Would banning menthol cigarettes, flavored cigars, and flavored e-cigarettes prompt users to seek illicit channels for obtaining them in the United States?

BACKGROUND: Banning flavors in tobacco and nicotine products may reduce youth initiation and prompt quit attempts but such bans may lead to illicit markets. We examined how likely current users would be to seek flavored products from illicit channels under various ban scenarios. METHODS: Cross-sectional surveys of 2552 current users of menthol cigarettes or flavored cigars and 2347 users of flavored e-cigarettes were conducted between 2021 and 2022 in the United States. For each ban scenario, respondents reported if they would have intentions to seek the banned flavored products from any illicit channels and identified the specific illicit channel they would consider. Logistic regressions were used to estimate how the likelihood of having intentions to seek illicit channels was associated with demographics, ban scenarios, and status of tobacco use. RESULTS: Under various ban scenarios, 24-30% of people who smoked said they would seek illicit channels to obtain the banned products compared with 21-41% of dual users and 35-39% of users of flavored e-cigarettes. Online retailers were favored by people who smoked while users of flavored e-cigarettes favored local retailers. Heavy users were more likely to say they would try illicit channels. Under bans restricting more types of flavored tobacco products, users would be less likely to try illegal channels. CONCLUSIONS: A significant proportion of users of flavored tobacco and nicotine products would not reject using illicit banned products. Tailored programs are needed to apply to the groups with a higher risk of seeking illicit channels for banned products.

Tax incidence of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) in the USA.

BACKGROUND: A growing number of states or jurisdictions in the USA have imposed excise taxes on electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS). However, there is no consensus on how best to tax ENDS. OBJECTIVES: We specifically compare the tax incidence or burden for ENDS and cigarettes and analyse how ENDS tax incidence is associated with the choices of tax bases and rates. METHODS: We calculate ENDS excise tax incidence as the percentage of retail prices for each state or jurisdiction. Next, we use ordinary least squares to evaluate how tax incidence is associated with the choices of tax bases (eg, a specific tax base vs a value or ad valorem tax base) and rates and how these associations are moderated by product types. RESULTS: ENDS and cigarette tax incidence is similar at the state level. Nonetheless, when federal cigarette taxes are considered, the cigarette tax incidence is higher than the tax incidence on closed-system ENDS. The proportion of states that impose value taxes is higher for open systems (65.4%) than for closed systems (46.2%). A value tax base is associated with a 7 percentage point lower tax incidence compared with a specific tax base. Product type further moderates the association between tax base and incidence. CONCLUSION: Tax incidence can be used to measure the strength of ENDS tax policies and how they are compared with cigarette taxes. Policymakers who aim to prevent youth from using ENDS may consider a value tax base to raise the tax incidence of closed systems-the product type preferred by young people.

Impact of flavours, device, nicotine levels and price on adult e-cigarette users' tobacco and nicotine product choices.

INTRODUCTION: To understand the impact of e-cigarette devices, flavours, nicotine levels and prices on adult e-cigarette users' choices among closed-system and open-system e-cigarettes, cigarettes and heated tobacco products (HTPs). METHODS: Online discrete choice experiments were conducted among adult (≥18 years) e-cigarette users (n=2642) in August 2020. Conditional logit regressions were used to assess the relative impact of product attributes and the interactions between product attributes and user characteristics, with stratified analyses to examine differences by smoking status and primarily used e-cigarette device and flavour. RESULTS: On average, participants preferred non-tobacco and non-menthol flavours most, preferred open-system over closed-system e-cigarettes and preferred regular nicotine level over low nicotine level. However, the preference varied by demographics, smoking status and the primarily used e-cigarette device and flavour. The differences in preference among products/devices were larger than the difference among flavours or nicotine levels. Participants who primarily used closed-system e-cigarettes exhibited similar preferences for closed-system and open-system e-cigarettes, but those who primarily used open-system e-cigarettes preferred much more open-system over closed-system e-cigarettes. HTP was the least preferred product, much lower than cigarettes in general, but participants living in states where IQOS is being sold had similar preferences to cigarettes and HTPs. CONCLUSIONS: People are unlikely to switch to another product/device because of the restriction of flavour or nicotine level. If non-tobacco and non-menthol flavours were banned from open-system e-cigarettes, users may switch to menthol flavour e-cigarettes. Intervention strategies should be tailored to specific groups.

How Smokers of Menthol Cigarettes and Flavored Cigars Might Respond to FDA's Proposed Bans.

