A new study from researchers at Boston University has indicated that misinformation stemming from outbreaks of vaping-related illnesses in the fall of 2019 has led to an increase in cigarette consumption across the country. Cases of EVALI, which misleadingly stands for e-cigarette or vaping-use associated lung injury, sharply increased in August 2019 before peaking a month later in September. During this time, public health officials offered little explanation for the outbreak, simply attributing it to “vaping”. 

Cases had subsided by November, when the Center for Disease Control finally put out a statement acknowledging what by then was common knowledge and identified in Vitamin E Acetate, a compound found exclusively in some illicit, black-market tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) vapes, as responsible for the outbreak. Vapes that contain THC, a psychoactive compound found in marijuana, are completely unrelated from e-cigarettes and other nicotine-containing vapes, and the chemical composition of e-cigarettes is such that it is physically impossible for them to be laced with products such as Vitamin E Acetate in the manner that THC products can be. Unfortunately, by the time the CDC put out a statement, public perception had been considerably altered beyond repair.  

The media, public health officials, and lawmakers aggregated legal reduced risk smoking alternatives like nicotine e-cigarettes with black market illegal THC-containing products under the umbrella of “vaping”, despite the overwhelming difference between the two. This decision did extraordinary damage to the reputation of e-cigarettes, which have been proven 95% safer than traditional combustible tobacco, and the most effective quit-smoking tool on the market, and this misinformation has now been proven to have caused serious harm to public health. Published in the Harm Reduction Journal, this recent study from researchers at BU examined the impacts of the EVALI outbreak on e-cigarette and combustible cigarette sales.  

In addition, the study looked at Massachusetts’ ban on all vaping products that implemented in September 2019 until December 2019. The prohibition completely lacked any scientific or evidence-based reasoning and forced the closure of numerous small vape shops, costing hundreds of jobs. While a majority of shops returned to businesses after the prohibition was lifted, many shops never reopened. The crucial takeaways from the study are discussed below and the full study can be read here. 

Key Findings:  

• Many governments and health organizations used the EVALI outbreak as a reason to restrict e-cigarette use.  

• Messaging that questioned the safety of nicotine-containing e-cigarettes, “led to an increase in combustible cigarette use”. 

• Before the EVALI outbreak and resulting e-cigarette bans, cigarette sales in the US were decreasing significantly. In Massachusetts, cigarette sales were decreasing significantly greater than in the rest of the country.  

• After the EVALI outbreak and resulting e-cigarette bans, “e-cigarette purchases decreased significantly while cigarette purchases increased” in the US and Massachusetts. 

• There is a "need for health authorities to reconsider how they communicate the relative risks of smoking and vaping”. 

• Even after the CDC identified THC-containing vapes as the cause of EVALI and Massachusetts' vape ban was lifted cigarette sales stayed steady, illustrating the damage done to public opinion. 

Massachusetts’ response to the EVALI outbreak should serve as a warning to reactionary lawmakers who seek to implement policies without any basis in scientific evidence. Governor Charlie Baker and the Massachusetts Legislature ought to have taken the time to understand the science behind e-cigarettes and harm reduction. If they had done so, they very likely would have come to a different solution, one that would have avoided doing irreversible harm to public health. 

E-cigarettes are proven to be 95% less harmful than traditional cigarettes and have been endorsed by dozens of the world’s leading public health organizations as safer than smoking an effective way to help smokers quit. There is a plethora of evidence available that policy makers can access demonstrating the importance of maintaining access to e-cigarettes for adults. According to a study from the Georgetown University Medical Centre, 6.6 million premature deaths would be avoided over the next ten years if a majority of cigarette smokers made the switch to vaping.  

E-cigarette bans and fear-driven hysteria confuse consumers about the safety of these products, preventing them from making evidence-based decisions about their health. Encouraging smokers to make the switch to vaping will save lives and transform futures. Poor messaging and misinformed legislation will only keep people smoking, and dying from, combustible cigarettes.  

The EVALI outbreak resulted in the deaths of 68 people across the United States. The anti-science response to the outbreak, and the resulting increase in cigarette consumption across the country, will undoubtedly kill many, many more. 

Earlier this month, U.S. Representative Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Illinois) introduced H.R. 3051 which seeks to implement a cap on nicotine concentration in e-cigarettes at 20 milligrams per milliliter. The proposed bill, titled the END ENDS Act (Ending Nicotine Dependency from Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems), is aimed at “making e-cigarettes less addictive and appealing to youth”. While well-intentioned, Rep. Krishnamoorthi’s proposal would increase youth smoking, prevent adult cigarette smokers from quitting, and devastate countless small businesses across the country. 

In a press release, Rep. Krishnamoorthi stated that the intent of H.R. 3051 is to, “successfully replicate international efforts to prevent youth from using e-cigarettes". Citing the United Kingdom and European Union as examples, Rep. Krishnamoorthi correctly claims that imposed caps on nicotine levels have led to lower rates of youth vaping in those countries. However, he chooses to ignore the overwhelming evidence that nicotine caps have led to increases in youth cigarette smoking. 

