698 by The Draft

WRTG150H 30 March 2014 A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing: The Danger of the eCigarette You walk into an elegant restaurant, readying yourself for a makeorbreak meeting with a potential business partner. As the tuxedoed host leads you to your $150 a plate table, you almost lose him in the dense, foggy air. All around you, men and women dressed to the nines are wining and dining, all whilst delicately holding thin, smoking tubes between their manicured fingers. Their faces reflect the orange glow emanating from the tips of the cigarettes. This vignette of the high class engulfed in swirling smoke makes you wonder whether you have been transported to a 1950’s movie. You glance around for signs of Gene Kelly or James Dean. A closer examination of the scene, though, will reveal that some of these smoking, glowing cylinders are not actually cigarettes. Dispersed among their ashproducing counterparts, electronic cigarettes blend almost incongruously. These new age adaptations of the traditional tobacco cigarette have stealthily brought the practice of smoking back into the twentyfirst century. Invented in 2004 by the Golden Dragon Group of Hong Kong, electronic cigarettes, more commonly known as ecigarettes, have made waves in the evercontroversial tobacco industry. The big hook of these new gadgets is that they deliver nicotine, the substance held primarily responsible for cigarette addiction, without tobacco and other harmful additives. eCigarettes work as follows: a cartridge, designed to look like a regular cigarette filter, is screwed into the main body of the ecigarette. The cartridge contains nicotine dissolved in propylene glycol and the main body houses an electric circuit powered by a rechargeable battery. When the user inhales, this circuit is activated, causing the vaporization of the nicotinepropylene glycol mixture which is then sucked into the lungs. The activated

circuit also causes a red light at the end of the device to light up, lending to the representation of the electronic device as a traditional cigarette (Goniewicz, Lingas, Hajek). The marketers of ecigarettes are very selective in what information they choose to present to consumers. eCigarettes present a myriad of unexplored risks, the least of which being their potential to make lighting up once again a regular public occurrence. Should the advertisers of such a product, carefully avoiding the mention of these risks, be allowed free reign in the public marketplace? The current marketing of ecigarettes suggests that they are a better alternative to cigarette use when, in reality, this innovation in nicotine delivery may cause the renormalization of the harmful practice of smoking (Fairchild, Bayer, Colgrove). eCigarettes should therefore be subject to the same marketing regulations applied to traditional tobacco products. The Façade of the Electronic Cigarette

If one was looking for ingenious use of persuasive communication, there would be no need to look beyond the marketing of ecigarettes. Deliberately avoiding any specific health claims, advertisers are attempting to overcome the prejudice the public has against traditional tobacco products. They carefully present electronic cigarettes as a safe, costeffective alternative without the social stigma associated with the appearance and odor of regular cigarettes. A main argument of ecigarette manufacturers is that ecigarettes are safer than their traditional counterparts. One would be hardpressed to find an ecigarette package that doesn’t feature the phrase “tobaccofree.” Advertisers are working hard to combat the image of tarencrusted lungs associated with traditional cigarettes. Unfortunately, the lack of tobacco in ecigarettes does not equate to their being a salutatory product. Nonetheless, the advertisers strive to defend against a widespread wariness to “smoker’s lung.”

Advertisements also frequently point out how ecigarettes are much more cost efficient than traditional tobacco products. According to New York Magazine, switching to ecigarettes could save a customer nearly $4,000 a year (de Koff). Who isn’t fearful that they’re paying more than they need to? Buy an ecig, coax the advertisements, and you’ll save more than your lungs’ rosy hue. To bypass the social stigma associated with cigarettes, some ecigarette companies are craftily choosing to market their products under different names. Produced in bright colors and candy or fruity flavors, these “hookah pens” or “vape pipes” don’t look overwhelmingly similar to ecigarettes, and are therefore often perceived as completely different products. Teenagers unwilling to experiment with cigarettes or anything closely related will often concede to try a colorful, fruitflavored “ehookah.” Much to the chagrin of antitobacco advocates and public health officials, these alternate devices are virtually identical to ecigarettes. They are just as packed with unregulated chemicals and, more importantly, many contain highlyaddictive nicotine (Richtel). With the colorful makeover and rechristening of electronic vaping devices, producers are successfully sidestepping the reproach associated with cigarettes. In another tactic to evade the social stigma of traditional tobacco products, advertisers are presenting ecigarettes as a clean, odorfree alternative. Listed first on one manufacturer’s “Five Leading Benefits Electronic Smoking has over Traditional Cigarettes” is “ecigarettes do NOT have that distinctive odor”. They describe the clinging odor vividly, painting an almost palpable and very unpleasant picture of the musty aura that hangs about cigarette smokers. The article specifically mentions how many people, especially former smokers, avoid close contact with anyone carrying this distinctly unpleasant odor (“5 Leading Benefits”). Here the manufacturers play on the consumers’ fear of social reproach.