INTRODUCTION: A ban on menthol cigarettes and flavored cigars may reduce smoking and tobacco-related disparities. AIMS AND METHODS: We aimed to examine the response of current smokers to a hypothetical ban on menthol cigarettes and flavored cigars. Current smokers were recruited online and reported the alternative products that they may switch to under a hypothetical ban, if they would try to obtain the banned products from illicit channels, and their support to the ban. RESULTS: 51% of current smokers would use nonflavored cigarettes and cigars as alternatives, 45% would switch to flavored heated tobacco products or e-cigarettes or quit smoking. 17% would try to obtain the banned flavored products from illicit markets. A majority of menthol only smokers opposed the ban. Daily smokers would be more likely to switch to nonflavored smoking, to try illicit market products, and were less supportive of the ban. Black smokers would be less likely to switch to nonflavored smoking and were more supportive of the ban. Smokers who used menthol cigarettes only would be more likely to switch to nonflavored smoking, less likely to try illicit market sellers, and were the least supportive of the ban. CONCLUSIONS: In response to a ban of all added flavors for cigarettes or cigars, nearly half of the current smokers would quit smoking, largely by switching to nonsmoking products. However, smokers with more chronic use and those who used only menthol cigarettes would be more likely to switch to nonflavored smoking, diminishing the harm reduction potential. The ban may decrease the relatively higher prevalence of menthol cigarette smoking among Blacks compared with other groups. IMPLICATIONS: A ban on the sale of menthol cigarettes and flavored cigars may decrease the prevalence of smoking because some current smokers may quit smoking and switch to nonsmoking products. However, smokers with more chronic use and those who used menthol cigarettes only were more likely to switch to nonflavored cigarettes or cigars, diminishing the harm reduction potential of the ban. Black smokers would be more likely to switch to products other than cigarettes and cigars thus decreasing their relatively higher prevalence of smoking compared with other groups.

Should menthol e-cigarettes be banned? Reaction of adult smokers and users of e-cigarettes to hypothetical bans.

INTRODUCTION: This study examines how current smokers using menthol cigarettes or flavoured cigars, and current users of flavoured e-cigarettes may respond to three hypothetical flavour-ban scenarios: (1) banning only menthol cigarettes and flavoured cigars; (2) also banning e-cigarettes with any non-tobacco flavours except menthol; and (3) also banning e-cigarettes with any non-tobacco flavours, including menthol. METHODS: Recruited from mTurk, respondents were asked if they would quit all tobacco-nicotine use or continue or start using products that were still legally available. The patterns of responding to each ban scenario, for both flavoured smokers and users of non-tobacco flavoured e-cigarettes, were summarised. Multinomial logistic regressions were used to estimate associations between demographics, smoking or e-cigarette use status and reactions to a ban. RESULTS: A ban on menthol cigarettes and flavoured cigars would lead to 12%-20% of flavoured smokers trying to quit all tobacco use and 32%-52% switching to non-flavoured smoking, with the remaining switching to e-cigarettes or other products. Compared with a ban on only menthol cigarettes and flavoured cigars, also banning flavoured e-cigarettes would increase the likelihood of quitting all tobacco-nicotine use (OR=2.58) but also increase the likelihood of switching to non-flavoured smoking (OR=1.74). CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that a ban on menthol cigarettes and flavoured cigars would decrease smoking. However, it is unclear if adding a ban of menthol e-cigarettes would lead to additional benefits because without menthol e-cigarettes as an alternative, some smokers and e-cigarette users may switch to non-flavoured tobacco smoking, rather than quit all tobacco use.

Risk and safety profile of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS): an umbrella review to inform ENDS health communication strategies.

OBJECTIVES: This umbrella review aims to summarise the evidence about electronic nicotine delivery systems' (ENDS) risk and safety health profile to inform ENDS health communication strategies. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: Six databases were searched for systematic reviews presenting evidence on ENDS-related health effects. Ninety reviews divided into five categories were included: toxicity=20, health effects=40, role in smoking cessation=24, role in transition to combustible cigarettes (CCs)=13 and industry marketing claims=4. DATA EXTRACTION: Findings were synthesised in narrative summaries. Meta-analyses were conducted by study type when appropriate. Quality assessment was conducted using the Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews. The Institute of Medicine's Levels of Evidence Framework was used to classify the evidence into high-level, moderate, limited-suggestive and limited-not-conclusive. DATA SYNTHESIS: We found high-level evidence that ENDS exposes users to toxic substances; increases the risk of respiratory disease; leads to nicotine dependence; causes serious injuries due to explosion or poisoning; increases smoking cessation in clinical trials but not in observational studies; increases CC initiation; and exposure to ENDS marketing increases its use/intention to use. Evidence was moderate for ENDS association with mental health and substance use, limited-suggestive for cardiovascular, and limited-not-conclusive for cancer, ear, ocular and oral diseases, and pregnancy outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: As evidence is accumulating, ENDS communication can focus on high-level evidence on ENDS association with toxicity, nicotine addiction, respiratory disease, ENDS-specific harm (explosion, poisoning) and anti-ENDS industry sentiment. Direct comparison between the harm of CCs and ENDS should be avoided. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021241630.

