5150sick
Under Ground Hustler
Staff member
VU Administrator
Senior Moderator
VU Donator
Diamond Contributor
Press Corps
Member For 5 Years
Mod Team Leader
Become a Patron!
Eliminating Flavors from E-cigarettes May Benefit Public Health More Than Taxing Them
- Thread starter 5150sick
- Start date
5150sick
Under Ground Hustler
Staff member
VU Administrator
Senior Moderator
VU Donator
Diamond Contributor
Press Corps
Member For 5 Years
Mod Team Leader
"Flavor variety is an important component in young smokers' decisions to switch to e-cigarettes, new research from Weill Cornell Medicine indicates. The investigators say their findings provide critical insight into what attracts teens to the products and may also help policymakers develop strategies to regulate e-cigarettes in a way that reduces teenage use without compromising a critical method for adults to quit or reduce cigarette smoking.
The study, published Jan. 20 in Addiction, found that young adult smokers were significantly more likely than adult smokers ages 25 and older to choose e-cigarettes when available in an array of flavors. Currently, there are no prohibitions on e-cigarette flavors, which include fruit, candy, and dessert — additives that may be especially appealing to teens. Limiting flavors, therefore, may be an effective way to prevent young smokers from becoming "vapers," while not significantly reducing the use of e-cigarettes among adult smokers trying to quit smoking, suggested lead author Dr. Michael F. Pesko."
"To estimate how potential regulations influence e-cigarette purchases, Dr. Pesko, Dr. Donald Kenkel, the Joan K. and Irwin M. Jacobs Professor at Cornell University, and colleagues at both institutions, surveyed a nationally representative sample of 1,200 adult smokers, asking them to make a dozen simulated purchasing decisions of cigarettes, e-cigarettes, or nicotine replacement therapy when the e-cigarette changed in terms of prices, flavors and warning labels.
As expected, higher prices affected all smokers' purchase choices: 18-24-year-olds chose e-cigarettes 34.4 percent of the time when they cost $3, but only 8 percent of the time when they cost $9. Older smokers selected $3 e-cigarettes 18.3 percent of the time but at $9 only 3.2 percent of the time. All smokers were least likely to choose the products with the severest of several warning labels. But only younger smokers based their choices on flavor selection: They were 3.7 percentage points more likely than older smokers to choose e-cigarettes when they came in a wide range of flavors."
While taxing e-cigarettes could keep them out of young adults' reach, it could also make them unaffordable for older smokers who are trying to quit, Dr. Pesko warned."
Since when did "Younger Smokers" (Adults) become the ones who shouldn't be allowed to quit smoking?
Could it be because they have 20 to 30 more years left before the very high taxed cigarettes do any real damage?
"34.4 percent of the time when they cost $3, but only 8 percent of the time when they cost $9"
Then they have nothing to worry about because an ecig that cheap can't be refilled anyway.
The study, published Jan. 20 in Addiction, found that young adult smokers were significantly more likely than adult smokers ages 25 and older to choose e-cigarettes when available in an array of flavors. Currently, there are no prohibitions on e-cigarette flavors, which include fruit, candy, and dessert — additives that may be especially appealing to teens. Limiting flavors, therefore, may be an effective way to prevent young smokers from becoming "vapers," while not significantly reducing the use of e-cigarettes among adult smokers trying to quit smoking, suggested lead author Dr. Michael F. Pesko."
"To estimate how potential regulations influence e-cigarette purchases, Dr. Pesko, Dr. Donald Kenkel, the Joan K. and Irwin M. Jacobs Professor at Cornell University, and colleagues at both institutions, surveyed a nationally representative sample of 1,200 adult smokers, asking them to make a dozen simulated purchasing decisions of cigarettes, e-cigarettes, or nicotine replacement therapy when the e-cigarette changed in terms of prices, flavors and warning labels.
As expected, higher prices affected all smokers' purchase choices: 18-24-year-olds chose e-cigarettes 34.4 percent of the time when they cost $3, but only 8 percent of the time when they cost $9. Older smokers selected $3 e-cigarettes 18.3 percent of the time but at $9 only 3.2 percent of the time. All smokers were least likely to choose the products with the severest of several warning labels. But only younger smokers based their choices on flavor selection: They were 3.7 percentage points more likely than older smokers to choose e-cigarettes when they came in a wide range of flavors."
While taxing e-cigarettes could keep them out of young adults' reach, it could also make them unaffordable for older smokers who are trying to quit, Dr. Pesko warned."
Since when did "Younger Smokers" (Adults) become the ones who shouldn't be allowed to quit smoking?
Could it be because they have 20 to 30 more years left before the very high taxed cigarettes do any real damage?
"34.4 percent of the time when they cost $3, but only 8 percent of the time when they cost $9"
Then they have nothing to worry about because an ecig that cheap can't be refilled anyway.
This study does show how high taxation would affect smokers' likelihood to make the switch, particularly younger smokers. I suspect the percentages would be even more drastic for people living near the poverty level.
For all the pleasure I've had vaping every imaginable flavor, if the choices were limited flavorings, high taxes or restrictions on equipment and liquid like the FDA is proposing, restricting flavors would be the one that would be best to help smokers continue to make the switch. As I'm most concerned with keeping vaping available to help existing and future smokers, it sounds better than the direction local, state and federal regulations are headed.
If the "it's about the children" bandwagon was legitimate and not just a tactic, this study would have more value. Unfortunately, we know it was never about the children in the first place.