Red Tape Podcast, Episode 3 – Ban it All!
Red Tape is the newest R Street podcast about the country’s biggest problems and the surprising ways that governments (and regular people) often get in the way of solving them. It was produced in partnership with Pod People. Listen wherever you find podcasts, including Apple Podcasts and Spotify, and learn more about the podcast here.
Episode description:
Don’t like or understand something? Just ban it! In this episode of Red Tape from R Street, host Kelli Pierce is joined by Brandon Pugh, R Street’s Resident Fellow and Policy Director for the Cybersecurity and Emerging Threats Program. They discuss the potential implications of a Tik Tok ban in the United States and examine the delicate balance between data security and tech policy.
Kelli also speaks with Mazen Saleh, R Street’s Policy Director for Integrated Harm Reduction, to discuss why tobacco bans are a bad idea and the challenges surrounding nicotine and tobacco-related policies. Mazen also breaks down the controversy surrounding flavored e-cigarettes, discussing their potential benefits as a safer alternative to traditional combustible cigarettes. Plus, they get real about why quitting cold turkey doesn’t always work and the essential role of harm reduction strategies in managing nicotine addiction.
*Cold Open*
Kelli Pierce, Host:
Oh man, I’m starving. What to eat? Ooh, here’s a nice bit of Iberian ham I got from Spain.
Shoshana Weismann, Co-Host:
What the hell is Iberian ham?
Kelli:
So good. It’s one of the most prized foods in the world. It can only come from certain regions in Spain or Portugal and it tastes buttery and delicious. I brought it back from Europe.
Shoshana:
So it might be because I’m vegetarian and kosher, but I’ve literally never heard of it before, but according to the script that we’re definitely not reading, apparently a few decades ago it was completely banned in the US because of a swine flu scare. And now you can only bring it in if you get the okay from the USDA. So I have two questions, and one is, do you have swine flu? And the second is you have approval from the USDA?
Kelli:
I’m going to have to test for swine flu. Don’t have approval from the USDA, but I got to wonder, has anyone died from Spanish ham?
Shoshana:
So I don’t know if anyone’s died from Spanish ham. I guess it’s possible, but it was banned for a long time because a Spanish processor didn’t meet the USDA requirements.
*Theme Music In*
Kelli:
So you’re saying I’m banned from eating it, essentially?
Shoshana:
Yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I think so. I don’t think you can eat this.
Kelli:
Great. Okay. I’m still starving. I still got to eat something. Okay. Ooh, here’s a Cadbury chocolate bar, I mean the good kind from England.
Shoshana:
Oh, man. So it turns out Hershey is controlled the US part of British Cadbury since the eighties, and a couple of years ago they won a freaking lawsuit that banned the sale or import of British-made Cadbury chocolate into the US, which again, that definitely feels like a law we need.
Kelli:
So basically I’m going to starve to death because my entire lunch is banned.
Shoshana:
I mean, unless you eat vegetables, no soup for you. Ban it all. Just kidding. That’s the title of today’s episode.
Kelli:
I’m Kelli Pierce, award-winning journalist and digital media associate at R Street.
Shoshana:
I’m Shoshana Weismann, director of Digital Media and a fellow at R Street.
Kelli:
And this is Red Tape. So Shosh, I was curious about some other food bands because a lot of times they do seem silly.
*Theme Music Out*
Shoshana:
Yeah, there’s a lot of them. There’s so much. You can’t eat a Chilean sea bass that doesn’t have documentation. And I looked it up, I honestly thought this might be because in Animal Crossing everyone hates getting the sea bass. You just always get the sea bass and you always think it’s a shark or something, but it turns out it’s not related to Animal Crossing, surprisingly.
Kelli:
What?
Shoshana:
Yeah, I know. They put the license in place because the sea bass was over fished. Well duh, as I just explained. It would be interesting though to find out if that license has solved the problem, if it’s helped sea bass population, if Animal Crossing is still depleting it. I’m just kidding, if people are still depleting it, or if it’s just functionally another piece of paperwork.
Kelli:
Totally. Another food restriction that seems weird at first, but actually makes sense, you can’t bring any apples, oranges, fruits you were snacking on during an international flight into the US. This, again, sounds so stupid, but actually it helps stop fruit diseases from spreading onto farms.
Shoshana:
Yeah, but at the same time, if that rule were implemented in the Animal Crossing universe, you wouldn’t be able to get new fruit and win the game. Just kidding, but it is actually like the Simpsons episode where they go to Australia and Bart brings his frog and the frog becomes invasive, and at the very end you see the koala coming back on the plane. So that invasive species stuff, I hate regulations and stuff, but no, no, no, stuff like that makes sense and there’s a real logic behind them.
Kelli:
It was really funny, I don’t know if you saw this a couple of years ago when Hillary Swank was stopped in Australia because she brought an apple and an orange, I think, onto a plane. And they were like, no, no, no.
Shoshana:
Oh, I didn’t know that.
Kelli:
Yeah, it was insane. It was this huge international story, but it was actually a ban that does have some logic and makes sense. And then there are bans like my lunch. Perfectly good food stopped by labeling laws, companies who’ve sued their competitors, or those who’ve cornered the market and just banned our choices. And I think when we talk about bans in general, not just food, we got to stop, think, and really consider whether we need them.
Shoshana:
Yeah, I could go on about food bans and Animal Crossing references forever, honestly, but which bans are you thinking about from today?
Kelli:
Today we have two R Street experts who deal with and think about bans on a regular basis. First I’ll be talking with Brandon Pugh, R Street’s policy director and resident senior fellow on cybersecurity and emerging threats. Can you guess what we’re talking about?
Shoshana:
Well, if you’re talking about bans in cyber, it’s going to be TikTok, right?