Has FDA abandoned its efforts to make fake-cigar cigarettes comply with federal tobacco control laws that apply to cigarettes but not cigars?

In the USA, legal definitions of cigarettes and cigars are critical to tobacco control policy because federal, state and local laws typically tax and regulate cigarettes more strictly than cigars. In 2016, near the end of the Obama Administration, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) sent warning letters to four filtered 'little cigar' manufacturers stating that their so-called 'cigars' were cigarettes and, therefore, subject to more stringent public health restrictions. Documents produced in response to a Freedom of Information Act request show that without explanation or public notice FDA has abandoned its prior determination that the manufacturers' 'little cigars' were actually cigarettes and, consequently, were violating the ban on flavoured cigarettes in the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (TCA). The documents also present the manufacturers' arguments against FDA's original position. However, those industry arguments are inconsistent with the research, other evidence and legal analysis indicating that filtered 'little cigars' meet the legal definition of cigarettes under the TCA and other similar federal, state and local definitions. To protect the public health, FDA must renew its efforts to ensure that these filtered 'little cigars' do not continue to evade compliance with the many important restrictions and requirements that apply to cigarettes but not cigars. Other government regulatory and tax-collection agencies with similar definitions need to follow suit.

Cross-country comparison of cigarette and vaping product marketing exposure and use: findings from 2016 ITC Four Country Smoking and Vaping Survey.

OBJECTIVE: To compare exposure to and use of certain cigarette and vaping product marketing among adult smokers and vapers in four countries with contrasting regulations-Australia (AU), Canada, England and the USA. DATA SOURCES: Adult smokers and vapers (n=12 294) from the 2016 International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Smoking and Vaping Survey (4CV1). ANALYSIS: Self-reported exposure to cigarette and vaping product advertising through point-of-sale, websites/social media, emails/texts, as well as exposure to and use of price offers were assessed for country differences using logistic regression models adjusted for multiple covariates. RESULTS: Reported exposure to cigarette advertising exposure at point-of-sale was higher in the USA (52.1%) than in AU, Canada and England (10.5%-18.5%). Exposure to cigarette advertising on websites/social media and emails/texts was low overall (1.5%-10.4%). Reported exposure to vaping ads at point-of-sale was higher in England (49.3%) and USA (45.9%) than in Canada (32.5%), but vaping ad exposure on websites/social media in Canada (15.1%) was similar with England (18.4%) and the USA (12.1%). Exposure to vaping ads via emails/texts was low overall (3.1%-9.9%). Exposure to, and use of, cigarette price offers was highest in the USA (34.0 % and 17.8 %, respectively), but the use rate among those exposed was highest in AU (64.9%). Exposure to, and use of, price offers for vaping products was higher in the USA (42.3 % and 21.7 %) than in AU, Canada and England (25.9%-31.5 % and 7.4%-10.3 %). CONCLUSIONS: Patterns of cigarette and vaping product marketing exposure generally reflected country-specific policies, except for online vaping ads. Implications for research and policy are discussed.

The Effects of Varying Electronic Cigarette Warning Label Design Features On Attention, Recall, and Product Perceptions Among Young Adults.

This study was a 3 (Brand: Blu, MarkTen, Vuse) by 3 (Warning Size: 20%, 30%, or 50% of advertisement surface) by 2 (Warning Background: White, Red) experimental investigation of the effects of electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) warning label design features. Young adults aged 18-30 years (n = 544) were recruited online, completed demographic and tobacco use history measures, and randomized to view e-cigarette advertisements with warning labels that varied by the experimental conditions. Participants completed a task assessing self-reported visual attention to advertisements with a-priori regions of interest defined around warning labels. Warning message recall and perceived addictiveness of e-cigarettes were assessed post-exposure. Approximately half of participants reported attending to warning labels and reported attention was greater for warnings on red versus white backgrounds. Recall of the warning message content was also greater among those reporting attention to the warning label. Overall, those who viewed warnings on red backgrounds reported lower perceived addictiveness than those who viewed warnings on white backgrounds, and e-cigarette users reported lower perceived addictiveness than non-users. Among e-cigarette users, viewing warnings on white backgrounds produced perceptions more similar to non-users. Greater recall was significantly correlated with greater perceived addictiveness. This study provides some of the first evidence that e-cigarette warning label design features including size and coloring affect self-reported attention and content recall.

