George Will: The puzzling problem of vaping | TribLIVE.com
George F. Will, Columnist

George Will: The puzzling problem of vaping

George Will
1428823_web1_Vaping2

SAN FRANCISCO

A 29-story office building at 123 Mission St. illustrates the policy puzzles that fester because of these facts: For centuries, tobacco has been a widely used legal consumer good that does serious and often lethal harm when used as it is intended to be used. And its harmfulness has been a well-established and widely publicized scientific proposition for generations.

The building is the headquarters of Juul, a large company that markets vaping products — electronic cigarettes — that has been running full-page ads in major newspapers ostensibly attempting to limit sales of its product: “Youth vaping is a serious problem” that justifies “cracking down on underage sales at retail stores” and removing from stores “flavored products.” Juul’s flavors include mint, mango, fruit and cucumber. Other companies’ flavors have included “Unicorn Puke” and “Zombie Juice.” The target audience is not mature.

This city, Juul’s host, recently banned such products from being sold in stores or online and delivered to city addresses. Its purpose is to limit cigarette smoking, the nation’s foremost cause of preventable death. Well.

In 2016, cigarette companies spent $8.7 billion advertising and otherwise promoting their products, 34% more than the total 2016 spending by all presidential and congressional campaigns ($6.5 billion). The companies claim that their primary aim is to enlarge market share, not enlarge the market by creating new smokers, and especially not young ones. However, the companies know that few people begin smoking after 21, so if there is to be a future market for the companies’ products. … Altria, maker of Marlboro and other brands, has invested $12.8 billion in Juul.

Some smokers who cannot quit can transition to e-cigarettes, which deliver large doses of nicotine but are less harmful than inhaling smoke from burning tobacco. More people under 18 vape than smoke. For some, e-cigarettes will be a gateway to real ones: Data show that vapers are more likely than nonvapers to become smokers, but that although teen smoking has stopped declining, it remains at a historic low. More than 3 million high school pupils (one in five) and half a million middle school pupils vape. America is in a rapidly expanding mass experiment with a new product, and it will be a while before there is sufficient data to estimate whether it will be a net public health benefit.

When vaping among high schoolers increases 78% in one year (from 2017 to 2018), it has become a fashion fad that is flourishing in the absence of credible frightening information. But, then, after more than half a century of the aggressive dissemination of such information, 16% of American adults still smoke.

In “The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer,” Siddhartha Mukherjee, an oncologist, writes, “In the turbulent century between 1850 and 1950, the world offered conflict, atomization, and disorientation. The cigarette offered its equal and opposite salve: camaraderie, a sense of belonging, and the familiarity of habits. If cancer is the quintessential product of modernity, then so, too, is its principal preventable cause: tobacco.”

More cigarettes might be sold because of bans on vaping products — because smokers cannot use e-cigarettes to stop smoking, or because teenaged vapers will move on to readily available cigarettes.

Perhaps instead of bans, California should revive the anti-smoking ads that three decades ago reduced the number of smokers 17% in three years: “I tried it once and I, ah, got all red in the face and I couldn’t inhale and I felt like a jerk and, ah, never tried it again — which is the same as what happened to me with sex.”

George Will is a columnist for The Washington Post and can be reached via email.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.