Abstract
Introduction
The growing market for electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) has been widely reported in the media, but very little objective data exist in the scientific literature, and no data have been published on state-specific trends in prices or sales. Our objective is to assess state-specific annual sales and average prices for e-cigarettes in the U.S.
Methods
Commercial retail scanner data were used to assess total dollar sales and average price per unit for disposable e-cigarettes, starter kits, and cartridge refills for selected states and the total U.S. during 2012–2013. Data were analyzed in 2014. Data were available for convenience stores (29 states) and food, drug, and mass merchandisers (44 states).
Results
In convenience stores, dollar sales increased markedly during 2012–2013: 320.8% for disposable e-cigarettes, 72.4% for starter kits, and 82% for cartridges. In food, drug, and mass merchandisers, dollar sales increased 49.5% for disposable e-cigarettes, 89.4% for starter kits, and 126.2% for cartridges. Average prices across all product categories increased in convenience stores and decreased in food, drug, and mass merchandisers. Sales and prices varied substantially across states included in the analyses.
Conclusions
Sales of all e-cigarette device types grew considerably in convenience stores and food, drug, and mass merchandisers during 2012–2013. The market for e-cigarettes is growing rapidly, resulting in dynamic sales and price changes that vary across the U.S. Continued state-specific surveillance of the e-cigarette market is warranted.
Introduction
Electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDSs), including electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes), are battery-powered devices that heat liquid in a cartridge to deliver an inhaled dose of nicotine and other additives. Although the impact of e-cigarettes on public health is unclear,1,2 awareness and use has increased markedly since being introduced into the U.S. in 2007.3–6 During 2011–2013, ever use of e-cigarettes increased from 1.4% to 3.0% among middle school students and from 4.7% to 11.9% among high school students.7 Similarly, ever use of e-cigarettes has increased among adults, from 3.3% in 2010 to 8.5% in 2013, with higher prevalence among current (36.5%) and former (9.6%) cigarette smokers than never smokers (1.2%) in 2013.8 Despite the low proportion of tobacco product sales accounted for by e-cigarettes, monitoring e-cigarette sales is warranted, given the rapid increase in e-cigarette use and the continuing decline in conventional cigarette sales.9
Several factors may be driving the surge in popularity of e-cigarettes. First,10 e-cigarettes have been promoted as socially acceptable alternatives in situations where conventional tobacco smoking is not allowed.11,12 Second, e-cigarettes have been promoted as safer alternatives to conventional tobacco products11 and are used as a cessation aid by consumers.13 There is, however, no conclusive scientific evidence that e-cigarettes promote long-term cessation, and the products are not currently approved by the U.S Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for smoking cessation.14 Third, annual advertising expenditures for e-cigarettes across multiple channels tripled from $6.4 million in 2011 to $18.3 million in 2012, including advertising on TV,15 where advertising of conventional cigarettes has been banned since 1971.16 Smokers are particularly receptive to e-cigarette TV advertisements.17 Increasing cigarette prices are associated with decreasing cigarette consumption,18 and recent evidence suggests that e-cigarette sales are also price sensitive.19 Fourth, e-cigarettes are available in numerous configurations, and many e-cigarettes contain interchangeable components, allowing users to modify the device and customize its performance.20 Finally, e-cigarettes are available in a variety of flavors, including fruit, alcohol, and chocolate, which are banned in conventional cigarettes in the U.S.21
E-cigarettes may have lower potential harm to the individual user than smoked tobacco22 and may aid in short-term smoking cessation23; however, concerns exist, including the potential for e-cigarettes to promote continued smoking of cigarettes among current smokers, promote relapse among former smokers, encourage uptake of e-cigarettes among nonsmokers, and renormalize smoking behaviors.24 The current dearth of objective data on the effects of e-cigarettes on individuals, populations, and the environment presents a challenge for protecting the public’s health.25,26 On April 24, 2014, the FDA proposed to extend its tobacco regulatory authority to include e-cigarettes, but implementation could take several years.27 However, some states have implemented policies to prevent youth access to e-cigarettes, avoid renormalization of tobacco use, and preserve clean indoor air standards. As of November 2014, a total of 40 states regulate youth access to e-cigarettes, and three states prohibit e-cigarette use in indoor areas of worksites, restaurants, and bars.28 Currently, only two states tax e-cigarettes: Minnesota applies a tax to some e-cigarettes equal to 95% of the wholesale price,29 and North Carolina applies a tax of 5 cents per milliliter of nicotine liquid.30 Although the increasing market for e-cigarettes has been widely reported in the media,31–33 very few data exist in the scientific literature documenting sales and prices of e-cigarettes in the U.S., and no data have yet been published on state-specific trends in these measures. To address this gap, this study assessed state-specific sales and prices of disposable e-cigarettes, starter kits, and replacement cartridges.
Methods
Data Source
Data were from a custom-designed database of retail scanner data provided by Information Resources, Inc. The data contain dollar and unit sales in convenience stores (C-stores) and food, drug, and mass merchandisers combined (FDMs) for 2012 and 2013. Dollar and unit sales are reported at the item level, defined by a Universal Product Code (UPC). Information compiled for each item includes UPC, brand name, product type, and number of items per unit (e.g., a single unit might contain three disposable e-cigarettes). Dollar and unit sales were calculated for the total U.S. and states with sample sizes sufficient for precise estimation, yielding 29 states with C-store data and 44 with FDM data. Estimates did not include Walmart, Sam’s Club, Costco, or venues that generally do not use scanners, such as small grocery stores, tobacco shops, or “vape shops.”34 For a general description of scanner data, see Adhikari et al.35
Measures and Methods
The data were stratified into three product categories: (1) disposable e-cigarettes; (2) starter kits; and (3) cartridge refills (Appendix Figure 1, available online). Disposable e-cigarettes have a nonrechargeable battery, and the entire unit is discarded after the e-liquid solution is depleted. Disposable e-cigarette data were standardized so that one unit equaled one disposable e-cigarette. Starter kits contain all the items a new e-cigarette user needs to begin using refillable e-cigarettes, including a rechargeable battery and charger, a refillable e-cigarette, and one or more refills. All starter kits were treated as a single unit, irrespective of package contents. A cartridge is a replaceable component of an e-cigarette that contains the e-liquid solution. A cartridge refill may consist of the tank of e-liquid alone, but may also include an atomizer used to vaporize the e-liquid. Because scanner data cannot reliably separate cartridge-only refills from cartridge–atomizer combinations, all refills were combined into a single category labeled “cartridge refills” and standardized so that each individual cartridge equaled a single unit.
For each product category, total dollar sales and average price in U.S. dollars per standardized unit were calculated for the entire U.S. and each state in 2012 and 2013. To obtain total annual dollar sales, dollar sales for all items within each category were summed. To obtain average price per (standardized) unit, total dollar sales were divided by total standardized unit sales. Relative percentage change in dollar sales and average price per unit were calculated as the change in sales or price from 2012 to 2013. Average dollar sales and prices, SDs, coefficients of variation, and minimum and maximum values were calculated across states. FDM estimates for Wyoming in 2012 were excluded because data were not available prior to the fourth quarter of 2012. All analyses were conducted in 2014 using Stata, version 13.
