Search

Introduction: Electronic cigarettes ("e-cigarettes") are commonly promoted as a less-harmful alternative to combustible cigarettes, yet many individuals concurrently use both products ("dual users"). Little is known about the extent to which dual users' perceptions of the addictive properties of these products differ, or to what extent there are differences in the factors that elicit craving for each product., Methods: An online survey evaluated beliefs about the addictive properties of cigarettes vs e-cigarettes and the situational and affective precipitants of product craving, on a scale from 1 to 10, in a sample of Canadian adults that reported past-month use of combustible and e-cigarettes (N = 175; 79 female)., Results: Participants rated cigarettes as more addictive than e-cigarettes, and on average reported higher levels of dependence on combustible cigarettes. While the addictive properties of both combustible and e-cigarettes were largely attributed to nicotine, non-nicotine factors (e.g. flavouring, other non-nicotine ingredients) were believed to make a relatively stronger contribution to the addictive properties of e-cigarettes, particularly among women. Participants reported greater increases in craving for combustible cigarettes in response to negative affective states and situational factors, and these effects were strongest among participants that displayed greater dependence on combustible tobacco relative to e-cigarettes., Conclusions: Dual users perceived cigarettes to be more addictive than e-cigarettes and attributed the addictive properties of each product to different factors. Further, cravings for combustible cigarettes were more strongly linked to certain negative affective states and situational factors relative to e-cigarettes. Findings suggest that there may be limited substitutability between combustible and e-cigarettes., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Some jurisdictions have implemented nicotine vaping product (NVP) flavor restrictions because of concerns about rising adolescent use. However, little is known how these restrictions may impact adult vapers. This study describes the level of support and predictive behavioral responses to a hypothetical NVP ban on non-tobacco flavors among regular adult vapers who only use flavors that would be banned.Methods: Data came from 851 regular vapers (all current or ex-smokers) participating in the 2020 ITC Four Country Smoking and Vaping Survey in Canada, England, and the United States (US). A random sample of respondents in each country received and completed the questions about flavor bans: (1) do you support or oppose a ban on all non-tobacco flavors; and (2) what would you do if all flavors were banned, with the exception of tobacco in the US, and tobacco and menthol in Canada and England. Those who used tobacco-flavored or unflavored NVPs were excluded from all analyses, and additionally, vapers of menthol flavor in Canada and England were excluded from Aim 2.Results: Overall, 53.6% of vapers were strongly opposed to flavor bans, 28.2% were opposed, 9.3% were in support, 3.6% were in strong support, and 5.2% did not know. Predicted behavioral responses were: 28.8% would continue vaping an available flavor, 28.3% would find a way to get their banned flavor(s), 17.1% would stop vaping and smoke instead, 12.9% said that they would stop vaping and not smoke, and 12.9% do not know what they would do. Responses to a potential flavor ban largely varied by smoking and vaping status, and by the level of support of a flavor restriction policy.Conclusions: At this time, it is not clear what net population-level consequences would occur if non-tobacco flavored NVPs were prohibited. While a majority of vapers in this study opposed this policy, and many vapers would not be willing to switch to available flavors, there was considerable variability in predicted behavioral responses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]