Three years after the last failed attempt to ban flavored tobacco, prohibition is once again on the Denver City Council’s agenda. Even when motivated by the best intentions, the evidence shows these bans often do more harm than good.
Flavored tobacco is allegedly responsible for a litany of harms, including an ”epidemic” of youth use. Advocates claim banning these products will have few to no negative consequences. But since then-Mayor Michael Hancock vetoed the last ban in 2021, the picture of tobacco use in Colorado and across the country has changed dramatically, and a ban now makes even less sense.
According to the Healthy Kids Colorado Survey (HKCS), vaping among high schoolers fell 46 percent from 16.1 percent in 2021 to 8.7 percent in 2023. Youth smoking remains low at 3.1 percent. Even among the minority of youth who vape, only one in five say they do so because they’re available in flavors, whereas 52 percent do so because a friend or family member used them. Among those who smoke cigarettes, a minority of 30 percent use menthol cigarettes.
For context, 12 percent of Colorado high schoolers binge drink at least once a month, and 13 percent use marijuana, according to HKCS. However, proposals to ban pineapple-flavored hard seltzers or blackberry banana kush have not been forthcoming from the Denver City Council. According to the 2024 National Youth Tobacco Survey, youth tobacco use nationwide is at a 25-year low, an achievement won within the framework of a legal and regulated marketplace.
Because youth tobacco use is plummeting, it’s worth noting that bans on flavored products may backfire and increase smoking. Bans on all flavored tobacco products, including flavored e-cigarettes, actually increase the number of cigarettes purchased. According to a 2023 study by researchers at Yale, Georgetown, and the University of Missouri, for every flavored e-cigarette pod not sold because of a flavor ban, 12 additional cigarettes are sold. Since e-cigarettes are significantly safer than combustible cigarettes, as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) acknowledges, and are the most popular method for quitting smoking, flavor bans represent a significant threat to public health.
“There’s unintended negative effects that are really important to think about,” said Michael Pesko, who co-authored the research, commenting on a similar proposal in Kansas City, Missouri. The Kansas City Council decided to hold the ban for further study.
Flavored tobacco bans can also come at a hefty financial price. When Massachusetts became the first state to ban flavored tobacco products in 2020, it lost $125 million in cigarette and smokeless tobacco revenue in the first fiscal year, as purchases of cigarettes and other tobacco products soared in neighboring New Hampshire and Rhode Island. Some small businesses, such as hookah lounges, face the threat of closure because almost all hookah is flavored.
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of Denver’s flavor ban is that it would deny residents access to products the FDA has authorized as “appropriate for the protection of public health.” The FDA has authorized 34 e-cigarette products for sale, some menthol-flavored, as well as several smokeless tobacco products and heated tobacco products in a variety of flavors. The agency authorized these products because, after an extensive review, they found that they were beneficial to public health because they are safer than cigarettes, help smokers quit, and do not have any significant appeal to youth.
Prohibitions always have a superficial appeal but are often not evidence-based policies. Instead, “evidence” is mustered to support a preordained conclusion. Betting on prohibition to deliver a safer, healthier future for kids has a poor record. The Denver City Council should avoid making a costly mistake and reject a tobacco flavor ban.