Results
Tables 1 and 2 report annual dollar sales for disposable e-cigarettes, starter kits, and cartridge refills in C-stores and FDMs, respectively. Sales of disposable e-cigarettes increased in all 29 states with C-stores, while sales of starter kits and cartridge refills increased in 26 states. Across states, the average change in C-store sales was 345.7% for disposable e-cigarettes (minimum=39.7% [South Carolina], maximum=708.5% [Arkansas]), 110.3% for starter kits (minimum=−16.9% [Arizona], maximum=505.0% [Colorado]), and 166.0% for cartridge refills (minimum=−30.7% [Arizona], maximum= 939.6% [Colorado]). Colorado recorded the largest increase in sales of starter kits (505.0%) and cartridge refills (939.6%) in C-stores. Arizona experienced a decline in sales of starter kits (−16.9%) and cartridge refills (−30.7%), as did Texas (−5.4% for starter kits, −14.1% for cartridge refills) and Oklahoma (−3.7% for starter kits, −16.4% for cartridge refills).
Table 1.
Geographic area | Disposable e-cigarettes
|
Starter kits
|
Cartridge refills
|
||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2012 | 2013 | % Change | 2012 | 2013 | % Change | 2012 | 2013 | % Change | |
Total U.S. | 76,927 | 323,696 | 320.8 | 40,245 | 69,381 | 72.4 | 72,942 | 132,738 | 82.0 |
| |||||||||
Northeast | |||||||||
| |||||||||
Massachusetts | 1,432 | 9,394 | 556.2 | 241 | 626 | 159.1 | 225 | 802 | 256.1 |
| |||||||||
New York | 3,836 | 20,361 | 430.8 | 1,493 | 4,119 | 175.9 | 3,032 | 14,344 | 373.1 |
| |||||||||
Pennsylvania | 2,771 | 14,318 | 416.7 | 1,310 | 2,169 | 65.6 | 2,315 | 4,313 | 86.3 |
| |||||||||
South | |||||||||
| |||||||||
Alabama | 3,105 | 8,267 | 166.2 | 714 | 2,447 | 242.6 | 1,714 | 3,259 | 90.1 |
| |||||||||
Arkansas | 389 | 3,149 | 708.5 | 416 | 644 | 54.8 | 151 | 331 | 119.8 |
| |||||||||
Florida | 6,117 | 26,853 | 339.0 | 1,995 | 3,658 | 83.4 | 3,063 | 7,633 | 149.2 |
| |||||||||
Georgia | 2,836 | 14,070 | 396.1 | 1,041 | 4,270 | 310.1 | 1,761 | 4,250 | 141.4 |
| |||||||||
Kentucky | 769 | 2,874 | 273.9 | 571 | 1,676 | 193.7 | 699 | 1,534 | 119.5 |
| |||||||||
Louisiana | 679 | 4,405 | 548.9 | 395 | 895 | 126.5 | 502 | 970 | 93.4 |
| |||||||||
Maryland | 1,370 | 4,818 | 251.6 | 661 | 1,172 | 77.3 | 805 | 1,114 | 38.4 |
| |||||||||
North Carolina | 2,522 | 8,501 | 237.1 | 863 | 2,085 | 141.6 | 1,061 | 3,992 | 276.1 |
| |||||||||
Oklahoma | 809 | 2,927 | 261.8 | 553 | 532 | −3.7 | 1,036 | 867 | −16.4 |
| |||||||||
South Carolina | 3,930 | 5,488 | 39.7 | 784 | 1,398 | 78.4 | 535 | 2,573 | 380.7 |
| |||||||||
Tennessee | 1,198 | 3,364 | 180.9 | 308 | 668 | 116.9 | 327 | 1,215 | 271.9 |
| |||||||||
Texas | 3,962 | 16,705 | 321.7 | 1,549 | 1,466 | −5.4 | 2,280 | 1,958 | −14.1 |
| |||||||||
Virginia | 1,660 | 12,187 | 634.3 | 491 | 1,514 | 208.4 | 1,027 | 3,282 | 219.5 |
| |||||||||
Midwest | |||||||||
| |||||||||
Illinois | 3,413 | 16,849 | 393.6 | 1,953 | 3,034 | 55.3 | 2,825 | 4,328 | 53.2 |
| |||||||||
Indiana | 2,733 | 6,244 | 128.5 | 1,742 | 3,489 | 100.2 | 1,868 | 3,928 | 110.3 |
| |||||||||
Iowa | 761 | 2,995 | 293.7 | 560 | 1,131 | 101.9 | 840 | 1,260 | 50.0 |
| |||||||||
Michigan | 1,400 | 7,536 | 438.4 | 747 | 1,234 | 65.2 | 775 | 1,519 | 96.0 |
| |||||||||
Missouri | 1,888 | 5,651 | 199.3 | 1,432 | 1,695 | 18.4 | 1,750 | 2,233 | 27.6 |
| |||||||||
Ohio | 2,148 | 8,219 | 282.6 | 2,730 | 4,564 | 67.2 | 5,608 | 8,710 | 55.3 |
| |||||||||
Wisconsin | 945 | 3,424 | 262.3 | 552 | 863 | 56.5 | 569 | 894 | 57.2 |
| |||||||||
West | |||||||||
| |||||||||
Arizona | 677 | 4,541 | 570.9 | 732 | 608 | −16.9 | 1,103 | 764 | −30.7 |
| |||||||||
California | 6,771 | 37,793 | 458.2 | 3,162 | 3,506 | 10.9 | 4,017 | 4,795 | 19.3 |
| |||||||||
Colorado | 720 | 4,894 | 579.4 | 433 | 2,622 | 505.0 | 262 | 2,727 | 939.6 |
| |||||||||
Nevada | 457 | 1,886 | 313.0 | 193 | 292 | 50.8 | 214 | 696 | 225.2 |
| |||||||||
Oregon | 3,347 | 5,273 | 57.5 | 652 | 1,594 | 144.4 | 424 | 2,925 | 589.9 |
| |||||||||
Washington | 893 | 3,445 | 285.7 | 398 | 455 | 14.4 | 767 | 1,033 | 34.7 |
| |||||||||
Mean | 2,191 | 9,187 | 345.7 | 989 | 1,877 | 110.3 | 1,433 | 3,043 | 166.0 |
| |||||||||
SD | 1,642 | 8,181 | 169.1 | 746 | 1,273 | 108.6 | 1,290 | 2,978 | 203.9 |
| |||||||||
CV (%) | 75 | 89 | 49 | 75 | 68 | 98 | 90 | 98 | 123 |
| |||||||||
Minimum | 389 | 1,886 | 39.7 | 193 | 292 | −16.9 | 151 | 331 | −30.7 |
| |||||||||
Maximum | 6,771 | 37,793 | 708.5 | 3,162 | 4,564 | 505.0 | 5,608 | 14,344 | 939.6 |
Note: Sales are presented in 1,000s of U.S. dollars and are not adjusted for inflation. Mean, SD, CV, minimum, and maximum are calculated across states (n=29).
