Daily Archives: October 28, 2021

Researchers found that adolescents who say they vaped cannabis within the last 30 days increased 7-fold from 2013 to 2020. Charlotte Observer/Tribune News Service via Getty Images hide caption

Researchers found that adolescents who say they vaped cannabis within the last 30 days increased 7-fold from 2013 to 2020.

Teen vaping of marijuana doubled between 2013 and 2020, indicating that young people may be swapping out joints, pipes or bongs for vape pens, according to a new study.

Researchers also found that adolescents who say they vaped cannabis within the last 30 days increased 7-fold from 1.6% to 8.4% during the same period.

The report was published in JAMA Pediatrics on Monday by researchers who analyzed 17 studies involving nearly 200,000 adolescents in the U.S. and Canada. Overall, they say, the cumulative data points to what may be a shift in preference from dried herb to cannabis oil products, which is how marijuana is ingested via vaping.

This may be due to the more intense high that can be achieved by cannabis oils, which contain higher levels of THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, and the misconception that vaping devices are safer than smoking.

However, researchers stressed that vaping marijuana poses serious health dangers for teens.

"Regular use of high THC products could increase the risk of dependence, other substance use and many other health, social and behavioral problems later in life," study author Carmen Lim, a doctoral candidate in health and behavioral sciences at the University of Queensland in Australia, told NPR.

The Monitoring the Future survey a large U.S. survey on drug and alcohol use related attitudes in adolescents is one of the 17 studies included in the new meta-analysis. Although it showed that marijuana use has remained relatively stable among 12th graders in the last few years, hovering around the 35% mark, the growing popularity of electronic pot vaping devices is alarming, Lim said.

"Since marijuana is currently illegal at the federal level, many products are not regulated," she explained.

She noted that the amount of toxicant in marijuana vapes, including cutting agents such as Vitamin E acetate, which can interfere with normal lung functioning when inhaled, remains unknown.

The Centers for Disease and Prevention reported an outbreak of more than 2,800 cases of lung injury, including 68 deaths, that were linked to e-cigarettes and vaping products between March 2019 and February 2020. Investigators eventually determined that the vast majority of people who had sustained lung injuries after vaping had consumed THC-containing products, many of which also contained Vitamin E acetate.

Carol Boyd, co-director of the Center for the Study of Drugs, Alcohol, Smoking and Health at the University of Michigan, told NPR "vaping marijuana appears even worse" for young people than vaping nicotine products.

The 2020 Monitoring the Future survey found that "adolescents' lifetime cannabis vaping" use was associated with several adverse respiratory symptoms.

"In contrast to smoking cannabis, vaping marijuana with an electronic nicotine device increased the likelihood that adolescents would have worrisome pulmonary symptoms, including things like wheezing or whistling in their chest," Boyd said.

They are also more likely to have their sleep disturbed by wheezing and experience a dry cough when exercising, she added.

"They vape because they think it's safer but that's not necessarily the case," Boyd said. "They are misleading themselves."

The study advocates for greater investment in intervention and prevention measures, including better regulation of cannabis vaping products and bans on advertising that target young people.

Read the rest here:

Cannabis vaping among teens has grown sharply in recent years - NPR

To the editor:

Teens all over the country are being influenced by vapes. Vapes are being marketed towards the younger population due to all the fun, different flavors they put out. Over half of teens that vape have said that they do it because of the flavors, along with it being the fun, cool thing to do nowadays.

There has been a recent push to ban all non-tobacco flavored vapes, to try to decrease the number of users. A lot of teens think that vaping is not as harmful as smoking cigarettes, and some are under the assumption that they cannot get addicted to the nicotine in them.

They are wrong. While theyre generally thought to be less harmful than smoking, a lot of the long-term effects of vaping are unknown. Recently, there has been a lung disease that has been able to be tied back to vaping called EVALI, which implies that vaping may have more potentially harmful side effects than people are aware of.

Nicotine has also been shown to possibly harm the developing adolescent brain by effecting the parts that control attention, learning, mood, and impulse control. Overall, teen vaping has several effects on the body along with increasing the risk of them becoming addicted to other drugs in the future.

If you or someone you know wants to quit vaping and needs help you can call or text 1-855-891-9989 and youll be put in contact with a youth coach who can provide free and confidential counseling sessions.

