Background We examine the association among five types of state regulations on electronic cigarettes (defining e-cigarettes, special tax, packaging, youth access and licensure) and initiation and current usage of e-cigarettes in 50 US states and the District of Columbia.
Methods Data came from the 2017 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System and the US e-cigarette regulations—50 state review by the Public Health Law Center. Logistic regressions were used to determine the odds of initiation and current use of e-cigarettes among individuals aged 18–24, 25–34 and the whole sample, adjusting for socio-demographic covariates.
Results Despite the short history of state laws on e-cigarettes, each of the five state laws was associated with lower odds of initiation and use of e-cigarettes in the whole sample. In the 18–24 age group, only the licensure was associated with lower initiation. In the 25–34 age group, the licensure and taxation were related to lower initiation and current usage. There were significant differences of e-cigarette initiation and usage based on the number of state laws regulating e-cigarettes.
Conclusions Our analysis indicates the potential of states’ policy efforts to regulate e-cigarettes comprehensively in leading significant changes to e-cigarette prevalence in their populations.
- packaging and labelling
- public policy
- electronic nicotine delivery devices
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Contributors JJ designed the study and developed the manuscript. JKK collected data and supported data analysis and manuscript development.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Disclaimer The authors confirm that the research presented in this article met the ethical guidelines, including adherence to the legal requirements, of the USA. This study was determined by the National Institutes of Health Office of Human Subject Research Protection as non-human subject research (analysis of publicly available public health data and web contents) and is therefore exempted from review by the Institutional Review Board.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent for publication Not required.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Data availability statement No data are available. N/A.