CV, coefficient of variation, calculated as ([SD/|Mean|]×100).
Table 2.
Geographic area | Disposable e-cigarettes
|
Starter kits
|
Cartridge refill
|
||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2012 | 2013 | % Change | 2012 | 2013 | % Change | 2012 | 2013 | % Change | |
Total U.S. | 35,230 | 52,667 | 49.5 | 16,170 | 30,630 | 89.4 | 14,516 | 32,843 | 126.2 |
| |||||||||
Northeast | |||||||||
| |||||||||
Connecticut | 459 | 697 | 51.8 | 219 | 331 | 50.8 | 234 | 437 | 86.7 |
| |||||||||
Maine | 144 | 220 | 52.5 | 85 | 106 | 24.6 | 40 | 92 | 130.7 |
| |||||||||
Massachusetts | 605 | 670 | 10.7 | 213 | 311 | 46.1 | 210 | 416 | 97.8 |
| |||||||||
New Hampshire | 205 | 423 | 106.8 | 117 | 254 | 118.3 | 86 | 267 | 209.7 |
| |||||||||
New Jersey | 1,345 | 2,137 | 58.9 | 529 | 896 | 69.5 | 491 | 1,378 | 180.8 |
| |||||||||
New York | 1,787 | 3,202 | 79.2 | 689 | 1,230 | 78.6 | 531 | 1,361 | 156.6 |
| |||||||||
Pennsylvania | 953 | 1,685 | 76.7 | 643 | 975 | 51.6 | 455 | 1,094 | 140.3 |
| |||||||||
Rhode Island | 131 | 196 | 49.6 | 47 | 102 | 119.0 | 40 | 120 | 201.3 |
| |||||||||
Vermont | 41 | 59 | 42.1 | 25 | 40 | 57.3 | 16 | 33 | 109.4 |
| |||||||||
South | |||||||||
| |||||||||
Alabama | 577 | 675 | 17.0 | 179 | 403 | 125.0 | 124 | 405 | 226.9 |
| |||||||||
Arkansas | 383 | 558 | 45.7 | 122 | 383 | 213.2 | 82 | 332 | 304.8 |
| |||||||||
Delaware | 231 | 417 | 80.7 | 82 | 215 | 161.1 | 67 | 252 | 277.0 |
| |||||||||
Florida | 4,624 | 6,633 | 43.4 | 847 | 2,822 | 233.4 | 962 | 2,941 | 205.7 |
| |||||||||
Georgia | 1,265 | 1,708 | 35.1 | 476 | 1,029 | 116.3 | 349 | 1,132 | 223.9 |
| |||||||||
Kentucky | 520 | 737 | 41.9 | 403 | 558 | 38.6 | 324 | 542 | 67.2 |
| |||||||||
Louisiana | 820 | 1,248 | 52.1 | 189 | 677 | 257.4 | 145 | 560 | 285.3 |
| |||||||||
Maryland | 391 | 729 | 86.3 | 297 | 474 | 59.7 | 247 | 537 | 117.0 |
| |||||||||
Mississippi | 314 | 369 | 17.4 | 102 | 232 | 128.1 | 71 | 205 | 189.7 |
| |||||||||
North Carolina | 944 | 1,379 | 46.1 | 584 | 792 | 35.7 | 531 | 851 | 60.4 |
| |||||||||
Oklahoma | 469 | 545 | 16.1 | 307 | 426 | 38.9 | 307 | 406 | 32.2 |
| |||||||||
South Carolina | 571 | 795 | 39.2 | 350 | 474 | 35.2 | 325 | 528 | 62.3 |
| |||||||||
Tennessee | 1,095 | 1,563 | 42.8 | 627 | 947 | 51.2 | 569 | 941 | 65.3 |
| |||||||||
Virginia | 651 | 1,088 | 67.0 | 491 | 821 | 67.4 | 406 | 966 | 138.0 |
| |||||||||
West Virginia | 157 | 243 | 54.3 | 116 | 161 | 38.9 | 56 | 160 | 183.8 |
| |||||||||
Midwest | |||||||||
| |||||||||
Illinois | 2,227 | 3,485 | 56.5 | 1,156 | 1,795 | 55.3 | 1,063 | 2,004 | 88.5 |
| |||||||||
Indiana | 628 | 884 | 40.8 | 516 | 684 | 32.7 | 464 | 706 | 51.9 |
| |||||||||
Kansas | 282 | 386 | 37.0 | 190 | 323 | 69.9 | 153 | 289 | 88.6 |
| |||||||||
Michigan | 795 | 1,063 | 33.7 | 523 | 685 | 31.1 | 540 | 784 | 45.2 |
| |||||||||
Minnesota | 156 | 596 | 282.5 | 52 | 651 | 1,148.5 | 26 | 518 | 1,870.9 |
| |||||||||
Missouri | 713 | 1,099 | 54.2 | 473 | 808 | 70.6 | 427 | 825 | 93.3 |
| |||||||||
Nebraska | 187 | 276 | 47.7 | 118 | 210 | 77.8 | 108 | 200 | 86.1 |
| |||||||||
Ohio | 1,033 | 1,511 | 46.3 | 768 | 1,201 | 56.3 | 717 | 1,551 | 116.3 |
| |||||||||
South Dakota | 55 | 79 | 44.6 | 47 | 95 | 102.5 | 40 | 66 | 63.5 |
| |||||||||
Wisconsin | 792 | 1,150 | 45.1 | 385 | 693 | 79.8 | 390 | 786 | 101.2 |
| |||||||||
West | |||||||||
| |||||||||
Arizona | 1,041 | 1,794 | 72.3 | 526 | 933 | 77.6 | 552 | 1,069 | 93.4 |
| |||||||||
California | 2,352 | 3,328 | 41.5 | 1,390 | 2,107 | 51.5 | 1,227 | 2,254 | 83.7 |
| |||||||||
Colorado | 634 | 1,135 | 79.1 | 461 | 1,035 | 124.5 | 401 | 1,208 | 200.9 |
| |||||||||
Idaho | 76 | 126 | 64.5 | 65 | 110 | 71.0 | 63 | 133 | 109.4 |
| |||||||||
Nevada | 355 | 538 | 51.5 | 186 | 308 | 65.5 | 210 | 347 | 65.3 |
| |||||||||
New Mexico | 317 | 467 | 47.4 | 87 | 285 | 229.2 | 80 | 279 | 247.3 |
| |||||||||
Oregon | 287 | 456 | 58.9 | 225 | 397 | 76.4 | 190 | 407 | 114.6 |
| |||||||||
Utah | 138 | 202 | 46.8 | 89 | 189 | 111.5 | 78 | 163 | 108.7 |
| |||||||||
Washington | 597 | 895 | 49.9 | 406 | 664 | 63.4 | 406 | 773 | 90.2 |
| |||||||||
Wyoming | — | 60 | — | — | 82 | — | — | 78 | — |
| |||||||||
Mean | 729 | 1,080 | 56.1 | 358 | 634 | 111.9 | 321 | 691 | 173.8 |
| |||||||||
SD | 810 | 1,194 | 40 | 303 | 559 | 172 | 285 | 620 | 274 |
| |||||||||
CV (%) | 111 | 111 | 72 | 85 | 88 | 153 | 89 | 90 | 158 |
| |||||||||
Minimum | 41 | 59 | 10.7 | 25 | 40 | 24.6 | 16 | 33 | 32.2 |
| |||||||||
Maximum | 4,624 | 6,633 | 282.5 | 1,390 | 2,822 | 1148.5 | 1,227 | 2,941 | 1,870.9 |
Note: Sales are presented in 1,000s of U.S. dollars and are not adjusted for inflation. Sales estimates for Wyoming prior to quarter 4 2012 are not available. Mean, SD, CV, minimum, and maximum are calculated across states excluding Wyoming (n=43), except for the 2013 sales estimate (n=44).