Digging Deeper: A Critical Look into eCigarette Marketing These advertising campaigns cannot be pegged as outright lies, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t deceptive. Nonetheless, when confronted by activists who aim to regulate the marketing of electronic cigarettes, producers adamantly resist. Miguel Martin, president of LOGIC Technology, an independent electronic cigarette brand, said, “...inherently, it's a different product. The only commonality between the two is the presence of nicotine. What we would say is, don't take the easy path out and just apply cigarette regulations to this product, because it's not a cigarette” (Belasco). Despite this and comparable claims, the similarities between the products and their marketing are decidedly worth looking in to. All the focus on the social stigma, safety hazards, and relative expense avoided when using ecigarettes distracts from the fact that this new invention is still a cigarette in the most important senses of the word. Firstly, the electronic cigarette, like its traditional predecessor, is a highly dangerous and addictive product. Most ecigarettes contain nicotine; in fact, nicotine delivery was the driving purpose of the ecigarette’s invention (Fairchild, Bayer, Colgrove). This stems from the fact that nicotine is a highly addictive substance—those dependent on it would be willing to get it in ways in distinction from the traditional cigarette. A study in a canceroriented clinical journal argued the harmful nature of nicotine. According to their research, nicotine presents, among other dangers, the risk of accelerated coronary artery disease (Benowitz). A Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics study revealed that, though maximum nicotine levels in users were about the same between regular cigarettes and nicotine gum, there was roughly twice as much overall nicotine exposure with the gum (Benowitz et al). Without the “speed bump” nature of tobacco smoke, receiving nicotine through tobaccofree devices like electronic cigarettes can lead to prolonged exposure to this dangerous chemical.

Beyond this, like traditional cigarettes, the electronic variation contains a myriad of questionable chemicals. What’s more disquieting, though, is that due to the relatively recent invention of ecigarettes there has not been sufficient time to conduct studies on their contained chemicals (Abrams). There is simply not enough information on the risks and effects of ecigarettes for them to be considered safe. One study, examining the effects of ecigarettes on air quality, recognized this fact. “...[W]ith regard to a healthrelated evaluation of ecigarette consumption, the impact of vapor inhalation into the human lung should be of primary concern” (Schripp). Yes, ecigarettes may be pleasantsmelling and attractivelycolored, but that does not change their nature: devices delivering harmful chemicals directly to the user’s lungs. Despite these compelling physical risks, the real danger of the ecigarette lies in its visual, and consequently social, perception. When an individual sees a billboard of a posh twentysomething enjoying a brand name ecigarette, for all intents and purposes, the individual is seeing someone smoking. “...[T]he wild west marketing of ecigarettes is not only encouraging youth to smoke them, but also it is promoting regular cigarette smoking among youth,” says Stanton A. Glantz, PhD, director of the USCF Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education (Fernandez). According to the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, the use of both ecigarettes and traditional cigarettes nearly doubled among middle and high school students during the 20112012 school year. About 160,000 of the children who experimented with ecigarettes had never tried a conventional cigarette (“Notes from the Field”). Unwilling to dapple with stigmatized traditional tobacco products, children are nonetheless drawn to the newer, “cooler,” electronic version. The danger of ecigarettes lies in their ability to renormalize a practice that, through much campaigning and regulation, has been on a downward trend for several decades.

