Smoke-Free Products Nearing 50% of the Nicotine Market Thanks to Tobacco and Vaping Companies But In Spite of the Actions of Most Tobacco Control Groups

A new report from the nation's leading tobacco market expert - Bonnie Herzog at Goldman Sachs - reveals that smoke-free nicotine products now account for 48% of the overall nicotine market and are projected to comprise 75% of the market within 10 years. Furthermore, the overwhelming majority of the smoke-free market is also tobacco-free, meaning that not only are combustible tobacco products on the decline but tobacco products themselves are on the decline. The major players in the smoke-free, tobacco-free nicotine market are e-cigarettes and nicotine pouches.

The Rest of the Story

Here's the sad part of the story. This transition from combustible cigarettes to smoke-free, tobacco-free electronic cigarettes and nicotine pouches is almost entirely due to innovations from tobacco and vaping companies, not because of the hard work of tobacco control and public health organizations. In fact, most tobacco control groups have tried to obstruct, rather than promote, this miraculous, live-saving transition. The rest of the story is that this public health miracle is due to innovations within the tobacco and vaping industries and it occurred in spite of, not because of the actions of tobacco control and health groups.

When Massachusetts initiated its landmark anti-smoking program in 1993, our slogan was "Let's Make Smoking History." At the time, I thought that was a goal that would never be achieved. Thirty-three years later, that dream is starting to come true. But the reason it's coming true is not because Massachusetts and other states have acted to promote a market transition away from combustible tobacco products. The sad truth is that the opposite is the case. Most tobacco control groups, health groups, and policy makers have done everything in their power to block this transition. Their attacks on e-cigarettes and now, nicotine pouches, have hindered rather than helped progress in reducing morbidity and mortality from smoking, which is still the leading preventable cause of death in the United States. 

While youth vaping is a public health problem, its negative impacts are dwarfed by the life-saving gains resulting from the decimation of the combustible tobacco market. Moreover, contrary to the actions of the mainstream tobacco control groups, we can address the problem of youth vaping without precluding adult access to the much safer, smoke-free, tobacco-free alternatives. We don't have to cut off our nose to spite our face. And in fact, current efforts to address youth vaping have harmed the public's health more than they have improved it. 

The current U.S. regulatory system for nicotine products is backwards. It prohibits or restricts the safest forms of nicotine while promoting the use of the most deadly form: cigarette smoking. And the reason for this backwards form of regulation is the advocacy done by the leading tobacco control groups, which did the cigarette companies a huge favor by trying to eliminate most or all e-cigarettes from the market while doing nothing to restrict the most harmful consumer product on the market.

The rest of the story is that the mainstream tobacco control groups have largely squandered an opportunity to promote what is potentially one of the most substantial and miraculous public health advances of our time: making smoking history.

Massachusetts Association of Health Boards Wants to Ban the Use of Flavored E-Cigarettes, by ANYONE

The Massachusetts Association of Health Boards (MAHB) has disseminated a model nicotine regulation policy that it is recommending be adopted by all boards of health in Massachusetts. The policy makes it illegal for anyone in the state to possess a flavored electronic cigarette. 

Existing state law prohibits the sale of flavored tobacco products but it does not prohibit people from using these products. For example, although youth cannot be sold flavored e-cigarettes, they are not punished (i.e., fined) if they take a hit from one. Many adults use flavored e-cigarettes to keep off of real cigarettes, and although flavored products can't legally be sold in the state, an adult is not punished if they are caught vaping a non-tobacco-flavored vape.

The model policy being promoted by MAHB calls for changing the law so that not only is the sale of flavored e-cigarettes banned, but the use of these products would be prohibited as well. The law prohibits any person from "possessing, holding, or keeping" a flavored e-cigarette. This of course means that you are not allowed to use an e-cigarette because you have to hold it to use it! (You would be prohibited from using it anyway because if you're vaping, then you obviously are "possessing" it).

The specific language of the model policy reads as follows (the revised text is shown in bold): "No retailer or person, as defined herein, shall possess, hold, keep, sell or distribute or cause to be possessed, held, kept, sold or distributed any flavored tobacco product, as defined herein, or any flavored tobacco product enhancer, as defined herein, (NOTE: If the municipality permits smoking bars add this phrase [except in smoking bars for on-site consumption only])."

Technically, this also makes it illegal to even hand over a flavored e-cigarette to someone because you are then "causing it to be possessed."

The Rest of the Story

I hope that local boards of health have enough sense not to implement this recommended policy. It has long been the philosophy in tobacco control that you don't punish the users of tobacco products but focus on the sellers who violate the law. Moreover, why would you punish people who are trying to save their lives through the use of flavored vaping products?

I don't know what the MAHB is trying to do here but it certainly has the appearance of wanting to punish smokers for making the wise health decision to switch to electronic cigarettes. Passage of such an ordinance would mean that every person who uses anything other than a tobacco-flavored e-cigarette would be violating the law. Ironically, smoking a Marlboro Red would be perfectly legal. 

This proposed ordinance also recommends that nicotine pouches either be restricted to less than 6mg of nicotine or that their sale be restricted to adult-only tobacco shops. There is no scientific rationale for setting the level at 6mg and doing so could potentially make the products less effective in getting smokers to quit. Moreover, banning the sale of nicotine pouches at convenience stores but allowing deadly cigarettes to be sold makes no sense. 

What is the motivation behind wanting to make sure that it is as easy as pie for any youth or adult for that matter to obtain deadly tobacco cigarettes at your nearest gas station or convenience store but restricting much safer nicotine pouches (no tobacco, no combustion) to select stores? Requiring all nicotine products to be sold in adult-only "tobacco" shops would be consistent with public health but why do such a favor for cigarette manufacturers at the expense of people's health and lives?