribution from the vapour industry amounted to R930 million.

Indirect economic impact:

• R290 million in local procurement;
• 40% and 31% spent with financial and business services and manufacturing, respectively;
• Supported 4,200 jobs;
• Indirectly contributed R1.09 billion to SA’s GDP.”

South Africa: Age Verification Crackdown at Vape Shops

While the proposals have not been finalized yet, some form of tax should be expected to launch for this year’s budget.

In a 724-page budget tabled in Parliament in 2021, Trudeau’s government proposed a single flat rate of $1 per 10 ml of e-liquid or fraction thereof. The new federal excise duty on vaping products is set to go into effect in 2022 on all e-liquids regardless of the level of nicotine they contain. However, it would only apply to e-liquids that are either manufactured in Canada or imported to be used locally.

The tax would be calculated and imposed based on the volume of the smallest immediate container holding the liquid, stated the document, and Cannabis-based vape products would be exempt since they are already subject to excise duties on cannabis.

“The last federal licensee in the supply chain who packaged the vaping product for final retail sale, including vape shops holding an excise license, as applicable, would be liable to pay the applicable excise duty,” reads the tax proposal, explaining which entity is responsible for paying the tax.

In an episode on Regulator Watch, Professor of Economics at Concordia University and Research Fellow at the C.D. Howe Institute Ian Irvine, discusses the imminent tax. He said that the proposals have not been finalized yet some form of tax should be expected to launch for this year’s budget. Irvine explained how following the tax will affect regular vapers differently, according to the e-liquid amounts and nicotine concentrations they consume.

Canada’s Proposed Flavour Ban Seems to be Losing Steam