KIMBERLEE WIGGERS,

Youngstown State University nursing student,

Lisbon

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

See the article here:

Teens and the dangers of vaping | News, Sports, Jobs - Morning Journal News

In 2016 the Food & Drug Administration "deemed" electronic cigarettes, vaping pens, and other electronic Nicotine delivery systems ("ENDS") to be "tobacco products" under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. As a consequence, all ENDS manufacturers were required to submit premarket tobacco applications (PMTAs) in order to continue selling their wares. Under the Tobacco Act, the FDA is only to approve a PMTA if it concludes approval is "appropriate for the protection of public health," taking into account "the risks and benefits to the population as a whole." Without a PMTA, a deemed tobacco product cannot be sold.

PMTAs are supposed to be submitted before a new tobacco product is sold, but this was impossible since the FDA's rule applied to products already on the market. Accordingly, the FDA announced that ENDS manufacturers would have two years to prepare and submit the lengthy and detailed materials necessary for their applications before they would face the prospect of FDA enforcement. The FDA soon realized that the material and information necessary for PMTAs would be substantial, particularly because a separate PMTA is required for each product, defined quite capaciously (i.e. each package size, each flavor, each nicotine level, each delivery system, etc.). So the FDA tried to extend the enforcement deadline until 2022, but anti-tobacco groups sued, and they settled on a 2020 deadline.

The FDA ultimately received applications for over 4.8 million ENDS products from 230 companies. Needless to say, this is a bit more than the agency anticipated, and it has been working to process the applications, denying most of them. Because a PMTA denial is a death sentence, some disappointed ENDS producers have filed suit, challenging the denials and seeking judicial orders blocking FDA enforcement in the meantime.

Yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled on one company's application for a stay pending resolution of its petition challenging the FDA's denial of its PMTAs. The court's opinion inWages and White Lion Investments LLC v. USFDA (WWLI) is a blistering indictment of the agency's decision-making and evaluation of ENDS PMTAs.

InWWLIa unanimous panel granted Triton Distribution's application for a stay, concluding that it had demonstrated not only a strong likelihood of success on the merits, but also that it would suffer irreparable injury without a stay, and the government would not.

A key problem with the way that the FDA handled the PMTAs filed by Triton (and other ENDS manufacturers) is that the FDA based its denial of their applications on a different standard than it had told companies they have to meet. This sort of action is at the heart of arbitrary agency action, and is antithetical to principles of due process.

For years, the FDA had informed ENDS manufacturers that they would not need to conduct long-term health studies on their individual products for their applications. This only makes sense, as ENDS manufacturers only had a limited period of time to prepare their materials. Yet, on August 26 when the FDA announced it was denying PMTAs for 55,000 flavored e-cigarette products, it claimed that such studies were "likely" necessary for approval. A few weeks later, the FDA denied Triton's applications, explaining that the key basis" for the denial, was the lack of "robust and reliable evidence" from long-term studies of the sort FDA had previously told manufacturers were unnecessary. (Triton had nonetheless committed to conduct such studies, but the FDA refused to consider that assurance.)

As Judge Oldham's opinion makes clear, the FDA's decision-making in denying Triton's application is an almost textbook example of what agencies arenot supposed to do. It both changed course without adequate explanation or consideration of serious reliance interests while simultaneously refusing to consider multiple relevant factors and information submitted by Triton.

Here are a few examples from Oldham's opinion:

The FDA failed to reasonably consider Triton's proposed marketing plan. The FDA repeatedly stated that a marketing plan is "a critical factor in[] FDA's statutorily required determination." Premarket Tobacco Product Applications and Recordkeeping Requirements, 86 Fed. Reg. 55,300, 55,324 (Oct. 5, 2021) ("Final Rule"); see also 84 Fed. Reg. 50,566, 50,581 (Sept. 25, 2019) ("Proposed Rule") ("The applicant's marketing plans . . . will provide input that is critical to FDA's determination of the likelihood of changes in tobacco product use behavior, especially when considered in conjunction with other information contained in the application." (emphasis added)); A.45 n.xix ("Limiting youth access and exposure to marketing is a critical aspect of product regulation." (emphasis added)); A.45 (Premarket "assessment includes evaluating the appropriateness of the proposed marketing plan."). Here, however, the FDA simply ignored Triton's plan. It stated: "[F]or the sake of efficiency, the evaluation of the marketing plan in applications will not occur at this stage of review, and we have not evaluated any marketing plans submitted with these applications."

