The move against flavored vaping and cigarettes is controversial. Under this bill, all Maryland retailers will be prohibited from selling flavored tobacco products, including menthol cigarettes. This move was made in light of a wave of nicotine addicts ranging from middle school to university students.
Senator Benjamin Kramer said, "I have had parents call me and be talking to me on the phone in tears about the fact that their middle-school child is addicted to nicotine." While I agree that middle school students should not be nicotine addicts, I do not think this bill is the way forward.
First, let's analyze the root cause of this addiction wave and assess whether it is flavored tobacco causing it. It is indisputable that flavored tobacco attracts students, as it is presented as new and unique.
At the same time, addiction doesn't stem from flavor. It comes from nicotine itself. Even if you were to ban flavored tobacco, the students addicted to nicotine would continue to smoke, relying on nicotine, not the flavor.
In the best case scenario, you prevent a small number of youth from starting to vape for the flavor and not for nicotine, temporarily. But at what cost?
The cost of such a bill is an unregulated market for flavored tobacco vapes and cigarettes. Where there is demand, a supply will be created, regardless of legality. Whenever a substance has been banned outright, people have still acquired and used it through the unfettered black market.
The Prohibition Era in the U.S is one of the most prominent examples of how blanket bans on substances result in nothing but trouble. While the black market for flavored tobacco will not be as rampant as the one for drugs, it will be enough to damage youth. Once students turn to unregulated means to access these substances, not only will they get impure harmful tobacco, but they will also be exposed to more dangerous substances, such as hard drugs.
The fentanyl crisis is an example of what happens when drugs become accessible to students. There is already an age restriction, 21, on purchasing any tobacco product. If middle school students can still access it, the problem lies with the implementation, not the policy.
Apart from the practical barriers to this policy working, there are also some moral concerns. The U.S has always considered itself to be the land of the free and a country where civil liberties and choices are respected. A blanket ban on flavored tobacco will be opposed to these morals.
A better way for lawmakers in Maryland to go about this would've been to strengthen the implementation of existing laws, such as enforcing that all stores licensed to sell tobacco-based products don't sell to anyone under the age of 21. Awareness campaigns regarding the ongoing crisis would work, too, as teenagers and children are incredibly impressionable.
If these campaigns are done right, a large chunk of students can be influenced away from vaping and cigarettes. Awareness targeted towards the parents will keep them vigilant, leading them to keep an eye on their children and to ensure they aren't caught up in such dangerous activities.
In conclusion, this bill is more or less an attempt to show the public that something is being done while nothing of substance is being achieved. A ban on flavored tobacco products will not help curb nicotine addiction amongst youth; furthermore, it will make matters worse for all as students turn to unregulated ways to obtain these products.