CV, coefficient of variation, calculated as ([SD/|Mean|]×100); FDMs, food, drug, and mass merchandisers.
In FDMs, sales of disposable e-cigarettes, starter kits, and cartridge refills increased in all 43 states in our sample. The average increase in FDM sales was 56.1% for disposable e-cigarettes (minimum=10.7% [Massachusetts], maximum=282.5% [Minnesota]), 111.9% for starter kits (minimum=24.6% [Maine], maximum=1,148.5% [Minnesota]), and 173.8% for cartridge refills (minimum=32.2% [Oklahoma], maximum=1,870.9% [Minnesota]). Minnesota experienced the maximum growth in FDM sales in all product categories. Sales of disposable e-cigarettes generally increased more slowly in FDMs than in C-stores.
Nationally, disposable e-cigarettes was the highest-selling category, accounting for $323,696,000 in sales in C-stores in 2013, a 320% increase from 2012 ($76,927,000), and $52,667,000 in sales in FDMs, a 49.5% increase from 2012 ($35,230,000). Sales of starter kits increased by 72.4% in C-stores, from $40,245,000 to $69,381,000, while sales in FDMs increased by 89.4%, from $16,170,000 to $30,630,000. For cartridge refills, sales in C-stores grew by 82.0%, from $72,942,000 to $132,738,000, while sales in FDMs grew 126.2%, from $14,516,000 to $32,843,000. Along with sales volume, the number of brands and product UPCs in the scanner data also increased. In the first quarter of 2012, there were 52 brands and 324 UPCs nationally. By the fourth quarter of 2013, these numbers had increased to 77 brands and 628 UPCs.
Tables 3 and 4 demonstrate that the direction and magnitude of price changes from 2012 to 2013 varied by state, product, and retail channel. In C-stores (Table 3), 12 states experienced price increases, while 17 states experienced price decreases for disposable e-cigarettes (mean=0.1%, minimum=−14.2% [Michigan], maximum= 23.5% [Massachusetts]). Average prices for starter kits increased in 26 states and decreased in three states (mean=18.8%, minimum=−12.3% [Colorado], maximum= 64.1% [Arkansas]). Average prices for cartridge refills increased in 16 states and decreased in 13 states (mean=−0.3%, minimum=−25.5% [Massachusetts], maximum= 25.9% [South Carolina]).
Table 3.
Geographic area | Disposable e-cigarettes
|
Starter kits
|
Cartridge refills
|
||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2012 | 2013 | % Change | 2012 | 2013 | % Change | 2012 | 2013 | % Change | |
Total U.S. | 7.98 | 8.03 | 0.5 | 22.31 | 26.32 | 18.0 | 2.86 | 3.02 | 5.5 |
| |||||||||
Northeast | |||||||||
| |||||||||
Massachusetts | 5.95 | 7.35 | 23.5 | 25.08 | 26.51 | 5.7 | 3.83 | 2.85 | −25.5 |
| |||||||||
New York | 8.38 | 7.98 | −4.8 | 22.83 | 25.31 | 10.8 | 3.64 | 3.71 | 1.9 |
| |||||||||
Pennsylvania | 8.16 | 8.19 | 0.3 | 20.13 | 24.79 | 23.2 | 2.54 | 2.56 | 0.8 |
| |||||||||
South | |||||||||
| |||||||||
Alabama | 8.92 | 8.53 | −4.3 | 25.24 | 33.78 | 33.9 | 3.12 | 3.15 | 0.7 |
| |||||||||
Arkansas | 8.34 | 8.96 | 7.4 | 25.24 | 41.43 | 64.1 | 2.70 | 3.08 | 14.1 |
| |||||||||
Florida | 8.14 | 8.04 | −1.3 | 23.76 | 29.95 | 26.0 | 3.58 | 3.48 | −2.9 |
| |||||||||
Georgia | 8.22 | 8.79 | 7.0 | 22.86 | 27.10 | 18.6 | 2.73 | 2.84 | 4.2 |
| |||||||||
Kentucky | 9.19 | 8.97 | −2.5 | 23.73 | 32.32 | 36.2 | 2.85 | 2.78 | −2.4 |
| |||||||||
Louisiana | 9.10 | 9.08 | −0.2 | 21.74 | 28.25 | 29.9 | 3.05 | 3.28 | 7.7 |
| |||||||||
Maryland | 8.36 | 8.95 | 7.0 | 24.72 | 35.54 | 43.7 | 3.07 | 3.00 | −2.2 |
| |||||||||
North Carolina | 7.96 | 8.09 | 1.6 | 24.54 | 29.31 | 19.4 | 3.44 | 3.47 | 0.7 |
| |||||||||
Oklahoma | 8.82 | 8.09 | −8.3 | 16.95 | 20.57 | 21.3 | 3.07 | 2.59 | −15.7 |
| |||||||||
South Carolina | 7.78 | 7.33 | −5.8 | 21.14 | 27.22 | 28.7 | 2.78 | 3.49 | 25.9 |
| |||||||||
Tennessee | 8.28 | 8.13 | −1.9 | 23.48 | 26.92 | 14.7 | 2.93 | 3.19 | 9.0 |
| |||||||||
Texas | 7.97 | 8.39 | 5.2 | 19.78 | 22.60 | 14.3 | 3.39 | 3.13 | −7.7 |
| |||||||||
Virginia | 8.22 | 8.08 | −1.7 | 21.64 | 27.64 | 27.7 | 3.52 | 2.67 | −24.0 |
| |||||||||
Midwest | |||||||||
| |||||||||
Illinois | 7.37 | 6.53 | −11.4 | 28.16 | 30.94 | 9.9 | 3.27 | 3.11 | −4.9 |
| |||||||||
Indiana | 9.00 | 8.79 | −2.4 | 27.79 | 29.13 | 4.8 | 2.75 | 2.87 | 4.4 |
| |||||||||
Iowa | 9.39 | 8.49 | −9.5 | 26.26 | 28.70 | 9.3 | 3.20 | 2.98 | −6.6 |
| |||||||||
Michigan | 9.32 | 7.99 | −14.2 | 21.54 | 21.33 | −1.0 | 2.60 | 2.36 | −9.2 |
| |||||||||
Missouri | 8.95 | 7.74 | −13.5 | 28.47 | 28.01 | −1.6 | 2.72 | 2.73 | 0.4 |
| |||||||||
Ohio | 8.42 | 8.33 | −1.1 | 17.26 | 21.68 | 25.6 | 2.11 | 2.16 | 2.4 |
| |||||||||
Wisconsin | 7.71 | 8.70 | 12.8 | 23.91 | 31.83 | 33.1 | 3.11 | 2.89 | −7.0 |
| |||||||||