The FDA's excuses for ignoring the "critical factor" of Triton's marketing plan are unpersuasive. First, the FDA says it didn't evaluate Triton's plan for "the sake of efficiency." Ibid. But "efficiency" is no substitute for "reasoned decisionmaking." Michigan, 576 U.S. at 750; see also Judulang v. Holder, 565 U.S. 42, 64 (2011) (emphasizing that "cheapness alone cannot save an arbitrary agency policy"). . . .

In a footnote Judge Oldham notes that the FDA's failure to consider Triton's marketing plan, and how it would control youth access, was particularly striking given that then-FDA Commissioner Scott Gottleib had identified Triton's approach as "best practices."

And then there are Trtiton's reliance interests, which the FDA disregarded in the course of its regulatory "switcheroo."

Between the Deeming Rule's effective date and the deadline for PMTAs, the FDA held public meetings and issued guidance on how e-cigarette manufacturers could get premarket authorization. In its "final guidance," the FDA stated that it did not "expect" that tobacco manufacturers would need to conduct long-term studies to support their PMTA. See, e.g., A.7374; A.92; see also Nicopure Labs, LLC v. FDA, 944 F.3d 267, 282 (D.C. Cir. 2019) ("The FDA has expressed willingness to accept scientific literature reviews instead of commissioned studies in support of e-cigarette applications in appropriate circumstances."). The FDA's expectation did not deviate in its Proposed Rule issued before the Order or the Final Rule issued a couple weeks after the Order. See Final Rule, 86 Fed. Reg. at 55,387 ("FDA does not expect that long-term clinical studies will need to be conducted for each PMTA; instead, it expects that it should be able to rely on other valid scientific evidence to evaluate some PMTAs."); Proposed Rule, 84 Fed. Reg. at 50,619 (similar). Many e-cigarette companies relied on the FDA's repeated insistence that it did "not expect that applicants will have to conduct long-term studies to support an application" and did not perform or submit such evidence.

Then the FDA "pull[ed] a surprise switcheroo on regulated entities." Env't Integrity Project v. EPA, 425 F.3d 992, 996 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (Sentelle, J.); accord Azar v. Allina Health Servs., 139 S. Ct. 1804, 1810 (2019) (citing the "surprise switcheroo" doctrine). Almost a year after the PMTA deadline, the FDA issued its first marketing denial orders for various flavored e-cigarettes and announced that it required the very studies it originally expected it didn't need. . . . Despite the radical difference, the FDA never mentioned, let alone reasonably considered, whether e-cigarette manufacturers, like Triton, could've reasonably relied on the FDA's prior meetings and guidance.

The law requires more. "When an agency changes course, . . . it must be cognizant that longstanding policies may have engendered serious reliance interests that must be taken into account." Regents, 140 S. Ct. at 1913 (quotation omitted). This does not mean that the FDA could not have "determine[d], in the particular context before it, that other interests and policy concerns outweigh any reliance interests. Making that difficult decision was the agency's job, but the agency failed to do it." Id. at 1914. This reinforces that the Order was likely arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise unlawful.

The FDA further failed to consider Triton's reliance interests, whether there were alternatives to denial on this basis, and other evidence submitted by Triton. As Judge Oldham noted, the FDA responded more to some of Triton's claims before the Fifth Circuit than it had when rejecting Triton's PMTA. The court also found that that, on balance, a majority of the other relevant factors favored granting Triton's request for a stay

The opinion also rejected the government's (in my view, borderline frivolous) argument that Triton sought relief -- a stay of FDA enforcement action -- that the court could not give. Yet just as a court could issue a stay barring the deportation of an unlawfully present alien pending review of the alien's claim for asylum or lawful presence, a court may order an administrative agency defendant to preserve the status quo pending the outcome of the litigation (in this case, by not initiating an enforcement action). How a government attorney argued the alternative is beyond me, particularly given the innovative and aggressive arguments in favor of expansive judicial authority to enter stays the federal government is currently making in the S.B. 8 litigation (something which I doubt was lost on this panel).

The Fifth Circuit's WWLI decision indicates the FDA faces a tough road ahead defending many of its PMTA denials--and it appears the FDA knows it. Other manufacturers have also sought relief in court, and even before the Fifth Circuit's decision issued the FDA was already beginning to back down. For instance, on October 11, in the face of a pending stay request before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the FDA agreed to rescind its denial of PMTAs submitted by Turning Point Brands.

What is particularly galling about the FDA's treatment of ENDS manufacturers is that the FDA is well-aware that ENDS products pose far less risk to users than traditional, combustible cigarettes, and has acknowledged that ENDS can help some smokers quit. Further, there is substantial evidence that limitations on ENDS products will increase smoking, particularly among youth (as has been well-documented). Thus the FDA's cavalier rejection of PMTAs is not only arbitrary and capricious, it is contrary to the FDA's underlying public health mission (and may also be unconstitutional).

