A version of this essay originally appeared in the Autumn 2019 edition of the Virginia Review of Politics Magazine.

On September 9, 2019, the U.S Food and Drug Administration issued a warning letter to Juul Labs Inc., stating that the company had “adulterated its products by selling or distributing them as modified risk tobacco products without an FDA order in effect that permits such sale or distribution.” Simply put, Juul marketed its vaping products as a lower-risk alternative to smoking cigarettes without an appropriate FDA permit to do so. This letter is a testament to the growing suspicion regarding the health risks of vaping, including the risk of addiction for teenagers. To address these concerns, the Trump administration proposed a ban on all flavored e-cigarettes, a regulation that Juul self-enforced before it could even be implemented by law. The President’s willingness to regulate Juul products for the sake of public health seems irreconcilable with his laissez-faire position on guns. What happened to the “Don’t Tread on Me” rhetoric so central to the ideology of right-wing politics? And how can we reconcile such regulations with the concept of rugged individualism that pervades nationalist sentiment even today? The Trump administration’s regulation of Juul products seems to contradict the laissez-faire values of the Republican party. Nevertheless, these regulations represent small, but notable, progress in the gradual dismantling of the “Rugged Individualist” ideology that has infected public discourse.

The Trump administration has treated e-cigarettes as a greater threat to public safety than more deadly products, specifically firearms. Not only this, but given how widely distributed Juul products have become, many worry that these regulations will only cause addicted teens to turn towards the black market to sustain their cravings, rather than curbing the addiction itself. These objections are valid. So far, eighteen vaping-related deaths have been confirmed in fifteen states. This statistic pales in comparison to the 36,000 Americans killed by guns each year. Simply looking at the numbers, any reasonable person would conclude that gun violence should take priority, in terms of legislative action, over the vaping epidemic. But we are not forced to choose between the two. Support for regulations on Juul products and support for regulations on firearms are not mutually exclusive. Children are dying from vaping and they will continue to die if nothing is done.

While some teenagers may turn to the black market to buy Juul products in light of these new regulations, this does not necessarily mean we should consider such legal barriers ineffective. While not perfect, I believe a sufficient comparison can be made to legal drinking age laws in the United States. A 1991 study investigated how the minimum legal drinking age affects youth alcohol consumption, and youth drinking and driving. When comparing states with an MLDA (minimum legal drinking age) of twenty-one to states with a lower MLDA, the data concluded that high school seniors drank less in MLDA 21 states. Furthermore, the MLDA 21 reduced traffic crashes directly linked to alcohol consumption. While raising the minimum legal drinking age did not prevent all teenagers from drinking, it certainly reduced the number enough so as to positively impact public safety. While regulations on the sales of Juul products may lead to an increase in demand for black market vape products, based on previous data related to teen drinking, it will likely lead to an overall decline in the number of teenagers using vape products.

Research confirms the health risks that accompany vaping. As of October 1, 2019, 1,080 lung injury cases associated with the use of e-cigarette products have been reported to the Center for Disease Control. Around 55% of these cases involve patients who are twenty-four years-old and younger. In his public statement of resignation, the former CEO of Juul, Kevin Burns, reiterated that the mission of the company has been, and will continue to be, the elimination of combustible cigarettes from the market. However, one 2017 study found that non-smoking adults were four times more likely to start smoking traditional cigarettes after only eighteen months of vaping, suggesting that Juul is actually achieving the exact opposite of its intended purpose. With its sleek, modern design and exposure to young people through social media advertising, Juul has presented nicotine products in a way that appeals to younger generations. A former senior manager of the company admitted that he and his colleagues were aware of its potential appeal to teenagers, especially given the young models featured in its advertisements. Yet, it took two years after the launch of Juul for executives of the company to finally decide to only feature models over the age of thirty-five in marketing campaigns. In an attempt to eliminate one epidemic, Juul has spearheaded the rise of another.

Additionally, a study conducted by the Royal College of Psychiatrists in the United Kingdom found that nicotine is about as addictive as cocaine and even more addictive than alcohol. According to Harvard Medical School, repeated exposure to an addictive substance or behavior causes nerve cells in the prefrontal cortex—the area of the brain partially responsible for planning and executing tasks—to communicate in a way that couples liking something with wanting it, causing us to go from merely liking something to actively pursuing it. This process motivates us to take action to seek out the source of pleasure. These effects are even more dramatic in a teenage brain. During adolescence, the pleasure centers of the brain develop faster than the parts of the brain responsible for decision-making and risk analysis. Simply put, addictive substances—like the nicotine in Juul products—essentially hijack the brain. Teenagers will go to great lengths to obtain this dopamine rush, even if it may be risky or potentially dangerous to our health.

Now, even if science deems a particular activity self-destructive it does not necessarily follow that the government must intervene and regulate such activity. Whether it be eating a strictly junk food diet or spending our life savings on lottery tickets, we have all kinds of completely legal options when it comes to driving our own lives into a ditch. The liberal conception of negative freedom, describing freedom from external constraints, has influenced our government so as to allow for these possibilities. Deeply ingrained in American ideology is the idea that we are all responsible for our own success. Historian Frederick Jackson Turner, in his Frontier Thesis, argued that rapid westward expansion until the late 18th century strongly influenced American culture, leading to emphasis on certain character traits, particularly those pertaining to self-reliance and individualism. We idolize the rugged individualist, who rises from nothing to achieve greatness. The rugged individualist works hard and honestly. He always offers a helping hand but is reluctant to ask for one himself. He does not waste valuable time participating in frivolous or self-destructive activities. He certainly doesn’t have a nicotine addiction.

In the ideal American society of Turner’s writing, everyone holds themselves to this standard of behavior. We are all the rugged individualists. And perhaps this would be a relevant statement if we lived in an ideal society, but we don’t. Rather than yoking ourselves to certain principles regarding how people should act and what people should do, we must instead focus on how people actually behave. Most of us know we shouldn’t vape, and yet many of us still do. That is the nature of the teenage mind. That is the nature of addiction. Why should the government prevent you from engaging in self-destructive behaviors? I think it is pretty anodyne to say that, at least sometimes, it is the only mechanism that can.

This concept of rugged individualism may seem like merely a mystical remnant of nationalist lore, but it still poisons public discourse. Programs such as abstinence-based sex education, the D.A.R.E program, and Nancy Reagan’s “Just Say No” campaign all place an unfair burden on the individual—who, in these cases, is most likely a teenager with a not-yet-fully developed brain. Another major flaw in all these campaigns is the assumption that teenagers will act rationally when given the right information. But as stated before, addiction leads us to seek pleasure without always weighing the risk, and even more so when the addict is a teenager. We are not rational and it’s not our fault.

I’m tired of politics focusing on the normative questions while ignoring the positive ones. It’s the difference between asking: Should teenagers be smoking, or are teenagers smoking? Should teenagers be sexually active, or are they sexually active? Programs like D.A.R.E. and abstinence-based sex education focus on the former, rather than the latter. We can choose to address the situation as it currently presents itself — through legislative action and increased funds towards prevention programs — or instead cling to a fantasy of what we wished the reality was.

This is not to say that the individualist mindset so central to American patriotism is always detrimental. It inspires a culture of personal accountability and self-discipline that can be quite noble. It pushes us towards self-improvement and away from an over-dependence on others. However, this is to say that no one can go through life entirely unaided. This is to say that an addicted teen no longer represents an independent, free-thinking individual who can make rational and healthy decisions for themselves. This is to say that such an individualist mindset is naive, and in the case of juuling, the cost of this naivety is high—even deadly.