In the wake of numerous cases of vaping-related illness, Gov. Charlie Baker, on Sept. 24, declared a temporary four-month ban on the sale of vaping products in Massachusetts. Baker cited a public health emergency to justify the sweeping and sudden measure, but not everyone agrees.
As of Nov. 6, three people in the state had died from what the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention termed “e-cigarette or vaping product use associated lung injury,” or EVALI. Massachusetts has reported 21 confirmed and 47 probable cases of EVALI to the CDC, half of which were found in residents under the age of 30. Nationwide, the CDC has attributed at least 39 deaths and approximately 2,000 cases of lung disease to vaping.
The use of vaping products by young people is particularly concerning in Harvard, where vaping is rampant among high school students. The 2016 Emerson Hospital Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) indicated that 21% of Bromfield students in grades 9 through 12 had vaped in the month prior to the survey, including almost one in three students in grade 11. Middle school students also reported vaping, with 11% of students in grade 8 and 3% of students in grade 6 claiming to have vaped in the past month. In 2016, Harvard’s figures for vaping eclipsed those for the aggregate data set, which included eight total districts. When combined, only 12% of high school students across the eight school districts reported vaping, compared to Harvard’s 21%. Emerson’s 2018 survey showed overall vaping figures had skyrocketed since 2016, with aggregate use for grades 9 to 12 more than doubling to 28%. (Separate figures for Bromfiled were not available.)
EVALI is characterized by both respiratory symptoms, such as cough, chest pain, and trouble breathing, and gastrointestinal symptoms, like abdominal pain, vomiting, and diarrhea. According to the CDC, 85% of patients experienced accompanying fever, chills, or weight loss. The CDC has not determined the major culprit behind the illness; however, they did recently identify a substance called vitamin E acetate—an additive in vaping products—in all samples of bronchial fluid from patients.
Several vape shops have sued the state over the ban, alleging that it will cause them to go out of business. Their complaint claims that the governor’s ban is an overreach of state authority, as the products they sell are certified under the Food and Drug Administration according to federal standards. The businesses also contend that the ban is disrupting existing contracts and trade with states with no such ban. Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commissioner Shaleen Title told WBUR that she is concerned about people looking to the black market for vaping products, and she called the ban a “terrible decision.” The Baker administration has conceded that Massachusetts businesses could lose $7 million to $8 million in sales, but it stands by the ban.
One group of vapers was granted a reprieve under the ban at noon Tuesday, Nov. 12, when a judge ordered a lift on the ban for medical marijuana users. Suffolk Superior Court Judge Douglas Wilkins ruled last week that the ban would be lifted on all medical marijuana smoking devices, but now the Massachusetts Cannabis Commission has limited the reprieve only to vaporizers that use raw marijuana flowers, which have not been linked to illness. All other devices remain banned.
State Rep. Jen Benson told the Press that she believes the moratorium was “smart” but not a long-term solution. She expressed alarm at the use of vaping products by young people, especially in the wake of the third Massachusetts death due to a vaping-related lung injury, which was reported last week by the Department of Health. “Clearly this is an issue,” Benson said. She voiced strong support for banning flavored tobacco products, which she believes will “take out incentive” for younger users. A vote for such a ban will have taken place in the State House by the time of publication of this week’s Press. State Sen. Jamie Eldridge’s office did not respond to a request for comment.
The Baker administration now plans to hold a public hearing Nov. 22 in hopes of extending the ban indefinitely. The Supreme Judicial Court will hear further arguments in the lawsuit Dec. 9, and Baker’s public health council will vote on the fate of the ban at its meeting two days later. If approved, the temporary ban would become a final regulation. If not, the ban will expire on Christmas Eve
