The vast majority of smokers becomes dependent on nicotine in youth. Preventing dependence has therefore been crucial to the recent decline in youth smoking. The advent of vaping creates an opportunity for harm reduction to existing smokers (mostly adults) but also undermines prevention efforts by becoming a new vehicle for young people to become dependent on nicotine, creating an ethical dilemma. Restrictions to access to some vaping products enacted in response to the increase in vaping among youth observed in the US since 2018 have arguably prioritized prevention of new cases of dependence—protecting the young—over harm reduction to already dependent adults. Can this prioritization of the young be justified?.This paper surveys the main bioethical arguments for prioritizing giving health benefits to the young, and finds that none can justify prioritizing dependence prevention over harm reduction: any reasons for prioritizing the current cohort of young people at risk from vaping equally apply to current adult smokers, who are overwhelmingly likely to have become nicotine-dependent in their own youth. Public health authorities’ current tendency to prioritize the young, therefore, does not seem to be ethically justified.
This paper argues that common-sense reasons for prioritizing the young do not apply to the ethical dilemma surrounding restricting access to vaping products.