Potential deaths averted in USA by replacing cigarettes with e-cigarettes.

INTRODUCTION: US tobacco control policies to reduce cigarette use have been effective, but their impact has been relatively slow. This study considers a strategy of switching cigarette smokers to e-cigarette use ('vaping') in the USA to accelerate tobacco control progress. METHODS: A Status Quo Scenario, developed to project smoking rates and health outcomes in the absence of vaping, is compared with Substitution models, whereby cigarette use is largely replaced by vaping over a 10-year period. We test an Optimistic and a Pessimistic Scenario, differing in terms of the relative harms of e-cigarettes compared with cigarettes and the impact on overall initiation, cessation and switching. Projected mortality outcomes by age and sex under the Status Quo and E-Cigarette Substitution Scenarios are compared from 2016 to 2100 to determine public health impacts. FINDINGS: Compared with the Status Quo, replacement of cigarette by e-cigarette use over a 10-year period yields 6.6 million fewer premature deaths with 86.7 million fewer life years lost in the Optimistic Scenario. Under the Pessimistic Scenario, 1.6 million premature deaths are averted with 20.8 million fewer life years lost. The largest gains are among younger cohorts, with a 0.5 gain in average life expectancy projected for the age 15 years cohort in 2016. CONCLUSIONS: The tobacco control community has been divided regarding the role of e-cigarettes in tobacco control. Our projections show that a strategy of replacing cigarette smoking with vaping would yield substantial life year gains, even under pessimistic assumptions regarding cessation, initiation and relative harm.

Crowdsourced data collection for public health: A comparison with nationally representative, population tobacco use data.

INTRODUCTION: Internet-based crowdsourcing is increasingly used for social and behavioral research in public health, however the potential generalizability of crowdsourced data remains unclear. This study assessed the population representativeness of Internet-based crowdsourced data. METHODS: A total of 3999 U.S. young adults ages 18 to 30years were recruited in 2016 through Internet-based crowdsourcing to complete measures taken from the 2012-2013 National Adult Tobacco Survey (NATS). Post-hoc sampling weights were created using procedures similar to the NATS. Weighted analyses were conducted in 2016 to compare crowdsourced and publicly-available 2012-2013 NATS data on demographics, tobacco use, and measures of tobacco perceptions and product warning label exposure. RESULTS: Those in the crowdsourced sample were less likely to report an annual household income of $50,000 or greater, and e-cigarette, waterpipe, and cigar use were more prevalent in the crowdsourced sample. High proportions of both samples indicated cigarette smoking is very harmful and very addictive. Comparable proportions of non-smokers and smokers reported cigarette warning label exposure, however the likelihood of reporting that smoking is very harmful by frequency of warning label exposure was lower among smokers in the crowdsourced sample. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that crowdsourced samples may differ demographically and may not produce generalizable estimates of tobacco use prevalence relative to population data after post-hoc sample weighting. However, correlational analyses in crowdsourced samples may reasonably approximate population data. Future studies can build from this work by testing additional methodological strategies to improve crowdsourced sampling strategies.

FDA-Required Tobacco Product Inserts & Onserts­and the First Amendment.

In 2012, a federal court of appeals struck down an FDA rule requiring graphic health warnings on cigarettes as violating First Amendment commercial speech protections. Tobacco product inserts and onserts can more readily avoid First Amendment constraints while delivering more extensive information to tobacco users, and can work effectively to support and encourage smoking cessation. This paper examines FDA's authority to require effective inserts and onserts and shows how FDA could design and support them to avoid First Amendment problems. Through this process, the paper offers helpful insights regarding how key Tobacco Control Act provisions can and should be interpreted and applied to follow and promote the statute's purposes and objectives. The paper's rigorous analysis of existing First Amendment case law relating to compelled commercial speech also provides useful guidance for any government efforts either to compel product disclosures or to require government messaging in or on commercial products or their advertising, whether done for remedial, purely informational, or behavior modification purposes.

Communicating Tobacco Product Information to the Public.

