Lempert Lauren K, Grana Rachel, Glantz Stanton A
Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, Cardiovascular Research Institute, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, Cardiovascular Research Institute, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
Tob Control. 2016 Apr;25(e1):e44-51. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2014-051913. Epub 2014 Dec 14.
How electronic cigarettes and similar products (e-cigarettes) are defined affects how they are regulated, particularly whether existing laws for cigarettes apply, including sales and marketing, youth access, smoke-free and taxation laws.
We examined the text of 46 bills that define e-cigarettes enacted in 40 states and characterised how e-cigarettes and similar products were defined.
States enact laws creating new product categories for e-cigarettes separate from the 'tobacco product' category (eg, 'alternative nicotine product,' 'vapour product,' 'electronic nicotine device'), with four states explicitly excluding e-cigarettes from 'tobacco products.' Twenty-eight states do not include e-cigarettes in their definitions of 'tobacco products' or 'smoking,' eight include e-cigarettes as 'tobacco products,' three include e-cigarettes in 'smoking.' Sixteen states' definitions of e-cigarettes require nicotine, and five states pre-empt more stringent local laws. Tobacco and e-cigarette industry representatives tried to shape laws that benefit their interests.
Definitions separating e-cigarettes from other tobacco products are common. Similar to past 'Trojan horse' policies, e-cigarette policies that initially appear to restrict sales (eg, limit youth access) may actually undermine regulation if they establish local pre-emption or create definitions that divide e-cigarettes from other tobacco products. Comparable issues are raised by the European Union Tobacco Products Directive and e-cigarette regulations in other countries. Policymakers should carefully draft legislation with definitions of e-cigarettes that broadly define the products, do not require nicotine or tobacco, do not pre-empt stronger regulations and explicitly include e-cigarettes in smoke-free and taxation laws.
电子烟及类似产品(电子香烟)的定义方式会影响其监管方式,尤其是现行香烟相关法律是否适用,包括销售与营销、青少年接触、无烟及税收法律等方面。
我们研究了40个州颁布的46项定义电子烟的法案文本,并对电子烟及类似产品的定义方式进行了描述。
各州制定法律,为电子烟设立与“烟草制品”类别不同的新产品类别(例如,“替代尼古丁产品”“蒸汽产品”“电子尼古丁装置”),有4个州明确将电子烟排除在“烟草制品”之外。28个州在其“烟草制品”或“吸烟”的定义中未包括电子烟,8个州将电子烟列为“烟草制品”,3个州将电子烟纳入“吸烟”范畴。16个州对电子烟的定义要求含有尼古丁,5个州优先适用更严格的地方法规。烟草和电子烟行业代表试图制定有利于自身利益的法律。
将电子烟与其他烟草制品区分开来的定义很常见。与过去的“特洛伊木马”政策类似,如果电子烟政策最初看似限制销售(例如,限制青少年接触),但却确立了地方优先适用权或创造了将电子烟与其他烟草制品区分开来的定义,那么实际上可能会破坏监管。欧盟烟草制品指令及其他国家的电子烟法规也引发了类似问题。政策制定者应谨慎起草有关电子烟定义的立法,这些定义应广泛界定产品,不要求含有尼古丁或烟草,不优先适用更强有力的法规,并明确将电子烟纳入无烟及税收法律。