Here Comes Trouble: A Career as a Tobacco Control Activist.

Dr Glantz is Professor of Medicine in the Division of Cardiology, the Truth Initiative Distinguished Professor of Tobacco Control, and Director of the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education at the University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine. He obtained a BSc in aerospace engineering from the University of Cincinnati in 1969 and an MSc and PhD in applied mechanics from Stanford University. He is the author of 4 books, including The Cigarette Papers and Primer of Biostatistics He is also a member of the University of California, San Francisco Cardiovascular Research Institute and Institute for Health Policy Studies and Co-leader of the University of California, San Francisco Comprehensive Cancer Center Tobacco Program. He was elected to the Institute of Medicine in 2005.

Regulations and policies regarding e-cigarettes.

Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are a growing public health concern because of a dramatic increase in use by adolescents and the uncertainty of potential health impacts. These health concerns and lack of an established federal regulatory scheme have led many local and state governments to address the regulatory void for e-cigarettes by incorporating them into the statutory definition of tobacco or by passing laws specific to the use of e-cigarettes. In August 2016, the US Food and Drug Administration issued a final rule deeming e-cigarettes within their authority; providing uniform requirements like premarket approval applications, Harmful and Potentially Harmful Constituents reporting, and warning labels; and establishing 18 years as a minimum age of purchase. Although the impact on the public's health remains uncertain, regulations and laws governing e-cigarettes continue to develop. This review highlights the available data regarding safety and public health impacts of e-cigarettes and details the status of US regulations and policies affecting their sale and use. Cancer 2017;123:3007-14. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Support for electronic cigarette regulations among California voters.

Policies regulating the sale and use of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) vary widely within the USA and worldwide. We assessed support for four proposed policies among a representative sample of California voters (N=1002) and identified latent classes of voters who were likely to support or oppose various policies. Findings showed support for prohibiting e-cigarette use where smoking is banned (70%), taxing e-cigarettes (74%), licensing e-cigarette retailers (74%), and restricting flavourings (57%). Correlates of policy support included smoking status, political orientation, age group and California region. The latent class analysis revealed three classes of voters: Policy Supporters (predominantly college-educated, higher-income, liberal non-smokers), Policy Opposers (predominantly low-educated, low-income, conservative smokers), and Swing Voters (intermediate levels of education, income, and smoking, conservative). Findings provide information to inform segmented state-based communication campaigns regarding regulation of e-cigarettes. If policymakers want to enact prohibitive state-level policies, Opposers and Swing Voters may be important constituents to target.

Identifying e-cigarette vape stores: description of an online search methodology.

BACKGROUND: Although the overall impact of Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems (ENDS) on public health is unclear, awareness, use, and marketing of the products have increased markedly in recent years. Identifying the increasing number of 'vape stores' that specialise in selling ENDS can be challenging given the lack of regulatory policies and licensing. This study assesses the utility of online search methods in identifying ENDS vape stores. METHODS: We conducted online searches in Google Maps, Yelp, and YellowPages to identify listings of ENDS vape stores in Florida, and used a crowdsourcing platform to call and verify stores that primarily sold ENDS to consumers. We compared store listings generated from the online search and crowdsourcing methodology to list licensed tobacco and ENDS retailers from the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation. RESULTS: The combined results from all three online sources yielded a total of 403 ENDS vape stores. Nearly 32.5% of these stores were on the state tobacco licensure list, while 67.5% were not. Accuracy of online results was highest for Yelp (77.6%), followed by YellowPages (77.1%) and Google (53.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Using the online search methodology we identified more ENDS vape stores than were on the state tobacco licensure list. This approach may be a promising strategy to identify and track the growth of ENDS vape stores over time, especially in states without a systematic licensing requirement for such stores.

The importance of product definitions in US e-cigarette laws and regulations.

BACKGROUND: How electronic cigarettes and similar products (e-cigarettes) are defined affects how they are regulated, particularly whether existing laws for cigarettes apply, including sales and marketing, youth access, smoke-free and taxation laws. METHODS: We examined the text of 46 bills that define e-cigarettes enacted in 40 states and characterised how e-cigarettes and similar products were defined. RESULTS: States enact laws creating new product categories for e-cigarettes separate from the 'tobacco product' category (eg, 'alternative nicotine product,' 'vapour product,' 'electronic nicotine device'), with four states explicitly excluding e-cigarettes from 'tobacco products.' Twenty-eight states do not include e-cigarettes in their definitions of 'tobacco products' or 'smoking,' eight include e-cigarettes as 'tobacco products,' three include e-cigarettes in 'smoking.' Sixteen states' definitions of e-cigarettes require nicotine, and five states pre-empt more stringent local laws. Tobacco and e-cigarette industry representatives tried to shape laws that benefit their interests. CONCLUSIONS: Definitions separating e-cigarettes from other tobacco products are common. Similar to past 'Trojan horse' policies, e-cigarette policies that initially appear to restrict sales (eg, limit youth access) may actually undermine regulation if they establish local pre-emption or create definitions that divide e-cigarettes from other tobacco products. Comparable issues are raised by the European Union Tobacco Products Directive and e-cigarette regulations in other countries. Policymakers should carefully draft legislation with definitions of e-cigarettes that broadly define the products, do not require nicotine or tobacco, do not pre-empt stronger regulations and explicitly include e-cigarettes in smoke-free and taxation laws.