Comparable Calamity: The Parallel Between Conventional Cigarettes and eCigarettes A provocative comparison can be made when one juxtaposes electronic cigarettes with traditional cigarettes. As to their marketing, both products are presented to appeal to the desire to be “cool” and, even more noteworthy, to appeal to youth. Another parallel between the two products is their widespread opposition. Here, though, the two stories diverge—while the popular sentiment condemning the conventional cigarette brought about widely effective antismoking laws and regulations, the same disapproval has not led to federal marketing restrictions concerning the ecigarette. By examining the traditional marketing of conventional cigarettes, as well as the public opposition they generated, the parallel between conventional cigarettes and ecigarettes cannot be missed. Early on, advertisers presented cigarettes as unmistakably cool. A 1958 L&M advertisement features “Gunsmoke” actor James Arness smoking the brand’s cigarette. The television star wears a cowboy hat and a smug grin. The advertisers carefully linked their cigarettes with an aura of rugged masculinity (Feloni). Today, marketers of electronic cigarettes are chasing the same image. In a 2013 ad, a man who looks remarkably like a modernday James Arness enjoys a Blu ecigarette. Wearing a denim buttonup shirt and a scruffy beard, he is truly a “man’s man.” Though the 2013 version lacks a cowboy hat, the message remains the same as 55 years earlier: smoke our product, and you too can be “cool.” Another potent similarity between the marketing tactics of traditional and electronic cigarettes is the targeting of youth. In a 1933 advertisement for Camel cigarettes, a starlet of New York’s social elite says, “when my two younger children grow up and start to smoke, Camels will probably be their cigarette” (Davidson). What 1930’s child wouldn’t be dazzled by this glamorous woman’s lifestyle? If smoking Camel cigarettes is what her children would do, smoking Camel cigarettes is what any child

who wanted to amount to anything must do. As discussed earlier, today’s advertisers are appealing to youth by presenting ecigarettes under different names in colorful, flavored packages. No matter whether it is tobaccocontaining or electronic, it is an insidious, lasting pattern among cigarette advertisers to get consumers hooked, and hook them young. 70% of adults who have ever smoked started the habit at or below the age of 18 (“Smoking: Health Effects”). The only thing better than a loyal customer is a lifelong customer. In an inevitable response to the pervasive 20th century advertising of cigarettes, public outcry against tobacco products was heard throughout the nation. A fundamental event in the antitobacco movement was the 1964 first report of the Surgeon General’s Advisory Committee on Smoking and Health. Based on over 7,000 biomedical articles, its conclusions included the heretofore littleknown information that smoking is a cause of laryngeal cancer as well as the leading cause of chronic bronchitis (“History of Surgeon General’s Reports”). Cigarette smoking was no longer an innocuous and acceptable habit and the American public demanded regulations that reflected this. Today, the general public is likewise troubled by the rising prevalence of ecigarettes. Reflecting the concerns of their constituents, twelve U.S. congressman sent letters of inquiry to electronic cigarette manufacturers in 2013. They were concerned about the labeling, distribution, and marketing efforts the manufacturers were employing (Mitka). Due to the high level of public interest, newspapers, medical journals, and online health forums churn out dozens of articles concerning ecigarettes daily. The precedent is there, but will opponents of the newage cigarette be able to bring about the same level of regulation as was achieved by earlier anticigarette campaigners? Regulatory Considerations The public outcry sparked by the cigarette’s exposure as a harmful and potentially deadly

product spurred federal regulatory action almost immediately. In 1965, only one year after the Surgeon General’s report, Congress enacted the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act of 1965, soon followed by the Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act of 1969. These laws required cigarette packages to carry a health warning, appropriated an annual report on the effects of smoking on health, and, arguably the most significant provision, banned cigarette advertising in broadcast media (“History of Surgeon General’s Reports”). The Federal Trade Commission, which regulates the marketing and advertising of tobacco products, plays an increasingly significant role on today’s antismoking battleground (Davidson). In an age where Americans watch 250 billion hours of television annually, the effect that tobacco ads would have on youth would be unprecedented (Herr). Fortunately, daytime television programming jingles, as well as their cigarettepromoting cartoon characters, have become a thing of the past. Today’s generation is one that has never seen a cigarette commercial on television, nor even heard a tobaccopromoting blurb while scanning radio stations. The regulation of tobacco products, specifically their marketing, has paid off emphatically. In 1964, 42.7% of America’s adult population smoked. Today, the smoking rate is at 18.1% (Schroeder). This statistic is simply too significant to be overlooked. It’s not as if nicotine has become less addictive—the dive in the smoking rate is due to governmental regulations increasing public awareness. This is a model to which society should look to control the rising popularity of electronic cigarettes. The Big Picture The introduction of electronic cigarettes has changed the smoking marketplace in a big way. Boasting cost efficiency, a lack of tobacco, and the avoidance of social stigma, ecigarette marketers are working hard to disguise the true nature of their product. Advertisements fail to mention the