Kelli:
How’d you know?
Shoshana:
I know, it’s definitely not like I read my colleagues’ work ever. No, there’s just been a lot of interest here, all the different state level bans for state government devices, obviously talk of the larger ban, and there’s interest here on the tech policy side. And there’s important approaches, stuff to think about with data security that we want to take seriously, but the core issue is definitely more on the cybersecurity side than the broader tech side.
Kelli:
Oh, absolutely, but as we’re sitting here right now, Montana’s ban TikTok from the state. And while First Amendment lawsuits started flying immediately, something that got lost in the, “Is this legal? Does China have our data?” Discussion was that it was terrible for some companies. They told CNN that their revenue streams, some of them were small, some of them were quite substantial, were cut off instantly, and no compensation from the state. And after Brandon, we’re going to take a little turn with Mazen Saleh, R Street’s policy director for integrated harm reduction about the limits of tobacco bans. And contrary to public opinion, there are some serious shortcomings when we try to restrict things like e-cigarettes.
Shoshana:
Kelli, fun fact, I don’t know if I’ve shown you this, as your boss, digital media stuff, but you can’t do promoted content anywhere, even discussing or debating policy that has anything to do with nicotine or tobacco. It violates everyone’s policy. And even if you’re promoting a debate on policy or harm reduction approaches, you just can’t do promoted ads around that.
Kelli:
I wish I could say that surprised me, but I really, really don’t. However, it just means no ads for this one.
*Theme Music In*
Shoshana:
Well yeah, we won’t worry about the ads side of stuff until we get to Mazen’s interview, but we can’t promote this one using paid ads. So for now, here’s Kelli’s conversation with Brandon about the government’s approach to TikTok, what they’re getting wrong, and how to focus it on security.
*Theme Music Out*
Kelli:
So Brandon, should I be more worried about the Commies online or not?
Brandon Pugh, Guest:
Well, it’s funny you say that because we see it coming up a lot now. Really, everybody should be concerned with how their data is collected, accessed, and used regardless of who is doing it. And I think it’s important to keep in mind, data is itself important and needed, but it can be used in wrong ways. And that can be by our government, it can be by private companies, and it can certainly be by adversarial nations.
Kelli:
That’s really the fear. And we don’t know who’s looking at our phones or tablets. And I do want to say, for the feds on my phone, the memes that I send to my friends and family are perfectly protected by the First Amendment and they’re jokes, so please don’t arrest me. But that fear a lot of times leads people to think, “Just ban it all,” but is immediately calling to ban something the wrong policy, especially when it comes to technology?
Brandon:
Yeah, so I think quick reactions are not ideal, and whether that’s a ban or even a more comprehensive measure, it’s really important to take a step back and see what the threat is and then address it in an appropriate way. And what I mean by that is we want to find a solution that actually fixes and corrects the problem. And my concern with some of the current bans, especially around, let’s call it out, TikTok, a lot of them are focused just on one company from one country, but it is a much broader threat. And that’s my concern about some of these relatively quick calls just to outright ban it.
Kelli:
If you say the words China or Russia and technology or apps, Americans get nervous and upset, but I really wonder what the real story is. I mean, how much control do they have over what we see? How much are bad actors really spying on us, or do we even know the answers to those questions?
Brandon:
Well, I have a few answers to that. I mean, first off is what we know. We know that adversarial nations like China, and there’s others, they have a history of just vacuuming up as much data as they can on Americans, their own citizens, and certainly citizens from around the world. And we know they’re on a quest just to steal our information, whether it’s our intellectual property, steal state secrets, and they engage in cyber attacks all at the same time. So those concerns are really front and center. And not to mention, a lot of these companies that come from China, there’s definitely concerns that they can be extensions of the Communist Chinese party. Or even if they don’t have direct connections, the line’s not always clear, which is unfortunate.
But then to your point, there’s just as many concerns about what we don’t know. It’s one thing to be told about how a company, especially one that’s coming from China, is accessing and using data, but is that the actual truth? We don’t know. So I think transparency and getting more certainty around those practices is key. And even if these are kind of tough issues to wrangle with, it’s really important as a country we get them right, because Americans’ protection is our main priority.
Kelli:
And is there really a way to know that? Is there a way for the government to try to figure that out, if a bad actor or any actor is trying to get our data?
Brandon:
Well, I think no solution is going to be foolproof, and that’s the unfortunate reality, but there’s a lot of steps we can do to make it harder and to protect Americans. And what I mean by that is a lot of people will say, “Well, the Chinese Communist Party, even if we somehow ban every company, they’re still going to either go steal the data or they’re going to buy it from data brokers.” And that may be true, but that doesn’t mean we do nothing about the companies themselves either. So that’s definitely something to be aware of. And not to mention, there are broader steps we can take. So for instance, there’s very few rules in this country about how data is protected or how it’s used and who it’s shared with. Meanwhile, a lot of countries around the world, including China themselves, have those types of walls. So we’re certainly at a disadvantage when all this data could be just freely collected, freely shared, and freely used with little, or if any, protections.
Kelli:
That’s amazing that America is behind China in this instance, because we are the founders of all this technology and yet we’re running behind some of the rest of the world, which is a little concerning, but the real heart of this, as we’ve been talking, is data privacy. Is our stuff really secure online, and how do you answer that question?
Brandon:
Yeah, well to take a step back to your last point, you’re right, China has a privacy law. I always joke and it’s partially true, they have it on paper. Whether they actually follow it is another thing, but technically speaking, they have a privacy law. But it does put America at a disadvantage, because American companies don’t have a US standard to follow. So by default, they’re following European standards like the GDPR, which is not an American way of protecting privacy. Not to say it doesn’t have benefits, but it largely is not the pro-innovation, limited government free markets approach.