The 2009 Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (TCA) requires tobacco companies to disclose information about the harmful chemicals in their products to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The law requires the FDA, in turn, to communicate this information to the public "in a format that is understandable and not misleading to a lay person." But how should the FDA comply with this requirement? What does it mean for information about complex chemicals to be "understandable and not misleading to a lay person"? These questions are not easy ones to answer. Disclosures about the amount of harmful chemicals (constituents) in different tobacco products may help to inform consumers, but may also conversely prompt consumers to reach incorrect or unsupported conclusions about products' relative health risks. This paper first analyzes the FDA's legal obligation to publish tobacco constituent information so that it is "understandable and not misleading to a layperson." Second, it discusses how that legal analysis has guided scientific research examining how members of the public interpret messages regarding tobacco constituents. Lastly, this paper concludes with policy recommendations for the FDA as it considers how to comply with the law's constituent disclosure requirement while still furthering its overall objective of promoting public health.

US Smokers' Beliefs, Experiences and Perceptions of Different Cigarette Variants Before and After the FSPTCA Ban on Misleading Descriptors Such as "Light," "Mild," or "Low".

INTRODUCTION: In December 2008, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) took action that prompted the removal of nicotine and tar listings from cigarette packs and ads. As of June 2010, the US Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act prohibited the use of explicit or implicit descriptors on tobacco packaging or in advertising that convey messages of reduced risk or exposure, specifically including terms like "light," "mild," and "low" and similar descriptors. This study evaluates the effect of these two policy changes on smokers' beliefs, experiences and perceptions of different cigarettes. METHODS: Using generalized estimating equations models, this study analyzed survey data collected between 2002 and 2013 by the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Study regarding US smokers' beliefs, experiences, and perceptions of different cigarettes. RESULTS: Between 2002 and 2013, smoker misperceptions about "light" cigarettes being less harmful did not change significantly and remained substantial, especially among those who reported using lower-strength cigarettes. After the two policy changes, reported reliance on pack colors, color terms, and other product descriptors like "smooth" to determine cigarette strength style trended upward. CONCLUSIONS: Policies implemented to reduce smoker misperceptions that some cigarettes are safer than others appear to have had little impact. Because of pack colors, color terms, descriptors such as "smooth," cigarette taste or feel, and possibly other characteristics, millions of smokers continue to believe, inaccurately, that they can reduce their harms and risks by smoking one cigarette brand or sub-brand instead of another, which may be delaying or reducing smoking cessation. IMPLICATIONS: What this study adds: This study confirms that US policies to reduce smoker misperceptions that some cigarettes are less harmful than others have not been successful. Following the removal of light/low descriptors and tar and nicotine numbers from cigarette packs and ads, pack colors, color words, other descriptors (eg, smooth), and sensory experiences of smoother or lighter taste have helped smokers to continue to identify their preferred cigarette brand styles and otherwise distinguish between which brands and styles they consider "lighter" or lower in tar and, mistakenly, less harmful than others. These findings provide additional evidence to support new enforcement or regulatory action to stop cigarettes and their packaging from misleading smokers about relative risk, which may be reducing or delaying quit attempts.

Reactions to hypothetical flavor bans among current users of flavored e-cigarettes.

Banning flavors in e-cigarettes and other tobacco products may decrease their use. To examine how current users of flavored e-cigarettes might react to a ban on flavored e-cigarettes when: (i) menthol flavor is banned together with other flavors, or (ii) this ban on e-cigarettes is combined with a ban on menthol cigarettes and flavored cigars. A national cross-sectional survey of 2,347 current users of flavored e-cigarettes was conducted in May 2022. For each hypothetical ban scenario, respondents reported if they would quit all tobacco product use, continue to use e-cigarettes with no flavor or flavors that were not banned, or switch to alternative tobacco products. Multinomial logistic regressions were used to estimate the associations between responses and ban scenarios, adjusting for tobacco use and demographic variables. If e-cigarettes with any flavors except menthol and tobacco were banned, the majority of current e-cigarette users would keep using e-cigarettes with no flavor or tobacco and menthol flavor. When menthol flavor was added to a ban, a greater proportion of respondents would quit all tobacco use; however, more would also switch to cigarettes or cigars. When menthol cigarettes and flavored cigars were added to a ban, those who used menthol flavor only would be less likely to switch to cigarettes and cigars. Among current e-cigarette users, the harm reduction (i.e., from quitting all use) from a ban on flavored e-cigarettes, particularly if menthol is also banned, may be outweighed by the harm increases (i.e., switching to cigarettes or cigars, or other products that are more harmful than using e-cigarettes). A concurrent ban on menthol cigarettes and flavored cigars would secure more certain net reductions to public health harms from e-cigarette use and smoking.

