by Dylan Erni
Date
In September of 2019, the state of Massachusetts announced a state-wide ban on all e-cigarettes, including any nicotine, or THC based variants, expanding as far as all vaping liquids, commonly known as vape “juice.” The reason for this measure was, according to the Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker, to give time to work with specialists and public health experts to properly regulate those products due to the apparent “public health emergency.” The ban itself extends four months and mirrors San Francisco’s policy, which will go into effect next year, giving
time for shop owners to adjust stock and prepare economically.
There has been quite a bit of discussion around the ban within Beverly High School, from teachers drawing similarities to literary works and history, to peers in open debate about the topic. This makes sense, as many students are likely affected. According to the school nurse, Kerrie Guinivan, said, there have been many students who vape, even inside the school. With all this, the Ledger staff decided to interview students from the area as well as teachers and school medical staff to see how informed students were on the subject, if the ban or vaping, in general, has affected them or anyone they know, and what their views on the ban were. It was alluring to learn how much educated and civil discussion was found as well as how well informed many of the staff and other pupils were on not only vaping but on the ban itself, and moreover how opinionated they are on the medical aspects, as well as the impacts on local business owners and illegal sales.
The majority of people interviewed were against the use of e-cigarettes, especially in youths, citing the alleged dangers. This view was shared by the school nurse, who talked about its negative health effects like “popcorn lung.” Some, however, expanded on this and spoke about it from the libertarian point of view, discussing the government’s right to regulate nicotine products to adults.
Mr. Sean Fitzpatrick, an English Language Arts teacher for Beverly High School, was very impressively researched in the topic and has even incorporated them into discussions in his classroom, drawing similarities to books like The Crucible, which has themes of authoritarianism and government overreach. Although he did have many thought-provoking questions, he didn’t have too many solid opinions on the ban, except for his stance on the ban itself, saying “I think the ban is well-intentioned; it seems somewhat misguided from what I have read.” He mainly focused on, as he put it, “The government’s role in the rights of citizens,” drawing similarities to other current issues such as “abortion, drugs, and euthanasia.”
Expanding on this with some data, he stated, “One notable statistic is that about half a million cigarette smokers die every year from smoking,” further noting “if that doesn’t constitute a public health emergency, it’s not clear to me why twenty-odd deaths tied to vaping does.” He talked about the possible dangers of the ban to users, saying
“The majority of cases are tied to THC products that were obtained via the black market, and so by making it harder to get regulated products, users may look to the black-market, possibly having the reverse effect of what is intended.” He summarized this by stating, “if there’s no active harm from regulated products, the vaping ban may simply worsen public health.”
Fitzpatrick also took note of the many similarities to the 1920’s prohibition stating “the commonplace concern about prohibition is that it will lead to greater growth in the black- market.” Lastly, he spoke out of concern to ven-
dors and small business owners who had to halt sales of these products, saying “The ban will definitely have adverse effects on the livelihoods of vendors,” and speaking of a family friend who was affected.
Joshua Sheehan, BHS Junior, and Nick Pratt, BHS Senior, both described themselves as being somewhat to moderately informed on the topic, although they did have quite different opinions, one agreeing with the ban and the other disagreeing. They both stated that they knew people who have been affected by vaping; even other students.
Sheehan spoke of his concerns on vaping’s impact on health issues, specifically that of young people. He believes the vape ban would reduce these health problems by making it harder for them to get “vapes.” He then said that the only negative would be “people are not happy they don’t have the freedom to do it.”
In a different vein, Pratt talked about how the ban affected small businesses, saying, “it was so sudden, now they have a large stock of items that have now become useless, at least temporarily.” He also expressed an entirely different concern that was not talked about in any other interviews, saying, “Anyone using a vape is likely to get sick,” referring to “sharing, passing around an unsanitary plastic cube,” and expressing concerns of the disease being spread in that manner. He also added later, in a similar light to Mr. Fitzpatrick’s interview, “the ban of vape product sales
draws ties to the prohibition; the main cause of the ban was due to the increase in deaths seen recently, but that has been linked to the illegal sales in the black-market with other substances added into the vapes,” going on to say “thus banning them would just increase black-market sales of these illegal and more dangerous vape products,” concluding with “prohibition, not the best way to go.”
It was very interesting to hear their ideas as to what should be done in the future in regards to the ban. Both takes were, though different, very creative in their ideas for the future regarding the ban. Sheehan believed that the ban should continue to stay in effect an indefinite amount of time and that a solution to bring it back on the market would be to use some sort of license to control its sale. Pratt, unlike the other student, said that it should be immediately repealed. He then spoke of other ways it could be controlled, such as a higher tax. Though he said that if it were to remain in place, the very least the government should do is offer to buy back the now unsellable goods.