Kelli:
And for people who don’t know, I mean what sort of, in your opinion, the disadvantage of the European approach to the internet technology is specifically data privacy?
Brandon:
So GDPR has a number of issues. A couple of them, it is definitely a challenge for companies and businesses that comply. And I think it is a balance, because any consumer privacy law needs to be balancing the needs of consumers, the needs of industry, and the needs of security. And the last one is often forgotten. I think GDPR sways too much on and doesn’t place enough value on the impact it’s going to have on companies and industry. And I think some of the proposals that we’ve seen in the United States try to strike that balance moreso by realizing that not every company has the same data, not everybody has the same sensitivity of data. For instance, our smallest and medium-sized businesses, they should be subjected to and have to follow every element that an international tech company might have to follow, they just don’t have the same resources, nor do they have the need or the type of data that might justify that.
At the same time, I am mindful of the fact that there can be small companies. For instance, our data brokers, some are only a handful of employees, but they’re collecting super sensitive information on millions of Americans. So there is that divide between throwing a needle between covering big companies, but then also getting small companies that have concerns, but then doing so in a way that doesn’t hurt innovation.
Kelli:
But as we’re sitting here, TikTok’s in the news, as we’ve been discussing. We have states moving to ban it either on their employees’ government phones or ban the app altogether for their citizens. Congress is also trying to have their, which is kind of interesting to me, made for social media moments while at the same time working on a ban of a social media company. What are the arguments against TikTok and are they persuading Americans to support a ban?
Brandon:
Well, there’s a few concerns around TikTok, but I’d say three stand out. One is really the data privacy concerns. There is a … well and data security as well. There’s a risk and a thought out there that the Communist Chinese party, or the CCP, may be collecting individual user data on Americans in particular and that being fed back into the Communist Chinese party. And there’s a lot of risks with that alone in terms of potentially targeting Americans, using it for potential military conflicts in the future. And this isn’t just make believe. We see it actually happening in real life. Let’s take the Russia-Ukraine conflict. We see Russia collecting information on Ukraine soldiers and targeting them for physical violence. So that’s a concern.
But then secondly, there’s also a risk of the Chinese Communist Party, and then, as well as TikTok, could manipulate content to –
Brandon:
To make it like pro CCP content that Americans would see or anti-US content. There’s more nuance to that, but that’s also a risk. And then third, there is just general fears around China and the communist Chinese party right now. They’re on a quest to get ahead of the United States in tech, in the military, in virtually every other area of life. So there is definitely that general overarching fear that exists and Congress wanting to do something about that.
Kelli:
Yeah, absolutely. But it’s not just social media, the US government spanning sales from Chinese companies like Huawei and ZTE. What’s going on here for those who don’t know?
Brandon:
So yes, TikTok is definitely not the first. It’s gotten the most media attention, I think partially because of the number of users that are in the America, but we actually a history of banning or limiting different companies from operating in the US. And generally, it’s on the basis that they pose an unacceptable risk to US national security. And we’ve seen that the Federal Communications Commission exercise authority in that space as well. But to your point, this isn’t just about social media companies. Are there risks with them? Yes. There’s definitely open questions as well. But this also extends the hardware, software, internet of things like IoT connected devices. Many IoT connected devices are still made in China, and it’s not clear on where that footage and the camera feed and audio is actually going.
You could envision a nightmare scenario where your home vacuum cleaner is sending that data back to China. And a lot of people will say, “Well, what risk is that? Do we actually care if our data is going back to China?” Oh, I don’t know about you, but I don’t want even my own government collecting what I’m saying in my house and the layout of my house, let alone the Chinese Communist Party.
Kelli:
Just for people who don’t know why that’s such a bad thought. You don’t want to have your life open to everybody. It’s like, you never know when something might become illegal or make you more open to spying.
Brandon:
Exactly. And at the end of the day, I have nothing to hide. I’ve chosen to live a more visible lifestyle on social media. I love my Instagram and Twitter followers, but not everybody likes that. Some people want to be private, and I think it’s important for those to be aware of how their information is collected, how it’s being used, and who it’s being transferred with. As we sit here and speak today, there’s really no telling if your data is going to the Chinese Communist Party. And that is the benefit of some of the proposals we see out there, as at least it would put Americans unnoticed that their data is going to select adversarial nations. And then it would give them the option if they want to proceed. Whereas now the CCP, Russia, or a host of other companies or countries I should say, could be getting this data and you have no clue about that, which is a major issue.
Kelli:
Yeah, absolutely. And it seems like having a data policy is much better than having a ban because bans of social media companies or technology, just prohibition in general, it seems like they have a problem. A black market might pop up every time.
Brandon:
You’re right. Two things on that. Even if we were to reach a hundred percent agreement right now in Congress and agree on what a ban of TikTok would look like, and I know that’s impossible. But even if we did, it would still only address part of the problem, the underlying collection of data. And really over collection, too many times we see data being collected and it’s not actually needed, and then who it’s being transferred with, and how it’s protected, those core issues still are not addressed by a TikTok problem, or a TikTok solution. So I am really always advocating that we need a broader solution, which is a comprehensive data privacy and security law to the issue.
Kelli:
And instead of a ban, it’s incentivizing companies to have a safe and secure data policy.
Brandon:
It is. And there’s companies that voluntarily do that now, but the advantage of having a national approach to it is kind of twofold. It would stop the ad hoc approach we’re taking now where individual states are deciding on data security and privacy laws, and that’s bad for consumers because there’s no standard or likely you live in a state where you don’t have a law. And it’s also bad for companies because now you’re forced to follow this state by state set of rules that is varying. So those are two issues definitely with that. And I think at the end of the day, we do need a national policy on how we’re securing our data.
