Stanton Glant’s reputation as both a researcher and a human being has taken a beating in recent years. These days, he’s the embodiment of St. George in Retirement Syndrome, incapable of telling the difference between smoking harm-reduction products that cause insignificant harm and his mortal enemy, the combustible cigarette.
The 2024 National Youth Tobacco Survey (NYTS) figures were released last week. To any reasonable person, the statistics showed considerable declines in youth vaping and minuscule use of nicotine pouches. But predictably not for Glantz, who interpreted the numbers as cause for banning both nicotine salts and nicotine pouches.
NYTS 2024 Figures at a Glantz
Per the NYTS report, “during 2023–2024, current e-cigarette use among middle and high school students declined from 7.7% to 5.9%. Current nicotine pouch use (1.8%) did not change significantly during this period.”
Of course, these figures must be placed in context. When we correct for daily use, we find that:
- Just 1.55% of youth use vapes daily
- Only 0.4% of youth use nicotine pouches daily.
This is the youth nicotine use “epidemic” we’re always hearing about. In effect, minuscule use that is static (pouches) or in sharp decline (vapes).
So, in light of this data, why is the media so worried about these matters? Well, essentially, it’s due to Glantz and his ilk sounding the alarm.
GlANTZman
The 2024 NYTS data is devastating for Glantz’s epidemic narrative. However, if you read his recent blog post, you wouldn’t know it.
It all reminds me of that classic John Maynard Keynes quote, which goes:
“When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”
Glantz has given us his answer: I hope you’re sitting down when I tell you he’s doubling down.
And look, I get it. It’s hard for Glantz to deal with independent data. His most recent paper, Population-Based Disease Odds for E-Cigarettes and Dual Use versus Cigarettes, was savaged for a methodology so poor and sloppy that it’s inconceivable that a researcher of his experience could have made in error.
As he states on nicotine pouches in the blog:
“Contrary to what CDC (and FDA) say, 1.8% is not “low.” Zero would be low.”
No, Glantz, zero would be zero.
However, his justification for changing the meaning of the word “low” is even stranger:
“While much lower than e-cigarette market penetration today, it is nearly double (1.7x) the 1.1% use level in 2022.”
In Stanton Glantz's shattered mind, something cannot be low if it increases by 1.7x. Does this same logic apply to things he thinks are “high” but drop by around 70%? Such as the 70% drop in vape use from its 2019 peak?
Whatever way you slice it, the fact remains that youth smoking in the US is at an all-time low. To a large extent, it’s because products like pouches and vapes have replaced smoking as a way for youth to experiment with nicotine.
Any ban on pouches or vapes will undo that work and push experimental youths towards a lethal product.
Final thoughts
Glantz cannot separate himself from the tangled and thorny bushes of his own biases. His interpretations of data are not reliable. History shows us that he is a man unburdened by values like integrity, so no organisation or lawmaker should see his recommendations as anything but the ramblings of a disgraced and irrelevant crank.