hazardous nature of nicotine as well as the other harmful, unregulated chemicals swirling within an ecigarette cartridge. The most dangerous aspect, though, of these new “vaping” devices is their potential to bring smoking back as an acceptable habit. Those who wish to combat this must look to the parallel between ecigarettes and their conventional predecessors for a solution. Tobacco cigarettes were initially marketed in the same ways that are now being utilized to promote the electronic variety. The popularity and prevalence of cigarettes was brought down with publiccatalyzed regulations. If there is any hope of achieving the same with ecigarettes, similar regulation must be enacted as soon as possible. In a 2014 ecigarette ad, Steven Dorff declares, “I’m tired of feeling guilty every time I want to light up. We’re all adults here. It’s time to take our freedom back. Come on guys, rise from the ashes” (Fairchild, Bayer, Colgrove). Two can play at that game. If the object is to regain the antismoking ground gained over decades of advocacy, those working for the health of Americans must rise from the ashes and demand timely and effective regulation of the wolf in sheep’s clothing: the ecigarette.

Works Cited "5 Leading Benefits Electronic Smoking Has Over Traditional Cigarettes." eversmoke.com.Web. <http://www.learn.eversmoke.com/5benefitsovercigarettes.html>. Abrams, David B., PhD. "Promise and Peril of eCigarettes: Can Disruptive Technology make Cigarettes Obsolete?" JAMA 311.2 (2014): 1356. Print. Belasco, Jessica. "Ecigarettes on rise, but questioned." 2014.Web. <http://www.expressnews.com/news/local/article/Ecigarettesonrisebutquestioned4857591.p hp>. Benowitz, N. L., et al. "Nicotine Absorption and Cardiovascular Effects with Smokeless Tobacco use: Comparison with Cigarettes and Nicotine Gum." Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics 44 (1988): 2328. Print. Benowitz, Niel. "Nicotine and Smokeless Tobacco." CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 38.4 (1988): 2447. Print. Davidson, D. K. Selling Sin : The Marketing of Socially Unacceptable Products. Westport, Conn: Praeger, 2003. Print. de Koff, Derek. "Smokeless Smokes ; with Cigarette Taxes Up and Smoking in Bars , Restaurants , and Parks Now Banned , a Subculture has Grown Up Around e Cigarette Nicotine Delivery Devices ." New York Magazine October 31 2011. Print. Fairchild, Amy L,PhD, MPH, Ronald Bayer PhD, and Colgrove, James,PhD, MPH. "The Renormalization of Smoking? ECigarettes and the Tobacco "Endgame"." The New England Journal of Medicine 370.4 (2014): 2935. Print. Feloni, Richard. "The New ECigarette Ads Look Exactly Like OldSchool Cigarette Promos."

2014.Web. <http://www.businessinsider.com/democratslinkecigaretteadstoolderpromos201311?op= 1>. Fernandez, Elizabeth. "ECigarettes: Gateway to Nicotine Addiction for U.S. Teens, Says UCSF Study." 2014.Web. <https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2014/03/112316/ecigarettesgatewaynicotineaddictionusteenss aysucsfstudy>. Goniewicz, Maciej L., Elena O. Lingas, and Peter Hajek. "Patterns of Electronic Cigarette use and User Beliefs about their Safety and Benefits: An Internet Survey." Drug & Alcohol Review 32.2 (2013): 13340. Print. Herr, Norman. "Television & Health." 2014.Web. <https://www.csun.edu/science/health/docs/tv&health.html>. "History of the Surgeon General's Reports on Smoking and Health." 2014.Web. <http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/sgr/history/index.htm>. Mitka, Mike. "Marketing Tactics of eCigarette Manufacturers Questioned." Journal of the American Medical Association 310.18 (2013)Print. "Notes from the Field: Electronic Cigarette use among Middle and High School Students — United States, 2011–2012." Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) 62.35 (2013): 72930. Print. Richtel, Matt. "ECigarettes, by Other Names, Lure Young and Worry Experts." The New York Times, sec. Business Day:March 4, 2014 2014. Print. Schripp, T., et al. "Does eCigarette Consumption Cause Passive Vaping?" Indoor Air 23.1

(2012)Print. Schroeder, Steven A. "Tobacco Control 50 Years After the 1964 Surgeon General’s Report." Journal of the American Medical Association 311.2 (2014)Print. "Smoking: Health Effects." 2014.Web. <http://www.lung.org/stopsmoking/aboutsmoking/healtheffects/smoking.html#3>.