Deductive Memo

Deductive Memo

Author’s Name

Institutional Affiliation

Deductive Memo

To: Charles Duane Baker, Massachusetts Governor

From: Kinn Elliot, Legislative Strategist for the Vapor Technology Association (VTA)

Date: November 22, 2019.

Re: Lifting the Temporary Vaping Ban

Greetings

This memo is created to summarize the facts that guide the recommendations of Vapor Technology Association to the Massachusetts Governor’s office regarding lifting the four-month ban the Governor instituted on September 24, 2019, on responsibly manufactured vaping products. The fundamental conviction is that these recommendations are consistent with circumventing many legal battles surrounding the ban.

The Governor’s declaration of public health emergency towards combating the epidemic of vaping-related lung injuries and the subsequent Governor’s temporary ban on vaping in Massachusetts are hereby acknowledged with the utmost respect. However, following critical evaluation and in-depth reevaluation of the current situation, we at Vapor Technology Association feel that the ban could only be a partial win for the Governor as it will only prompt more needless legal battles. Our critical analysis culminated in the identification of several facts and factors that will only plague and exacerbate the political and legal atmosphere in Massachusetts.

The first and foremost fact is that the temporary ban is controversial and precarious because it is biased in the way in which nicotine-vaping products are categorized. While we acknowledge FDA’S warning against the use of tetrahydrocannabinol-containing products, we also observe that the agency strongly emphasizes that the vaping products that pose dangers to public health are the tetrahydrocannabinol-containing products purchased on the streets because they are irresponsibility manufactured and unregulated (Hernandez, 2019; O’Connor, 2012). So, when launching this crackdown, responsibly manufactured commercial vaping products that contain only nicotine and not tetrahydrocannabinol should have been exempted as they adhere to the standards provided regarding regulating the amount of nicotine. By failing to acknowledge the existence of responsible and standards-driven manufacturers of nicotine-flavored vaping products, this ban is simply an executive overreach that will drag the Governor into more legal battles without a doubt.

The second fact is that the ban will not be a long-term solution to the vaping crisis because it is flawed. One of its flaws, identified by Judge Donald Wilkins, is the failure to address whether the public health emergency exists only for adult users of vaping products or for both adult and young users. Critically, the ban is based chiefly on the epidemic of lung injuries among young users of nicotine-vaping products (Garrison, 2019; Raymond, 2019). Indeed, this fault was the basis upon which Judge Wilkins recommended the resubmission of the order covering nicotine products as an emergency directive. Another flaw of this ban is that it does serve the interests of the public per se. This is because it will stimulate many ex-smokers of tobacco who had switched to e-cigarettes to return to heavy smoking of cigars, a fact that Siegel, a Boston University professor of community health sciences, confirms (Garrison, 2019). By creating circumstances that force ex-smokers to return to their smoking behaviors, this ban will trigger more public health concerns, thereby culminating in many potential lawsuits.

The third fact is that this ban is a dreadful recipe for legal battles because it will facilitate the creation of new black markets that sell unregulated and subpar vaping products in Massachusetts. We are wary that when responsibly manufactured flavored vaping products are completely swept out, nicotine users will not just quit. Siegel corroborates our concern by maintaining that the Governor’s ban will stimulate the formation of black markets that sell unregulated vaping products (Garrison, 2019). For this reason, some nicotine users and ex-smokers will turn to cigarette smoking while a significant majority will resort to seeking unregulated vaping-product black markets. They will do so to continue sourcing flavored e-cigars, which are a preference for many adults and youths as Satel (2019) submits. What this means is that the political move of banning responsibly manufactured vaping products will only brace the use of dubious and bootleg vaping products, leading to unprecedented legal problems. It is worth recalling that black markets do not only exacerbate the challenges of legal product regulation but also complicate policy-centered efforts to combat crises (Maloney & Hernandez, 2019).

Based on these three facts, it is evidence that the ban will more likely exacerbate the vaping crisis than mitigate it. Eventually, the exacerbation of the crisis will yield more lawsuits and legal battles than legitimate solutions. Therefore, our recommendation and appeal to the Massachusetts Governor are that he changes his mind and lift this ban towards avoiding such further legal battles. The Governor needs to know that the relative safety of e-cigarettes has been documented across other states in the United States. He also needs to appreciate the research-based confirmation that responsibly produced vaping products have played an irrefutable role in lessening the adult smoking rate to 14%, along with curtailing the youth smoking prevalence (Prochaska & Benowitz, 2019; Rhoades et al., 2019; Satel, 2019). While the ethos of banning vaping is the relative risk involved, research outcomes confirm the benefits of smoking harm reduction through vaping. So, the Governor is entreated to lift this ban and look for better alternatives to dealing with the epidemic of vaping-related lung injuries because targeting responsible producers of regulated vaping products will only stimulate needless legal battles.

Respectfully

Kinn Elliot.

References

O’Connor, R. J. (2012). Non-cigarette tobacco products: what have we learnt and where are we headed?. Tobacco control, 21(2), 181-190.

Prochaska, J. J., & Benowitz, N. L. (2019). Current advances in research in treatment and recovery: Nicotine addiction. Science advances, 5(10), eaay9763.

Rhoades, D. A., Comiford, A. L., Dvorak, J. D., Ding, K., Hopkins, M., Spicer, P., … & Doescher, M. P. (2019). Vaping patterns, nicotine dependence and reasons for vaping among American Indian dual users of cigarettes and electronic cigarettes. BMC public health, 19(1), 1211.

Hernandez, S. (October 04, 2019). The US Government Is Now Warning People Not To Use Any Vaping Products With THC. Buzz Feed News. Retrieved November 22, 2019, from https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/salvadorhernandez/no-vaping-thc-warning-fda.

Maloney, J., & Hernandez, D. (October 06, 2019). Vaping’s black market complicates efforts to combat crises. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved November 22, 2019, from https://www.wsj.com/articles/vapings-black-market-complicates-efforts-to-combat-crises-11570354204.

Raymond, N. (October 21, 2019). Massachusetts vaping sales ban can stand but needs fixes: Judge. Thompson Reuters. Retrieved November 22, 2019, from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-vaping-massachusetts/massachusetts-vaping-sales-ban-can-stand-but-needs-fixes-judge-idUSKBN1X01SL.

Garrison, J. (October 21, 2019). Massachusetts vaping ban can stand for now, but state must fix flaws in a week, judge says. USA Today. Gannett Satellite Information Network, LLC. Retrieved November 22, 2019, from https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/10/21/judge-rules-massachusetts-vaping-ban-can-stand-if-issues-addressed/4051203002/.

Satel, S. (October 23, 2019). The vaping overreaction. The Atlantic. Retrieved November 22, 2019, from https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/danger-vaping-bans/600451/.