The rest is here:

Fifth Circuit Rebukes FDA for Regulatory "Switcheroo" in Denying Vaping Product Applications - Reason

A proposed ban on the sale of flavored tobacco and vaping products in Denver got bogged down Wednesday as members of the City Councils safety committee debated a handful of amendments including changes that would exempt hookah lounges and menthol cigarettes.

Committee members will have three weeks to work on things behind the scenes, agreeing Wednesday to pick up the measure and the five changes proposed so far again at a meeting on Nov. 17 before it can be moved along for consideration by the entire City Council.

Brought forth earlier this month by Councilmembers Amanda Sawyer and Debbie Ortega, the ordinance would make it illegal to sell items including flavored cigars, e-cigarettes, vape pens, vape juices, menthol cigarettes and shisha, the flavored tobacco used in hookah pipes in Denver. The sponsors and their backers argue its a public imperative, with flavored products being used to lure in young people and make them smokers for life.

The youth smoking and vaping epidemic is what we are trying to solve for here, Sawyer said Wednesday. It is an extraordinary problem. It has been declared an epidemic by the Surgeon General.

Adults over 21 could still possess and use those products but they would have to buy them somewhere outside city limits. Seven other Colorado municipalities have similar bans.

Some of Sawyers fellow safety committee members disagreed with an approach they view as too restrictive and likely to drive many small retailers out of businesses.

This is not being done with a scalpel, its being done with a sledgehammer and we are going to impact adults and prevent them from buying products that they want to buy, Councilwoman Kendra Black said.

Proposed amendments talked about Wednesday included an exemption for premium cigars and pipe tobacco and another carve-out for menthol cigarettes.

Councilman Kevin Flynn proposed the menthol amendment late Tuesday night after he said he heard from members of Denvers Black community that both favored and opposed the inclusion of menthol products, a style of tobacco products that has been disproportionately marketed to the Black people. He didnt see it as the Councils place to take that decision out of peoples hands.

The hookah lounge exception is viewed as the most important change to its backers because all shisha is flavored tobacco. The practice of smoking shisha out of hookah pipes in communal settings is a cultural practice that goes back centuries in many Middle Eastern cultures.

As written, the flavor (ban) would put all of the hookah lounges out of business, said Councilman Jolon Clark, who proposed the amendment.

Earlier on the meeting, Clark brought a separate proposed ordinance forward that would make it illegal for hookah lounges to allow customers to smoke between midnight and 7 a.m. The 15 to 20 lounges operating in the city today can stay open after bars close at 2 a.m., leading some, including one located in Clarks District 7, to become hotspots for early morning violence and other bad behavior, he said.

That measure was forwarded to the entire Council and was back by the National Hookah Community Association.

We are behind reasonable regulation that addresses the main issue, said Rima Khoury, an attorney with shisha brand Fumari and secretary of the association said via Zoom. Khoury added, a broad ban on flavors would have unintended consequences since shisha has always been flavored.

Sawyer told The Denver Post earlier this month that the lobbying effort around the proposed ban has been intense. On Wednesday she said she and Councilwoman Ortega were opposed to amendments that might erode the value of this proposal.

View post:

Denvers proposed ban on flavored tobacco, vape products may be tweaked to exempt hookah lounges, menthol products - The Denver Post

The U.S. Postal Service (USPS) has officially banned the mailing of vaping products and that includes cannabis, as well as federally legal CBD vapes and nicotine.

The agency announced the final rule on Wednesday to comply with legislation passed last year to stop nicotine vapes from being shipped through the U.S. mail.

While the law bans "electronic nicotine delivery systems," it defines them broadly as "any electronic device that, through an aerosolized solution, delivers nicotine, flavor, or any other substance to the user inhaling from the device."

"It goes without saying that marijuana, hemp, and their derivatives are substances," the agency said, as reported by Marijuana Moment. "Hence, to the extent that they may be delivered to an inhaling user through an aerosolized solution, they and the related delivery systems, parts, components, liquids, and accessories clearly fall within the [Preventing Online Sales of E-Cigarettes to Children Act's] scope."

There are exceptions: vapes can be shipped within the states of Alaska and Hawaii, verified businesses can mail vapes to each other or to government agencies, and individuals can ship up to 10 electronic nicotine delivery systems for non-commercial use per 30 days.