Kelli:
And we’ve been sort of dancing around this issue, but let’s go right out and ask what does a national policy on data security ideally look like?
Brandon:
So I think there’s a few components to it. On one side, it would give consumers rights. So you would have the right to know what information’s being collected on you, to request that information be deleted. You’d also have the right to opt in or opt out depending on the provisions. So if you don’t want to receive targeted advertising, maybe you would have the opportunity to opt out of something like that. There’s a lot of provisions to it, but one that stands out to me are the security specific ones. So it would have what the bill defines, it’s very technical, administrative, physical, and technical safeguards to your data. And that may seem like just complicated language, but it is key because that is setting forth rules on how the data that is collected is safeguarded.
Because outside of regulated industries like healthcare or finance, everybody knows HIPAA, but if you’re not in one of those fields, there’s no requirement to protect the data. So we could collect all this information, theoretically, put it in an unsecured database, and it’d just be open to everybody. I know that’s an extreme example, but there’s nothing really preventing that. Yes, the FTC or the Federal Trade Commission could come after you with an enforcement action, but that’s largely ad hoc. There’s no uniform standard.
Kelli:
That makes a lot of sense. But would that really be enforceable just in the boundaries of the United States? Because I could imagine that someone would say, all right, what’s Russia’s incentive to follow United States policy on data security and privacy?
Brandon:
Yeah. So the advantage of having a national approach here is other countries are making their own. There is going to, unfortunately, be this international patchwork of data privacy and security laws potentially. But if we get out there and create an American one, we fortunately are in an economic position where a lot of the major companies are still in the US, and those that are not are doing business in the US or collecting on Americans. So they would either be directly covered or I do envision a scenario where many would want to follow it because of the economic and business benefits to it. And we see that actually play out now with the European model. Even though not every company is subjected to the GDPR in Europe, many voluntarily choose to follow it as a best practice, and it is a differentiator. But at the end of the day, I think consumer privacy is something consumers are looking for. So if you could put yourself out there as a company that embraces privacy, there is a benefit to your company, even if it’s not a requirement.
Kelli:
Yeah. And I will say when I go on European websites, it’s a lot easier to tell them not to track my cookies or not load them up onto my computer. So it’s a lot simpler in certain ways. I have to wonder though, if the government’s doomed to play whack-a-mole when it comes to regulations, or are there areas where we can get ahead of the game to protect our data? Because it always seems like technology is moving faster than government regulators.
Brandon:
If we do nothing now, this whack-a-mole approach is unfortunately going to continue, and we see it playing out in real time, unfortunately. A lot of people say I’m an alarmist when I say we’re going to have 50 state privacy laws. That’s not going to happen overnight, but that’s definitely the trend we’re going into. We started this year with five laws going to effect or being updated this year, since that point, we’ve already seen others that are half passed or are imminently going to pass. And then add to that confusion, a lot of our federal regulators, like the FTC, FCC, SEC, all of these three-letter acronyms are all looking to regulate in the privacy and security space as well as a host of others.
So that is the advantage I think, of having a set comprehensive privacy law at the federal level because it takes away this burden of having to follow this tremendous patchwork that is emerging. And obviously, coming from R Street, we are a free market, limiting government think tank. But this is advantage where I think that having one uniform law would prevent this patchwork, and that ultimately helps consumers end businesses more.
Kelli:
Yeah. We are pro decentralization and having states determine their own futures, but you really laid out why it’s better or why this is the best of the federal government is having this one policy so you’re not exposed in one state and then protected in another. Lastly, how do we go forward on data privacy and technology to get to better policy solutions that are effective, not based on fear, and that do protect civil liberties and free expression?
Brandon:
There’s two different directions. On the data privacy front, we instantly need to act on a comprehensive data privacy and security law, and that’s something Congress can do now. We saw a version of that go really far last congress, matter of fact, a 53 to 2 vote. So strong bipartisan, bicameral support. But as part of that, there does need to be consensus and compromise. There’s no law that’s going to be perfect for everybody. And we would be the first to say that even what we had last year, the American Data Privacy and Protection Act or ADPPA. It wasn’t perfect in every sense, but it was a strong sense, substantial step forward that relied on compromise. And there is give and take. If we keep being entrenched in, I don’t like that or that part’s okay, we may never move forward and that’s just not good for Americans.
But then secondly, on the security side, I think it’s really important for us to realize that there is a much broader threat here, rather than one application from one country. I’m not downplaying or diminishing some of the concerns or questions surrounding TikTok, but there are other applications, hardware and software that also post threats. So I think a holistic approach is key, but as part of that, we need to be mindful that we shouldn’t give too much authority to a federal regulator to be the arbiter of some of those decisions. And unfortunately, some of the legislation we see out right now would grant widespread powers to the Secretary of Commerce, and that’s definitely concerning to me.
*Transition Music In*
Kelli:
Yeah, absolutely. And it’s very important to keep the big picture in mind and not have our policy based on fear. Thank you so much, Brandon.
Brandon:
Glad to be here. Thanks, Kelli.
Shoshana:
So yeah, I always enjoy hearing Brandon’s side because when I do policy around tech, it’s really the tech side to get through the cyber a little bit. But I’ve learned a lot from Brandon and the way he’s thinking through where the threats are and that it’s not just one company, which is silly to think about only threats from one company when government and private companies are getting hacked all the time. I like that he’s focusing on broader threats than just TikTok.
*Transition Music Out*
Kelli:
I think we have just such a laser focus on one thing that we just miss the big picture. And people don’t tend to realize when they have that laser focus that banning things like TikToks, emerging technologies, it takes our eye off the ball again of the bigger picture. I think the way to think about this is government’s always playing catch up to business. And with the internet, things move much faster than anyone can anticipate. And these bans that don’t work, they stop us from putting together a data privacy policy that could, and that data privacy policy will be the thing that protects everyone in the long run, really.