Banning flavors in e-cigarettes and other tobacco products has the potential to decrease their use. We examined how current users of flavored e-cigarettes might react to several hypothetical ban scenarios. We found that if e-cigarettes with any added flavors except tobacco or menthol were banned, the majority of current e-cigarette users would keep using non-flavored e-cigarettes or those with flavors that were not banned. When menthol flavor was added to a ban, a greater proportion of respondents would quit all tobacco use, however, more would also switch to cigarettes or cigars. When menthol cigarettes and flavored cigars were added to a ban, those who used menthol-flavor e-cigarettes only would be less likely to switch to cigarettes and cigars. Our study indicated that among current e-cigarette users, the harm-reduction resulting from a ban on flavored e-cigarettes, particularly when menthol was banned (i.e., from users quitting all use), may be outweighed by the harm increases (i.e., switching to cigarettes or cigars, or other products that are more harmful than using e-cigarettes). Concurrently banning menthol cigarettes and flavored cigars would secure more certain net harm reductions.

The impact of flavored e-cigarette bans on e-cigarette use in three US states.

Introduction: Beginning in 2019, several U.S. states implemented temporary or permanent bans on the sale of flavored e-cigarettes. This study examined the impact of flavor bans on adult e-cigarette use in Washington, New Jersey, and New York. Methods: Adults who used e-cigarettes at least once a week before the flavor bans were recruited online. Respondents reported their e-cigarette use, primarily used flavor, and ways of obtaining e-cigarettes before and after the bans. Descriptive statistics and multinomial logistic regression models were applied. Results: After the ban, 8.1% of respondents (N=1624) quit using e-cigarettes, those primarily used banned menthol or other flavors declined from 74.4% to 50.8, those using tobacco-flavored declined from 20.1% to 15.6%, and those using non-flavored increased from 5.4% to 25.4%. More frequent e-cigarette use and smoking cigarettes were associated with being less likely to quit e-cigarettes and more likely to use banned flavors. Of those primarily using banned flavors, 45.1% obtained e-cigarettes from in-state stores, 31.2% from out-of-state stores, 32% from friends, family, or others, 25.5% from Internet/mail sellers, 5.2% from illegal sellers, 4.2% mixed flavored e-liquids themselves, and 6.9% stocked up on e-cigarettes before the ban. Conclusions: Most respondents continued to use e-cigarettes with banned flavors post-ban. Compliance of local retailers with the ban was not high, and many respondents obtained banned-flavor e-cigarettes through legal channels. However, the significant increase in the use of non-flavored e-cigarettes post-ban suggests that these may serve as a viable alternative among those who used previously used banned or tobacco flavors.

Perceived health risks associated with the use of tobacco and nicotine products during the COVID-19 pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: The perceived health risks of tobacco products may change during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. This study aimed to examine the perceived risks of tobacco use on COVID-19 infection and severity, and possible COVID-related changes in perceptions of tobacco use and overall health. METHODS: We conducted an online survey of adults in the United States in June 2020 (n=2097). The survey covered cigarettes, cigars, e-cigarettes, and hookah. We also assessed changes in the use of any of the four tobacco products. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to estimate the odds of agreeing with the perceived risks for each risk and each product, with the adjustment of demographic and COVID-19 related variables. RESULTS: For all four tobacco products, the perceived risks to general health were slightly higher during the pandemic than before the pandemic (77% vs 79.5% for cigarettes) and the perceived risk of COVID-19 severity was larger than the perceived risk of COVID-19 infection (73.3% vs 56.2% for cigarettes). All risk measures varied with tobacco products consistently, with the risks highest for cigarettes, then cigars, followed by e-cigarettes and hookah. Females and people with higher income or education were more likely to endorse the risks of tobacco use than their counterparts. People who perceived higher risks of using cigarettes (OR=1.65; 95% CI: 1.20-2.27) and cigars (OR=1.63; 95% CI: 1.17-2.27) to COVID-19 severity were more likely to have decreased or quit their use. CONCLUSIONS: Tobacco/nicotine use was perceived to increase the risk of COVID-19 severity and the perceived risk of tobacco/nicotine use to general health was high during the pandemic, particularly for cigarettes. The change of perceived risks appeared to be prompting harm-reducing changes in tobacco product use.