Comparing youth nicotine use in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom, the overall rate of nicotine use is nearly identical. In the US, the rate of those aged 16-19 who reported vaping or smoking in the last 30 days was 21.3% as of 2019. The rate of prevalence was 21.6% in Canada and 21.0% in the UK.  

However, when looking at the data more closely, the situation is significantly worse in the UK than the US or Canada. 8.4% of youth between the ages of 16 and 19 smoked only cigarettes in the past 30 days in the UK, while a mere 2.8% of youth in the US smoked only cigarettes. In Canada, 3.8% of youth reported smoking only cigarettes in the past 30 days.  

The United Kingdom has a 20 mg/ml cap on nicotine concentration, identical to the proposal of Rep. Krishnamoorthi. If youth smoking rates are any indication, this policy has not been successful at improving public health. E-cigarettes are proven to be 95% less harmful than combustible cigarettes and have been endorsed by dozens of the world’s leading public health organizations as safer than smoking. Decreasing youth vaping use is critical and should be addressed, but policies that would lower e-cigarette prevalence at the expense of increased cigarette smoking among teenagers would harm the health of our youth more than e-cigarettes ever could. 

It is also vital to acknowledge that nicotine caps hurt adult cigarette smokers seeking to quit. E-cigarettes are the most effective method of smoking cessation, more than twice as effective as nicotine patches or gum. Capping the amount of nicotine allowed in e-cigarettes makes it much more difficult for vapes to compete with cigarettes, protecting cigarette companies and their sales at the expense of public health. E-cigarettes must be able to deliver sufficient nicotine to quell the cravings of those addicted to nicotine and lowering the amount of nicotine removes their ability to do so. Data shows this, as a study of adult smokers demonstrated that higher levels of nicotine “significantly reduced craving and withdrawal”, compared to lower strength nicotine. 

There is also noteworthy evidence revealing that nicotine caps make it harder for adults to quit smoking. The rates of cigarette smokers switching to e-cigarettes is 40% lower in the UK, where a 20 mg/ml limit exists, then in the United States and Canada where no such limit is yet in place nationwide. 

In addition to helping smokers quit, high strength e-cigarettes are immensely valuable for members of disadvantaged groups, like those struggling with schizophrenia and other mental-health related illnesses. A study authored by Dr. Richard Polosa and published by the Oxford University Press found that, among a sample of schizophrenic cigarette smokers, 40% had completely quit cigarette use after twelve weeks of vaping high strength nicotine products and 92.5% of participants had reduced their cigarette consumption by 50% or more. By the end of the study, 61.9% of participants reported feeling more awake, less irritable, and had a greater ability to concentrate.  

With data showing that people with mental health issues smoke at three to four times the national average, it is unsurprising that a study from researchers at the University of Glasgow determined that e-cigarettes are particularly helpful for members of disadvantaged communities. Imposing a nicotine cap, which would prohibit products like the one used by Dr. Polosa in his study, would exacerbate existing socioeconomic inequalities in health and fail to address such disparities. 

In the Canadian province of Nova Scotia, a 20 mg/ml nicotine cap was implemented in April of 2020 along with a ban on flavored vape products. This policy caused the closure of 50% of all specialty vape shops in the province, destroying businesses and livelihoods. Additionally, cigarette sales increased by 25%, further evidence that nicotine caps drive vapers back to higher risk, combustible cigarettes. 

While these harmful effects were in part a result of the flavor ban, which is not included in H.R. 3051, Rep. Krishnamoorthi signed on to a letter earlier this year that called for the removal of all flavored e-cigarettes. Nicotine caps are a part, but not all, of the anti-vaping agenda being pushed by advocates on both sides of the aisle. Flavor bans are another aspect of this agenda and at least 13 states have introduced proposals to ban flavors in e-cigarettes. If implemented, these policies will increase smoking rates among youths and adults, prevent adult cigarette smokers from making the life-saving switch to vaping, and ravage businesses all over the US, costing thousands of jobs. In the interests of public health and protecting the American economy at a time when it is most vulnerable, H.R. 3051 must be rejected.  

Americans for Tax Reform send a letter to the Senate and House sponsors of the Local Radio Freedom Act, that reasserts our long-held position that the government should not insert itself into markets.

You can read the full letter below and linked to here.

Dear Congressman:

I am writing today to clarify Americans for Tax Reform’s position on licensing and copyright, especially as it pertains to what does and does not constitute a tax.

As language circulates concerning music distribution, we urge the consideration of the entire universe of music distribution and how copyright is applied. Artists and distributors, including broadcasters, should have the opportunity for free-market negotiations, as do other businesses.

When Congress considers reform, it should support market forces rather than increased government intervention as the best tool for unleashing innovation and fostering creativity.

All parties, e.g., writers, artists, recording companies, broadcasting companies and others, should be allowed to negotiate mutually agreeable terms. There is no way, ultimately, for a legislator to decide what the fair market value of a product or service is.

We should move toward a market where setting prices; forbidding actions on one side or another; preventing the acceptance of payment for one service or another; or prohibiting collection of compensation for the use of property, are things of the past. We should not prevent compensation for work created or compensation from promotion supplied. This should not be a regulatory issue. This should be the work of a functional market.

