Rescuing Vapers Versus Rescuing Smokers: The Ethics

Interactions between ENDS and cigarette use: evidence from a 2022 national telephone survey in South Africa

INTRODUCTION

Electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) may serve as a cessation tool for people who smoke cigarettes. However, for people who do not smoke, ENDS may be a gateway to nicotine addiction and cigarette use. This paper aims to quantify these behaviours in South Africa.

METHODS

We analysed a nationally representative telephone survey of 21 263 South Africans living in urban areas. For those respondents who had used both products (N=771), we developed a typology that describes the sequence in which cigarette and ENDS initiation occurred. 'On-rampers' describe people who used ENDS first and later initiated cigarette smoking. 'Off-rampers' describe people who used cigarettes first, took up ENDS and later quit cigarettes while still using ENDS. 'Failed off-rampers' describe people who started using ENDS while smoking cigarettes but later quit using ENDS. 'Continuing dual consumers' describe people still using both products at the time of the interview.

RESULTS

Of the overall sample (N=21 263), 1.7% used or had used ENDS but had no history of using cigarettes. Of dual consumers (N=771), 8.8% were classified as 'on-rampers', 13.9% as 'off-rampers', 20.9% as 'failed off-rampers' and 56.4% as 'continuing dual consumers'. Roughly half of those classified as off-rampers, failed off-rampers or continuing dual consumers stated that they started using ENDS to help them quit cigarettes.

CONCLUSIONS

The typology reveals a multifaceted relationship between ENDS and cigarette use in South Africa. Policy interventions should aim to minimise on-ramping and maximise off-ramping. Given the high prevalence of continued dual use and failed off-ramping, targeted cessation support should be provided for people who use ENDS and are trying to quit cigarettes.

Challenges in legitimizing further measures against smoking in jurisdictions with robust infrastructure for tobacco control: how far can the authorities allow themselves to go?

BACKGROUND

According to a recently published study, approximately half of those who currently smoke in Norway have little or no desire to quit despite a hostile regulatory and socio-cultural climate for smoking. On this background, we discuss some challenges that regulators will face in a further tightening of structural measures to curb smoking.

MAIN BODY

Central to our discussion is the research literature concerned with the concept of state-paternalism in tobacco control-the line between an ethically justified interference with the freedom of those who smoke and an exaggerated infringement disproportionate to the same people's right to live as they choose. In countries with an already advanced infrastructure for tobacco control, this dilemma might become quite intrusive for regulators. We ask that if people, who smoke are aware of and have accepted the risks, are willing to pay the price, smoke exclusively in designated areas, and make decisions uninfluenced by persuasive messages from manufacturers-is a further tightening of anti-smoking measures still legitimate? Strengthening of the infrastructure for tobacco control can be seen as a "help" to people who-due to some sort of "decision failure"-continue to smoke against their own will. However, for those who want to continue smoking for reasons that for them appear rational, such measures may appear unwanted, punitive, and coercive. Is it within the rights of regulators to ignore peoples' self-determination for the sake of their own good? We problematize the "help" argument and discuss the authorities' right to elevate the zero-vision of smoking as universally applicable while at the same time setting up barriers to switching to alternative nicotine products with reduced risk.

CONCLUSION

We recommend that a further intensification of smoking control in countries that already have a well-developed policy in this area requires that regulators start to exploit the opportunity that lies in the ongoing diversification of the recreational nicotine market.

Ethics and ENDS

As debate persists over regulating electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS), those favouring liberal ENDS policies have advanced rights-based arguments privileging harm reduction to people who smoke over harm prevention to children and never-smokers. Recent ethical arguments advocate regulating ENDS to prioritise their harm reduction potential for people who currently smoke over any future harm to young never-smokers. In this article, we critically assess these arguments, in particular, the assumption that ethical arguments for prioritising the interests of young people do not apply to ENDS. We argue that, when the appropriate comparators are used, it is not clear the weight of ethical argument tips in favour of those who currently smoke and against young never-smokers. We also assert that arguments from a resource prioritisation context are not appropriate for analysing ENDS regulation, because ENDS are not a scarce resource. Further, we reject utilitarian arguments regarding maximising net population health benefits, as these do not adequately consider vulnerable groups' rights, or address the population distribution of benefits and harms. Lastly, we argue that one-directional considerations of harm reduction do not recognise that ENDS potentially increase harm to those who do not smoke and who would not otherwise have initiated nicotine use.

Fundamentals of vaping-associated pulmonary injury leading to severe respiratory distress

Vaping of flavored liquids has been touted as safe alternative to traditional cigarette smoking with decreased health risks. The popularity of vaping has dramatically increased over the last decade, particularly among teenagers who incorporate vaping into their daily life as a social activity. Despite widespread and increasing adoption of vaping among young adults, there is little information on long-term consequences of vaping and potential health risks. This study demonstrates vaping-induced pulmonary injury using commercial JUUL pens with flavored vape juice using an inhalation exposure murine model. Profound pathological changes to upper airway, lung tissue architecture, and cellular structure are evident within 9 wk of exposure. Marked histologic changes include increased parenchyma tissue density, cellular infiltrates proximal to airway passages, alveolar rarefaction, increased collagen deposition, and bronchial thickening with elastin fiber disruption. Transcriptional reprogramming includes significant changes to gene families coding for xenobiotic response, glycerolipid metabolic processes, and oxidative stress. Cardiac systemic output is moderately but significantly impaired with pulmonary side ventricular chamber enlargement. This vaping-induced pulmonary injury model demonstrates mechanistic underpinnings of vaping-related pathologic injury.

Vaping Restrictions: Is Priority to the Young Justified?

The vast majority of smokers become dependent on nicotine in youth. Preventing dependence has therefore been crucial to the recent decline in youth smoking. The advent of vaping creates an opportunity for harm reduction to existing smokers (mostly adults) but simultaneously also undermines prevention efforts by becoming a new vehicle for young people to become dependent on nicotine, creating an ethical dilemma. Restrictions to access to some vaping products enacted in response to the increase in vaping among youth observed in the United States since 2018 have arguably prioritized prevention of new cases of dependence-protecting the young-over harm reduction to already dependent adults. Can this prioritization of the young be justified? This article surveys the main bioethical arguments for prioritizing giving health benefits to the young and finds that none can justify prioritizing dependence prevention over harm reduction: any reasons for prioritizing the current cohort of young people at risk from vaping will equally apply to current adult smokers, who are overwhelmingly likely to have become nicotine-dependent in their own youth. Public health authorities' current tendency to prioritize the young, therefore, does not seem to be ethically justified.

IMPLICATIONS

This article argues that commonsense reasons for prioritizing the young do not apply to the ethical dilemma surrounding restricting access to vaping products.