Marketing of e‐cigarettes to vulnerable populations: An emerging social justice issue

Abstract

Purpose To describe the practice of e‐cigarette marketing to vulnerable populations and to suggest strategies to help reduce e‐cigarette use. Conclusions E‐cigarette companies target vulnerable populations through civil rights, freedom marketing, and advertising strategies, which may perpetuate continued tobacco disparities in these populations. Practice implications Health care providers have the responsibility as social justice advocates to engage in efforts to reduce e‐cigarette use among vulnerable populations. We must increase knowledge, education, and training specific to e‐cigarettes. Awareness of marketing strategies related to vulnerable populations is necessary to develop and implement counter strategies.

A Middle School Program to Prevent E-Cigarette Use: A Pilot Study of “CATCH My Breath”

“…Finally, although television advertising of combustible cigarettes has been banned since 1971, no such regulations exist for e-cigarettes, 1,35,36 resulting in the marketing of e-cigarettes via traditional (eg, print, television) and new social media channels with high rates of viewership among young persons. 1,[10][11][12][13][14][15][16] Thus, e-cigarette prevention programs must address the unique characteristics and marketing of e-cigarettes.…”

“…e-cigarettes. 1,[10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] Although retailers cannot sell e-cigarettes to minors, these devices are frequently accessed via social means (eg, peers, family members) or directly purchased via online or in-person retailers. [22][23][24] The combination of high prevalence, public health ramifications, and social/environmental reinforcers of adolescent e-cigarette use has resulted in a call to action for e-cigarette prevention programs aimed at adolescents.…”

Framing and scientific uncertainty in nicotine vaping product regulation: An examination of competing narratives among health and medical organisations in the UK, Australia and New Zealand

“…This has resulted in a robust debate over the most appropriate regulatory framework (Green et al, 2018) and on what counts as evidence (Fairchild, Bayer, & Lee, 2019). The use of evidence in the health policymaking process is influenced by the interplay between a wide array of political and institutional factors including trade-offs between competing interests and priorities as well as ethical, financial and social justice considerations (Fallin-Bennett, Aleshire, Scott, & Lee, 2019). The process of evidence-based policymaking in NVP regulation is further complicated by the limited, and at times conflicting and contested bodies of evidence.…”