Letter to the Editor: Our chance to end the youth vaping crisis
Don’t take breathing clean air for granted — on campus or in Los Angeles County. In light of the coronavirus pandemic, lung health has received more attention in the past couple of years. But beyond the coronavirus, there is another ongoing pandemic that jeopardizes lung health: the use of flavored tobacco — a significant health concern among American youth.
Flavored tobacco products have a well-documented history of being extremely addictive and a pipeline towards nicotine addiction for many young Americans. These flavors, often candy or fruit-based, play a large role in contributing to youth smoking addiction, with the Food and Drug Administration claiming that 70% of underage smokers use e-cigarettes “because they come in flavors I like.” Moreover, the use of flavored e-cigarette products has been steadily increasing over the past few years, with 84.7% of e-cigarette consumers using flavored e-cigarettes, a 20% increase since 2019.
While California law bans the sale of tobacco and e-cigarettes to individuals under 21, studies have proven that the current age restriction on purchases is ineffective. For instance, the 2021 National Youth Tobacco Survey showed that 48.6% of adolescents do not purchase tobacco and e-cigarette products themselves, indicating that youth acquire products through older friends and family. The L.A. City Council responded to these concerns in early June when they passed a comprehensive ban on flavored tobacco products within the city. In the upcoming general election on Nov. 8, California voters will have the opportunity to expand L.A.’s protections to the entire state through Proposition 31. It is imperative that voters pass Prop 31 to protect youth from these highly addictive tobacco products.
Prop 31 is designed to stop the sale of products that are extremely addictive for underage smokers, while also allowing adults who would prefer to keep smoking to do so. The proposition bans tobacco products with added flavors; however, it does not ban the sale of loose leaf tobacco, hookah, cigars and other products that contain tobacco flavor.
Those who are not in favor of the proposition often argue that a ban of flavored tobacco would create an illicit underground market that would be even harder to regulate. Empirical evidence, however, suggests the contrary. A peer-reviewed study conducted by the American Cancer Society found that Nova Scotia’s 2015 ban on menthol, a minty flavor additive, decreased illicit menthol purchases by over 80%. The success of Nova Scotia’s menthol ban suggests that California should adopt a similar one.
Opponents of the proposition also argue that enforcing such a ban would hurt California’s economy. However, when examining the healthcare costs of smoking, Prop 31 would actually benefit the economy. According to a University of Illinois study, a ban on flavored tobacco could save Californians $423 million in healthcare costs annually, including $144 million in Medi-Cal savings that could be used elsewhere to benefit California taxpayers.
Big tobacco companies use candy-like flavors to hook the younger generation into lifelong smoking addiction. With the cost of these addictions amounting to several hundred millions of dollars annually and the youth vaping crisis in California continually growing worse, statewide policy action is desperately needed. If you wish to protect Californian youth, vote “yes” on Prop 31 by Nov. 8.
If you are struggling with a smoking or vaping addiction and want to cut down or quit, contact USC Pharmacies’ Tobacco Cessation Program. Call (213) 821-6100 or visit pharmacies.usc.edu/services/ to learn more about this affordable and confidential program.
Rohan Minocha & American Lung Association Collegiate Council at USC