A Qualitative Approach to Understanding Real-World Electronic Cigarette Use: Implications for Measurement and Regulation.

INTRODUCTION: An understanding of the real-world use of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) is needed to inform surveillance efforts and future state and federal regulation. This study investigates the behavioral aspects of e-cigarette use. METHODS: We used qualitative methods to examine salient characteristics of e-cigarette use. The lead investigator (M.C.) conducted in-depth, semistructured individual interviews to explore patterns and behaviors associated with e-cigarette use among a purposive sample of 50 current adult users. Thematic content analysis was used to analyze qualitative data and document themes. RESULTS: Several important themes emerged. Although most users started with "closed system" products, the majority switched from that type of e-cigarette to "open system" devices. Responses were diverse on preferred flavors, although mixing flavors was a common practice. Many users had difficulty estimating the total amount of e-liquid they used within a given period and described an iterative process in which they experimented with different nicotine levels to determine their preferred concentration. Reported frequency of use and puffing behaviors varied greatly between users and also differed from the way traditional cigarettes are smoked. CONCLUSION: Results from this study have implications for developing appropriate survey metrics for e-cigarette surveillance, the regulation of flavorings, and reporting of e-cigarette product constituents.

A Qualitative Study of Vape Shop Operators' Perceptions of Risks and Benefits of E-Cigarette Use and Attitude Toward Their Potential Regulation by the US Food and Drug Administration, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, or North Carolina, 2015.

INTRODUCTION: Approximately 8,500 vape shops in the United States sell a variety of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS). This study examined vape shop operators' perceptions of benefits and risk of ENDS use, what they perceive to be the reasons for ENDS use, their source of product information, what information they shared with customers, and the impact of existing and future regulation of ENDS on its use and on their business. METHODS: We conducted qualitative interviews with 20 vape shop operators located in Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina in spring 2015. A semi-structured interview guide was used, and interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. The transcripts were analyzed using NVIVO software. RESULT: Vape shop owners perceived ENDS to be less harmful and more economical than conventional cigarettes and indicated that most of their customers used ENDS as a smoking cessation tool. Most owners were former smokers and used ENDS to quit. Shop owners relied on their personal experiences and the Internet for information, and shared information with customers at point of sale by using the shop's website and social media. Most expressed concern that complying with potential regulations, including banning flavors or tax increases, would jeopardize their business. Some felt that ENDS should not be regulated as tobacco products and felt that big tobacco was behind these proposed regulations. Most owners supported age restrictions and quality controls for e-liquid. CONCLUSION: Vape shop owners are in a unique position to serve as frontline consumer educators. Interventions should focus on providing them with current information on benefits and risks of ENDS and information on national, state, and local regulations and compliance requirements.

Electronic Cigarette Refill Liquids: Child-Resistant Packaging, Nicotine Content, and Sales to Minors.

UNLABELLED: To determine the accuracy of the labeled quantity of the nicotine content of the e-liquids sold in unlicensed vape stores, whether the packaging of e-liquids sold within the vape stores was child-resistant, whether minors were present within vape stores, and whether sales to minors occurred. This study was conducted across North Dakota prior to implementation of a new e-cigarette state law and provided a baseline assessment before enactment of the new legal requirements. DESIGN AND METHODS: We tested samples of e-liquids and performed observations in 16 stores that were selling e-cigarettes but were not legally required to be licensed for tobacco retail. The e-liquids were analyzed for nicotine content using a validated high-performance liquid chromatography method for nicotine analysis. RESULTS: Of the 70 collected e-liquid samples that claimed to contain nicotine, 17% contained more than the labeled quantity and 34% contained less than the labeled quantity by 10% or more, with one sample containing 172% more than the labeled quantity. Of the 94 e-liquid containers sampled, only 35% were determined to be child-resistant. Minors were present in stores, although no sales to minors occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Mislabeling of nicotine in e-liquids is common and exposes the user to the harmful effects of nicotine. The lack of child-resistant packaging for this potentially toxic substance is a serious public health problem. E-cigarettes should be included in the legal definition of tobacco products, child-resistant packaging and nicotine labeling laws should be enacted and strictly enforced, and vape stores should be licensed by states.