Shoshana:
Yeah, and it’s more inclusive of all different kinds of technology. It’s not focused on one company, which we can’t do anyway because it’s like a bill of attainder. And the ones that are focused broadly are sometimes just too broad. So I like the data privacy angle, especially it’s something that brings people together.
Kelli:
Isn’t Congress trying to regulate Facebook now?
Shoshana:
Yeah, I know. I can’t emotionally handle that. It’s stressing me out. So what are some things we’re doing at R Street to help solve this problem?
Kelli:
Well, we talk a lot on Red Tape about starting conversations, and we do that in many ways. We’ve testified before Congress on this issue. You might have seen Brandon possibly in the news doing that. We’ve also done interviews with media written op-eds to get regular people thinking in a better way about this, because fear, even if it’s legitimate, should not be driving our decisions. Facts should be.
Shoshana:
Yeah. I mean, even on my tech side, it’s not the same as Brandon’s work, but sometimes if there’s crossover, I’m always talking about like, “Hey, I know you want to verify user’s age, but the only way to do that accurately is government IDs, and home addresses, and face scanning, and other biometrics.” Which is that’s security risk and stuff. And I like that Brandon’s always cool with me talking about it. And we’re also thinking about work for energy security, not like imports of energy or that kind of regulation, but actual cybersecurity for energy. And Brandon’s work touches all of these areas.
Kelli:
Yeah. And people tend to not remember about social media and how powerful that is for changing the conversation, for changing people’s minds. You dragging politicians on Twitter, it can change things.
Shoshana:
Maybe that’s why they want to regulate it so hard. Okay, everyone, when we come back, we’re going to glow some smoke or vapor. Kelli will be speaking with Mazen Saleh, our policy director for integrated harm reduction about drugs and tobacco.
Kelli:
And unicorn poop. We talk about unicorn poop.
Shoshana:
Oh my gosh. Red Tape from R Street will be right back.
*Theme Music Out*
*Mid Roll*
*Transition Music Sting*
You’re listening to Red Tape from R Street. So Kelli, why are we flagging this interview as air quotes, “controversial content”?
Shoshana:
Or maybe those are real quotes.
Kelli:
Oh, because whenever you talk about tobacco, people get super upset and it doesn’t really matter their politics, whether they’re a parent or not. And it can make discussions about the best way forward, really difficult to hold. Most people don’t want their loved ones to smoke, and that’s really good. But Mazen’s going to show why prohibition of certain tobacco products can actually do more harm than good.
Shoshana:
Yeah, it’s always kind of amazing that government’s able to make stopping a thing that we all kind of agree is not a good thing, somehow worse. It’s really a talent, and I get it. I think some of it is panic and understandable panic because cigarettes cause cancer, and that’s not something we want to encourage for a billion different reasons. But it’s such a difficult topic I think for people to sometimes handle evidence with because it can be one that hits really close to home.
Kelli:
I’m really excited for everyone to hear Mazen because like we said, he’s R Street’s policy director for integrated harm reduction. He’s had just a long career in the healthcare space. He’s coordinated projects to address HIV prevention and homelessness. And what you’re going to hear a lot in this interview is the principles behind something we’ve been talking about. Harm reductions, really practices and policies that keep people safer and healthier, even if they do something that isn’t good for them, like smoking in this case.
*Transition Music In*
Mazen’s going to talk about the good hard data, which shows why more access to e-cigarettes leads to fewer smokers and healthier outcomes for everyone. And why bands contrary to public opinion, really don’t do anything.
Shoshana:
All right, so let’s hear your interview with Mazen.
*Transition Music Out*
Kelli:
There’s some thunderstorms behind me, so if you hear a loud boom, oops. So it means you made a great point and God’s like, yes.
Mazen Saleh, Guest:
Or the Universe is opposing what I’m saying.
Kelli:
Let’s really start by cutting through all the noise in the news. What are we talking about when we’re talking about things like vaping, e-cigarettes, flavored tobacco? What’s everyone actually upset about and what do these products do?
Mazen:
Yeah, there’s a few things to unpack there. So vapes are another name for e-cigarettes, and what they really represent are a new class of products that deliver nicotine without the combustion that is associated and produced when you smoke a traditional cigarette. Vapes, however, do not contain any tobacco. Instead, what they do is they heat a liquid and that liquid becomes a vapor that people can breathe in, and that vapor contains nicotine, which is of course the addictive chemical in cigarettes. So calling vapes flavor tobacco is also kind of a bit of a misnomer. When people refer to flavored tobacco that is being used interchangeably with flavored vapes, but organic and synthetic nicotine has no characterizing flavor actually. So manufacturers will add additives that mimic flavor profiles and people are up in arms because they believe that flavors entice youth and young adults to try these products. And because of the addictive nature of nicotine, they’ll keep vaping.
Kelli:
And yeah, I hear a lot of times about there’s going to be cherry flavored tobacco that’s going to be in their vape, but that’s not quite what’s going on here, it seems like.
Mazen:
No, no, no, not at all. So because there’s actually no tobacco leaves in vapes, all it is is flavorings you would place into any product. Humans love flavors. It’s not hard when you go to a Starbucks and wait in line. You can hear the plethora of flavors being spout out for drink orders. And so flavoring additives are nothing new.
Kelli:
I think people also get confused because of some of the names on the packages. Some of the names really suggest that there’s going to be a fruit loop flavor profile, but that’s just not happening.
