A Peek Past the Vape Clouds: Vape Shop Decline in Long Beach, California during 2015-2018

Policies restricting flavors and non-cigarette tobacco product availability: A study of vape shops in San Francisco and Alameda Counties, California, USA

We examined flavored non-cigarette tobacco availability in brick-and-mortar vape shops in San Francisco (SF) and Alameda Counties, California (USA), comparing cities organized by flavored tobacco sales restriction policy. A total of 22 brick-and-mortar vape shops were identified and audited in October-November 2019; shops were located in SF City-County and nine cities in Alameda County. Fisher Exact Tests were used to assess differences in the availability of products between vape shops in cities with versus without comprehensive or partial flavored tobacco sales restrictions enacted before November 21, 2019 (n = 15 shops in six cities with policies vs n = 7 shops in four cities without policies). In the six cities with any flavored sales restrictions, fewer vape shops sold menthol/mint flavored JUUL pods (27% vs 71%, p = 0.074), candy/fruit (53% vs 100%, p = 0.051) and menthol/mint (53% vs 100%, p = 0.051) nicotine e-cigarette liquids compared to cities without flavored tobacco sales restrictions, but results were borderline significant. Tobacco-flavored JUUL pods (47% vs 71%, p = 0.381), tobacco-flavored nicotine e-cigarette liquids (67% vs 100%, p = 0.135), and flavored e-cigarette liquids without nicotine (candy/fruit: 87% vs 71%, p = 0.565 and menthol/mint: 87% vs 57%, p = 0.274) were not included in the policies, and availability was not significantly different between cities with or without policies. Enactment of local policies was associated with lower flavored e-cigarette tobacco product availability but not tobacco-flavored or non-nicotine product availability; federal policies restricting sales of flavored tobacco products may reduce access to flavored e-cigarette products in vape shops.

Turning over a new leaf: Vape shop closings, openings and transitions in six U.S. Metropolitan statistical areas

This study characterizes vape shop closings, openings, and changes in product mix in six U.S. metropolitan statistical areas with different tobacco and marijuana policies. With concern for higher rates of marijuana use among those who vape nicotine, the presence of marijuana-related terms in store names was also assessed. A census of stores that were classified online as vape shops/stores or vaporizer stores were telephoned in April-May 2018 (n = 739) and July-September 2019 (n = 919) to verify whether vape products and other tobacco products (OTP) were sold. We computed the percent of stores that closed, opened, and started/stopped selling OTP. Multilevel models tested whether these events varied by store type and by neighborhood demographics. Within 16 months, 11.5% of 739 stores had closed and 29.8% of 919 stores at follow-up had opened. Closings were more likely among vape-only than vape + OTP stores (AOR = 2.51, 95% CI = 1.47,4.29); vape-only stores were less likely to open (AOR = 0.46, 95% CI = 0.34,0.62). Regardless of store type, the odds of a store opening increased as the proportion of non-Hispanic/Latino White residents in the census tract increased (AOR = 1.47, 95% CI = 1.18,1.85). Overall, 2.0% of stores (vape-only and vape + OTP) had marijuana-related names at baseline and 3.5% at follow-up. The observed change (1.6% to 5.8%) was greatest in Oklahoma City, where the state legalized medical marijuana between baseline and follow-up. More stores were opening than closing in six U.S. metropolitan statistical areas before statewide sales restrictions on flavored tobacco and COVID-19. Uniform licensing is recommended to define vape shops and track their location and sales practices.

Predictors of Vape Shops Going out of Business in Southern California

Objectives

Vape shops have proliferated in the United States (US) in recent years. As of May 2016, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) asserted its authority to regulate electronic nicotine delivery systems. It is critical to understand how these polices have affected the vape shop industry, as the rise and fall of vape shop proliferation has the potential for influencing public health.

Methods

In this longitudinal study, we examined factors associated with vape shop (N = 77) closure over a 2-1/2-year period in southern California. We assessed predictors of vape shops going out of business using a multivariate logistic regression model.

Results

Among 77 vape shops assessed at baseline, 44.2% closed over a 2-1/2-year period. The absence of a "bar type" physical environment (OR = 2.64, 95% CI = 1.12-6.20), poorer shop accessibility (OR = 7.11, 95% CI = 1.17-43.24), fewer reports of qualified personnel (OR = 2.28, 95% CI = 1.12-4.64), less average time spent in shop by customers (OR = 4.8, 95% CI = 1.18-19.60), a narrower e-liquid flavor selection (OR = 6.55, 95% CI = 1.56-27.49), and less vape device diversity (OR = 2.36, 95% C = 1.13-4.91) predicted vape shop closure.

Conclusions

The rise and subsequent decline in vape shops could potentially affect public health. However, there needs to be more research on their association with public health..