ObjectiveUntil recently, purveyors of vaping products marketed e-liquids in the 1%–3% range of nicotine concentration with those at 3% described as ‘super high’ intended for two packs/day smokers. The goal of this study is to evaluate the degree to which JUUL, with its 5% nicotine and 75% US market share, has spurred other e-liquid vendors to raise the nicotine levels of their products.MethodsOnline search to identify brands offering e-liquid in exceptionally high nicotine concentration (≥5%) and to catalogue the appearance of devices which emulate JUUL.ResultsJUUL compatible pods (14) and JUUL knock off devices (39) were identified which offer equal or higher nicotine than JUUL. More than 70 e-liquid brands sell high-nicotine products (≥5%) in bulk (≥30 mL) equivalent to >40 cigarette packs. All of these products come in multiple youth appealing sweet and fruity flavours. It was noted that nicotine percentage is inconsistently reported (eg, JUUL is 5% by weight vs 5.9% by volume).ConclusionsJUUL has triggered a widespread rush among aerosol purveyors to market e-liquid in unprecedentedly high nicotine concentrations. The rapidly rising popularity of high-nicotine e-liquids threatens to addict a generation of youth. When sold in large quantity bottles (eg, 30 mL) they represent a childhood poisoning risk. Labelling of nicotine concentration in e-liquids needs to be standardised to avoid consumer confusion. The addictiveness and toxicity of these products makes it imperative that regulators act swiftly to enact protective measures.

The vaping industry has demonstrated much ingenuity in devising discreet vaporisers and de-emphasising exhaled vapour plumes and their aroma. The US market for vaping devices with stealthy characteristics is anything but inconspicuous, with JUUL alone accounting for 70.5% of sales (July 2018).

Background The ability to perform vape tricks (ie, blowing large vapor clouds or shapes like rings) using e-cigarettes appeals to youth. Vape tricks are promoted on social media, but the promotion of vape tricks on social media is not well understood. Objective The aim of this study was to examine how vape tricks were promoted on YouTube to youth. Methods Videos on vape tricks that could be accessed by underage youth were identified. The videos were coded for number of views, likes, dislikes, and content (ie, description of vape tricks, e-cigarette devices used for this purpose, video sponsors [private or industry], brand marketing, and contextual characteristics [eg, model characteristics, music, and profanity]). Results An analysis of 59 sample videos on vape tricks identified 25 distinct vape tricks. These videos had more likes than dislikes (11 to 1 ratio) and a 32,017 median view count. 48% (28/59) of the videos were posted by industry accounts (27% [16/59] provaping organizations, 15% [9/59] online shops, and 3% [2/59] vape shops) and 53% by private accounts (55% [17/31] private users, 26% [8/31] vape enthusiasts, and 19% [6/31] YouTube influencers); 53% (31/59) of the videos promoted a brand of e-cigarette devices, e-liquids, or online/vape shops, and 99% of the devices used for vape tricks were advanced generation devices. The models in the videos were 80.2% (160/198) male, 51.5% white (102/198), and 61.6% (122/198) aged 18 to 24 years; 85% (50/59) of the videos had electronic dance music and hip hop, and 32% (19/59) had profanity. Conclusions Vape trick videos on YouTube, about half of which were industry sponsored, were accessible to youth. Restrictions of e-cigarette marketing on social media, such as YouTube, are needed.

It is laudable that Facebook has policies intended to interdict tobacco promotion throughout its platform. Nevertheless, widespread tobacco promotion and sales were found at variance with the company's policies governing advertising, commerce, page content and under age access. Vetting could be improved by automated screening in partnership with human reviewers.

No abstract