Mazen:
Well, unfortunately, it is happening a bit. So there has been really a wild west of e-cigarettes that have flooded the market that have not been regulated. And so there are things like unicorn poop, which I couldn’t even tell you what flavor that would be that are on the market. And so there are certain things that I think that we can consciously argue that adults wouldn’t necessarily be attracted to and can probably remove those things from the shelves.
Kelli:
I don’t know. I mean, I’m a millennial, so a lot of times my generation likes things that are very, let’s say, kid oriented. So I think maybe they do have that. So I do get that sense of people are confusing also illegal products with ones that are legal. However, smoking just in general has had a sharp drop over the past few decades, but there are Americans who need a cigarette, and more and more research is showing that things like e-cigarettes can help them quit really, why is that?
Mazen:
Well, there’s an old adage that says that people smoke for the nicotine, but they die from the tar. Nicotine is the addictive component that keeps smokers smoking. And since vapes essentially divorce the delivery of nicotine from burning tobacco leaves that are laced with chemicals, you’re essentially cutting out the most harmful part of smoking. Since combustion releases roughly 7,000 chemicals, of which about 70 or so are carcinogens, we really look to promote alternative risk products for adult smokers so that they can wean off and completely discontinue cigarette smoking as it is the most harmful thing to smoke.
Kelli:
And we have to be clear, tobacco, cigarette smoking, this is not healthy, but if you have that craving, it’s better to use something like a vape.
Mazen:
Yeah, I mean, tobacco and nicotine products can be plotted on what researchers tend to call a continuum of risk. And so what that says is that vaping and some types of smokeless tobacco are at the lower end of the risk spectrum. They’re closer in risk to what you would find in FDA-approved nicotine replacement therapies like the nicotine patch or gum, where cigarettes on the other hand are at the other far end of the spectrum, and they represent the highest risk to health. And so for adults who smoke cigarettes, switching completely to e-cigarettes reduces that risk by about 95% than they would traditionally get with smoking cigarettes.
Kelli:
Wow, that really surprised me, that stat. However, I think it’s also important to talk about some of the psychology around addiction. It’s really an important point for people to understand why telling someone to quit cold turkey doesn’t work as opposed to getting them onto something like a vape.
Mazen:
Yeah, the psychology around it, how much time do we have here to discuss that?
Kelli:
Hey, explain it to me like I’m five.
Mazen:
No, so abstinence by and large doesn’t work at the population level. We’ve seen in multiple ways, whether it’s abstinence from sex, abstinence from consuming sugar, whatever that might be. There was once really an anti-smoking campaign that provided individuals with two options, and it was the quit or die campaign. And we both know the success of that campaign. There are over 30 million adult smokers still in the US today. And so the truth of the matter is addiction is very complex, and the reasons people try psychoactive substances are multidimensional.
For smoking cigarettes, some like the mood altering changes of nicotine as it releases dopamine in the brain. Others enjoy the ritualistic aspects of taking a smoke break and conversing with people who share their same rituals. Some even use it as a coping mechanism to deal with the stressors of everyday life and taking one look at the news cycle today and you’ll see why. But none of this is new. So tobacco use has been documented for over 8,000 years. To think that people will just stop or won’t try something that has been part of our existence for so long is I think at best naive and at worst dangerous. So that’s not to say it has no value though, I think people who don’t smoke or vape shouldn’t start. But for those who do smoke, reducing their harm by providing alternative products is safer, although not completely safe bet.
Kelli:
Yeah, absolutely. You can also think about it in terms of alcohol. I was recently in Kentucky and doing some bourbon tasting, which was lovely, but one of the people that I was with who had really gotten into it, one of the things she liked about it, and she’s not alcoholic at all, but it was that social aspect, that taking the stress off, that’s a very important point for people to think about as we address motivations and that you can’t just tell people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, you need an alternative. And to be clear, when you talk about safer alternatives to combustible cigarettes, you’re not encouraging people to smoke. It’s more about having that human-centered policy instead of one maybe driven by fear.
Mazen:
Absolutely. And I think that really speaks to the core of what the definition of harm reduction is. And that’s what it’s defined as meeting people where they are at. So we’re not trying to push somebody to an idealistic version of human behavior that they can’t accomplish. And so what we do for policymakers is really kind of ask them to employ what we call risk proportionate legislation so that the legislation is based on the risks that are posed by that product. So does that mean taxing cigarettes higher than e-cigarettes? Absolutely. We want to incentivize people to make safer choices if they’re going to continue the activity. And we also want individuals to make informed choices rather than having a place where the state tells you what you can do and what you can’t do.
Kelli:
And going back to the public health campaign that you cited, I think that there has been a very good public health message through the decades about smoking though, along with maybe the policy, it’s also become a little more socially taboo as well.
Mazen:
Absolutely. And we’ve seen smoking rates drop pretty dramatically over the last 20, 30 years or so but what we still find is, I think anti vape advocates would start referencing, first it was a world without tobacco and everybody was behind that, and we saw great reductions, but it didn’t get to zero. And now what we’re seeing in the opposition is a world without nicotine. And so the idealistic or the ambitious goal is really a world with zero users of tobacco and zero users of nicotine. And I think that completely ignores the aspect of kind of reality. And the reality is that that number will never be zero. And if what we’ve seen in terms of pretty dramatic drops in smoking rates is increases in use of e-cigarettes, and if that’s what’s getting us to a world without tobacco, then I think that’s a good thing.
Kelli:
And a lot of those messages, as you’ve alluded to, have really been targeted or justified by using the kids. But let’s look into the data and everyone is worried about kids getting attracted to vapes because of the flavors, and then either transitioning to combustible cigarettes or continue vaping when they wouldn’t have had the flavor not been available. And I can remember having this conversation with some former coworkers who are also parents, and they were getting freaked out saying things like, “Oh my God, the children don’t know. They don’t know about vapes and how dangerous they are.” But what do the data actually say about states and localities who allow e-cigarettes? Are teens more likely to touch the stuff or less?
