“Hey man, can I hit your Juul?”
At the risk of sounding like the DARE program, seven words is all it takes to get a nicotine addiction. Almost every student at Carolina has come into contact with vaping, the newest innovation from the tobacco industry.
Now, on the heels of six recorded deaths strongly linked to these e-cigarettes, the FDA has announced plans to ban flavored e-cigarettes from the market. While the Editorial Board recognizes that e-cigarettes should be avoided, the scientific community doesn’t know enough about the risks of vaping to justify a ban.
There is no question that e-cigarettes are harmful. In the past year alone, the CDC has identified at least 380 cases of lung illness linked to vaping. While they cannot pinpoint what specifically is responsible, they believe the illnesses are likely to be connected to these products. However, because e-cigarettes rose to prominence so quickly, the CDC has not finished its investigation and much uncertainty remains.
While we know e-cigarettes are harmful, we can’t necessarily prove that they cause illnesses. The CDC has not had enough time to establish causality, and there are suspicions that the problem lies elsewhere. The CDC notes that most of the afflicted individuals reported vaping THC, which many have pointed to as a likely culprit.
Recently, the company “Dank Vapes” has received scrutiny for using Vitamin E acetate, a thickening agent, in their THC oil. Both state and federal entities have identified this chemical as a principal suspect, among others, in their search for what is responsible. The problem is too new to have definitive answers, which is why the Editorial Board doubts the FDA’s response will be effective.
A wholesale ban on flavored e-cigarettes is too broad and strict, given how little we know. At the risk of invoking a cliche, look to the Prohibition era for how banning addictive substances can go very wrong. For starters, banning these e-cigarettes could push kids and adults back to cigarettes. These devices risk nicotine addiction as much as cigarettes, and when they are no longer an option, kids might turn to cigarettes for a buzz. This is worse, because e-cigarettes are currently thought to be less harmful than smoking.
Kids may also turn to black market vape juices. This is even riskier, as these products would be unregulated. Just as it this has plagued THC vapers, the problem could also reappear among e-cigarette users. A better alternative may be a national excise tax, like the one in California, where e-cigarettes are taxed at 59.27 percent. Like the CDC, California hasn’t had enough time to verify its effectiveness, but it does demonstrate the central problem we face: too much uncertainty.
If you, the reader, have no idea what the best course of action is, you’re not alone. The Editorial Board is also unsure of what the best option is. With that in mind, the best remedy to this is time to further investigate. Whether the problem be specific to one e-cigarette or all of them, knowledge begets better policy. In the meantime, students should put down their Juuls. The risks inherent to vaping are too great to justify their use, no matter how good the Juul buzz is.
