Vaping: The Latest Moral Panic
By John de Miranda
The sociology term moral panic is relatively new, arising in the 1970s. Examples of moral panic can be found throughout history, however.
The anatomy of the concept is simple. A group with power and authority determines that another group or group practice is a threat. Misinformation about the group under attack is generated and spread through various media creating fear. As the public absorbs the information strategies are promulgated to attack the group or practice.
From the witch hunts of Salem, Massachusetts in 1693 to the red scare (communism) of the McCarthy era in the 1950s we have ample examples. Recently, the Las Vegas Sun carried an opinion piece that considered the current issue with the social media platform TikTok to be a real-time social panic.
“We are living in the age of moral panic. We look around, we see a problem, and we rush to outlaw something. Ban TikTok! cry members of Congress. Ban social media for kids! says the state of Florida. Ban immigrants, ban hate speech, ban imports, ban union shops.” (1)
The intersection of moral panics and drug policy in America also provides many examples. The nation’s first drug prohibition laws were enacted in 1875 to respond to fears that Chinese laborers in Northern California would commit heinous crimes because of the opium they smoked. The 1936 movie Reefer Madness was intended to scare audiences about the threat that marijuana posed to our nation’s youth. Two years later another exploitation film was released. Assassin of Youth which takes its title from a magazine article by Harry Anslinger who at the time was the first commissioner of the federal Bureau of Narcotics.
These types of moral panics about drugs and the people who use them have resulted in calcified public opinion among Americans that endures even amidst the current opioid epidemic and our increasing appreciation for complexity of addiction. A 2023 opinion piece in the New York Times from a noted Stanford drug policy researcher stated quite starkly, “There’s still a deep hatred in this country for people who use drugs.” (1)
When it comes to the legal drugs alcohol and nicotine the manufacturers and suppliers are also prime targets for societal vituperation, and with some justification. Alcohol beverage products that target youth are easy to find. For years Anheuser-Busch’s advertising used cute animals that were shown to have instant eye appeal for young “collateral” audiences. Cigarette campaigns such as the Joe Camel cartoons and the 50-year relationship between Marlboro cigarettes and Ferrari’s Formula 1 racing team are examples.
Today, top of the list for popular scorn sits big tobacco, linked with the latest target for a moral panic–vaping.
Two events in recent years supercharged public attitudes against electronic cigarettes.
JUUL
In 2015 the company launched a sleek device that allowed users to inhale vapors laced with all kinds of flavors, cannabinoids, and nicotine. The device’s marketing strategy employed attractive “lifestyle” social media campaigns to promote Juuls as the next cool thing. Unfortunately, the company’s upper management was oblivious to the appeal that such promotions might have for young, under-age consumers and soon the “epidemic” was well underway and the Juul was the major villain. Once again, dark forces were targeting our kids.
A tell-all book was soon published, and a Netflix movie Big Vape: The Rise and Fall of Juul firmly connected the Stanford founders and San Francisco start-up to efforts to addict a new generation of young people. The Altria Group, formerly Philip Morris International purchased a major stake in Juul but ultimately had to pay out millions to settle lawsuits.
EVALI
Between August 2019 and January 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported an outbreak of e-cigarette or vaping associated lung injury (EVALI) among users. The media reports pointed at vaping as the source of the lung injury citing glycol and glycerol that are common components in commercial vapes as the probable cause.
The initial media reports fanned the flames against vaping citing damage like “popcorn lung,” an irreversible condition that at the time was thought to be associated with vaping. Subsequent investigation found that a vape product purchased in the bootleg market made with adulterated vitamin E-acetate was to blame.
An article published by The Reason Foundation summed up the EVALI outbreak and its aftermath.
“The myth that vaping causes popcorn lung continues to haunt the discourse around e-cigarettes in part because it is a sensational idea. Tragic stories of individuals allegedly stricken ill by a controversial product, like e-cigarettes, make for attention-grabbing news headlines and fodder for anti-tobacco advocates. But the glaring lack of concrete evidence refutes the notion that vaping causes popcorn lung. E-cigarettes may not be free of risk, but the facts are that they are significantly safer than smoking, and whatever risks might be associated with vaping, popcorn lung is not one of them.” (2)
Even though vaping among teens has decreased 60% since its peak in 2019 the problem is still considered “epidemic” by tobacco control and parents’ groups. (3) Similarly, public opinion surveys repeatedly show that the American public views vaping as more dangerous than smoking conventional combustible tobacco products. Even one survey of physicians demonstrated similar misunderstanding. (4) This is despite the conventional understanding that a switch from combustible cigarettes to vaping reduces the cancer-producing elements that enter the lungs by 95%.
The future?
Last year the United Kingdom National Health Service launched a campaign to distribute vaping “starter kits” to 1 in 5 smokers to help them give up cigarettes and switch. Their goal is to reduce the smoking rate in England to 5% by 2030. Smoking rates in the United States have remained stubbornly in the mid-teens. In 2021 the National Health Service also began paying for prescription vapes to assist those patients seeking to quit combustible cigarettes.
During the recent past smoking of cigarettes and vapes in the United States has become almost as demonized as the Chinese opium smokers in San Francisco in the late 1800s. Moreover, the moral panic associated with vaping has resulted in considerable misinformation among the American public. Combative tobacco control activists are happy to allow negative, inaccurate information to flourish. Conventional cigarette smokers who might benefit from a switch to vaping are the losers as long as the demonization of vapes continues.
- Source: Stephen Carter, https://lasvegassun.com/news/2024/apr/12/tiktok-ban-is-latest-moral-panic/
- Source: Keith Humphreys quoted in https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/22/opinion/drug-crisis-addiction-harm-reduction.html.
- Source: Reason Foundation https://reason.org/backgrounder/debunking-the-myth-that-vaping-causes-popcorn-lung/
- Source: https://apnews.com/article/vaping-debate-philanthropy-smoke-free-1ae3a5d6aa29962bb82281e128cc4e76
Liked this article? You might also be interested in: Cannabis and THC – Neurotoxin or Neuroprotective?