West | |||||||||
| |||||||||
Arizona | 9.08 | 8.37 | −7.8 | 21.24 | 22.28 | 4.9 | 2.62 | 2.85 | 8.7 |
| |||||||||
California | 7.82 | 8.36 | 6.9 | 20.04 | 24.63 | 22.9 | 2.99 | 2.84 | −5.1 |
| |||||||||
Colorado | 8.52 | 8.71 | 2.3 | 20.07 | 17.61 | −12.3 | 2.95 | 2.99 | 1.3 |
| |||||||||
Nevada | 8.12 | 8.84 | 8.8 | 23.82 | 24.90 | 4.5 | 2.88 | 2.92 | 1.2 |
| |||||||||
Oregon | 8.44 | 8.43 | −0.2 | 23.78 | 25.48 | 7.2 | 2.59 | 3.19 | 23.1 |
| |||||||||
Washington | 8.00 | 8.92 | 11.5 | 17.60 | 21.22 | 20.5 | 3.49 | 3.39 | −2.9 |
| |||||||||
Mean | 8.34 | 8.32 | 0.1 | 22.86 | 27.14 | 18.8 | 3.02 | 2.98 | −0.3 |
| |||||||||
SD | 0.69 | 0.57 | 8.4 | 3.04 | 5.01 | 15.6 | 0.39 | 0.35 | 11.1 |
| |||||||||
CV (%) | 8 | 7 | 7193 | 13 | 18 | 83 | 13 | 12 | 3,355 |
| |||||||||
Minimum | 5.95 | 6.53 | −14.2 | 16.95 | 17.61 | −12.3 | 2.11 | 2.16 | −25.5 |
| |||||||||
Maximum | 9.39 | 9.08 | 23.5 | 28.47 | 41.43 | 64.1 | 3.83 | 3.71 | 25.9 |
Note: Average prices (in U.S. dollars) reflect nominal price and are not adjusted for inflation. Mean, SD, CV, minimum, and maximum are calculated across states (n=29).
CV, coefficient of variation, calculated as ([SD/|Mean|]×100).
Table 4.
Geographic area | Disposable e-cigarettes
|
Starter kits
|
Cartridge refills
|
||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2012 | 2013 | % Change | 2012 | 2013 | % Change | 2012 | 2013 | % Change | |
Total U.S. | 9.59 | 8.96 | −6.6 | 37.77 | 37.25 | −1.4 | 3.01 | 2.94 | −2.3 |
| |||||||||
Northeast | |||||||||
| |||||||||
Connecticut | 9.54 | 8.75 | −8.2 | 43.40 | 37.24 | −14.2 | 2.96 | 2.95 | −0.3 |
| |||||||||
Maine | 9.13 | 8.50 | −6.9 | 27.80 | 25.89 | −6.9 | 2.92 | 2.75 | −5.8 |
| |||||||||
Massachusetts | 9.79 | 8.65 | −11.6 | 44.64 | 35.55 | −20.4 | 2.98 | 2.87 | −3.8 |
| |||||||||
New Hampshire | 9.51 | 8.08 | −15.0 | 38.05 | 33.47 | −12.0 | 2.95 | 2.73 | −7.4 |
| |||||||||
New Jersey | 9.48 | 8.51 | −10.3 | 35.88 | 32.10 | −10.5 | 2.89 | 3.10 | 7.2 |
| |||||||||
New York | 9.74 | 9.40 | −3.5 | 34.45 | 33.19 | −3.7 | 2.97 | 2.94 | −1.1 |
| |||||||||
Pennsylvania | 9.07 | 8.72 | −3.9 | 29.23 | 28.04 | −4.1 | 2.79 | 2.84 | 2.0 |
| |||||||||
Rhode Island | 9.46 | 8.74 | −7.6 | 33.40 | 32.28 | −3.4 | 2.87 | 2.86 | −0.3 |
| |||||||||
Vermont | 9.24 | 8.54 | −7.6 | 27.33 | 23.86 | −12.7 | 2.91 | 2.71 | −6.7 |
| |||||||||
South | |||||||||
| |||||||||
Alabama | 9.31 | 8.68 | −6.7 | 25.63 | 35.13 | 37.1 | 2.85 | 2.92 | 2.3 |
| |||||||||
Arkansas | 9.68 | 8.85 | −8.6 | 29.47 | 41.46 | 40.7 | 2.98 | 2.75 | −7.9 |
| |||||||||
Delaware | 9.32 | 8.64 | −7.2 | 36.61 | 35.47 | −3.1 | 2.82 | 2.85 | 1.0 |
| |||||||||
Florida | 9.74 | 8.92 | −8.5 | 26.70 | 41.66 | 56.0 | 3.39 | 2.95 | −13.1 |
| |||||||||
Georgia | 9.48 | 8.88 | −6.3 | 26.15 | 33.65 | 28.7 | 3.12 | 2.97 | −4.8 |
| |||||||||
Kentucky | 9.17 | 8.68 | −5.3 | 34.83 | 33.99 | −2.4 | 2.78 | 2.95 | 6.2 |
| |||||||||
Louisiana | 9.70 | 9.01 | −7.1 | 26.73 | 38.38 | 43.6 | 3.30 | 2.94 | −10.9 |
| |||||||||
Maryland | 9.12 | 8.69 | −4.7 | 33.70 | 31.90 | −5.3 | 2.85 | 2.83 | −0.9 |
| |||||||||
Mississippi | 9.54 | 8.82 | −7.6 | 27.86 | 38.72 | 39.0 | 3.17 | 2.85 | −10.1 |
| |||||||||
North Carolina | 9.52 | 8.88 | −6.8 | 41.27 | 34.35 | −16.8 | 2.94 | 2.86 | −2.8 |
| |||||||||
Oklahoma | 9.71 | 9.17 | −5.5 | 48.92 | 45.89 | −6.2 | 2.89 | 2.83 | −2.0 |
| |||||||||
South Carolina | 9.59 | 8.94 | −6.8 | 43.47 | 37.64 | −13.4 | 2.95 | 2.91 | −1.4 |
| |||||||||
Tennessee | 9.64 | 8.87 | −8.1 | 45.20 | 38.31 | −15.2 | 3.00 | 2.96 | −1.2 |
| |||||||||
Virginia | 9.39 | 8.69 | −7.4 | 38.78 | 33.81 | −12.8 | 2.93 | 2.88 | −1.6 |
| |||||||||
West Virginia | 8.56 | 8.25 | −3.6 | 26.84 | 26.01 | −3.1 | 2.74 | 2.83 | 3.2 |
| |||||||||
Midwest | |||||||||
| |||||||||
Illinois | 9.71 | 9.00 | −7.3 | 49.43 | 43.39 | −12.2 | 2.97 | 2.96 | −0.3 |
| |||||||||
Indiana | 9.58 | 8.92 | −6.9 | 43.69 | 40.52 | −7.3 | 2.98 | 2.97 | −0.4 |
| |||||||||
Kansas | 9.28 | 8.95 | −3.6 | 51.53 | 39.68 | −23.0 | 3.00 | 3.01 | 0.4 |
| |||||||||
Michigan | 9.43 | 8.94 | −5.2 | 38.91 | 36.41 | −6.4 | 2.96 | 2.91 | −1.7 |
| |||||||||
Minnesota | 9.39 | 11.60 | 23.5 | 38.01 | 40.63 | 6.9 | 3.07 | 3.09 | 0.7 |
| |||||||||
Missouri | 9.70 | 8.92 | −8.1 | 48.57 | 42.27 | −13.0 | 3.00 | 2.99 | −0.5 |
| |||||||||
Nebraska | 9.32 | 8.95 | −4.0 | 50.77 | 42.73 | −15.8 | 2.99 | 2.98 | −0.6 |
| |||||||||
Ohio | 9.40 | 8.83 | −6.0 | 38.08 | 32.49 | −14.7 | 2.96 | 2.73 | −7.7 |
| |||||||||
South Dakota | 9.31 | 8.88 | −4.7 | 51.60 | 44.00 | −14.7 | 2.99 | 2.97 | −0.9 |
| |||||||||
Wisconsin | 9.59 | 8.80 | −8.2 | 53.53 | 42.28 | −21.0 | 3.00 | 2.96 | −1.1 |