Hemp-derived products can be shipped, but only if they're not vaping products.

See more here:

Please Stop Sending Cannabis Vapes In the Mail, Says USPS - Cleveland Scene

October 24, 2021Updated October 24, 2021 at 4:11 pm

Ive heard many adults refer to vaping and juuling as the epidemic of our generationa title that has lost its bite in the past year due to the actual pandemic. But the sentiment remains as campaigns across the country continue to crack down on vape usage.

Boston College followed suit by updating its smoking policy as of Aug. 1, 2020 to include vaping on its list of prohibited activities, therefore making it punishable to vape on campus. The University recognizes not only the health risks associated with the carcinogens and toxic chemicals in vapes but also the difficulty associated with quitting, and hopes that students take advantage of the resources necessary to quit.

Regardless of the Universitys policy, however, vaping persists. In my personal experience, there has been at least one person with some type of vape at every social gathering Ive been to, without exception.

I think it is safe to say, at this point, we are all pretty aware of the health effects of vaping. Without getting into minutiae, we know that vaping is just not good for us. And generally, if we know the chemicals in vapes are not good for our own health, then by extension those chemicals cannot be good for the health of plants, animals, micro-organisms, etc. Whether we intend it or not, the chemicals in vaping devices eventually end up interacting with the natural world when we throw them away. The entire industry of vaping is environmentally unfriendlyfrom manufacturing all the way to disposal.

So, lets begin with the manufacturing process. As with any product, creating a vape requires a combination of energy and materials. Metals and heavy metals need to be obtained for the battery. The nicotine in vapes is often synthetic, created using solvents like formaldehyde, formic acid, and dichloromethane in multiple rounds of purification, and therefore a resulting multiple rounds of waste are emitted into the atmosphere. Unfortunately, emissions from these manufacturing plants are typically not measured because the Environmental Protection Agency doesnt require plants that do not meet the Toxics Release Inventory to submit reports on their emissions, so we do not even have the full picture of what these emissions look like.

Then there is the process of actually vaping, which is mostly only harmful for the person using the vape, but it never hurts to hear it again. Over 70 percent of whats inhaled from a vape is eventually exhaled, which poses a problem for indoor spaces because pollutants are not diluted as well as they are in outdoor spaces. Therefore, indoor concentrations of particulate matter from vaping can potentially reach up to 45 times as high as the World Health Organizations limit for outdoor concentrations.

And finally, there is the problem of what happens to the vaping device after its been used. In general, vaping creates a lot of both toxic and plastic waste. Once thrown away, the vape can leak the aforementioned heavy metals, battery acid, and nicotine into the soil and groundwater, eventually making its way into the lives and bodies of animals and plants. The biggest blight of vapesfrom an environmental perspective, that isis that most of them are single-use or disposable, like Juuls and Puff Bars. And because they are most often plastic, their waste will not biodegrade at all. This means that if the founders of BC in 1863 took a hit of a vape and left it on Stokes Lawn (and what an image that is), the traces of plastic and chemicals would still be there. The vape device will eventually deteriorate into the microplastics and chemicals that comprise it, which will make their way out into waterways to pollute them and surrounding wildlife.

This less-explored route of vapings environmental effects is not to undermine the campaign against them for the sake of human health, as vaping impacts the people using them the most and I hope that all who need help quitting get the assistance they need.

That being said, I think it is important to shed light on vapings environmental effect because it is often overlooked. I think that the disposal of the single-use vape products is particularly overlooked because the subject of vaping is almost boorishpeople dont really casually talk about vaping, much less how to dispose of vapes. Plenty of people who have vapes are underage, and therefore are much more worried about being caught with a vape than how to properly dispose of it.

The fault of not properly disposing of vapes does not all fall on the consumer, though. Vape manufacturers do not give any guidance on how to throw away their product or take accountability for their own waste. Studies show that youth vape users understand that vape waste is bad for the environment, but do not know how to properly dispose of vapes because of the lack of information available. To that end, Green Smoke and Call2Recycle are two companies looking to mitigate the problem of vape waste by offering disposal solutions, and there is more information on disposal available online as well.

At the end of the day, personal choices are personal choices. So, no matter what your personal choice is, I would implore you to consider the environmental consequences of vaping.

Featured Graphic by Olivia Charbonneau/HeightsEditor

Read more:

Vapes Aren't Just Hurting You, They're Hurting the Environment, Too The Heights - The Heights