Mazen:
Yeah, personally, I think to say that kids don’t try vapes for flavors is kind of irresponsible. Sure they do, but it isn’t the first reason that they try a vape, and it actually isn’t the second. So when the CDC looked into this in 2019, they found that 55.3% of kids that they had surveyed were just curious to try them, and then 30.8% because a friend or a family member used them. And then coming in third actually was the flavor component where 22.4% were curious about flavors. Now, when you parse out the data localities and states that have banned flavor products, you will tend to see decreases in purchase trends in those areas. But, and this is a big but, there are actually increases in purchases in surrounding areas, which just goes to show that prohibition isn’t working right. Individuals will find a way to access the products they want. For example, in San Francisco, what we saw was a little bit of different trend, when they had banned flavors, the data actually indicated that youth who were increasingly buying combustible cigarettes, were actually transferring over to cigarettes. And that I think is the worst possible outcome that anybody would want.
Kelli:
Going back to the kids, I think this conversation’s understandably centered around kids a lot of times, I know we were talking about that. Tobacco’s already illegal for children to buy, but if you’re worried about them getting their hands on it, just like you’re saying, there are better ways to keep kids from vaping than prohibition.
Mazen:
That’s absolutely correct. I think for starters, enforcing the current laws that prohibit kids from purchasing tobacco products under 21 is probably the most important thing to do. There’s different ways that we can kind of monitor and mitigate those risks, whether that means scanning IDs at retailers, conducting random retailer inspections. We’ve even seen some places install vape detectors at schools to ensure that kids aren’t vaping in schools, removing non-approved products from the market. So there’s a ton of work to do, I think around enforcement, the FDA has admitted that it hasn’t had the resources to actually commit to that because it has just been so inundated in applications for alternative nicotine delivery system approvals based on how its pathway is set up.
Kelli:
Switching to adults, we have a lot of research coming out from around the world, England especially, I think showing lower levels of tobacco use, the wider access you have to things like vapes.
Mazen:
I would actually kind of expand a little bit so the United Kingdom actually just launched a swap to
Mazen:
Stop scheme in which they’re actually providing 1 million vape kits for free to smokers to get them to kick the habit and transition.
Kelli:
Wow.
Mazen:
It’s perhaps also unsurprising that the UK is also the gold standard in tobacco control in the world. That’s the type of, I think, innovation that the US needs to start adopting in order to get individuals to kick the habit.
Kelli:
What do they do because I didn’t know that they were the gold standard for tobacco control? What are they getting right?
Mazen:
I think by and large is there is a recognition that e-cigarettes and vapes are a good method for tobacco cessation for quitting smoking. We have the US FDA that hasn’t endorsed vapes as a method for quitting cigarettes. In fact, what we’ve seen here in the US is really a demonization of nicotine and a demonization of e-cigarettes and other alternative nicotine delivery systems. What that’s really doing is just winnowing the market of less harmful alternatives for adult smokers. I think we’ve seen some of the scaremongering tactics of public health education campaigns focused to youth. For one particular anti-vaping campaign shows graphics of and lets kids know that worms will grow in your face if you vape. That type of scaremongering doesn’t work for youth. They know better. If anything, it’s just peaking their interest because the conversation has become so hot in the press. We really need to re-look at our relationship with nicotine and vapes in the US in order to follow that standard.
Kelli:
You’d think that kids would want to make a social media video with worms coming out of them if that was the case. But I think also this pushes the FDA possibly in an unsound direction when it comes to the goal of getting people to stop smoking.
Mazen:
I mean, I think there’s pressure from lawmakers to see action on youth use numbers. The good news is youth use has been declining since 2019 when it had peaked. Because of the numbers that still exist, I think that their approach to regulating these products is a bit slanted. They’ve really lost their responsibility to protect adult smokers. When you look at the two pathways that they have for cigarettes to be approved for sale in the United States, less than 1% of all product applications are getting through the regulatory framework. That’s a couple million applications that have gone through in the last few years.
Kelli:
Wow.
Mazen:
We really need to ask ourselves whether these are pathways to rejection or pathways for approval. I think given the FDA still isn’t an endorsing e-cigarettes as a method for quitting cigarette smoking, while the health authorities in the UK are giving them out for free, I think that tells us everything we need to know.
Kelli:
It also seems like we aren’t learning the lessons from prohibition. It didn’t work for alcohol, and it’ll lead to bad outcomes if we do it for tobacco.
Mazen:
Yeah, I mean, I’m a child of the eighties. I remember the DARE campaigns to not use drugs. One could argue that our drug supply is probably as lethal as it’s ever been. Our drug overdose numbers are the highest they’ve ever been. We really need to ask ourselves whether these abstinence-only scaremongering approaches are doing more harm than benefit.
Kelli:
We definitely see that double-standard here and an example to really go forward because we’re rolling back bans on marijuana because we saw the harm those bans did in things like the criminal justice system or pain management, but it seems like we’re replacing that ban with a prohibition on tobacco.
Mazen:
We are seeing some cognitive dissonance in rolling back those kind of cannabis regulations. I think in hindsight, policy makers are seeing what 50 years of cannabis prohibition have resulted in. We are seeing states move to, even though cannabis is still classified as a Schedule 1 substance in the US and we’re still seeing its legality in states for recreational use, and that’s also being included in vapes and things like that. I think where it starts getting really tricky is when individuals start home engineering their own products.