| |||||||||
West | |||||||||
| |||||||||
Arizona | 9.57 | 8.88 | −7.2 | 49.81 | 41.97 | −15.7 | 3.00 | 2.99 | −0.5 |
| |||||||||
California | 9.63 | 9.06 | −5.9 | 44.43 | 37.60 | −15.4 | 2.97 | 2.94 | −0.9 |
| |||||||||
Colorado | 9.68 | 9.10 | −6.0 | 44.82 | 33.01 | −26.3 | 3.03 | 3.05 | 0.7 |
| |||||||||
Idaho | 9.47 | 9.07 | −4.2 | 37.50 | 38.33 | 2.2 | 3.04 | 3.02 | −0.5 |
| |||||||||
Nevada | 9.90 | 9.36 | −5.4 | 45.32 | 41.19 | −9.1 | 3.04 | 3.04 | 0.1 |
| |||||||||
New Mexico | 9.76 | 9.12 | −6.5 | 28.91 | 41.80 | 44.6 | 3.45 | 2.99 | −13.2 |
| |||||||||
Oregon | 9.52 | 8.95 | −6.0 | 39.99 | 34.04 | −14.9 | 2.97 | 2.95 | −0.5 |
| |||||||||
Utah | 9.70 | 9.27 | −4.5 | 38.31 | 41.69 | 8.8 | 3.01 | 3.01 | 0.0 |
| |||||||||
Washington | 9.53 | 8.92 | −6.3 | 36.98 | 33.90 | −8.3 | 2.99 | 2.98 | −0.3 |
| |||||||||
Wyoming | — | 9.01 | — | — | 40.86 | — | — | 3.05 | — |
| |||||||||
Mean | 9.48 | 8.92 | −5.9 | 38.41 | 36.75 | −1.5 | 2.99 | 2.92 | −2.1 |
| |||||||||
SD | 0.25 | 0.48 | 5.1 | 8.38 | 5.14 | 20.9 | 0.14 | 0.10 | 4.5 |
| |||||||||
CV (%) | 3 | 5 | 87 | 22 | 14 | 1,412 | 5 | 3 | 215 |
| |||||||||
Minimum | 8.56 | 8.08 | −15.0 | 25.63 | 23.86 | −26.3 | 2.74 | 2.71 | −13.2 |
| |||||||||
Maximum | 9.90 | 11.60 | 23.5 | 53.53 | 45.89 | 56.0 | 3.45 | 3.10 | 7.2 |
Note: Averages prices (in U.S. dollars) reflect nominal price and are not adjusted for inflation. Sales estimates for Wyoming prior to quarter 4, 2012 are not available. Mean, SD, CV, minimum, and maximum are calculated across states excluding Wyoming (n=43), except for the 2013 price estimate (n=44).
CV, coefficient of variation, calculated as ([SD/|Mean|]×100); FDMs, food, drug, and mass merchandisers.
In FDMs (Table 4), prices for disposable e-cigarettes fell in all states except Minnesota, where the average price rose 23.5% (mean=−5.9%, minimum=−15.0% [New Hampshire]). FDM prices for starter kits rose in ten states and fell in 33 states (mean=−1.5%, minimum=−26.3% [Colorado], maximum=56.0% [Florida]). FDM prices for cartridge refills increased in ten states, stayed constant in one state, and decreased in 32 states (mean=−2.1%, minimum=−13.2% [New Mexico], maximum=7.2% [New Jersey]).
In 2013, the national average price for a disposable e-cigarette was $8.03 in C-stores, an increase of 0.5% from the 2012 average of $7.98, and $8.96 in FDMs, a decrease of 6.6% from $9.59 in 2012. The national average price of a starter kit increased 18% in C-stores, from $22.31 to $26.32, but decreased 1.4% in FDMs, from $37.77 to $37.25. In 2013, a single cartridge refill cost $3.02 in C-stores, a 5.5% increase from $2.86 in 2012, and $2.94 in FDMs, a 2.3% decrease from $3.01.
Discussion
This study is the first state-level report of sales and prices for e-cigarettes in the U.S. During 2012–2013, sales of all e-cigarette product categories increased substantially in both C-stores and FDMs in nearly every state for which data are available. Nationally, sales of disposable e-cigarettes, starter kits, and cartridge refills totaled almost $642 million in 2013 in C-stores and FDMs combined, a 150% increase from 2012. Disposable e-cigarettes accounted for 59% of total sales ($376,363,000), followed by cartridge refills ($165,581,000, 26%) and starter kits ($100,011,000, 16%). The fastest-growing category was disposable e-cigarettes. Across states, price levels were similar, but the direction and magnitude of price changes varied by state, category, and retail channel. Nationally, average prices either declined, or increased modestly, with the exception of an 18% price increase for starter kits in C-stores.
The spectrum of ENDS devices continues to evolve,12,20,36 and advertising is proliferating.15 In addition to e-cigarettes, new ENDS devices are being developed and marketed. Although these new products are functionally similar to current e-cigarettes, they are marketed as being distinctive.32 The dynamic marketplace presents a challenge for public health surveillance and evaluation. E-cigarettes may be beneficial to the public’s health if they lead to complete, long-term substitution by established smokers. Conversely, e-cigarettes could cause net population harm if their design or ingredients are unsafe; if they delay or diminish the likelihood a smoker will quit; lead to long-term dual use of both e-cigarettes and cigarettes, relapse among former smokers, or regular use of e-cigarettes or conventional tobacco products among young people or others who otherwise would not have smoked or become addicted to nicotine; or expose nonsmokers to aerosolized nicotine or other harmful constituents.
