ArticleDrug and alcohol dependence2025
Impact of state cigarette and e-cigarette flavors bans on smoking, vaping and dual use in the United States.
Article in Drug and alcohol dependence, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Chili Pepper Flavourants in "Heat" and "Unflavoured" Oral Nicotine Pouches Marketed in the United States.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Toxicity and Appeal of Flavoured E-Cigarettes and Flavour Ban Outcomes: A Narrative Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026Review
- Effects of menthol cigarette and e-cigarette flavour restrictions on tobacco product purchasing: insights from the Experimental Tobacco Marketplace.Tobacco control · 2026Article
- Trends in e-cigarette flavour use and demographic correlates among US youth from 2020 to 2023.Tobacco control · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsSome states have banned flavors in various tobacco products. This can reduce use of banned products and induce substitution towards non-banned products. The net impact must be determined empirically. The aim of this study is to evaluate the impacts of these bans on both use and substitution.
settingUS tobacco market.
participants3220 individuals aged 18-41 in the United States who smoked and/or vaped (past 30-day use) completed an online survey. MEASUREMENTS: Multinomial logistic models regressed changes in tobacco product use between two time periods on: states with and without bans on flavored e-cigarettes and menthol cigarettes, individuals' characteristics, and other state-level tobacco policies. Estimated models were used to simulate impacts of flavor bans for people who dual use.
resultsPolicies' impacts were only observed for those who dual use cigarettes and e-cigarettes. Most who dual use did not change their tobacco product use regardless of state policy. Some significant differences were found by states for those who quit both products. Massachusetts, with bans on both flavored e-cigarettes and menthol cigarettes, had the greatest predicted rate of quitting both products (9 %) compared to states without (3 %). States with e-cigarette flavors bans had higher cessation of e-cigarette use among those who dual use.
conclusionsFlavor bans on cigarettes and e-cigarettes were associated with reduced vaping among those who dual use. Massachusetts saw a higher proportion of quitting all tobacco products, likely because people who smoked in Massachusetts could not substitute with flavored e-cigarettes which had been banned.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.