• advertising and promotion
• electronic nicotine delivery devices
• public policy

Aggressive, youth-oriented advertising of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) caught many governments by surprise and led several to regulate how these products are marketed. New Zealand’s (NZ) Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Act (the Act), enacted in November 2020,1 addressed the regulatory void that existed from mid-20182 by (among other things) regulating ENDS’ advertising and promotion, distribution and flavours, and aimed to stem rising ENDS use among young people. For example, a repeat cross-sectional survey found that, among NZ 14–15 year olds, trial rose from 20.8% in 2014 to 37.3% in 2019, and regular use increased from 3.5% in 2015 to 12.0% in 2019.3 Further, a cross-sectional study of 13- to 18-year-old young people found that nearly half (49%) of those who reported vaping regularly had never smoked.4

The Act aims to discourage non-smokers, especially young people, from using vaping or other regulated products.1 One provision classifies retail outlets as either generic or specialist, according to the proportion of sales accounted for by vaping products. While specialist outlets may sell an unrestricted e-liquid flavour range, generic stores (typically convenience stores and petrol stations) may sell only tobacco, mint or menthol-flavoured e-liquids. Currently, both specialist vape stores and generic retailers may display ENDS at the point-of-sale; however, limiting the flavours generic retailers may sell to tobacco, menthol and mint reduces young people's exposure to tantalising, youth-oriented flavours, and thus decreases the risk they will experiment with vaping.5 6

Vaping advocacy groups and ‘think-tanks’ that receive tobacco industry funding opposed these restrictions, arguing that people who had switched from smoking to vaping would return to smoking, if they could not obtain their preferred flavour.7 8 A spokesperson for convenience store owners also opposed flavour restrictions, claiming these ‘would wreck something that was not broken’.9

Specialist vape stores must demonstrate that 70% of future total sales from the premises are vape products (with some dispensations possible for a lower threshold of 60%). We observed that several convenience stores had applied to become transitional vape retailers which precedes approval as a specialist vape retailer (SVR). Approving convenience stores as SVRs may undermine the Act’s intention to prevent the normalisation of vaping.1

To assess these applications, we reviewed transitional vape retailers’ addresses using Ministry of Health information dated 17 September 2021.10 Based on the addresses provided and checks made using Google Street View, 86 of the 607 applicants appeared to be convenience stores. We visited six of these stores (Dunedin (n=1), Palmerston North (n=1), Kāpiti Coast District (n=1), Porirua (n=1) and Lower Hutt (n=2)) to assess how convenience stores were accommodating specialist vape stores. Because we aimed to examine how these stores had become SVRs, we did not sample a representative group of retailers but instead identified stores near our respective locations where we could observe the tactics used. Furthermore, as the study was observational and did not involve data collection from store owners, ethics approval was not required.

Five of the stores visited had built a new specialist vape shop within the footprint of the existing premises; one of the six stores visited was physically distinct from the convenience store (see figure 1 below for an example of the ‘store within a store’; online supplemental files 1 and 2) provide details of other stores visited). Installing specialist vape stores within convenience stores increases the density of specialist vape stores and locates these within residential neighbourhoods.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab
• Download powerpoint

Figure 1

Convenience store changes to incorporate specialist vape store.

Newly constructed vape store entrances were typically close to the pre-existing convenience store entrance. Five stores shared an internal door that enabled staff to work between both stores; this approach potentially leaves the specialist vape store unattended, with staff unable to enforce the R18 entry restrictions that apply to these stores (see online supplemental file 2 for details of store observations).

Convenience stores are a feature of residential suburbs throughout New Zealand; many are located near schools and most NZ youth report visiting a convenience store weekly or more often.11 Although the Act intended to protect children from exposure to marketing that would foster vaping uptake, the subdivided stores we observed used considerable external signage and sold e-liquid flavours known to appeal to young people; in some cases, these products were visible from outside the store. Our observations thus suggest some retailers are circumventing policy designed to protect young never-smokers from ENDS uptake.

Evidence from studies examining children’s exposure to smoked tobacco at the point of sale found the greater the exposure, the higher the risk of experimenting with tobacco products11; removal of tobacco retail displays significantly reduced this risk.12 Given these findings, it is logical to expect that frequent exposure to ENDS and e-liquid products, store signage and external advertising will normalise these products and increase the risk of experimentation.

Regulators who aim to protect young people from frequent exposure to ENDS cues should consider disallowing specialist vape stores in residential areas (or limiting the number approved) and banning the ‘store within a store’ strategy we observed. These measures would still allow adults switching from smoking to ENDS use to access common e-liquid flavours but would limit young people’s exposure to ENDS products and thus the risk they come to perceive vaping as a normal recreational activity.