Govts must listen to science to reduce smoking harm and embrace innovation

Despite overwhelming evidence supporting vaping as a reduced harm product in the place of tobacco smoking, some governments in the world continue to maintain bans on e-cigarettes and related products, depriving consumers the opportunity to switch to a safer product. 

During the Global Nicotine Forum last month, Fiona Patten, MP of Australia’s Victorian Parliament’s Legislative Council, averred prejudice, discrimination and pressure laybehind public officials turning away from vaping despite it being a demonstratable reduced harm product. 

The forum observed that the World Health Organization had turned its guns on nicotine, rather than combatting tobacco smoking, which is what they should be doing as it considerably more harmful. At present, the market leader for nicotine delivery is cigarettes but the focus has fallen on vaping.

There is less effort right now to get people away from smoking, and the WHO therefore needs to refocus their efforts and consider the points of users during discussions. 

In the UK, following tests, the Department of Health has recognized vaping as a significantly safer alternative to smoking tobacco, and is actively encouraging smokers to switch. Despite the great progress made, the UK’s health sector is still working to do better with vape and stands as a shining example where science has worked together to with policy. The products have got better and better and that has helped more people shift towards safer products.

In Australia, vaping and e-cigarettes are banned. Fiona Patten said: “Research and evidence is critical, but despite that it is still hard to change people’s opinions, probably harder when they are tied to morality issues. People choose to vape because they feel it is safer, and it makes no sense that politicians and some health organisations are resisting tobacco harm reduction. It doesn’t make sense to ignore the findings and recommendation of the Royal College of Physicians. Health organisations campaigning against tobacco harm reduction – they should be held to account on why they are not supporting harm reduction. I’ve never seen science questioned quite liked this. Politicians say they must listen to the science and they completely ignore it.”

It was revealed that funding is a serious part of the problem as governments – especially in developing countries – are seen following funding. The good science is often drowned out by bad science, despite subjectivity. One of the biggest arguments produced by the anti-vaping community is that it could serve as a gateway product to smoking and they could keep harping on this till the end of time, but vaping has been proven to be over 90 percent safer than smoking tobacco. 

Due to the propaganda of anti-vaping lobbies, a growing number of people thinking nicotine causes cancer, which is wrong. The forum discussed how it could help correct political ignorance which leads to regressive policies.
“In Australia, one of the biggest donors is one of the biggest retailers of tobacco products. Tobacco is a significant funding lever for government. So, watch us Australians continue to smoke. Science will win in the end, but we need the scientists to be speaking to direct to politicians.

The arguments we get are that this is a ruse by the tobacco industry to get kids on nicotine, so I’m not sure if its effective for them to be involved in the lobbying process. Even though there is genuineness from some companies to move away from combustible products, this is thrown in our face all the time we start talking about vaping,” Patten added. The tobacco has struggled to get the science on vapinginto journals, given that some of its experts are involved in the industry and there seems to be almost a conflict of interest. 

Participants of the forum also discussed the lack of knowledge on the utilitarian and medical benefits of nicotine, and discussed the need to enhance engagement in this regard. In the US, vaping is seen as a mostly white suburban habit, and the middle class is not terribly concerned on smoking, said Michelle Minton, Senior Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. The media plays to the fears of that target group for publicity.

“In America they are not so concerned because combustibles are seen something to do with non-white less affluent classes in marginalized communities. Vaping and e-cigarettes are seen as the new scary thing. As it is targeting a group which is seen as resolved, and media talking about middle class students becoming addicts. 
They make it look like a hedonistic addict. People take a moralistic view to nicotine and something pleasurable, and they tend to automatically categorize it as bad. In drug policy there are lot of assumptions, some of them are based on morality. 

Why does pharmaceutical nicotine get passed? Smoking was categorized as immoral, and nicotine replacement therapy is the penance people pay for making an immoral decision that’s the view they take,” Minton remarked.