E-cigarettes and the law in Australia.

BACKGROUND: Australian laws covering electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are complex and vary between jurisdictions. The supply of nicotine-containing e-cigarettes in Australia is illegal. Possession or use of nicotine in e-cigarettes without approval is also illegal and the sale of non-nicotine e-cigarettes is illegal in some states. Despite the current legal barriers, the use of e-cigarettes by Australian smokers has increased over recent years. OBJECTIVE: This article summarises these laws, recent cases involving e-cigarettes and what is known about their safety and efficacy as cessation aids. DISCUSSION: Australian medical practitioners are likely to be asked about e-cigarettes by patients who smoke and may be interested in using them to quit smoking. The efficacy of e-cigarettes as a cessation aid has not been fully established. The health risk of long-term use is also unknown, although it is probably less than that of smoking cigarettes. There is an urgent need for research on the health effects of e-cigarettes and their use in quitting smoking.

E-cigarettes: An update on considerations for the otolaryngologist.

PURPOSE: We provide an update in the literature and national regulations regarding electronic cigarettes with special attention to the pediatric population. BACKGROUND: Electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) are handheld battery operated devices that vaporize nicotine-containing liquids for inhalation. Use of these products has dramatically increased over the last several years, particularly among the youth. ENDS are being marketed with advertising techniques and flavors which appeal to the adolescent and young adult population. More reports of accidental pediatric exposures are being documented, as are suicides from abuse of liquid nicotine. Federal regulation has only now become required of these devices. CONCLUSION: Use of e cigarettes among adolescents increases each year. Government oversight is needed to protect our children from the re-normalization of tobacco. Otolaryngologists should be prepared to counsel their patients and families regarding the latest in ENDS use.

Patients with lung cancer: Are electronic cigarettes harmful or useful?

E-cigarettes remain controversial because the scientific evidence of short term and long term effects on tolerance and the health value of a switch from tobacco to e-cigarettes is contested and controversial. Nevertheless the quality of e-cigarettes and e-liquids has improved. The main ingredients, propylene glycol, vegetable glycerine and nicotine are pharmaceutical-grade quality in most e-liquids. Flavors are almost all food grade. The high quality of ingredients has decreased the presence of impurities in e-liquids. The emissions of e-cigarettes do not contain solid particles or carbon monoxide. Nitrosamine content is at least one hundred times lower than in tobacco smoke. E-cigarette emissions in normal use do not contain any harmful constituents at significant levels except nicotine. UK public health authorities have stated that e-cigarette use is likely to be at least 95% less toxic than cigarette use. There are benefits from having a well-regulated legal market. In countries where e-liquid containing nicotine is not allowed, "do-it-yourself" liquids are common and have handling risks and may sometimes contain toxic impurities. Though e-cigarettes should never be assumed safe products for non-smokers, for smokers, the e-cigarette is at least 20 times less dangerous than the cigarette. Tobacco cessation specialists in countries where nicotine containing e-cigarettes are available increasingly provide counselling for e-cigarette use to stop smoking or to reduce smoking at the request of patients. Based on current knowledge, for patients with lung or other forms of cancer who would otherwise continue to smoke, e-cigarettes offer an alternative way to quit smoking while they undergo medical treatment.

Perspectives of key stakeholders and smokers on a very low nicotine content cigarette-only policy: qualitative study.

AIMS: To investigate views of New Zealand key stakeholders (stakeholders) and smokers on very low nicotine content (VLNC) cigarettes, and a policy mandating that only VLNC cigarettes are available for sale. METHODS: Using a semi-structured interview schedule, we interviewed 17 stakeholders and held focus groups with 21 smokers. Questions were asked about VLNC cigarettes and a VLNC cigarette-only policy. Smokers were given approximately 15 VLNC cigarettes to take home and smoke. One week after the focus groups, 17 smokers were interviewed. Data were analysed using a general inductive approach. RESULTS: Stakeholders and smokers were largely unconvinced of the value of a mandated reduction in nicotine in cigarettes. After smoking VLNC cigarettes, smokers had less interest in them but would support them being sold alongside high nicotine content (HNC) cigarettes at a much cheaper price. CONCLUSION: The government is not likely to mandate nicotine reduction in cigarettes if there is a perceived lack of support from stakeholders or smokers. However, they could make VLNC cigarettes available as an option for smokers utilising a differential tax favouring VLNC cigarettes. If this were combined with better access to nicotine containing e-cigarettes, smokers may shift away from HNC cigarettes.