Pulling the ‘Emergency Brake’ on Massachusetts’ Vaping Crisis

In the weeks following Gov. Charlie Baker’s vaping ban, cases of vaping-related lung illnesses have continued to flood the medical community at alarming rates, prompting people to ask whether the ban was an appropriate first measure to take. 

“It just proves to me that Baker is a unique type of Republican,” said Dan Urman, director of Northeastern School of Law’s Online and Hybrid Programs. “I understand the argument that Republicans are tough on controlled substances, but to completely knock out a category of a product is a pretty bold move.”

A recent uptick in the mysterious vaping-related lung illnesses pushed Baker to declare a public health emergency in the state of Massachusetts in late September, banning the sale of any and all e-cigarette and vaping products. 

Massachusetts isn’t the only place plagued by the elusive lung illnesses: The Boston Globe reported that there have been 380 people hospitalized nationwide, and seven people have died. The Massachusetts Department of Public Health has counted 152 reports of suspected vaping-related illness, 60 0f which were ruled out. Of the remaining cases, 29 cases were reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and 63 remain under investigation. 

“I would probably characterize the ban as a pause button,” said Allison Bauer, former director of the Bureau of Substance Addiction Services of the Massachusetts Department of Public Health. “The extent that it is policy, it was declaring a public health emergency, and it was doing that to be able to give the state the opportunity to gather information.” 

Bauer, an associate professor of Northeastern’s Bouve College of Health Sciences, said that while further public policy decisions can be made that may have greater impact, such as raising the legal age to purchase and taxing vaping products, the ban was the first step in a long process of policy making. 

“The tobacco version is very much a harm reduction approach,” Bauer said. “Yeah, it's bad, but cigarettes are worse. If cigarettes are easier to come by, does the ban drive people back to something that's more harmful device if they've developed a nicotine addiction already? That's that raises the question is, does the ban make sense?”

The idea of nicotine vape users turning to traditional cigarettes to get their fix was a concern brought up in the initial meeting with Governor Baker, according to Dr. Edward Boyer, a toxicologist with Brigham and Women’s Hospital and associate professor of emergency medicine at Harvard Medical School.

“There is considerable social stigma associated with smoking, and that's why smoking rates have declined so dramatically in adolescents and children over the last year,” Boyer said. “And it's far, far harder to hide your drug use when you're smoking a traditional tobacco product. You smell like a cigarette. Your breath smells like an ashtray. But you don't get that with vaping products. The furtive nature of tobacco is one that I believe is going to keep people from turning back towards traditional cigarettes.”

As it currently stands, the ban is a temporary one while the investigation is ongoing and is in effect through the end of January 202o. The state Department of Public Health explained that while it’s hopeful that the investigation moves quickly, measures will be reassessed closer to the end of the four month mark. 

“This is the equivalent of the emergency brake,” Urman said of the ban. “This is that ‘break glass in case of emergency’ kind of case… And it’s a bigger puzzle that public health and law scholars have to unpack.”