Despite the increase in e-cigarette sales reported here, e-cigarettes represent a negligible portion of total U.S. tobacco product sales. Analysis of retail scanner data for the fourth quarter of 2013 reveals that e-cigarette sales accounted for only 0.95% of total tobacco product sales (including both combustible and smokeless tobacco products) in C-stores and 1.19% of total tobacco product sales in FDMs. Nevertheless, the projected long-term growth in market share for e-cigarettes requires ongoing monitoring.37–39
A large body of evidence shows that exposure to pro-tobacco advertising affects knowledge and attitudes about tobacco product use.37,38 Accordingly, restrictions on tobacco advertising in the U.S. include bans on broadcast and outdoor advertising, restrictions on event sponsorship and magazine advertising, and other prohibitions.39 With the exception of e-cigarettes that are marketed for therapeutic purposes, advertising for e-cigarettes is currently unrestricted. Although current e-cigarette advertising expenditures are a fraction of the more than $8 billion the tobacco industry spends annually on advertising and promotion,40 e-cigarette advertising is focused on traditional mass media channels, such as television,15 with the potential to reach large numbers of susceptible youth and adults.
The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009 gave the FDA the authority to regulate tobacco products, including the ability to propose requirements and restrictions on manufacturing, marketing, and distribution.41 In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals held that e-cigarettes and other products made or derived from tobacco may be regulated as tobacco products under the Act, unless they are marketed for therapeutic purposes, in which case they are regulated as drugs or devices.42 On April 24, 2014, FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products proposed deeming regulations to expand its jurisdiction to e-cigarettes.27 Although the proposed regulations affect product manufacturing, marketing, sales, and labeling, implementation could take several years.
The data presented here suggest at least two broad areas for future research. First, although much is known about the elasticity of demand for conventional tobacco products, little is known about determinants of demand for e-cigarettes, especially among youth and young adults. One published study estimated the relationship between e-cigarette prices and sales. The authors found sales of e-cigarettes fell sharply in response to rising e-cigarette prices.19 More research is needed on state and regional variation in e-cigarette price elasticity and on changes in demand as the e-cigarette market matures and stabilizes. Several factors in addition to prices are likely contributors to the growth in e-cigarette sales, including changing consumer preferences, rapid proliferation of new products and advertising, an evolving regulatory landscape, and alternative uses, such as vaporizing tetrahydrocannabinol liquid. Although the relationship between sales of e-cigarettes and prices of conventional tobacco products is only beginning to be explored, price differentials may lead to increases in e-cigarette market share to the point where ENDSs are a “disruptive technology” that make cigarettes obsolete.43 In particular, the average cost of an e-cigarette replacement cartridge is less than the cost of a single pack of cigarettes in every state,9 providing an economic incentive for current smokers to switch to e-cigarettes. In addition, differences in sales and prices were noted between C-stores and FDMs. The differences may have to do with pricing, promotion, and marketing differences for e-cigarettes within the stores or the purchasing preferences of consumers who discriminate between C-stores and FDMs for different purchases. Future research should attempt to clarify the causes of these differences.
A second major area for future research is on the effects of policies regulating e-cigarettes. E-cigarettes not advertised for therapeutic purposes are currently unregulated at the federal level, and most state laws are intended to prevent youth access to e-cigarettes or extend conventional smoke-free air laws to include e-cigarettes.28 Currently, only two states, Minnesota and North Carolina, tax e-cigarettes or nicotine liquid. The effectiveness of these and future state and local policies on e-cigarette use warrants ongoing research and evaluation.
Limitations
This study has some limitations. First, the sales figures reported here underestimate the total size and growth of the e-cigarette market because the data do not include sales from Walmart, Sam’s Club, Costco, tobacco specialty shops, online sources, or “vape shops.”34 Data from these outlets were either not available from Information Resources, Inc. or were not eligible to be included in the creation of the custom state-level data set used here. The changes in sales and prices observed here may be attributable, in part, to consumers moving to or from retail channels not captured in this data set rather than overall change in the market for e-cigarettes. Second, scanner data do not capture the full range of ENDS products currently available. In particular, premium tank systems and e-hookahs are likely not captured by these data. The range of products in the scanner data will improve over time as new UPCs are identified and added to the data set. Third, the scanner data are unable to distinguish between cartridge refills and cartomizers. Thus, any changes in the popularity of these two products are unobservable. Despite these limitations, this study provides insight into the rapidly growing e-cigarette market in the U.S., as well as state sales and price differences.
Conclusions
We used a novel state-level retail scanner data set to estimate sales and prices for e-cigarettes in C-stores and FDMs. The findings reveal that e-cigarette sales grew rapidly, whereas average prices generally stayed constant or fell. Disposable e-cigarettes are the fastest-growing product category. These results describe e-cigarette sales and prices prior to widespread implementation of e-cigarette regulations. As such, they can be considered a baseline against which to measure change resulting from implementation of e-cigarette regulations or other factors. Continued monitoring of e-cigarettes is warranted, given the potential public health impact of these products at the individual and societal levels.
Supplementary Material
Acknowledgments
Support was provided by CDC, Office on Smoking and Health. The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of CDC. All estimates and analyses in this paper based on Information Resources, Inc. data are by the author and not by Information Resources, Inc.
Appendix
Supplementary data
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found at, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2015.05.003.
Footnotes
No financial disclosures were reported by the authors of this paper.
References
- 1.Callahan-Lyon P. Electronic cigarettes: human health effects. Tob Control. 2014;23(suppl 2):ii36–ii40. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051470. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051470. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Durmowicz EL. The impact of electronic cigarettes on the paediatric population. Tob Control. 2014;(suppl 2):ii41–ii46. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051468. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051468. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 3.Choi K, Forster J. Characteristics associated with awareness, perceptions, and use of electronic nicotine delivery systems among young U.S. Midwestern adults. Am J Public Health. 2013;103(3):556–561. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2012.300947. http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2012.300947. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Regan AK, Promoff G, Dube SR, Arrazola R. Electronic nicotine delivery systems: adult use and awareness of the ‘e-cigarette’ in the USA. Tob Control. 2013;22(1):19–23. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2011-050044. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2011-050044. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Pearson JL, Richardson A, Niaura RS, Vallone DM, Abrams DB. E-cigarette awareness, use, and harm perceptions in U.S. adults. Am J Public Health. 2012;102(9):1758–1766. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2011.300526. http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2011.300526. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Pepper JK, Brewer NT. Electronic nicotine delivery system (electronic cigarette) awareness, use, reactions and beliefs: a systematic review. Tob Control. 2014;23:375–384. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051122. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051122. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.CDC. Tobacco use among middle and high school students—United States, 2013. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2014;63(45):1021–1026. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.King BA, Patel R, Nguyen KH, Dube SR. Trends in Awareness and Use of Electronic Cigarettes Among U.S. Adults, 2010–2013. Nicotine Tob Res. 2015;17(2):219–227. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntu191. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ntr/ntu191. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Orzechowski W, Walker R. The Tax Burden on Tobacco Historical Compilation. Vol. 47. Arlington, VA: Authors; 2013. 2012. [Google Scholar]
- 10.American Nonsmokers’ Rights Foundation. [Accessed June 14, 2015];Chronological table of U S population protected by 100% smokefree state or local laws. http://www.no-smoke.org/pdf/EffectivePopulationList.pdf. Published April 2, 2015.
