The March 18 editorial, “Unraveling the FDA’s shortsighted ban on flavored vapes,” identified the importance of a well-regulated marketplace with an array of authorized smoke-free products along with strict enforcement against illicit products.
The lesson from the earlier crackdown is hard to ignore: When regulators fail to act in a timely, decisive and consistent manner, a black market fills the void. The situation is made even worse when there is little to no meaningful enforcement. The FDA deserves credit for recognizing that reality and beginning to correct course.
States and local governments can learn from this experience. Across the country, lawmakers are pursuing similar policies aimed at nicotine pouches, including steep tax hikes and flavor bans. These policies are misguided. The latest federal youth tobacco data show nicotine pouch use remains relatively low, with no statistically significant change in usage year over year. The FDA has also concluded that the benefits of certain nicotine pouch products for adults who smoke outweigh the risks of initiation by nonusers, including youths.
Smoke-free nicotine products are not the same as cigarettes, and public policies should not treat them as such. For adults who smoke, flavored smoke-free products can provide a viable, less harmful alternative and a path away from cigarettes. Making those products more expensive or less accessible risks repeating the same failed approach that helped fuel the illicit vape market.
Preventing youth access and supporting adults who smoke are not competing goals. States can do both by enforcing age restrictions, cracking down on illicit products and preserving access to better alternatives for adult smokers.
Matthew Holman, Washington
The writer, a former chief scientist at the Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Tobacco Products, is vice president and chief scientific and regulatory strategy officer at Philip Morris International.
The FDA’s recent plan to consider authorizing additional electronic cigarette flavors is not “a welcome change,” as the Editorial Board suggests, but a move that jeopardizes hard-won progress in reducing youth vaping.
The proliferation of illicit vapes is a serious concern, but authorizing new flavors is not the solution. Reducing access to illicit vapes requires stronger enforcement. The claim that regulation fuels a black market has long been used to justify commercialization of addictive substances and behaviors with little evidence of reduced harm.
Flavors are central to youth vaping: Nearly 90 percent of young people who vape use flavored electronic cigarettes, and three-quarters of young people surveyed say they would not vape if flavors weren’t available. Authorizing more flavored electronic cigarettes would increase availability, reduce perceived risk and further normalize use, factors consistently linked to youth initiation and use.
The evidence also does not suggest that a broader array of flavors would drive more adults to switch from cigarettes or stop smoking.
Nor is vaping harmless. Electronic cigarettes, both authorized and black-market products, expose users to nicotine, toxic chemicals and heavy metals, which are all associated with health risks. Plus, the flavors — especially the cinnamon, clove and vanilla under consideration for approval by the FDA — are highly toxic.
Youth vaping has declined, but that progress is fragile. Prevention efforts are already strained by federal budget and staff cuts, including those to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Office on Smoking and Health. Expanding youth access to flavored products at a time when prevention is underfunded risks reversing this progress and harming young people without meaningful benefit to adult smokers.
Robyn Oster and Linda Richter, New York
Robyn Oster is director of policy and Linda Richter is senior vice president of prevention research and policy at the Partnership to End Addiction.
More military spending? Accountability first, please.
One element the Editorial Board did not analyze in its March 22 editorial “Another $200 billion for the military?” is the Defense Department’s ability to manage its finances. For eight consecutive years, the department has failed its financial audit. The department’s Office of the Inspector General has concluded that the Pentagon cannot verify the accuracy of its reported $4.65 trillion in assets, along with numerous other findings. Financial management at the department is a long-standing issue — it has been on the Government Accountability Office’s High Risk List for 30 years.
The American taxpayer therefore cannot have confidence that the Pentagon: knows what it possesses; develops annual budget requests that accurately reflect its needs; spends its funding as appropriated; and reimburses its contractors the proper amount for what is delivered.
The editorial stated that “there’s a good case to make for more military spending.” But there is a better case to be made that the Pentagon needs to show it can manage its finances before the Trump administration and Congress blindly hand over more of taxpayers’ hard-earned dollars.
William Levitan, Kensington
Passengers deserve the best security
The March 21 editorial “The airports without long security lines” and the Feb. 24 editorial “Privatize airport security” offered limited attention to the downsides of privatizing airport security.
The Editorial Board argued that private contractors can keep screening operations running during government funding disputes, avoiding long lines and disruptions. But reliability and safety are not the same as convenience.
Privatization would result in a system where financial incentives, rather than public accountability, play the main role in shaping essential services.
Passengers depend on a system that is consistent, accountable and staffed by experienced workers, not one driven primarily by contract performance and cost pressures.
The public deserves a system that prioritizes safety, workforce stability and accountability above all else.
Scott Treibitz, Los Angeles
Workers have the right to unionize. Therefore, it was strange for the Editorial Board to emphasize on March 21 that “the federal government’s Screening Partnership Program (SPP) allows airports to apply to use qualified private companies for passenger screening, rather than relying on unionized federal employees.” The editorial went on to praise the smooth efficiency of operations at San Francisco International Airport, which relies on private screeners rather than the unionized Transportation Security Administration employees. The editorial did not mention, however, that the private screeners at SFO are also unionized.
Martin G. Murray, Washington
Post Opinions wants to know: How soon do you bring up politics when getting to know someone? Is a first date too soon? Share your response, and it might be published as a letter to the editor. wapo.st/discuss_politics
The post The reality of regulating electronic cigarettes appeared first on Washington Post.
