Science says don't ban vapes, not even flavoured ones

The economic discussion about vapes and cigarettes is whether they are complements or substitutes. Do people who use vapes then smoke the same or a larger number of cigarettes? Therefore a complement. Or fewer? Therefore a substitute. Most outside the weirder end of the public health racket would suggest substitutes. Therefore while vapes may or may not be great if you wish to reduce the smoking of cigarettes they’re absolutely gggreat, as Tony the Tiger would say.

Then we’ve some actual science:

Over 375 US localities and 7 states have adopted permanent restrictions on sales of flavored electronic nicotine delivery systems (“ENDS”). These policies’ effects on combustible cigarette use (“smoking”), a more lethal habit, remain unclear. Matching new flavor policy data to retail sales data, we find a tradeoff of 15 additional cigarettes for every 1 less 0.7 mL ENDS pod sold due to ENDS flavor restrictions. Further, cigarette sales increase even among brands disproportionately used by underage youth. Thus, any public health benefits of reducing ENDS use via flavor restrictions may be offset by public health costs from increased cigarette sales.

Yes, even bubble gum flavoured vapes that might - might - be marketed to children are a good idea if we want to reduce cigarette smoking. Because they are substitutes, not complements.

Which does lead to an important series of questions. Why do we ban vapes for children? Why are we going to ban flavours? Or even, why have we allowed the weirder end of the public health racket to gain any influence, let alone power, over policy?

For it’s not just whatever our position might be on whether they’re mad, bad, terrible to know. It’s that they’re wrong. Strikingly, aggressively, 180 degrees, wrong.

Given this, why is anyone listening to these people? Perhaps equally relevantly, why are we paying them?