- 11.Cahn Z, Siegel M. Electronic cigarettes as a harm reduction strategy for tobacco control: a step forward or a repeat of past mistakes? J Public Health Policy. 2011;32(1):16–31. doi: 10.1057/jphp.2010.41. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Curry L, Lee YO, Rogers T. E-cigarettes made especially for inmates. Tob Control. 2014;23:e87–e88. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051535. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051535. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Dawkins L, Turner J, Roberts A, Soar K. ‘Vaping’ profiles and preferences: an online survey of electronic cigarette users. Addiction. 2013;108(6):1115–1125. doi: 10.1111/add.12150. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/add.12150. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Food and Drug Administration. [Accessed May 20, 2014];FDA 101: Smoking cessation products. 2014 www.fda.gov/forconsumers/consumerupdates/ucm198176.htm.
- 15.Kim AE, Arnold KY, Makarenko O. E-cigarette advertising expenditures in the U.S., 2011–2012. Am J Prev Med. 2014;46(4):409–412. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2013.11.003. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2013.11.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Warner KE, Goldenhar LM. The cigarette advertising broadcast ban and magazine coverage of smoking and health. J Public Health Policy. 1989;10(1):32–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3342942. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Kim AE, Lee YO, Shafer P, Nonnemaker J, Makarenko O. Adult smokers’ receptivity to a television advert for electronic nicotine delivery systems. Tob Control. 2015;24:132–135. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051130. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051130. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Gallet CA, List JA. Cigarette demand: a meta-analysis of elasticities. Health Econ. 2003;12:821–835. doi: 10.1002/hec.765. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hec.765. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Huang J, Tauras J, Chaloupka FJ. The impact of price and tobacco control policies on the demand for electronic nicotine delivery systems. Tob Control. 2014;23:iii41–iii47. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051515. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Brown CJ, Cheng JM. Electronic cigarettes: product characterisation and design considerations. Tob Control. 2014;23(suppl 2):ii4–ii10. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051476. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051476. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Enforcement of General Tobacco Standard Special Rule for Cigarettes. Fed Regist. 2009;74(185):48974. [Google Scholar]
- 22.Goniewicz ML, Knysak J, Gawron M, et al. Levels of selected carcinogens and toxicants in vapour from electronic cigarettes. Tob Control. 2014;23(2):133–139. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2012-050859. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2012-050859. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Polosa R, Caponnetto P, Morjaria JB, Papale G, Campagna D, Russo C. Effect of an electronic nicotine delivery device (e-cigarette) on smoking reduction and cessation: a prospective 6-month pilot study. BMC Public Health. 2011;11:786. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-11-786. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-11-786. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Benowitz NL, Goniewicz ML. The regulatory challenge of electronic cigarettes. JAMA. 2013;310(7):685–686. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.109501. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.109501. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Chen IL, Husten CG. Introduction to tobacco control supplement. Tob Control. 2014;23(suppl 2):ii1–ii3. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051504. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051504. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Etter JF, Bullen C, Flouris AD, Laugesen M, Eissenberg T. Electronic nicotine delivery systems: a research agenda. Tob Control. 2011;20 (3):243–248. doi: 10.1136/tc.2010.042168. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Food and Drug Administration (FDA) [Accessed April 24, 2014];Extending authority to additional tobacco products. www.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts/Labeling/ucm388395.htm. Publisehd 2014.
- 28.CDC. State laws prohibiting sales to minors and indoor use of electronic nicotine delivery systems—United States, November 2014. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2014;63(49):1145–1150. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Minnesota Department of Revenue (MDR) [Accessed June 14, 2015];E-cigarettes are taxable. www.revenue.state.mn.us/businesses/tobacco/Pages/e-Cig.aspx. Published 2014.
- 30.Maguire M. North Carolina lawmakers adopt tax on electronic cigarettes. Reuters; [Accessed June 14, 2015]. www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/29/usa-cigarettes-north-carolina-idUSL1N0OF22R20140529. Published 2014. [Google Scholar]
- 31.Alderman L. E-cigarettes are in vogue and at a cross-roads. [Accessed June 14, 2015];New York Times. 2013 Jun 12; www.nytimes.com/2013/06/13/business/e-cigarettes-are-in-vogue-and-at-a-crossroads.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0.
- 32.Richtel M. Selling a poison by the barrel: liquid nicotine for e-cigarettes. [Accessed June 14, 2015];New York Times. www.nytimes.com/2014/03/24/business/selling-a-poison-by-the-barrel-liquid-nicotine-for-e-cigarettes.html. Published March 23, 2014.
- 33.Robehmed N. E-cigarette sales surpass $1 billion as big tobacco moves. Forbes. 2013 www.forbes.com/sites/natalierobehmed/2013/09/17/e-cigarette-sales-surpass-1-billion-as-big-tobacco-moves-in/
- 34.Lee YO, Kim AE. ‘Vape shops’ and ‘E-cigarette lounges’ open across the USA to promote ENDS. [Accessed June 14, 2015];Tob Control. 2014 Apr 11; doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051437. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051437. [DOI] [PubMed]
- 35.Adhikari BB, Zhen C, Kahende JW, Goetz J, Loomis B. Price responsiveness of cigarette demand in U.S: retail scanner data (1994–2007) Econ Res Int. 2012:Article ID 148702. [Google Scholar]
- 36.Zhu S-H, Sun J, Bonnevie E, et al. Four hundred sixty brands of e-cigarettes and counting: implications for product regulation. Tob Control. 2014;23:iii3–iii9. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2014-051670. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2014-051670. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.National Cancer Institute (NCI) The Role of the Media in Promoting and Reducing Tobacco Use. Bethesda, MD: U.S. DHHS, NIH, National Cancer Institute; 2008. Report No.: Tobacco Control Monograph No. 19. NIH publication no. 07-6242. [Google Scholar]
- 38.U.S. DHHS. Preventing Tobacco Use Among Youth and Young Adults: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: U.S. DHHS, CDC, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office of Smoking and Health; 2012. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.U.S. DHHS. Reducing Tobacco Use: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: U.S. DHHS, CDC, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office of Smoking and Health; 2000. [Google Scholar]
- 40.Federal Trade Commission (FTC) [Accessed April 27, 2014];Cigarette report for 2011. www.ftc.gov/reports/federal-trade-commission-cigarette-report-2011. Published 2013.
- 41.Food and Drug Administration (FDA) [Accessed April 27, 2014];Tobacco Control Act. www.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts/GuidanceComplianceRegulatory-Information/ucm298595.htm. Published 2013.
- 42.United States Court of Appeals (USCA) for the District of Columbia Circuit. [Accessed April 27, 2014];Sottera, Inc. v. Food & Drug Administration. Argued September 23, 2010; decided December 7, 2010. www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/d02f9d2ca50299f0852577f20070bcc2/$file/10-5032-1281606.pdf.
- 43.Abrams DB. Promise and peril of e-cigarettes: can disruptive technology make cigarettes obsolete? JAMA. 2014;311(2):135–136. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.285347. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.285347. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.