We saw this, there was a called an EVALI outbreak in which health authorities here in the US have labeled the e-cigarette, I think the whole acronym E-cigarette or vaping-associated lung injury. But what was happening were individuals were adding THC compounds to their vape pens so that they could vape THC. Part one of those additives was vitamin E acetate, which was resulting in popcorn lung. Health authorities immediately labeled that an e-cigarette thing, even though it really had nothing to do with e-cigarettes and everything to do with home engineering THC vapes. What we tend to find when you look at the data is in states that had more lax laws around recreational use, saw lower incidences of EVALI because people weren’t home engineering their products.
Again, we’re faced with the same data over and over that shows us the harms of prohibition, but it’s the knee-jerk reaction from 50 years of a war on drugs I think to continue down that pathway.
Kelli:
What are the conversations we should be having around tobacco, e-cigarettes, vaping? Again, we can’t stress this enough, we’re not encouraging people to take up combustible cigarettes. We just want to look for the pitfalls as we get to better policy solutions.
Mazen:
I think really informed public education campaigns. I’ll be frank. I think that if you don’t smoke and if you don’t vape, then don’t start. I mean, I think there are other ways, that there are other stimulants on the market, whether that’s drinking coffee or caffeine or things like that. There’s other ways to deal with coping mechanisms, whether that’s diet and exercise. Anything that you put inside your body that is chemically derived isn’t necessarily the healthiest thing for you. From just a human health perspective, I think that there are healthier habits to pick up.
But for those who do smoke cigarettes, particularly adult smokers, I think transitioning completely to e-cigarettes is a way to significantly reduce their harm. They won’t eliminate all harms associated with it, because again, eliminating all harms would be breathing just pure air. But I do think that they have an opportunity to significantly reduce a pretty large amount of chemicals and carcinogens that they’re bringing into their body by switching over to vape products.
Then something that might be a little bit provocative, but I’ll go ahead and say anyway is I think that we should expect that there’s going to be a certain number of youth that vape. I think that we need to accept that because there would be a certain number of youth that would’ve been smoking cigarettes. That’s actually more harmful and more dangerous. Getting to a world without tobacco and without nicotine I think is overly ambitious and a bit naive.
Shoshana:
Kelli, I really like Mazen’s perspective here and the harm-reduction perspective generally. I just think it’s really interesting to think about not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good from a policy perspective. That applies to a lot of the work I do. So much of it is trying to chase a good that can’t exist or a perfect that can’t exist instead of doing the good thing that can exist. I think the harm-reduction perspective is just a really valuable one really broadly for policy, and especially for smoking and vaping because if vaping can reduce deaths and reduce the harm caused by otherwise smoking by 95%, that’s something that we should really take into account.
Kelli:
Yeah, absolutely. It just boggles my mind that we haven’t learned the lessons from prohibition in the 1920s. It doesn’t work, even with something that is so socially unacceptable, like tobacco.
Shoshana:
It doesn’t work. Cold turkey doesn’t work. A lot of smokers will tell you that cold turkey is just not a thing that’s worked for them.
Kelli:
Yeah, like you said, you don’t want the perfect to be the enemy of the good.
Shoshana:
Exactly, yeah.
Kelli:
It’s really education about this principle of harm reduction. I know we talk a lot about having conversations and people who are listening might wonder, “So what? What does that do?” But, think about your own life. If you’re doing something unhealthy, are you going to be likely to change if someone’s yelling at you or giving you a dry presentation about facts and data, or are you more likely to listen to a friend giving you solid advice or someone you respect online? I just look at the public health campaigns of the past few decades against tobacco, and they’ve been so successful and really helped millions of people quit smoking because their ad campaigns, at first, changed the conversation.
Shoshana:
I mean, if you tell me to stop hiking alone with bears and ban that, I’ll just do it and try not to get caught. If enforcement goes up, then I’ll just make more people come with me when I hike with bears, but that’s a huge pain for me. There’s so many other examples of it. Even with the social media bans and the different kind of tech bans, a lot of people are still going to do it. Some of the bills have penalized users for trying to use banned stuff. It’s like, okay, well, are you ready to throw every teenager in jail because they’re using TikTok or penalize them in some way for that?
*Theme Music In*
It’s not realistic. There’s better methods. Sometimes any solution is going to be worse than none. But here, we have good ideas with vapes to help people stop doing really, really harmful things.
Kelli:
It definitely makes policy people-centered.
Hey, Shosh. We made it to the end of this episode. Hopefully not the end of discussion on why banning things you hate won’t work. Again, prohibition by any other name is going to fail just like it did in the 1920s, but if we put together smart policies, that will probably lead to better outcomes.
Shoshana:
Are you can take my bear spray from my cold gnawed hands?
Kelli:
No, that’s harm reduction. That lets you commune with nature.
Shoshana:
Yeah, if I die in the woods, it’s on my own terms. Okay, well, aside from bears eating me, what’s on next week’s episode, Kelli?
Kelli:
Well, I hope bears don’t eat you because next week’s episode is going to focus on South Park. We are going to talk with R Street’s, Jonathan Bydlak and Nan Swift about how a certain famous episode can explain why our government can’t quit its spending addiction.
Shoshana:
Until then, thanks for listening.
Kelli:
Red Tape is produced by R Street in partnership with Pod People.
Shoshana:
To learn more about the work we’re doing at R Street, follow us on LinkedIn and on Twitter. Our Twitter is @RSI.
Kelli:
For more resources and information on the topics we explored today, you can check out RStreet.org.
Shoshana:
Also, if you’ve enjoyed listening to today’s episode, the best thing you can do is share Red Tape with a friend or an enemy.
Kelli:
If you’re an overachiever, please leave a glowing review and rate us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts. It really does help us introduce the show to new listeners.
Shoshana:
I’m Shoshana Weismann.
Kelli:
I’m Kelli Pierce.
Shoshana:
Thanks for listening.
*Theme Music Out*
Audio Logo:
Pod People.