The debate on performance rights is an interesting and important one. Ultimately, it should be made in the marketplace, not in House and Senate office buildings. Prior private agreements between music creators and record labels demonstrate that the performance rights issue is better addressed through private contracts than a broad government mandate.

By definition, charging for content is not a tax. Specifically, a performance right is not a tax. We often correct tax proponents who try to call a new tax something (anything) other than a tax, however, the term “tax” doesn’t apply in this case.

We believe in an open and free market, and the vigilant protection of property rights. Government should extract itself from this debate to allow an environment for negotiations to develop among broadcasters, record companies, artists, and other interested parties.

Moving forward, I urge you to enact reforms that protect intellectual property, nurture the private sector and allow the free market to determine prices and compensation for labor and intellectual property.

Onward,

Americans for Tax Reform president Grover Norquist called out President Biden for his attempts to undermine American intellectual property rights.

In a triumph of hard work and ingenuity, American manufacturers created lifesaving vaccines at a record pace. But Biden recently announced a radical decision to strip IP rights from these manufacturers.

Appearing on Newsmax TV's The Count this weekend, Norquist said:

“And an additional damage to the economy – and you are talking about China recently – the President said all of the work that American companies put into finding the vaccine, to getting it on warp speed, to getting it in less than a year rather than more than two years -- they now want to hand over to other countries for free. Now, how are you going to get people to invest in the next vaccine if you take away their intellectual property?

The good news here is that other countries may save us. Germany -- in Merkel the leader there, and the entire legislature -- voted no to breaking the intellectual property rights of firms that have invested in vaccines. It takes a number of countries to agree to do this, Biden cannot do this by himself and right now the Germans are providing common sense to tell the United States not to throw away its intellectual property or hand it to the Chinese, to the Indians, and to others to just take advantage of and manufacture stuff.

I mean we’ve made this vaccine, we can certainly make more of it, we can sell it at a reasonable price to the world, but throwing away the intellectual property. [IP] is why the United States is better off economically than other countries."

WATCH:

Biden's move would not help end the pandemic and would undermine U.S. medical innovation, jobs, and the Constitution.  

Strong IP protections have facilitated the creation of highly effective COVID-19 vaccines.

Biden’s decision to support an IP waiver for COVID-19 innovations will create a precedent that IP rights can easily be waived or undermined when government bureaucrats find it convenient. Surrendering on IP rights will also provide an implicit endorsement of the rampant theft of American IP by China. The U.S. should be doing more, not less to defend American IP.  

Foreign countries like India and South Africa have been petitioning the World Trade Organization (WTO) to suspend IP rights associated with COVID-19 innovations.

The Chinese state media has already praised President Biden for giving into "global pressure."

Chen Weihua of China Daily, China state-affiliated media, replied to the decision in a tweet:

So global pressure works. And I hope it does not take forever for this to be a reality.

— Chen Weihua （陈卫华） (@chenweihua) May 5, 2021

According to the Washington Post, the administration’s decision was made in a Tuesday meeting with President Biden. Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo, who had concerns about the waiver, was not included in the meeting. 

IP rights are explicitly protected in the constitution. The Founding Fathers recognized the importance of intellectual property rights in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”   

Strong IP rights are vital because they turn new ideas into tangible goods and services that improve the quality of life for Americans by creating high-paying jobs and increasing economic growth.    

Without IP rights, medical innovators will have no incentive to create new treatments and cures as they will have no way to recoup the investments they made in developing new medicines. Patent exclusivity for medicines has been deliberately legislated to ensure that creativity, innovation, and medical growth are protected.   

Because of these policies, the U.S. is a world leader when it comes to medical innovation. According to research by the Galen Institute, 290 new medical substances were launched worldwide between 2011 and 2018. The U.S. had access to 90 percent of these cures, a rate far greater than comparable foreign countries. By comparison, the United Kingdom had access to 60 percent of medicines, Japan had 50 percent, and Canada had just 44 percent.  

Strong IP for medicines also supports millions of American jobs. Nationwide, the pharmaceutical industry directly or indirectly accounts for over four million jobs across the U.S and in every state, according to research by TEconomy Partners, LLC. This includes 800,000 direct jobs, 1.4 million indirect jobs, and 1.8 million induced jobs, which include retail and service jobs that are supported by spending from pharmaceutical workers and suppliers.  

The average annual wage of a pharmaceutical worker in 2017 was $126,587, which is more than double the average private sector wage of $60,000. 

Many lawmakers have rightly spoken out against this decision already. For instance, Senator Richard Burr (R-N.C.) and Ways and Means Republican Leader Kevin Brady (R-Texas) have condemned Biden’s decision to surrender on American IP protections. In addition, Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.) has introduced a bill to prevent the Biden admin from undermining IP rights, titled the "Preventing Foreign Attempts to Erode Healthcare Innovation Act."

The Biden administration should reverse its position. Rather than surrendering to foreign governments and global bureaucracies, the administration should stand strong and protect intellectual property rights.