Flavored vapes could be vanishing from the market in California
After the 2022 midterm election, both the city of San Diego and the state of California passed an ordinance to ban the sales of flavored tobacco products.
The city of San Diego passed an ordinance to ban flavored tobacco products starting Jan. 1, 2023, according to a press release from the city. The ordinance is known as the Stop Adolescent Addiction to Flavored E-Cigarettes (SAAFE) Act.
The ordinance has been signed into place in hopes of curbing the use of flavored tobacco products among young adults. According to the FDA, roughly more than 2.5 million middle school and high school students in America used e-cigarettes in the last 30 days.
On Nov. 8, California voters approved Proposition 31, which called for restrictions on flavored tobacco sales. The proposition passed with 63.22% of the vote, according to Ballot Pedia. This will make it even more difficult for anyone to get their hands on flavored tobacco products, not just users who are underage.
The regulation of the products is a multifaceted issue that affects many people such as smoke shop employees and owners, big tobacco companies, healthcare professionals and consumers of the products.
The business perspective
Business owners and employees of smoke shops get most of their income from selling disposable vapes and other flavored tobacco products. Since 2014, vapes have been increasingly popular and the market for the products has grown rapidly and vastly, until recently when restrictions began being implemented, according to the CDC.
While one might expect smoke shop employees to be concerned about the restriction on sales of nicotine products, not all employees are. In regard to the new legislation, Jonathan Noah says he’s not concerned yet. As a two-year employee of Vape Smoke Universe, he has seen the law try to interfere with the business before.
“As of right now not really, there is always something coming out, always something new,” he said when asked if he was worried about his job in regard to the new regulations.
R.J. Reynolds, the maker of Newport cigarettes and popular vape products is suing the state and Summer Stephan, the district attorney for San Diego County. Local vape shops are suing as well.
Tobacco companies argue that the new law preempts the Tobacco Control Act and are asking for a temporary injunction until the lawsuit is settled. The injunction would effectively put the new law on hold and allow business to continue as usual.
Noah has a particular perspective on the topic because he not only works at a smoke shop and vapes himself he is also a dad who worries about his children.
“I’ve seen both sides to it (Proposition 31), and in my opinion in how they are saying oh it’s for the children and stuff like that, I don’t really agree with that,” he said. “I have two kids of my own, you know, so as a young dad I definitely feel like everybody trying to make these laws is trying to cater to the next generation and stuff like that, but I feel like if everybody just bolts down and be a parent and guide your children in the correct way they aren’t going to vape or if you teach them the plus sides and the negative sides let them make the decisions for themselves.”
One of the arguments made by opponents is that regulations will create a larger underground market and will not solve the problem. If this does in fact happen, then the government could lose out on a significant amount of tax revenue that had been collected on the sales of the products previously.
“I think it’s like any other drug; usually when you ban something people still find a way to get it,” said Trysten Kerr, a vape user. “I understand taking away the appeal of the flavoring, but people will still get them. I used to get my vapes mailed from Texas when I first moved to California.”
There is a fear that the ban will increase cigarette use among young people, especially those who are already addicted to nicotine as a result of vaping. Others say they are nervous about the fact that black-market vapes would have fewer safety regulations than vapes sold in stores.
Healthcare professional perspectives
The American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, American Lung Association in California and the American Heart Association were several nonprofits that helped fund the Vote Yes on 31 campaign. They argue that banning flavored tobacco will save lives.
One of their concerns is the possibility of young adults falling into the addictive cycle of nicotine dependency. Vote Yes on 31 cites the statistic that “four out of five kids who have used tobacco started with a flavored product” as one of the main pillars of their argument.
“Nicotine has been proven to be as addictive as cocaine and heroin and may even be more addictive,” according to information from the University of California San Francisco Medical Center.
Most healthcare professionals are adamantly against vaping because they have seen the harm the substance can cause firsthand. The negative health effects of nicotine use are intense and many people fail to see that it goes beyond just the lung health of the individual, according to Haley Dawn, an intensive care unit nurse at St. Joseph Hospital.
“I’ve seen too many times a relatively healthy-looking person have a massive heart attack or require mechanical ventilation because of a health issue no one could see,” Dawn said. “The research is sound; vaping damages the cell lining of your airway, putting patients at higher risk for lung injuries or infection.”
The public perspective
The upcoming new regulations are eliciting mixed reactions from consumers. Several adults who currently vape say they understand why the regulations are being put in place because of all of the underage use of flavored tobacco products. Other voters said they feel like there are better ways to mitigate the use of vapes by individuals who are under the age of 21.
“I voted against it because I feel like there is a better way to get kids to stop vaping, there are legitimate issues on how it is marketed to kids,” said Owen Pratt, an SDSU student. “I think we need better institutional ways to push kids away from vaping.”
There is another unique perspective that comes out of this new legislation. There are individuals who currently vape but voted in favor of Proposition 31 with the hopes that it would force them to quit.
“I vape, but I don’t want to do it, I voted for it because I wanted to save myself and my friends,” Dawn Dornberg said.
The substance is highly addictive and can often lead to a nicotine dependency which can make it hard to quit. Dornberg quit cigarettes only to pick up vaping years later.
Dornberg is not alone. Kaleb Miller voted in favor of the proposition because he found himself quitting and then going back to it as well.
“I quit for an entire year and it was going well; then the holiday season came around the following year and things started getting stressful, things started getting rocky in my relationship, and alcohol naturally comes out during the holiday season,” Miller said. “I remember just hitting one of someone else’s (vape), then one thing leads to another and you are buying a twelve-pack and the vapes are right there in the checkout line, then I bought one and I’m right back where I left off a year prior.”
Now what?
The votes are in and the laws are set to go into place in both San Diego County and California unless lawsuits take them down.
“Of course, people will be annoyed or feel like it’s an infringement on their personal rights, but it’s about public health safety,” Dawn said. “Seat belts didn’t use to be required and pregnant women used to smoke cigarettes. Sometimes, an infringement on people’s choice to make poor decisions is ultimately better for everyone. Especially vaping, which is incredibly convenient and easy for young, developing minds to become addicted to.”
This project was produced by Hannah Halferty as a published learning experience in JMS 430 Digital Journalism, part of the Journalism and Media Studies Program at San Diego State University.
