Arguments for amending smoke-free legislation in U.S. states to restrict use of electronic nicotine delivery systems

Abstract

The uneven diffusion of local and state laws restricting the use of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) in the United States may be a function of inconclusive scientific evidence and lack of guidance from the federal government. The objective of this study was to assess whether the rationale for amending clean indoor air acts (CIAAs) is being conflated by issues that are not directly relevant to protecting the health of ENDS non-users. Online sources were used in identifying bills (n=25) that were presented in U.S. state legislatures from January 2009 to December 2015. The bills were categorized into one of three groups: 1) bills amending comprehensive CIAAs (n=11), 2) bills prohibiting use of ENDS in places frequented by youth (n=5), and 3) remaining bills that varied between the two categories (n=9). Arguments presented in committee hearings were coded as scientific, public health, economic, enforcement, freedom, or regulatory. Arguments pertaining to amendment of clean indoor air acts spanned several categories, many of which were not directly relevant to the aims of the legislation. This finding could assist lawmakers and expert witnesses in making arguments that yield greater success in amending legislation. Alternatively, inconclusive scientific data on the hazards of ENDS aerosols might encourage lawmakers to propose legislation that prohibits ENDS use in places frequented by youths. Keywords: Clean indoor air acts (CIAAs), Legislative hearings, Amendments, U.S. state legislatures, Electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS)